__________________________________________________________________ Title: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 12: Philip II-Reuss 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 12 Philip II to Reuss New York: ROBERT APPLETON COMPANY Imprimatur JOHN M. FARLEY ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK __________________________________________________________________ Philip II Philip II (Augustus) King of France, born 22 or 25 August, 1165; died at Mantes, 14 July, 1223, son of Louis VII and Alix de Champagne. He was saved from a serious illness after a pilgrimage made by his father to the tomb of Thomas à Becket; he succeeded to the throne 18 September, 1180. His marriage with Isabella of Hainault, niece of the Count of Flanders, the conflicts which he afterwards sustained against the latter, and the deaths of the Countess (1182) and Count of Flanders (1185), increased the royal power in the north of France. His strife with Henry II of England in concert with the sons of that monarch, Henry, Richard, and John, resulted in 1189 in the Treaty of Azay-sur-Cher, which enhanced the royal power in the centre of France. The struggle with the Plantagenets was the ruling idea of Philip II's whole policy. Richard Coeur de Lion having become King of England, 6 July, 1189, was at first on amicable terms with Philip. Together they undertook the Third Crusade, but quarreled in Palestine, and on his return Philip II accused Richard of having attempted to poison him. As Richard had supported in Sicily the claims of Tancred of Lecce against those of the Emperor Henry VI, the latter resolved to be avenged. Richard, having been taken captive on his return from the Crusade by the Duke of Austria, was delivered to Henry VI, who held him prisoner. Philip II sent William, Archbishop of Reims, to Henry VI to request that Richard should remain the captive of Germany or that he should be delivered to Philip as his prisoner. Without loss of time Philip reached an agreement with John Lackland, Richard's brother. Normandy was delivered up by a secret treaty and John acknowledged himself Philip's vassal. But, when in February, 1194, Richard was set free by Henry VI, John Lackland became reconciled with him and endless conflict followed between Richard and Philip. On 13 January, 1199, Innocent III imposed on them a truce of five years. Shortly after this Richard died. Subsequently Philip defended against John, Richard's successor, the claims of the young Arthur of Brittany, and then those of Hugh de Lusignan, Count of La Marche, whose betrothed had been abducted by John. The war between Philip and John, interrupted by the truces imposed by the papal legates, became a national war; and in 1206 John lost his possessions in central France. Philip was sometimes displeased with the pontifical intervention between France and the Plantagenets, but the prestige of Innocent III forced him to accept it. Protracted difficulties took place between him and the pope owing to the tenacity with which Innocent III compelled respect for the indissolubility of even royal marriages. In 1190 Philip lost his wife, Isabella of Hainault, whom he had married in order to inherit Artois, and in 1193 he married Ingeburga, sister of Canute VI, King of Denmark. As he immediately desired to repudiate her, an assembly of complaisant barons and bishops pronounced the divorce, but Ingeburga appealed to Rome. Despite the remonstrances of Celestine III, Philip, having imprisoned Ingeburga, married Agnes de Méran, daughter of a Bavarian nobleman. Innocent III, recently elected, called upon him to repudiate Agnes and take back Ingeburga, and on the king's refusal the legate, Peter of Capua, placed the kingdom under an interdict (1198). Most of the bishops refused to publish the sentence. The Bishops of Paris and Senlis, who published it, were punished by having their goods confiscated. At the end of nine months Philip appeared to yield; he feigned reconciliation with Ingeburga, first before the legate, Octavian, and then before the Council of Soissons (May, 1201), but he did not dismiss Agnes de Méran. She died in August, 1201, and Innocent III consented to legitimize the two children she had borne the king, but Philip persisted that Rome should pronounce his divorce from Ingeburga, whom he held prisoner at Etampes. Rome refused and Philip dismissed the papal legate (1209). In 1210 he thought of marrying a princess of Thuringia, and in 1212 renewed his importunities for the divorce with the legate, Robert de Courçon. Then, in 1213, having need of the aid of the pope and the King of Denmark, he suddenly restored Ingeburga to her station as queen. Another question which at first caused discord between Philip II and Innocent III, and regarding which they had later a common policy, was the question of Germany. Otto of Brunswick, who was Innocent III's candidate for the dignity of emperor, was the nephew of Richard and John Lackland. This was sufficient to cause Philip to interfere in favour of Philip of Suabia. They formed an alliance in June, 1198, and when Philip of Suabia was assassinated in 1208 Philip put forward the candidacy of Henry of Brabant. However, the whole of Germany rallied to Otto of Brunswick, who became emperor as Otto IV, and in 1209 Philip feared that the new emperor would invade France. But Otto IV quarrelled with Innocent III and was excommunicated and the pope by an unexpected move called upon Philip for subsidies and troops to aid him against Otto. They agreed to proclaim as emperor Frederick of Hohenstaufen, the future Frederick II, Philip giving Frederick 20,000 "marcs" to defray the cost of his election (November, 1212). Thus was inaugurated the policy by which France meddled in the affairs of Germany and for the first time the French king claimed, like the pope, to have a voice in the imperial election. The accord established between Innocent and Philip with regard to the affairs of Germany subsequently extended to those of England. Throughout his reign Philip dreamed of a landing in England. As early as 1209 he had negotiated with the English barons who were hostile to John Lackland, and in 1212 with the Irish and the Welsh. When John lackland subjected to cruel persecution the English bishops who, in spite of him, recognized Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury. Innocent III in 1212 placed England under interdict, and the legate, Pandulphus, declared that John Lackland had forfeited his throne. Then Philip, who received at his court all the exiles from England, consented to go to England in the name of Innocent III to take away the crown from John Lackland. It was to be given to his son, the future Louis VIII. On 22 May, 1213, the French expedition was to embark at Gravelines, when it was learned that John Lackland had become reconciled with Rome, and some months later he became a vassal of the pope. Thus failed, on the eve of its realization, the project of the French invasion of England. But the legate of Innocent III induced Philip to punish Ferrand, Count of Flanders, who was the ally of all the enemies of the king. At the battle of Bouvines (27 July, 1214) Ferrand, who supported Otto IV, was taken prisoner. This battle is regarded as the first French national victory. Philip II, asserting that he had on both sides two great and terrible lions, Otto and John, excused himself from taking part in the Crusade against the Albigenses. He permitted his son Louis to make two expeditions into Languedoc to support Simon de Montfort in 1215, and Amaury de Montfort in 1219, and again in 1222 he sent Amaury de Montfort two hundred knights and ten thousand foot soldiers under the Archbishop of Bourges and the Count of La Marche. He foresaw that the French monarchy would profit by the defeat of the Albigenses. Philip's reign was characterized by a gigantic advance of the French monarchy. Before his time the King of France reigned only over the Ile de France and Berri, and had no communication with the sea. To this patrimony Philip II added Artois, Amienois, Valois, Vernandois, a large portion of Beauvaisis, Normandy, Maine, Anjou, Touraine, and a part of Poitou and Saintonge. His bailiffs and seneschals established the royal power firmly in those countries. Paris became a fortified city and attracted to its university students from different countries. Thanks to the possession of Dieppe, Rouen, and certain parts of Saintonge, the French monarchy became a maritime and commercial power, and Philip invited foreign merchants to France. Flanders, Ponthieu, and Auvergne became subject fiefs, supervised by agents of the king. He exercised a sort of protectorate over Champagne and Burgundy. Brittany was in the hands of Pierre de Dreux, a Capetian of the younger branch. "History", writes M. Luchaire, "does not present so many, such rapid, and such complete changes in the fortune of a State". Philip Augustus did not interfere in episcopal elections. In Normandy, where the Plantagenets had assumed the custom of directly nominating the bishops, he did not follow their example. Guillaume Le Breton, in his poem the "Philippide", makes him say: "I leave to the men of God the things that pertain to the service of God." He favoured the emancipation of communes, desiring to be liked by the middle classes of the districts he annexed. He often exacted a tax in exchange for the communal charter. But he did not allow the communes to infringe on the property of clerics or the episcopal right of jurisdiction. At Noyen he intervened formally in behalf of the bishop, who was threatened by the commune. He undertook a campaign in defence of the bishops and abbots against certain feudal lords whom he himself desired to humiliate or weaken. In 1180, before he was king, he undertook an expedition into Berri to punish the Lord of Charenton, the enemy of the monks, and into Burgundy where the Count of Chalon and the Lord of Beaujeu were persecuting the Church. In 1186, on the complaint of the monks, he took possession of Chatillon-sur-Seine, in the Duchy of Burgundy, and forced the duke to repair the wrongs he had committed against the Church. In 1210 he sent troops to protect the Bishop of Clermont, who was threatened by the Count of Auvergne. But on the other hand, in virtue of the preponderance which he wished royalty to have over feudalism, he exacted of the bishops and abbots the performance of all their feudal duties, including military service; although for certain territories he was the vassal of the bishops of Picardy, he refused to pay them homage. Moreover, he declared with regard to Manasses, bishop of Orléans, that the royal court was entitled to judge at the trials of bishops, and he made common cause with lay feudalism in the endless discussions regarding the province of ecclesiastical tribunals, which at the beginning of the thirteenth century were disposed to extend their jurisdiction. An ordinance issued about 1205 at the instance of the king, executed in Normandy and perhaps elsewhere, stipulated that in certain cases lay judges might arrest and try guilty clerics, that the right of asylum of religious buildings should be limited, that the Church might not excommunicate those who did business on Sunday or held intercourse with Jews, and that a citizen having several children should not give more than half of his estate to that one of his sons who was a cleric. Finally he imposed on the clergy heavy financial exactions. He was the first king who endeavoured to compel clerics to pay the king a tenth of their income. In 1188 the archdeacon Peter of Blois defeated this claim, but in 1215 and 1218 Philip renewed it, and by degrees the resistance of the clergy gave way. Philip, however, was pious in his own way, and in the advice which St. Louis gave to his son he said that Philip, because of "God's goodness and mercy would rather lose his throne than dispute with the servants of Holy Church". Thus the reputation left by Philip II was quite different from that of Philip IV, or Frederick II of Germany. He never carried out towards the Church a policy of trickery or petty vexations, on the contrary he regarded it as his collaborator in the foundation of French unity. Le Breton, La Philippide, ed. Delaborde (Paris, 1883-5); Rigord and Le Breton, Chroniques; Delisle, Catalogue des actes de Philippe-Auguste (Paris, 1856); Luchaire, Philippe-Auguste in Lavisse, Hist. de France, III (Paris, 1901); Luchaire, L'Université de Paris sous Philippe-Auguste (Paris, 1899); Gautier, La France sous Philippe-Auguste (Tours, 1899); Cartellieri, Philipp II August, König von Frankreich (3 vols., Leipzig, 1899-1909); Davidsohn, Philipp August von Frankreich und Ingeborg (1888); Walker, On the increase of royal power in France under Philip Augustus (1888); Hutton, Philip Augustus (London, 1896). Georges Goyau Philip II (King of Spain) Philip II King of Spain, only son of the Emperor Charles V, and Isabella of Portugal, b. at Valladolid, 21 May, 1527; d. at the Escorial, 13 Sept., 1598. He was carefully educated in the sciences, learned French and Latin, though he never spoke anything but Castilian, and also showed much interest in architecture and music. In 1543 he married his cousin, Maria of Portugal, who died at the birth of Don Carlos (1545). He was appointed regent of Spain with a council by Charles V. In 1554 he married Mary Tudor, Queen of England, who was eleven years his senior. This political marriage gave Spain an indirect influence on affairs of England, recently restored to Catholicism; but in 1555 Philip was summoned to the Low Countries, and Mary's death in the same year severed the connection between the two countries. At a solemn conference held at Brussels, 22 Oct., 1555, Charles V ceded to Philip the Low Countries, the crowns of Castille, Aragon, and Sicily, on 16 Jan., 1556, and the countship of Burgundy on the tenth of June. He even thought of securing for him the imperial crown, but the opposition of his brother Ferdinand caused him to abandon that project. Having become king, Philip, devoted to Catholicism, defended the Faith throughout the world and opposed the progress of heresy, and these two things are the key to his whole reign. He did both by means of absolutism. His reign began unpleasantly for a Catholic sovereign. He had signed with France the Treaty of Vaucelles (5 Feb., 1556), but it was soon broken by France, which joined Paul IV against him. Like Julius II this pope longed to drive the foreigners out of Italy. Philip had two wars on his hands at the same time, in Italy and in the Low Countries. In Italy the Duke of Alva, Viceroy of Naples, defeated the Duke of Guise and reduced the pope to such distress that he was forced to make peace. Philip granted this on the most favourable terms and the Duke of Alva was even obliged to ask the pope's pardon for having invaded the Pontifical States. In the Low Countries Philip defeated the French at Saint Quentin (1557) and Gravelines (1558) and afterwards signed the Peace of Cateau-Cambresis (3 April, 1559), which was sealed by his marriage with Elizabeth of Valois, daughter of Henry II. Peace concluded, Philip, who had been detained in the Low Countries, returned to Spain. For more than forty years he directed from the Prince of Orange decided to proclaim Philip's his cabinet the affairs of the monarchy. He resided alternately at Madrid which he made the capital of the kingdom and in villégiatures, the most famous of which is the Escorial, which he built in fulfillment of a vow made at the time of the battle of Saint Quentin. In Spain, Philip continued the policy of the Catholic Ferdinand and Isabella. He was merciless in the supression of the Lutheran heresy, which had appeared in various parts of the country, notably at Valladolid and Seville. "If my own son were guilty like you", he replied to a gentleman condemned to death for heresy who had reproached him for his cruelty, "I should lead him with my own hands to the stake". He succeeded in exterminating Protestantism in Spain, but encountered another enemy no less dangerous. The Moriscoes of the ancient Kingdom of Granada had been conquered, but they remained the implacable enemies of their conquerors, from whom they were separated by religion, language, dress, and manners, and they plotted incessantly with the Mussulmans outside the country. Philip wished to force them to renounce their language and dress, whereupon they revolted and engagedin a bloody struggle against Spain which lasted three years (1567-70) until ended by Don Juan, natural son of Charles V. The defeated Moriscoes were transplanted in great numbers to the interior of the country. Another event of historical importance in Philip's reign was the conquest of Portugal in 1580. After the death of the young King Sebastian at the battle of Alcazar (1578) and that of his successor the aged Cardinal Henry (1580), Philip II, who through his mother was a grandson of King Emmanuel, pleaded his title of heir and sent the Duke of Alva to occupy the country. This was the only conquest of the reign. Iberian unity, thus realized, lasted from 1580 to 1640. Other events were the troubles in Aragon, which were fomented by Antonio Perez, former secretary of the king. Being pursued for high treason he sought refuge in his native country, and appealed for protection to its fueros that he might not be delivered to the Castilian judges, nor to the Inquisition. The inhabitants of Saragossa defended him by force of arms and he succeeded in escaping abroad, but Philip sent an army to punish Aragon, infringed on the fueros and established absolutism in the Kingdom of Aragon, hitherto proud of its freedom (1592). In the Low Countries, where Philip had committed the government to his aunt, Margaret of Parma, the nobles, chafed because of their want of influence, plotted and trumped up grievances. They protested against the presence in the country of several thousands of Spanish soldiers, against Cardinal de Granvelle's influence with the regent, and against the severity of Charles V's decrees against heresy. Philip recalled the Spanish soldiers and the Cardinal de Greavelle, but he refused to mitigate the decrees and declared that he did not wish to reign over a nation of heretics. The difficulties with the Iconoclasts having broken out he swore to punish them and sent thither the Duke of Alva with an army, whereupon Margaret of Parma resigned. Alva behaved as though in a conquered country, caused the arrest and execution of Count Egmont and de Hornes, who were accused of complicity with the rebels, created the Council of Troubles, which was popularly styled the "Council of Blood", defeated the Prince of Orange and his brother who had invaded the country with German mercenaries, but could not prevent the "Sea-beggars" from capturing Brille. He followed up his military successes but was recalled in 1573. His successor Requesens could not recover Leyden. Influenced by the Prince of Orange the provinces concluded the "Pacification of Ghent" which regulated the religious situation in the Low Countries without royal intervention. The new governor, Don Juan, upset the calculations of Orange by accepting the "Pacification ", and finally the Prince of Orange decided to proclaim Philip's deposition by the revolted provinces. The king replied by placing the prince under the ban; shortly afterwards he was slain by an assassin (1584). Nevertheless, the united provinces did not submit and were lost to Spain. Those of the South, however, were recovered one after another by the new governor, Alexander Farnese, Prince of Parma. But he having died in 1592 and the war becoming more difficult against the rebels, led by the great general Maurice of Nassau, son of William of Orange, Philip II realized that he must change his policy and ceded the Low Countries to his daughter Isabella, whom he espoused to the Archduke Albert of Austria, with the provision that the provinces would be returned to Spain in case there were no children by this union (1598). (See ALVA; EGMONT; GRANVELLE; NETHERLANDS.) The object of Philip's reign was only partly realized. He had safeguarded the religious unity of Spain and had exterminated heresy in the southern Low Countries, but the northern Low Countries were lost to him forever. Philip had three enemies to contend with abroad, Islam, England, and France. Islam was master of the Mediterranean, being in possession of the Balkan Peninsula, Asia Minor, Egypt, all the coast of northern Africa (Tunis, Algiers, Morocco); it had just conquered the Island of Cyprus and laid siege to the Island of Malta (1505), which had valiantly repulsed the assault. Dragut, the Ottoman admiral, was the terror of the Mediterranean. On several occasions Philip had fought against the Mussulman peril, meeting alternately with success and defeat. He therefore eagerly joined the Holy League organized by Pius V to resist Islam, and which Venice consented to join. The fleet of the League, commanded by Don Juan, brother of Philip II, inflicted on the Turkish fleet the terrible defeat of Lepanto (7 Oct., 1571), the results of which would have been greater had Venice not proved false and if Pius V had not died in 1572. Nevertheless, the Turkish domination of the Mediterranean was ended and in 1578 Philip concluded a treaty with the Turks which lasted till the end of his reign. Relations of intimacy with England had ceased at the death of Mary Tudor. Philip attempted to renew them by his chimerical project of marriage with Elizabeth, who had not yet become the cruel persecutor of Catholicism. When she constituted herself the protectress of Protestant interests throughout the world and did all in her power to encourage the revolt of the Low Countries, Philip thought of contending with her in her own country by espousing the cause of Mary Stuart, but Elizabeth did away with the latter in 1587, and furnished relief to the Low Countries against Philip, who thereupon armed an immense fleet (the Invincible Armada) against England. But being led by an incompetent commander it accomplished nothing and was almost wholly destroyed by storms (1588). This was an irreparable disaster which inaugurated Spain's naval decline. The English corsairs could with impunity pillage her colonies and under Drake even her own coast; in 1596 the Duke of Essex pillaged the flourishing town of Cadiz, and the sceptre of the seas passed from Spain to England. From 1559 Philip II had been at peace with France, and had contented himself with urging it to crush out heresy. French intervention in favour of the Low Countries did not cause him to change his attitude, but when at the death of Henry III in 1589 the Protestant Henry of Bourbon became heir to the throne of France, Philip II allied himself with the Guises, who were at the head of the League, supplied them with money and men, and on several occasions sent to their relief his great general Alexander Farnese. He even dreamed of obtaining the crown of France for his daughter Isabella, but this daring project was not realized. The conversion of Henry IV (1593). to Catholicism removed the last obstacle to his accession to the French throne. Apparently Philip II failed to grasp the situation, since he continued for two years more the war against Henry IV, but his fruitless efforts were finally terminated in 1595 by the absolution of Henry IV by Clement VIII. No sovereign has been the object of such diverse judgments. While the Spaniards regarded him as their Solomon and called him "the prudent king" (el rey prudente), to Protestants he was the "demon of the south" (dæmon meridianus) and most cruel of tyrants. This was because, having constituted himself the defender of Catholicism throughout the world, he encountered innumerable enemies, not to mention such adversaries as Antonio Perez and William of Orange who maligned him so as to justify their treason. Subsequently poets (Schiller in his "Don Carlos"), romance-writers, and publicists repeated these calumnies. As a matter of fact Philip II joined great qualities to great faults. He was industrious, tenacious, devoted to study, serious, simple-mannered, generous to those who served him, the friend and patron of arts. He was a dutiful son, a loving husband and father, whose family worshipped him. His piety was fervent, he had a boundless devotion to the Catholic Faith and was, moreover, a zealous lover of Justice. His stoical strength in adversity and the courage with which he endured the sufferings of his last illness are worthy of admiration. On the other hand he was cold, suspicious, secretive, scrupulous to excess, indecisive and procrastinating, little disposed to clemency or forgetfulness of wrongs. His religion was austere and sombre. He could not understand opposition to heresy except by force. Imbued with ideas of absolutism, as were all the rulers of his time, he was led into acts disapproved by the moral law. His cabinet policy, always behind-hand with regard to events and ill-informed concerning the true situation, explains his failures to a great extent. To sum up we may cite the opinion of Baumstark: "He was a sinner, as we all are, but he was also a king and a Christian king in the full sense of the term". GACHARD, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les affaires des Pays Bas (Brussels and Ghent, 1848-1851); IDEM, Lettres de Philippe II a ses filles (Paris, 1884); IDEM, Don Carlos et Philippe II (Paris, 1863); PRESCOTT, History of the reign of Philip II, King of Spain (London, 1855); CORDOBA, Felipe II, rey de Espana (Madrid, 1876-78); BAUMSTARK, Philippe II, Konig von Spanien (Freiburg, 1875), tr. into French, KURTH (1877); MONTANA, Nueva luz y juicio verdadero sobre Felipe II (Madrid, 1882); FORNERON, Histoire de Philippe II (Paris, 1882); HUME, Philip II of Spain (London, 1897). GODEFROID KURTH Philip IV (The Fair) Philip IV Surnamed Le Bel (the Fair) King of France, b. at Fontainebleau, 1268; d. there, 29 Nov., 1314; son of Philip III and Isabel of Aragon; became king, 5 Oct. 1285, on the death of his father, and was consecrated at Reims, 6 Jan., 1286, with his wife Jeanne, daughter of Henry I, King of Navarre, Count of Champagne and Brie; this marriage united these territories to the royal domain. Having taken Viviers and Lyons from the empire, Valenciennes, the inhabitants of which united themselves voluntarily with France, La Marche and Angoumois, which he seized from the lawful heirs of Hugues de Lusigan, Philip whished to expel Edward I of England from Guienne, all of which province, with the exception of Bordeaux and Bayonne, was occupied in 1294 and 1295. By the Treaty of Montreuil, negotiated by Boniface VIII, he gave Guienne as a gift to his daughter Isabel, who married the son of Edward I, on condition that this young prince should hold the province as Philip's vassal. Philip wished to punish Count Guy of Flanders, an ally of England, and caused Charles of Valois to invade his territory, but he was defeated at Coutrai by the Flemings, who were roused by the heavy taxes imposed on them by Philip; he took his revenge on the Flemings at the naval victory of Zierichzee and the land victory of Mons en Puelle; then in 1305 he recognized Robert, Guy's son, as his vassal and retained possession of Lille, Douai, Orchies and Valenciennes. Having thus extended his kingdom, Philip endeavored energetically to centralize the government and impose a very rigorous fiscal system. Legists like Enguerrand, Philippe de Marigny, Pierre de Latilly, Pierre Flotte, Raoul de Presle, and Guillaume de Plassan, helped him to establish firmly this royal absolutism and set up a tyrannical power. These legists were called the chevaliers de l'hôtel, the chevaliers ès lois, the milites regis; they were not nobles, neither did they bear arms, but they ranked as knights. The appearance of these legists in the Government of France is one of the leading events of the reign of Philip IV. Renan explains its significance in these words: "An entirely new class of politicians, owing their fortune entirely to their own merit and personal efforts, unreservedly devoted to the king who had made them, and rivals of the Church, whose place they hoped to fill in many matters, thus appeared in the history of France, and were destined to work a profound change in the conduct of public affairs." It was these legists who incited and supported Philip IV in his conflict with the papacy and the trial of the Templars. In the articles Boniface VIII; Clement V; Molai; Templars, will be found an account of the relations of Philip IV with the Holy See; M. Lizerand, in 1910, has given us a study on Philip IV and Clement V, containing thirty-seven unpublished letters written by the two sovereigns. The principal adviser of Philip in his hostile relations with the Curia was the legist Guillaume de Nogaret (q.v.). Renan, who made a close study of Nogaret's dealings with Boniface VIII, Clement V, and the Templars, thinks that despite his ardent profession of Catholic fidelity he was somewhat hypocritical, at all events "he was not an honest man," and that "he could not have been deceived by the false testimony which he stirred up and the sophisms he provoked." Nogaret's methods of combating Boniface VIII and the Templars are better understood when we examine, in Gaston Paris's work, the curious trial of Guichard, Bishop of Troyes, for witchcraft. Another important personage whose curious writings must be read to understand the policy of Philip correctly is Pierre Dubois. He had been a pupil of St. Thomas Aquinas at the University of Paris, and was a lawyer at Coutances. In 1300 Dubois wrote a work on the means of shortening the wars and conflicts of France; in 1302 he published several virulent pamphlets against Boniface VIII; between 1304 and 1308, he wrote a very important work "De recuperatione Terrae Sanctae"; in 1309 alone, he wrote on the question of the Holy Roman Empire, on the Eastern question, and against the Templars. Dubois started from the idea that France ought to subdue the papacy, after which ti would be easy for the King of France to use the papal influence for his own advantage. He whished his king to become master of the Papal States, to administer them, to reduce the castles and cities of this state to his obedience, and to force Tuscany, Sicily, England, and Aragon, vassal countries of the Holy See, to do homage to the King of France; in return the king was to grant the pope the revenues of the Papal States. "It depends on the pope," wrote he in his work of 1302, "to rid himself of his worldly occupations and to preserve his revenues without having any trouble about them; if he does not wish to accept such an advantageous offer, he will incur universal reproach for his cupidity, pride, and rash presumption." "Clement V," continued Dubois in his treatise "De recuperation Terrae Sanctae," "after having given up his temporal possessions to the King of France, would be protected against the miasma of Rome, and would live long in good health, in his native land of France, where he would create a sufficient number of French cardinals to preserve the papacy from the rapacious hands of the Romans." Dubois desired not only that the King of France should subjugate the papacy, but that the empire should be forced to cede to France the left bank of the Rhine, Provence, Savoy, and all its rights in Liguria, Venice and Lombardy. In 1308, after the death of the Emperor Albert I, he even thought of having the pope confer the imperial crown on the French Capets. He also devised plans for subjugating Spain. Thus reorganized by France Christian Europe was (in the mind of Pierre Dubois) to undertake the Crusade; the Holy Land would be reconquered, and on the return, the Palaeologi, who reigned at Constantinople, would be replaced by the Capetian, Charles of Valois, representing the rights of Catherine de Courtenay to the Latin Empire of Constantinople. The personal influence of Pierre Dubois on Philip IV must not be exaggerated. Although all his writings were presented to the king, Dubois never had an official place in Philips's council. However, there is an indisputable parallelism between his ideas and certain political maneuvers of Philip IV. For instance on 9 June, 1308, Philip wrote to Henry of Carinthia, King of Bohemia, to propose Charles of Valois as a candidate for the crown of Germany; and on 11 June he sent three knights into Germany to offer money to the electors. This was fruitless labour, however, for Henry of Luxemburg was elected and Clement V, less subservient to the King of France than certain enemies of the papacy have said, hastened to confirm the election. Philip IV was not really a free-thinker; he was religious, and even made pilgrimages: his attitude toward the inquisition is not that of a free-thinker, as is especially apparent in the trial of the Franciscan Bernard Délicieux. The latter brought the deputies of Carcassonne and Albi to Philip IV at Senlis, to complain of the Dominican inquisitors of Languedoc; the result of his action was an ordinance of Philip putting the Dominican inquisitors under the control of the bishops. On the receipt of this news Languedoc became inflamed against the Dominicans; Bernard Délicieux in 1303 headed the movement in Carcassonne, and when in 1304 Philip and the queen visited Toulouse and Carcassonne, he organized tumultuous manifestations. The king was displeased, and discontinued his proceedings against the Dominicans. Then Bernard Délicieux and some of the people of Carcassonne conspired to deliver the town into the hands of Prince Fernand, Infant of Majorca; Philip caused sixteen of the inhabitants to be hanged, and imposed a heavy fine on the town; and this conspiracy of Bernard Délicieux against the king and the Inquisition was one of the reasons of his condemnation later in 1318 to perpetual In Pace, or monastic imprisonment. Philip IV was not therefore in any way a systematic adversary of the inquisition. On the other hand, recently published documents show that he was sincerely attached to the idea of a Crusade. From the memoirs of Rabban Cauma, ambassador of Argoun, King of the Tatars, translated from the Syriac by Abbe Chabot, we learn that Philip said to Rabban in Sept., 1287: "If the Mongolians, who are not Christians, fight to capture Jerusalem, we have much more reason n to fight; if it be God's will, we will go with an army." And the news of the fall of Saint-Jean d'Acre (1291), which induced so many provincial councils to express a desire for a new crusade was certainly calculated to strengthen this resolution of the king. We have referred to Dubois's zeal for the conquest of the Holy Land; Nogaret was perhaps a still stronger advocate of the project; but in the plan which he outlined about 1310, the first step, according to him, was to place all the money of the Church of France in the king's hands. The French Church under Philip IV displayed very little independence; it was in reality enslaved to the royal will. Almost every year it contributed to the treasury with or without the pope's approval, a tenth and sometimes a fifth of its revenues; these pecuniary sacrifices were consented to by the clergy in the provincial councils, which in return asked certain concessions or favors of the king; but Philip's fiscal agents, if they met with resistance, laid down the principle that the king could by his own authority collect from all his subjects, especially in case of necessity, whatever taxes he wished. His officers frequently harassed the clergy in a monstrous manner; and the documents by which Philip confirmed the immunities of the Church always contained subtle restrictions which enabled the king's agents to violate them. A list of the gravamina of the Churches and the clerics, discussed at the Council of Vienne (1311), contains ample proof of the abuse of authority to which the Church was subjected, and the writer of the poem "Avisemens pour le roy Loys," composed in 1315 for Louis X, exhorted this new king to live in peace with the Church, which Philip IV had not done. To concentrate in his hands all the wealth of the French Church for the Crusade, and then to endeavor to make an agreement with the papacy for the control and disposition of the income of the Universal Church, was the peculiar policy of Philip IV. Recently some verses have been discovered, written by a contemporary on a leaf of register of the deliberations of Notre-Dame de Chartres, which reveal the impression produced by this policy on the minds of certain contemporaries: Jam Petri navais titubat, racio quia clavis. Errat; rex, papa, facti sunt unica capa, Declarant, do des Pilatus et alter Herodes. Philip IV, by his formal condemnation of the memory of Boniface VIII, appointed himself judge of the orthodoxy of the popes. It was laid down as a principle, says Geoffrey of Paris, that "the king is to submit to the spiritual power only if the pope is in the right faith." The adversaries of the "theocracy" of the Middle Ages hail Philip IV as its destroyer; and in their enthusiasm for him, by an extraordinary error, they proclaim him a precursor of modern liberty. On the contrary he was an absolutist in the fullest sense of the term. The Etats généraux of 1302, in which the Third Estate declared that the king had no superior on earth, were the precursors of the false Gallican theories of Divine right, so favorable to the absolutism of sovereigns. The civilization of the Middle Ages was based on a great principle, an essentially liberal principle, from which arose the political liberty of England; according to that principle, taxes before being raised by royal authority, ought to be approved by the tax-payers. Boniface VIII in the conflict of 1302 was only maintaining this principle, when he insisted on the consent of the clergy to the collection of the tithes. In the struggle between Philip and Boniface, Philip represents absolutism, Boniface the old medieval ideas of autonomy. "The reign of Philip IV," writes Renan, "is the reign which contributed most to form the France of the five succeeding centuries, with its good and bad qualities. The milites regis, those ennobled plebeians, became the agents of all important political business; the princes of the royal blood alone remained superior to or on an equality with them; the real nobility, which elsewhere established the parliamentary governments, was excluded from participating in the public policy." Renan is right in declaring that the first act of the French magistracy was "to diminish the power of the Church per fas et nefas" to establish the absolutism of the king; and that such conduct was for this magistracy "an original sin." Historiens de la France t. XX, XXIII; Langlois in Lavisse, Histoire de France, III (Paris 1903); Boutaric, La France sous Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1861); Renan, Etudes sur l'histoire religieuse du regne de Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1899); Wenck, Philippe der Schone von Frankreich, seine Personlichkeit und das Urteil der Zeitgenossen (Marbourg, 1905); Finke, Zur Charakteristik Philipps des Schonen in Mitteilungen des Instituts fur osterreichische Geschichte, XXVI (1905); Melanges sur le Regne de Philippe le Bel: recueil d'articles extraits du Moyen Age (Chalon-sur-Saone, 1906); Holtzman, Wilhelm von Nogaret (Freiburg im Br., 1897); Paris, Un proces criminel sous Philippe le Bel in Revue du Palais (Aug., 1908); Langlois, Les papiers de G. de Nogaret et de G. de Plaisians Tresor des Chartes (Notices et extraits des manuscrits), XXXIV; Langlois, Doleances du cleerge de France au temps de Philippe le Bel in Revue Bleue (9 Sept., and 14 Oct., 1905); Lizerand, Clement V et Philippe IV le Bel (Paris 1910); Arguillere, L'Appel au concile sous Philippe le Bel et la genese des theories conciliares in Revue des Questions Historiques (1911). GEORGES GOYAU St. Philip of Jesus St. Philip of Jesus Born in Mexico, date unknown; died at Nagasaki early in February, 1597. Though unusually frivolous as a boy, he joined the Discalced Franciscans of the Province of St. Didacus, founded by St. Peter Baptista, with whom he suffered martyrdom later. After some months in the Order, Philip grew tired of monastic life, left the Franciscans in 1589, took up a mercantile career, and went to the Philippines, where he led a life of pleasure. Later he desired to re-enter the Franciscans and was again admitted at Manila in 1590. After some years he was to have been ordained at the monastery in Mexico, the episcopal See of Manila being at that time vacant. He sailed, 12 July, 1596, but a storm drove the vessel upon the coast of Japan. The governor of the province confiscated the ship and imprisoned its crew and passengers, among whom were another Franciscan, Juan de Zamorra, two Augustinians, and a Dominican. The discovery of soldiers, cannon, and ammunition on the ship led to the suspicion that it was intended for the conquest of Japan, and that the missionaries were merely to prepare the way for the soldiers. This was also said, falsely and unwarrantably, by one of the crew (cf. JAPAN, CHRISTIANITY IN JAPAN, Catholicism). This enraged the Japanese Emperor Hideyoshi, generally called Taicosama by Europeans. He commanded, 8 December, 1596, the arrest of the Franciscans in the monastery at Miako, now Kyoto, whither St. Philip had gone. The religious were kept prisoners in the monastery until 30 December, when they were transferred to the city prison. There were six Franciscans, seventeen Japanese tertiaries, and the Japanese Jesuit, Paul Miki, with his two native servants. The ears of the prisoners were cropped on 3 January, 1597, and they were paraded through the streets of Kyoto; on 21 January they were taken to Osaka, and thence to Nagasaki, which they reached on 5 February. They were taken to a mountain near the city, "Mount of the Martyrs", bound upon crosses, after which they were pierced with spears. St. Philip was beatified in 1627 by Urban VIII, and, with his companions, canonized 8 June, 1862, by Pius IX. He is the patron saint of the city of Mexico. RIBADENEGRA, Historia de las Islas del Archipielago y Reynos de la Gran China, Tartaria . . . y Japon, V, VI (Barcelona, 1601); these are sometimes wrongly cited as Actas del martirio de San Pedro Bautista y sus companeros (Barcelona, 1601); Archivum franc. hist., I (Quaracchi, 1908), 536 sqq.; FRANCISCO DE S. ANTONIO, Chron. de la apostol. prov. de S. Gregorio . . . in Las Islas Philipinas, III (Manila, 1743), 31 sqq.; Acta SS., Feb.I, 723 sqq.; GERONIMO DE JESUS, Hist. della Christandad del Japon (1601); DA CIVEZZA, Saggio di Bibliog. Sanfrancesc. (Prato, 1879), 250, 590 sqq., 523; IDEM, Storia univ. delle missioni franc., VII, ii (Prato, 1891), 883 sqq.; DA ORIMA, Storia dei ventitre Martiri Giapponesi dell' Ord. Min. Osserv. (Rome, 1862); MELCHIORRI, Annal. Ord. Min. (Ancona, l869), 101 sqq. 218 sqq., 260 sqq. MICHAEL BIHL Philip of the Blessed Trinity Philip of the Blessed Trinity (ESPRIT JULIEN). Discalced Carmelite, theologian, born at Malaucene, near Avignon, 1603; died at Naples, 28 February, 1671. He took the habit at Lyons where he made his profession, 8 September, 1621. Choosing the missionary life, he studied two years at the seminary in Rome and proceeded in February, 1629, to the Holy Land and Persia, and thence to Goa where he became prior, and teacher of philosophy and theology. After the martyrdom of Dionysius, a Nativitate, his pupil, and Redemptus a Cruce, 29 Nov., 1638, Philip collected all available evidence and set out for Rome to introduce the cause of their beatification which, however, only terminated in 1900. He did not return to the mission, but was entrusted with important offices in France, in 1665, was elected general of the order with residence in Rome, and three years later, re-elected. While visiting all the provinces of his order, he was caught in a terrific gale off the coast of Calabria, and reached Naples in dying condition. Besides the classical languages he spoke fluently French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Persian, and Arabic. Of his numerous works the following have lasting value: "Summa philosophiae", 4 vols., Lyons, 1648, in which he follows not only the spirit but also the method of St. Thomas Aquinas; "Summa theologiae thomisticae", 5 vols., Lyons, 1653; "Summa theologiae mysticae", Lyons, 1656; reprinted in 3 vols., Paris, 1884; "Itinerarium orientale", Lyons, 1649, also in Italian and French; "Decor Carmeli religiosi", the lives of the saints and saintly members of his Order, Lyons, 1665; "Theologia carmelitana", Rome, 1665. The two last named and some smaller works dealing to some extent with historical matters of a controversial nature, called forth a reply from Pierre-Joseph de Haitze, under the titles "Des Moines empruntéz", and "Des Moines travestis". HENRICUS A SS.SACRAMENTO, Collectio Scriptorum Ord. Carmel. Excalc.II (Savona, 1884), 110. B. ZIMMERMAN Philippi Philippi (Gr. Phílippoi, Lat. Philippi). Philippi was a Macedonian town, on the borders of Thracia. Situated on the summit of a hill, it dominated a large and fertile plain, intersected by the Egnatian Way. It was north-west of Mount Pangea, near the River Gangites, and the Ægean Sea. In 358 b.c. it was taken, enlarged, and fortified by the King of Macedonia, Philip II, hence its name Philippi. Octavius Augustus (42 b.c.) conferred on it his jus Italicum (Acts, xiv, 12), which made the town a miniature Rome, and granted it the institutions and privileges of the citizens of Rome. That is why we find at Philippi, along with a remnant of the Macedonians, Roman colonists together with some Jews, the latter, however, so few that they had no synagogue, but only a place of prayer (proseuché). Philippi was the first European town in which St. Paul preached the Faith. He arrived there with Silas, Timothy, and Luke about the end of 52 a.d., on the occasion of his second Apostolic voyage. The Acts mention in particular a woman called Lydia of Thyatira, a seller of purple, in whose house St. Paul probably dwelt during his stay at Philippi. His labours were rewarded by many conversions (Acts, xvi), the most important taking place among women of rank, who seem to have retained their influence for a long time. The Epistle to the Philippians deals in a special manner with a dispute that arose between two of them, Evodia and Syntyche (iv, 2). In a disturbance of the populace, Paul and Silas were beaten with rods and cast into prison, from which being miraculously delivered, they set out for Thessalonica. Luke, however, continued to work for five years. The Philippians remained very attached and grateful to their Apostle and on several occasions sent him pecuniary aid (twice to Thessalonica, Phil., iv, 14-16; once to Corinth, II Cor., xi, 8-9; and once to Rome, Phil., iv, 10-18). See EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS). Paul returned there later; he visited them on his second journey, about 58, after leaving Ephesus (Acts, xx, 1-2). It is believed that he wrote his Second Epistle to the Corinthinas at Philippi, whither he returned on his way back to Jerusalem, passing Easter week there (Acts, xx, 5-6). He always kept in close communication with the inhabitants. Having been arrested at Cæsarea and brought to Rome, he wrote to them the Epistle we have in the New Testament, in which he dwells at great length on his predilection for them (i, 3, 7; iv, 1; etc.). Paul probably wrote them more letters than we possess; Polycarp, in his epistle to thte Philippians (II, 1 sq.), seems to allude to several letters (though the Greek word, 'epistolaí, is used also in speaking of a single letter), and Paul himself (Phil., iii, 1) seems to refer to previous writings. He hoped (i, 26; ii, 24) to revisit Philippi after his captivity, and he may have written there his First Epistle to Timothy (Tim., i, 3). Little is known of the subsequent history of the town. Later it was destroyed by the Turks; to-day nothing remains but some ruins. For bibliography see EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. A. Vander Herren Philippi, Titular See of Philippi A titular metropolitan see in Macedonia. As early as the sixth century b.c. we learn of a region called Datos, overrun by the inhabitants of Thasos, in which there was an outlying post called Crenides (the little springs), and a seaport, Neapolis or Cavala. About 460 b.c. Crenides and the country lying inland fell into the hands of the Thracians, who doubtless were its original inhabitants. In 360 b.c. the Thasians, aided by Callistratus the Athenian and other exiles, re-established the town of Datos, just when the discovery of auriferous deposits was exciting the neighbouring peoples. Philip of Macedonia took possession of it, and gave it his name, Philippi in the plural, as there were different sections of the town scattered at the foot of Mount Pangæus. He erected there a fortress barring the road between the Pangæus and the Hæmus. The gold mines, called Asyla, which were energetically worked, gave Philip an annual revenue of more than 1000 talents. In 168 b.c. the Romans captured the place. In the autumn of 42 b.c. the celebrated battle between the triumvirs and Brutus and Cassius was fought on the neighbouring marshy plain. In the first conflict Brutus triumphed over Octavius, whilst Antony repulsed Cassius, who committed suicide. Unable to maintain discipline in his army, and defeated twenty days later, Brutus also took his life. The same year a Roman colony was established there, which after the battle of Actium took the name of Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensis. When St. Ignatius of Antioch and the martyrs Zosimus and Rufus were passing through Philippi, St. Ignatius told the Christians of that town to send a letter of congratulation to the faithful of Antioch. They therefore wrote to Polycarp of Smyrna, asking him at the same time for the writings of St. Ignatius. Polycarp answered them in a letter, still extant, which was written before the death of St. Ignatius. Although the Church of Philippi was of Apostolic origin, it was never very important; it was a suffragan bishopric of Thessalonica. Towards the end of the ninth century it ranked as a metropolitan see and had six suffragan dioceses; in the fifteenth century it had only one, the See of Eleutheropolis. The Archdiocese of Cavala was reunited to the metropolis in December, 1616. In 1619, after a violent dispute with the Metropolitan of Drama, Clement, the titular of Philippi, got permission to assume the title of Drama also, and this was retained by the Metropolitan of Philippi until after 1721, when it was suppressed and the metropolis of Drama alone continued. In the "Echos d'Orient", III, 262-72, the writer of this article compiled a critical list of the Greek titulars of Philippi, containing sixty-two names, whereas only eighteen are given in Le Quien, "Oriens christianus", II, 67-70. Some Latin titulars are cited in Eubel, "Hierarchia catholica medii ævi", I, 418; II, 238; III, 291; Le Quien, op. cit., III, 1045. In the middle of the fourteenth century, Philippi is mentioned in connexion with the wars between John V, Palæologus, and Cantacuzenus, who has left a description of it (P. G., CLIV, 336). The ruins of Philippi lie near the deserted hamlet of Filibedjik, fifteen kilometres from Cavala, in the vilayet of Salonica; they contain the remains of the acropolis, a theatre anterior to the Roman occupations, a temple of Sylvanus, and numerous sculptured rocks bearing inscriptions. LEAKE, Northern Greece, III, 215-23; SMITH, Dict, of Gr. and Rom. Geog., s. v.; SEGNITZ, De Philippensibus tanquam luminaria in mundo (Leipzig, 1728); HOOG, De coetus christianorum Philippensis conditione prima (Leyden, 1823); HEUZEY, Mission archéologique de Macédoine (Paris, 1876), 1-124; MERTZIDÈS, Philippes (Constantinople, 1897), in Greek; TOMASCHEK, Zur Kunde der Hoemus-Halbinsel (Vienna, 1897), 77; FILLION in Dict. de la Bible. s. v. S. VAILHÉ. Philippine Islands Philippine Islands Situation and Area. The Philippine Islands lie between 116° 40' and 126° and 34' E. long., and 4° 40' and 21° 10' N. lat. The islands are washed by the China Sea on the north and the west, the Pacific Ocean on the east, and the Sea of Celebes on the south. They are nearly south of Japan, and north of Borneo and the Celebes, with which they are connected by three partly-submerged isthmuses. The archipelago belongs to the same geographic region as Borneo, Sumatra, and Java, and therefore to Asia rather than to Oceanica. In all there are 3141 islands; 1668 of them are listed by name. Luzon has an area of 40,969 sq. miles; Mindanao, 36,292 sq. m. Nine islands have an area between 1000-10,000 sq m; 20 between 100 and 1000 sq. m.; 73 between 10 and 100 sq. m.; and 262 between 1 and 10 sq. m. The remaining 2775 islands are each less than 1 sq. m. The total area of the islands is 115,026 sq. m. The extent of the Earth's surface included by the boundaries of the treaty lines is about 800,000 sq.m. Physical Geography -- Fauna and Flora. The scenery of the islands, especially Luzon, is very beautiful. The greatest known elevation, Mt. Apo, in Mindanao, is over 10,000 ft.; it was ascended for the first time by Father Mateo Gisbert, S.J., accompanied by two laymen, in 1880. There are twenty well-known and recent volcanic cones, twelve of them more or less active. Mayon Volcano, about 8000 ft., is probably the most beautiful symmetrical volcanic cone in the world. There are no very large rivers; the Cagayan of northern Luzon and the Rio Grande and the Agusan, both in Mindanao, are more than 200 miles in length. The largest lakes are Laguna de Bay, near Manila, and Laguna de Lanao, in Mindanao; the surface of the latter is 2200 ft above sea-level. Laguna de Bombon, in Batangas Province, Luzon, is the crater of an immense volcano, of roughly elliptical shape, seventeen by twelve miles. On an island in the lake is the active volcano of Taal. The fauna of the Philippines resembles that of the neighboring Malayan Islands to a certain extent. Two-thirds of the birds of the Philippines are peculiar to them; what is more strange is that 286 species of birds found in Luzon, at least fifty-one are not to be met with in any other part of the archipelago. The flora of the islands is similar to that of Java, Sumatra, and Borneo, but with differences sufficiently numerous to give it a marked individuality. Forests form seven-tenths of the area of the archipelago; they embrace a great variety of woods, many of them highly valuable. Mineral Resources. Coal is found in many parts of the islands. two mines are now in operation on the small island of Batan, Albay Province, Southern Luzon. The total output in the Philippines during 1909 was valued at nearly $100,000. About $250,000 worth of gold was mined the same year. Iron is also found, the product in 1909 being worth a little more than $15,000. Climate. The climate is, generally speaking, tropical, although there are points in the islands where it cannot strictly be so termed. The mean temperature in Manila during the period 1883-1902 was 80°F.; the average maximum during the same time was 97° and minimum 63°. The average rainfall in Manila is something more than 75 inches. Baguio, Province of Benguet, has been called the Simla of the Philippines. Climatic conditions are so favourable that the commission and assembly held their sessions there this year (1910) during the warm months. The mean minimum temperatures of four months of the year are lower in Baguio than at Simla, and almost equal for two other months. The monthly means are nearly equal for the two places during five months. Railways. Railway lines are in operation in Luzon, Panay, Cebu, and Negros, about four hundred miles in all. Population. A census of the islands taken in 1903 estimates the population at 7,635,426, of whom 6,987,686 are classed as civilized and 647,740 are wild. There are no question in Spanish times about the number of Christians; but a difference in opinion prevails about the number of the wild people. An estimate published in Madrid in 1891 puts down the non-civilized tribes (Moros included) at 1,400,000. According to the Director of the Census of 1903, there has been tendency to exaggerate; he admits that the number 647,740 is possibly too small, but that it is probably within ten per cent of the true number. Wild Tribes. The Negritos are believed to have been the aborigines of the islands. There remains about 23,000 of these, leading to-day a primitive life, nomadic within a certain district, living in groups of twenty or thirty under a chief. They are a race of dwarfs, four feet eight inches in height. They are of sooty black colour, their hair woolly, their toes almost as prehensile as fingers. The Negritos, it is thought, once occupied the entire archipelago, but were driven back into the mountains by the Malays. Among other wild tribes may be mentioned the Igorottes in Northern Luzon, some of whom are head-hunters. They are an industrious and warlike race. Belgian missionaries have been working among them in the past few years with considerable fruit. The Ibilao or Ilongot is noted for his bloodthirsty propensities; the Ifugaos are said to resemble the Japanese in appearance. They use the lasso with great dexterity, and with it capture the luckless traveler, decapitate him, and add the head to their collection. They wear as many rings in their ears as they have taken heads. In Palawan (Paragua) the most numerous tribe is that of the Tagbanuas, many of whom have been Christianized. The Manguianes occupy the interior of Mindoro; they are a docile race and do not flee from civilized man. Among the wild tribes of Mindanao may be mentioned the Manobos, Bagobos, Bukidnons, Tirurays, and Subanos. They are classed as Indonesians by some ethnologists. Slavery is practised, and human sacrifices are known to have taken place within the past few years. The Moros or Mohammedan Malays chiefly inhabit Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago, though they are found also in Basilan and Palawan. They were professional pirates, and advanced as far as Manila at the time of the arrival of the Spaniards. They killed large numbers of Filipinos, and carried others into slavery. Until within about sixty years ago, when Spanish gunboats of light draught were introduced, they made marauding excursions into the Visayan islands (Panay, Negros, Cebu, Bohol, Leyte, Samar, etc.), carrying off a thousand captives as slaves annually. They were the great obstacle to the civilization of Mindanao. The Moro is possessed of much physical strength, is indifferent to bloodshed, too proud to work, and extremely fanatical. Many of them build their towns in the water, with movable bamboo bridges connected with the shore. Flanking their settlements they build cottas or forts. The walls of some of these were twenty-four feet thick and thirty feet high. The United States Government respects the Moro custom of discarding the hat, by permitting the Moro Constabulary (military police) to wear a Turkish fex and to go barefoot. Extensive missionary work has been done by the Jesuits in Mindanao. Previous to the American occupation, they ministered to 200,000 Christians in various parts of the islands. Even among the Moros their efforts were successful and in one year (1892) they baptized 3000 Moros in the district of Davao. They established two large orphan asylums, one for boys and the other for girls, at Tamontaca, where liberated slave-children were trained to a useful life, and which later formed the basis of new Christian villages. For lack of support, a great deal of this work had to be abandoned with the withdrawal of Spanish sovereignty from the islands. Christian Tribes. The inhabitants of Luzon and adjacent islands are the Tagalogs, Pampangans, Bicols, Pangasinans, Ilocanos, Ibanags or Cagayanes, and Zambales. The most important of these are the Tagalogs, who number about a million and a half; the Pampangans, about 400,000, excel in agriculture; the Bicols in South-eastern Luzon were, according to Blumentritt, the first Malays in the Philippines; the Pangasinans, in the province of that name, number about 300,000; the Ilocanos, an industrious race, occupy the north-western coast of Luzon; the Ibanags, said to be the finest race and the most valiant men in the islands (Sawyer), dwell in the Northern and Eastern Luzon. The Zambales were famous head-hunters at the time of the Spanish conquest, and made drinking-cups out of their enemies' skulls. They number about 100,000. The Visayan Islands are inhabited by the Visayas, the most numerous tribe of the Philippines. Fewer wild people are found among them than in other portions of the archipelago. The population is about 3,000,000. There is a strong resemblance, mentally, morally, and physically, between individuals of the Visayas, but there is a great difference in their languages, a Visayan in Cebu, for instance will not understand a Visayan of Panay. For all that, it is said that the Filipinos had a common racial origin and at one time a common language. Physically, the Filipinos are of medium height, although tall men are to be found among them; especially in the mountain districts. Generally speaking, they are of a brownish colour, with black eyes, prominent cheek bones, the nose flat rather than arched or straight, nostrils wide and full mouth inclined to be large, lips full, good teeth, and round chin. The following estimates of the Filipinos are selected from the United States Census Report of 1903. The first gives an appreciation of the people shortly after the arrival of the Spaniards and before they were Christianized. The second and third are the views of an American and an Englishman, respectively, of the Christianized Filipino before and at the time of the American occupation. (1) Legaspi, after four years' residence, writes thus of the natives of Cebu: "They are a crafty and treacherous race....They are a people extremely vicious, fickle, untruthful, and full of other superstitions. No law binds relative to relative, parents to children, or brother to brother....If a man in some time of need shelters a relative or a brother in his house, supports him, and provides him with food for a few days, he will consider that relative as his slave from that time on....At times they sell their own children....Privateering and robbery have a natural attraction to them....I believe that these natives could be easily subdued by good treatment and the display of kindness". (2) Hon. Dean C. Worcester was in the Philippines in 1887-88 and 1890-93. He says: "The traveler cannot fail to be impressed by his (the Filipino's) open-handed and cheerful hospitality. He will go to any amount of trouble, and often to no little expense, in order to accommodate some perfect stranger. If cleanliness be next to godliness, he has much to recommend him. Hardly less noticeable than the almost universal hospitality are the well-regulated homes and the happy family life which one soon finds to be the rule. Children are orderly, respectful, and obedient to their parents. The native is self-respecting and self-restrained to a remarkable degree....he is patient under misfortune and forbearing under provocation....He is a kind father and a dutiful son. His aged relatives are never left in want, but are brought to his home and are welcome to share the best that it affords to the end of their days". (3) Frederick H. Sawyer lived for fourteen years in the Philippines; he writes: "The Filipino possessed a great deal of self-respect, and his demeanour is quiet and decorous. He is polite to others and expects to be treated politely himself. He is averse to rowdyism or horseplay of any kind, and avoids giving offence. For an inhabitant of the tropics, he is fairly industrious, sometimes even very hard-working. Those who have seen him poling cascos against the stream of the Pasig will admit this. He is a keen sportsman, and will readily put his money on his favourite horse or gamecock; he is also addicted to other forms of gambling. The position taken by women in a community is often considered as a test of the degree of civilization it has attained. Measured by this standard, the Filipinos come out well, for among them the wife exerts great influence in the family and the husband rarely completes any important business without her concurrence. "The Filipinos treat their children with great kindness and forbearance. Those who are well-off show much anxiety to secure a good education for their sons and even for their daughters. Parental authority extends to the latest period in life. I have seen a man of fifty years come as respectfully as a child to kiss the hands of his aged parents when the vesper bell sounded, and this notwithstanding the presence of several European visitors in the house. Children, in return, show great respect to both parents, and some morning and evening to kiss their hands. They are trained in good manners from their earliest youth, both by precept and example". History. The islands were discovered 16 March, 1521, by Ferdinand Magellan. Several other expeditions followed, but they were fruitless. In 1564 Legaspi sailed from Mexico for the Philippines. He was accompanied by the Augustinian friar Urdaneta. As a layman this celebrated priest had accompanied the expedition of Loaisa in 1524, which visited Mindanao and the Moluccas. Legaspi landed in Cebu in 1565. The islands had been called San Lazaro by Magellan; Villalobos, who commanded an expedition from Mexico, called the island at which he touched Filipina, in honour of Prince Philip. This name was extended to the whole archipelago by Legaspi, who was sent out by the former prince then ruling as Philip II. Though there were not wanting indications of hostility and distrust towards the Spaniards from the inhabitants of Cebu, Legaspi succeeded in winning their friendship after a few months. Later, in 1569, he removed the seat of government to Iloilo. He sent his nephew Juan Salcedo to explore the islands to the north. Salcedo's report to his uncle was favourable and in 1571 Legaspi, leaving the affairs of government in the hands of the natives, proceeded north and founded the city of Maynila, later Manila. Legaspi immediately set about the organization of the new colony; he appointed rulers of provinces, arranged for yearly voyages to New Spain, and other matters pertaining to the welfare of the country. In his work for pacification he was greatly aided by the friars who were then beginning the work of Christian civilization in the Philippines which was to go on for several centuries. Legaspi died in 1574. To him belongs the glory of founding the Spanish sovereignty in the islands. He was succeeded by Lavezares. About this time, the Chinese pirate Li-ma-hon invaded Luzon, with a fleet of over sixty vessels and about 6000 people. A storm that met the fleet as it neared Manila wrecked some of his boats, but Li-ma-hon proceeded on his journey and landed 1500 men. Repulsed in two attacks by the Spaniards, Li-ma-hon went north and settled in Pangasinan province. The following year (1575) Salcedo was sent against them; he defeated them and drove the fleeing Chinese into the mountains. A few years later the arrival of the first bishop is chronicled, the Dominican Salazar, one of the greatest figures in the history of the Philippines; he was accompanied by a few Jesuits (1581). The Augustinians had come with Legaspi, the Franciscans arrived in 1577, and the Dominicans in 1587. By unanimous vote of the entire colony the Jesuit Sanchez was sent to Spain to explain to Philip II the true state of affairs in the islands. His mission was entirely successful; Philip was persuaded to retain his new possessions, which many of his advisers were counseling him to relinquish. In 1591 an ambassador came from Japan demanding that tribute be paid that country. This the new governor Dasmarinas refused, but the drew up a treaty instead that was satisfactory to both parties. An expedition that started out against the Moluccas in 1593 ended disastrously. On the voyage some of the Chinese crew mutinied, killed Dasmarinas and took the ship to China. Dasmarinas built the fortress of Santiago, Manila, and fortified the city with stone walls. He was succeeded by his son Luis. During his governorship the convent of Santa Isabel, a school and home for children of Spanish soldiers was founded (1594). It exists to this day. The Audiencia or Supreme Court was re-established about this time. As it was appointed from Mexico and supported from the islands it had proved too great a drain on the resources of the colony, and so had been suppressed after the visit of the Jesuit Sanchez to Philip II. The last years of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries were marked by the seizure, by the Japanese, of the richly-laden Spanish vessel from the islands. It had sought shelter in a storm in a port of that country. The crew were put to death. Then there was a fruitless expedition against Cambodia; a naval fight against two Dutch pirate-ships, one of which was captured; and a conspiracy of the Chinese against the Spaniards. The force of the latter, 130 in number, was defeated, and every man of them decapitated. The Chinese were repulsed later, and it is said that 23,000 of them were killed. The Recollect Fathers arrived in Manila in 1606. During the first half of the seventeenth century the colony had to struggle against internal and external foes; the Dutch in particular, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Moros, the natives of Bohol, Leyte, and Cagayan. A severe earthquake destroyed Manila in 1645. In spite of the difficulties against which the islands had to struggle, the work of the evangelization went rapidly forward. The members of the various religious orders, with a heroism rarely paralleled even in the annals of Christian missions, penetrated farther and farther into the interior of the country, and established their missions in what had been centres of Paganism. The natives were won by the self-sacrificing lives of the missionaries, and accepted the teachings of Christianity in great numbers. Books were written in the native dialects, schools were everywhere established, and every effort employed for the material and moral improvement of the people. From the time of the fearless Salazar, the missionaries had always espoused the cause of the natives against the injustices and exactions of the individual rulers. It is not strange, therefore, that trouble arose at times between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. As these misunderstandings grew from the mistakes of individuals, they were not of long duration, and they did not in any way interfere with the firmer control of the islands which Spain was year by year obtaining, or with the healthy growth of the Church throughout the archipelago. Spanish sovereignty in the Philippines was threatened by the capture of Manila by the British under Draper in 1762. There were only 600 Spanish soldiers to resist a force of 6000 British with their Indian allies. Their depredations were so dreadful that Draper put a stop to them after three days. The city remained under British sovereignty until 1764. There were several uprisings by the natives during the beginning of the nineteenth century. One of the most serious of these was that headed by Apolinario de la Cruz, who called himself King of the Tagalogs. By attributing to himself supernatural power, he gathered about him a large number of deluded fanatics, men, women, and children. He was apprehended and put to death. An event of great importance was the introduction in 1860 of shallow-draught steel gunboats to be used against the piratical Moros of Mindanao. For centuries they had ravaged the Visayan islands, carrying off annually about a thousand prisoners. A severe earthquake in Manila in 1863 destroyed the chief public buildings, the cathedral, and other churches, except that of San Agustin. Some native clergy participated in a serious revolt against Spanish authority which occurred in Cavite in 1872. Three Filipino priests who were implicated in the uprising, Gomez, Zamora, and Burgos, were executed. It is said that the spirit of insurrection which manifested itself so strongly during the last quarter of the nineteenth century was the result of the establishment of certain secret societies. The first Masonic lodge of the Philippines was founded in Cavite in 1860. Lodges were later formed at Zamboanga (in Mindanao), Manila, and Cebu. Europeans only were admitted at first, but afterwards natives were received. The lodges were founded by anti-clericals, and naturally anti-clericals flocked largely to the standard. There was no idea then of separation from the mother country, but only of a more liberal form of government. After the insurrection at Cavite in 1872, the Spanish Masons separated themselves from the revolutionary ones. New societies were gradually formed, the most celebrated being the Liga Filipina, founded by the popular hero Dr. Rizal. Practically all the members were Masons, and men of means and education. A more powerful society and a powerful factor in the insurrection of 1896, recalling the American Ku Klux Klan, was the Katipunan. Its symbol KKK was literally anti-Spanish, for there is no K in Spanish. The full title of the society was "The Sovereign Worshipful Association of the Sons of the Country". The members (from 10,000 to 50,000) were poor people who subscribed little sums monthly for the purchase of arms, etc. Later a woman's lodge was organized. According to Sawyer "the Katipunan adopted some of the Masonic paraphernalia, and some of its initiatory ceremonies, but were in no sense Masonic lodges" (p.83). In 1896 another insurrection broke out near Manila, in Cavite province. Aguinaldo, a young school teacher, became prominent about this time. The spirit of revolt spread through the neighbouring provinces; there were several engagements, until finally, Aguinaldo, at the head of the remnant of rebels, left Cavite and took refuge near Angat in the Province of Bulacan. As it would have taken a long time to dislodge them, a method of conciliation was adopted. The result was the pact of Biak-na-bato, signed 14 Dec., 1897. By the terms of this agreement the Filipinos were not to plot against Spanish sovereignty for a period of three years; Aguinaldo and other followers were to be deported, for a period to be fixed by Spain. In return they were to receive the sum of $500,000 as indemnity; and those who had not taken up arms were to be given $350,000 as reimbursement for the losses they had incurred. The leaders of the insurrection of 1896 exercised despotic power, and ill-treated and robbed those of their countrymen who would not join them. Andres Bonifacio, the president of the Katipunan, ultimately became a victim of these despots. Thirty thousand Filipinos are reported to have lost their lives in the rebellion of 1896. In 1898 hostilities broke out between Spain and the United States. On 24 April, 1898, Aguinaldo met the American Consul at Singapore, Mr. Pratt; two days later he proceeded to Hong Kong. The American squadron under Commodore (now Admiral) Dewey destroyed the Spanish ships in Manila Bay. Aguinaldo and seventeen followers landed at Cavite from the United States vessel Hugh McCullough and were furnished arms by Dewey. Aguinaldo proclaimed dictatorial government, and asked recognition from foreign powers. The American troops took Manila on 13 August. A treaty of peace was signed at Paris by the terms of which the Philippines were ceded to the United States, and the latter paid Spain the sum of $20,000,000. It was later discovered that certain islands near Borneo were not included in the boundaries fixed by the peace commission. These were also ceded to the United States, which paid an additional $100,000. The Filipinos had organized a government of their own, the capital being Malolos, in the Province of Bulacan. Fighting between them and the Americans began on 4 Feb., 1899; but by the end of the year, all organized opposition was practically at an end. Aguinaldo was captured in April, 1901, and on 1 July of the same year the insurrection was declared to be extinct, the administration was turned over to the civil Government, and Judge Taft (now President) was appointed governor. American Government: General. The Spanish laws remain in force to-day, except as changed by military order, Act of Congress, or Act of the Philippine Commission. The first Philippine Commission was appointed by President McKinley Jan., 1899. The second Philippine Commission was sent to the islands in 1900. Its object was to establish a civil government based on the recommendations of the first commission. The principles that were to guide this commission are thus expressed in the following instructions given them: "The Commission should bear in mind that the government that they are establishing is designed not for our satisfaction or for the expression of our theoretical views, but for the happiness, peace, and prosperity of the people of the Philippine Islands, and the measures adopted should be made to conform to their customs, their habits, and even their prejudices, to the fullest extent consistent with the indispensable requisites of just and effective government." "No laws shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall for ever be allowed." This was confirmed by Act of Congress 1 July, 1902, in almost identical words (section 5). The members of the commission are appointed by the president, with the consent of the Senate; their tenure of office is at the pleasure of the president. There are nine commissioners, one of whom is the governor-general (the chief executive of the Philippine Islands), and four are secretaries of the departments of the Interior, of Commerce and Police, of Finance and Justice, and of Public Instruction. Each of these departments is divided into bureaus of which there are twenty-three in all. Through these the actual administration of the affairs of the Government is carried on. On 16 Oct., 1907, the Philippine Assembly was inaugurated. The assembly shares legislative power with the commission over all parts of the islands "not inhabited by the Moros or other non-Christian tribes". Over the Moros and the non-Christian tribes the commission alone has power. The legislative power of the commission and assembly over the Christian tribes is equal. No law may be made without the approval of both houses. If at any session the annual appropriation for the support of the Government shall not have been made, an amount equal to the last annual appropriation is considered thereby appropriated for the ensuing year. The members of the assembly are elected by popular vote. The right to this suffrage is extended to all male citizens of the Philippine Islands or of the United States, over twenty-three years of age, who possess at least one of the following qualifications: (1) ability to speak, read, and write English or Spanish; (2) ownership of real property to the value of $250 or the payment of $15 annually of the established taxes; (3) holding of municipal office under the Spanish Government in the Philippines. All acts passed by the commission and by the assembly are enacted by the authority of the United States Congress, which reserves the power and authority to annul them. The assembly may consist of not less than fifty nor more than a hundred members. Each province is entitled to one delegate; and if its population is more than 90,000, to an additional member for every extra 90,000 and major fraction thereof. There are at present eighty delegates, Manila is counted as a province. Thirty-one delegates are from the Visayan Islands, and forty-four from Luzon. The commission and assembly are authorized to send two commissioners to the United States to represent the interests of the Philippines at Washington. American Government: Provincial. According to their form of government, the islands are divided into three classes: the Christian provinces, the non-Christian provinces, and the Moro provinces. The officers of the Christian province are the governor, the treasurer, the third member of the provincial board, and the fiscal or district attorney. The governor and third member are elected to office; the treasurer and fiscal are appointed by the governor of the Philippine Islands with the consent of the Commission; the tenure of their office depends upon the governor-general. Any provincial officer may be suspended or removed from office by the governor-general for sufficient cause. The provincial governor, the treasurer, and the third member form the provincial board, which legislates in a limited way for the province. The non-Christian tribes are under a governor, secretary, treasurer, supervisor and fiscal. In some provinces there is also a lieutenant-governor. These officers are appointed by the governor-general with the consent of the commission. The Moro province includes the greater part of Mindanao, the whole of the Sulu Archipelago, and smaller groups of islands. The inhabitants number 500,000, half of them Moros; the remainder, with the exception of some thousand Christians, are wild tribes. The Government of the Moro province is civil-military. It is divided into five districts, each with its governor and secretary, appointed by the governor of the province. On the legislative council of the entire province there is, besides the governor, a secretary, treasurer, and attorney. While the governor-general appoints these officers, the two first named are usually officers of the United States army detailed for this purpose. The district officers are also usually detailed from the army. Courts of Justice. There is no trial by jury in the Philippine Islands. There are three classes of courts of justice: justice-of-the-peace courts, courts of first instance, and the supreme court; a justice of the peace must be at least twenty-three years of age. he is appointed by the governor from a number of individuals whose names are presented by a judge of the court of first instance, and by the director of education. Among his powers is that of performing marriage ceremonies. The courts of first instance try appeals from the lower court and cases in which they have original jurisdiction. These judges are appointed by the governor with the approval of the commission. Supreme Court. This court is composed of one chief justice and six associates. Important cases may be appealed from it to the Supreme Court of the United States. The supreme court rarely hears witnesses, but examines the written testimony made before the lower court, and listens to arguments of the opposing lawyers. The supreme court may not merely reverse or affirm the decision of the lower court, but it may even change the degree and kind of punishment. A defendant, for instance, sentenced to imprisonment for life or for twenty years may, and sometimes does, have his sentence changed on appeal to the supreme court to the death penalty. Religion. Before the arrival of the Spaniards the religion of the islands was similar to that of the majority of the Chinese, Japanese, and Malayans. They were worshippers of the souls of their ancestors, of the sun, the moon, the stars, plants, birds, and animals. Among the deities of the Tagalogs were: a blue bird, called Bathala (divinity); the crow, called Maylupa (lord of the earth); the alligator, called Nono (grandfather). They adored in common with other Malayans the tree Balete, which they did not dare cut. They had idols in their houses, called anito, and by the Visayans, diuata. There were anitos of the country who permitted them to pass over it; anitos of the fields who gave fertility to the soil; anitos of the sea who fed the fishes and guarded boats; and anitos to look after the house and newly-born infants. The anitos were supposed to be the souls of their ancestors. Their story of the origin of the world was that the sky and the water were walking together; a kite came between them, and in order to keep the waters from rising to the sky, placed upon them the islands, the Filipinos' idea of the world. The origin of man came about in the following manner: a piece of bamboo was floating on the water; the water cast it at the feet of a kite; the kite in anger broke the bamboo with its beak; out of one piece came man, and out of the other woman. The souls of the dead were supposed to feed on rice and tuba (a native liquor), thus food was placed at the graves of the dead, a custom which still survives among some of the uncivilized tribes of Mindanao. The ministers of religion were priestesses -- crafty and diabolical old women, who offered sacrifices of animals and even of human beings. Sacrifices of animals still occur among the tribes; and accounts of recent human sacrifice will be found in the reports of the Philippine Commission. The superstitions of the Filipinos were numerous. In Supreme Case no. 5381 there is given the testimony of Igorottes, who before starting to murder a man, a couple of years ago, killed some chickens and examined their entrails to discover if the time was favourable for the slaying of a man. The hooting of owls, the hissing of lizards, and the sight of a serpent had a supernatural signification. One of the most feared of the evil spirits was the asuang, which was supposed to capture children or lonely travelers. A fuller description of these superstitions is given in Delgado, "Historia General de las Islas Filipinas" (Manila, 1894), bk. III, xvi, xvii, and in Blumentritt, "Mythological Dictionary". As might be expected from idolatrous tribes in a tropical climate, the state of morality was low; wives were bought and sold, and children did not hesitate to enslave their own parents. It was on material such as this that the Spanish missionaries had to work. A Christian Malay race, a people that from the lower grade of savagery had advanced to the highest form of civilization, was the result of their efforts. Up to the year 1896 the Augustinians had founded 242 towns, with a population of more than 2,000,000. There were 310 religious of the order; this includes (and the same applies to the following figures) lay brothers, students, and invalids. The Franciscans number 455 in 153 towns, with a population of a little more than a million; there were 206 Dominicans in 69 towns, with about 700,000 inhabitants; 192 Recollects in 194 towns, with a population of 1,175,000; 167 Jesuits who ministered to about 200,000 Christians in the missions of Mindanao. The total religious therefore in 1906 was 1330 to look after a Catholic population of more than 5,000,000 while secular clergy were in charge of nearly a million more. The members of the religious orders in the Philippines in 1906 did not amount to 500. The condition of the Filipino people, as they were prior to the revolution of 1896, forms the best argument in favour of the labours of the religious orders. The islands were not conquered by force; the greater part of the fighting was to protect the natives from enemies from without. It was not until 1822 that there was a garrison of Spanish troops in the archipelago. And, as all impartial historians admit, the small number of troops needed was due solely to the religious influence of the priests over the people. The total strength of American regiments in the Philippines in 1910, including the Philippine Scouts, was 17,102. To this should be added more than 4000 members of the Philippine Constabulary, a military police necessary for the maintenance of order. Besides their far-reaching influence for peace, the religious orders did notable work in literature and science. Father Manuel Blance, an Augustinian, was the author of "Flora Filipina", a monumental work in four folio volumes, illustrated with hundreds of coloured plates reproduced from water-colour paintings of the plants of the Philippines. Father Rodrigo Aganduru Moriz, a Recollect (Augustinian Discalced), (1584-1626), after evangelizing the natives of Bataan, and founding houses of his order in Manila and Cebu, and missions in Mindanao, set sail from the Philippines. He spent some time in Persia, where he brought back numerous schismatics to the Faith and converted many infidels. Arriving in Rome, Urban VIII wished to send him back to Persia as Apostolic delegate with some religious of his order, but he died a few months later at the age of forty-two. Among his works are: "A General History of the Philippines", in two volumes; "The Persecution in Japan"; a book of sermons; a grammar and dictionary of a native dialect; "Origin of the Oriental Empires"; "Chronology of Oriental Kings and Kingdoms"; a narrative of his travels written for Urban VIII; a collection of maps of various islands, seas, and provinces; the work of the Augustinians (Discalced) in the conversion of the Philippines and of Japan; a family book of medicine for the use of Filipinos. The number of Augustinian authors alone, until 1780 was 131, and the books published by them more than 200 in nine native dialects, more than 100 in Spanish, besides a number of volumes in the Chinese and Japanese languages. How extensive and how varied were the missionary, literary, and scientific works of the members of the religious orders may be gathered from their chronicles. The Philippines constitute an ecclesiastical province, of which the Archbishop of Manila is the metropolitan. The suffragan sees are: Jaro; Nueva Caceres; Nueva Segovia; Cebu, Calbayog; Lipa; Tuguegarao; Zamboanga; and the Prefecture Apostolic of Palawan. There are over a thousand priests, and a Catholic population of 6,000,000. (See Cebu; Jaro; Manila, Archdiocese of; Manila Observatory; Nueva Caceres; Nueva Segovia; Palawan; Samar and Leyte; Tuguegarao; Zamboanga.) The Diocese of Lipa (Lipensis). The Diocese of Lipa, erected 10 April, 1910, comprises the Provinces of Batangas, La Laguna, Tayabas (with the Districts of Infanta and Principe), Mindoro, and the sub-Province of Marinduque, formerly parts of the Archdiocese of Manila. Rt. Rev Joseph Petrelli, D.D., the first bishop, was appointed 12 April, 1910, and consecrated at Manila, 12 June, 1910. There are 95 parishes; the Discalced Augustinians have charge of 14, and the Capuchins of 6. The diocese comprises 12,208 sq.m.; about 640,000 Christians; and 9000 non-Christians. Aglipayanism. The Aglipayano sect caused more annoyance than damage to the Church in the Philippines. The originator of the schism was a native priest, Gregorio Aglipay. He was employed as a servant in the Augustinian house, Manila, and being of ingratiating manners was educated and ordained priest. Later he took the field as an insurgent general. Being hard pressed by the American troops he surrendered and was paroled in 1901. In 1902 he arrogated himself the title of "Pontifex Maximus", and through friendship or fear drew to his allegiance some native priests. Those of the latter who were his friends he nominated "bishops". Simeon Mandac, one of the two lay pillars of the movement, is now serving a term of twenty years in the penitentiary for murder and rebellion. At first the schism seemed to make headway in the north, chiefly for political reasons. With the restoration of the churches under order of the Supreme Court in 1906-07 the schism began to dwindle, and its adherents are now inconsiderable. Religious Policy of the Government. Freedom of worship and separation of Church and State is a principle of the American Government. In a country where there was the strictest union of Church and State for more than three centuries, this policy is not without serious difficulties. At times ignorant officials may act as if the Church must be separated from her rights as a lawful corporation existing in the State. In some such way as this several Catholic churches were seized, with the connivance or the open consent of municipal officers, by adherents of the Aglipayano sect. It required time and considerable outlay of money for the Church to regain possession of her property through the courts. And even then the aggressors often succeeded in damaging as much as possible the church buildings or its belongings before surrendering them. There is no distinction or privilege accorded clergymen, except that they are precluded from being municipal councilors. However: "there shall be exempt from taxation burying grounds, church and their adjacent parsonages or convents, and lands and buildings used exclusively for religious charitable, scientific, or educational purposes and not for private profit". This does not apply to land or buildings owned by the Church to procure revenue for religious purposes, e.g. the support of a hospital, orphan asylum, etc., so that glebe land is taxable. The only exception made in the matter of free imports for church purposes is that Bibles and hymn books are admitted free of duty. Practically everything needed in the services of the Catholic Church, vestments, sacred vessels, altars, statues, pictures, etc. pay duty, if such goods are not purchased from or manufactured in the United States. Religious corporations or associations, of whatever sect or denomination, were authorized to hold land by an act of the commission passed in October, 1901. In April, 1906, the law of corporations came into force. Under this Act (no. 1459) a bishop, chief, priest, or presiding elder of any religious denomination, can become a corporation sole by filing articles of incorporation holding property in trust for the denomination. Authority is also given to any religious society or order, or any diocese, synod, or organization to incorporate under specified conditions to administer its temporalities. The same act empowers colleges and institutes of learning to incorporate. All cemeteries are under the control of the Bureau of Health. By an Act passed in Feb., 1906, existing cemeteries and burial grounds were to be closed unless authorized by the director of health; municipalities were empowered, subject to the same authority, to set apart land for a municipal burial ground, and to make by-laws without discriminating against race, nationality, or religion. The church burial grounds had generally to be enlarged or new ones consecrated, and individual graves indicated and allotted. The right to hold public funerals and to take the remains into church was not to be abridged or interfered with, except in times of epidemics or in case of contagious or infectious diseases, when a public funeral might be held at the grave after an hour had elapsed from the actual interment. The right of civil marriage was established in 1898, by order of General Otis. The certificate of marriage, by whomsoever celebrated, must be filed with the civil authorities. The forbidden degrees extend to half-blood and step-parents. A subsequent marriage while husband or wife is alive is illegal and void, unless the former marriage has been annulled or dissolved, or by presumption of death after seven years' absence. There is no express provision for divorce; but marriages may be annulled by order of judges of the court of first instance for impediments existing at the time of marriage, such as being under the age of consent (fourteen years for boys, twelve years for girls), insanity, etc. The local health officer shall report to the municipal president "all births that may come to his knowledge", the date, and names of parents. The parochial clergy have generally complete and carefully-kept registers of baptisms, and furnish certified copies to those who need them. The property of deceased persons was in general formerly distributed at a family council, with the approval of the courts. But it appears that at the present time the estates of deceased persons must be administered under direction of the courts of first instance. Testaments are made and property devolves in accordance with the provisions of the Spanish civil code. Education. The Spanish missionaries established schools immediately on reaching the islands. Wherever they penetrated, church and school went together. The Jesuits had two universities in Manila, besides colleges at Cavite, Marinduque, Arevalo, Cebu, and Zamboanga. The Dominicans had their flourishing University of S. Tomas, Manila, existing to this day, and their colleges in other large towns. There was no Christian village without its school; all the young people attended. On the Jesuits' return to the islands in 1859, the cause of higher education received a new impetus. They established the college of the Ateneo de Manila, where nearly all those who have been prominent in the history of their country during the last half-century were educated. They opened a normal school which sent its trained Filipino teachers over all parts of the islands. The normal school graduated during the thirty years of its existence 1948 teachers. After the American occupation a public-school system, modeled on that of the United States, was established by the Government. The total number of schools in operation for 1909-10 was 4531, an increase of 107 over the preceding year. The total annual enrolment was 587,317, plus 4946 in the schools of the Moro Province. The average monthly enrolment however was 427,165 and the average monthly attendance only 337,307; of these, 2300 were pupils of secondary schools, 15,487 of intermediate schools and 319,520 of primary schools. There were 732 American teachers, 8130 Filipino teachers, and 145 Filipino apprentices -- teachers who serve without pay. Act 74, sec. 16, provides: "No teacher or other person shall teach or criticize the doctrines of any church, religious sect, or denomination, or shall attempt to influence pupils for or against any church or religious sect in any public school. If any teacher shall intentionally violate this section he or she shall, after due hearing, be dismissed from the public service; provided: however, that it shall be lawful for the priest or minister of any church established in the town wherein a public school is situated, either in person or by a designated teacher of religion, to teach for one-half hour three times a week, in the school building, to those public-school pupils whose parents or guardians desire it and express their desire therefor in writing filed with the principal teacher of the school, to be forwarded to the division superintendent, who shall fix the hours and rooms for such teaching. But no public-school teachers shall either conduct religious exercises, or teach religion, or act as a designated religious teacher in the school building under the foregoing authority, and no pupil shall be required by any public-school teacher to attend and receive the religious instruction herein permitted. Should the opportunity thus given to teach religion be used by the priest, minister, or religious teacher for the purpose of arousing disloyalty to the United States, or of discouraging the attendance of pupils at any such public school, or creating a disturbance of public order, or of interfering with the discipline of the school, the division superintendent, subject to the approval of the director of education, may, after due investigation and hearing, forbid such offending priest, minister, or religious teacher from entering the public-school building thereafter." That the religion of the Filipino people must inevitably suffer from the present system of education is evident to anyone conversant with existing conditions. To the religious disadvantages common to the public school of the United States must be added the imitative habit characteristic of the Filipino, and the proselytizing efforts of American Protestant missionaries. The place in which the greatest amount of harm can be done to the religion of the Filipino is the secondary school. Despite the best intentions on the part of the Government, the very fact that the vast majority of the American teachers in these schools are not Catholics incapacitates a great number of them from giving the Catholic interpretation of points of history connected with the Reformation, the preaching of indulgences, the reading of the Bible, etc. Accustomed to identify his religion and his Government, the step towards concluding that the American Government must be a Protestant Government is an easy one for the young Filipino. Further, as the secondary schools are only situated in the provincial capitals, the students leave home to live in the capital of their province. It is among these young people particularly that the American Protestant missionary works. Even though he does not make the student a member of this or that particular sect, a spirit of indifferentism is generated which does not bode well for the future of the country, temporally or spiritually. A nation that is only three centuries distant from habits of idolatry and savagery cannot be removed from daily religious education and still be expected to prosper. That the majority of the Filipino people desires a Christian education for their children may be seen from this, that the Catholic colleges, academics, and school established in all the dioceses are overcrowded. For the present, and for many years to come, the majority of Filipinos cannot afford to pay a double school tax, and hence must accept the educational system imposed upon them by the United States. PHILIP M. FINEGAN Philippopolis, Titular Metropolitan of Philippopolis A titular metropolitan see of Thracia Secunda. The city was founded by Philip of Macedon in 342 b.c. on the site of the legendary Eumolpins. As he sent thither 2000 culprits in addition to the colony of veterans, the town was for some time known as Poniropolis as well as by its official designation. During Alexander's expedition, the entire country fell again under the sway of Seuthes III, King of the Odrysians, and it was only in 313 that the Hellenic supremacy was re-established by Lysimachus. In 200 b.c. the Thracians, for a brief interval it is true, drove back the Macedonian garrisons; later they passed under the protectorate and afterwards the domination of Rome in the time of Tiberius, The city was now called Trimontium, but only for a very short time (Pliny, "Hist. Nat.", IV, xviii). From the reign of Septimius Severus, Philippopolis bears the title of metropolis on coins and in inscriptions. It was there that the conventus of Thrace assembled. In 172 Marcus Aurelius fortified the city with walls; in 248 Philip granted it the title of colony, two years before its destruction by the Goths, who slaughtered 100,000 men there (Ammianus Marcellinus, XXVI, x). Restored again, it became the metropolis of Thracia Secunda. The exact date of the establishment of Christianity in this town is unknown; the oldest testimony, quite open to criticism, however, is in connexion with thirty-seven martyrs, whose feast is celebrated on 20 August, and who are said to have been natives of Philippopolis, though other towns of Thrace are frequently given as their native place. In 344 was held at Philippopolis the conciliabulum of the Eusebians, which brought together 76 bishops separated from their colleagues of Sardica, or Sofia, and adversaries of St. Athanasius and his friends. Among its most celebrated ancient metropolitans is Silvanus, who asked the Patriarch Proclus to transfer him to Troas on account of the severity of the climate, and whose name was inserted by Baronius in the Roman Martyrology for 2 December. Philippopolis, which from the fifth century at the latest was the ecclesiastical metropolis of Thracia Secunda and dependent on the Patriarchate of Constantinople, had three suffragan bishoprics in the middle of the seventh century (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte . . . Texte der Notitiæ episcopatuum", 542); in the tenth century it had ten (ibid., 577); towards the end of the fifteenth century it had none (ibid.). The Greek metropolitan see has continued to exist, in spite of the occupation of the Bulgarians. The latter, however, have erected there an orthodox metropolitan see of their own. Though generally held by the Byzantines Philippopolis was often captured by other peoples -- Huns, Avars, Slavs, Bulgarians, and the Franks who retained it from 1204 till 1235. It was taken by the Turks in 1370 and finally came under the sway of the Bulgarians in 1885. By transporting thither on several occasions Armenian and Syrian colonists, the Byzantines made it an advanced fortress to oppose the Bulgarians; unfortunately these colonists were nearly all Monophysites and especially Paulicians, so the city became the great centre of Manichæism in the Middle Ages. These heretics converted by the Capuchins in the seventeenth century have become fervent Catholics of the Latin rite. The city called Plovdif in Bulgarian contains at present 47,000 inhabitants, of whom about 4000 are Catholics. The Greeks and Turks are fairly numerous; the Catholic parish is in charge of secular priests; there is a seminary, which however has only from 20 to 25 students. The Assumptionists, who number about 30, have had since 1884 a college with a commercial department, attended by 250 pupils; the primary school for boys was established in 1863 by the Assumptionist Sisters; the Sisters of St. Joseph have a boarding-school and a primary school for girls; the Sisters of Charity of Agram have an hospital. LE QUIEN, Oriens. christ., I, 1155-62; TSOUKALAS, Description historico-géographique de l'éparchie de Philippopolis (Vienna, 1851), in Greek; MÜLLER, Ptolemoei Geographia, I (Paris), 483; JIRECEK, Das Fürstenthum Bulgarien (Prague, 1891), 378-87; DUPUY-PÉYOU, La Bulgarie aux Bulgares (Paris, 1896), 142-8, 291-8; Revue franco-bulgare (1910), 10-18. S. VAILHÉ. Philippopolis Philippopolis Titular see in Arabia, suffragan of Bostra. Its bishop, Hormisdas, was present at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (LeQuien, "Oriens christianus", II, 861). An inscription makes known another bishop, Basil, in 553 ("Echos d'Orient", XII, 1909, 103). Philippopolis figures as a see in the "Notitiae Episcopatuum" in the sixth century (op. cit., X, 1907, 145). There were also several titular bishops in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Eubel, "Hierarchia catholica medii aevi", II, 238; III, 291). The ancient name of this place is unknown. The Emperor Philip (244-9) founded this town and gave it his name (Aurelius Victor, "De Caesar.", 28). Thenceforth it grew very rapidly as evidenced by the fine ruins, remains of the colonnades of a temple and colossal baths, discovered on its site at Shohba in the Hauran. WADDINGTON, Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Grece et en Asie Mineure, 490-3; GELZER, Georgii Cyprii Descriptio orbis romani, 204; Revue biblique, VII (1898), 601-3; Echos d'Orient, II (1899), 175. S. VAILHÉ St. Philip Romolo Neri St. Philip Romolo Neri THE APOSTLE OF ROME. Born at Florence, Italy, 22 July, 1515; died 27 May, 1595. Philip's family originally came from Castelfranco but had lived for many generations in Florence, where not a few of its members had practised the learned professions, and therefore took rank with the Tuscan nobility. Among these was Philip's own father, Francesco Neri, who eked out an insufficient private fortune with what he earned as a notary. A circumstance which had no small influence on the life of the saint was Francesco's friendship with the Dominicans; for it was from the friars of S. Marco, amid the memories of Savonarola, that Philip received many of his early religious impressions. Besides a younger brother, who died in early childhood, Philip had two younger sisters, Caterina and Elisabetta. It was with them that "the good Pippo", as he soon began to be called, committed his only known fault. He gave a slight push to Caterina, because she kept interrupting him and Elisabetta, while they were reciting psalms together, a practice of which, as a boy, he was remakably fond. One incident of his childhood is dear to his early biographers as the first visible intervention of Providence on his behalf, and perhaps dearer still to his modern disciples, because it reveals the human characteristics of a boy amid the supernatural graces of a saint. When about eight years old he was left alone in a courtyard to amuse himself; seeing a donkey laden with fruit, he jumped on its back; the beast bolted, and both tumbled into a deep cellar. His parents hastened to the spot and extricated the child, not dead, as they feared, but entirely uninjured. From the first it was evident that Philip's career would run on no conventional lines; when shown his family pedigree he tore it up, and the burning of his father's house left him unconcerned. Having studied the humanities under the best scholars of a scholarly generation, at the age of sixteen he was sent to help his father's cousin in business at S. Germano, near Monte Cassino. He applied himself with diligence, and his kinsman soon determined to make him his heir. But he would often withdraw for prayer to a little mountain chapel belonging to the Benedictines of Monte Cassino, built above the harbour of Gaeta in a cleft of rock which tradition says was among those rent at the hour of Our Lord's death. It was here that his vocation became definite: he was called to be the Apostle of Rome. In 1533 he arrived in Rome without any money. He had not informed his father of the step he was taking, and he had deliberately cut himself off from his kinsman's patronage. He was, however, at once befriended by Galeotto Caccia, a Florentine resident, who gave him a room in his house and an allowance of flour, in return for which he undertook the education of his two sons. For seventeen years Philip lived as a layman in Rome, probably without thinking of becoming a priest. It was perhaps while tutor to the boys, that he wrote most of the poetry which he composed both in Latin and in Italian. Before his death he burned all his writings, and only a few of his sonnets have come down to us. He spent some three years, beginning about 1535, in the study of philosophy at the Sapienza, and of theology in the school of the Augustinians. When he considered that he had learnt enough, he sold his books, and gave the price to the poor. Though he never again made study his regular occupation, whenever he was called upon to cast aside his habitual reticence, he would surprise the most learned with the depth and clearness of his theological knowledge. He now devoted himself entirely to the sanctification of his own soul and the good of his neighbour. His active apostolate began with solitary and unobtrusive visits to the hospitals. Next he induced others to accompany him. Then he began to frequent the shops, warehouses, banks, and public places of Rome, melting the hearts of those whom he chanced to meet, and exhorting them to serve God. In 1544, or later, he became the friend of St. Ignatius. Many of his disciples tried and found their vocations in the infant Society of Jesus; but the majority remained in the world, and formed the nucleus of what afterwards became the Brotherhood of the Little Oratory. Though he "appeared not fasting to men", his private life was that of a hermit. His single daily meal was of bread and water, to which a few herbs were sometimes added, the furniture of his room consisted of a bed, to which he usually preferred the floor, a table, a few chairs, and a rope to hang his clothes on; and he disciplined himself frequently with small chains. Tried by fierce temptations, diabolical as well as human, he passed through them all unscathed, and the purity of his soul manifested itself in certain striking physical traits. He prayed at first mostly in the church of S. Eustachio, hard by Caccia's house. Next he took to visiting the Seven Churches. But it was in the catacomb of S. Sebastiano -- confounded by early biographers with that of S. Callisto -- that he kept the longest vigils and received the most abundant consolations. In this catacomb, a few days before Pentecost in 1544, the well-known miracle of his heart took place. Bacci describes it thus: "While he was with the greatest earnestness asking of the Holy Ghost His gifts, there appeared to him a globe of fire, which entered into his mouth and lodged in his breast; and thereupon he was suddenly surprised with such a fire of love, that, unable to bear it, he threw himself on the ground, and, like one trying to cool himself, bared his breast to temper in some measure the flame which he felt. When he had remained so for some time, and was a little recovered, he rose up full of unwonted joy, and immediately all his body began to shake with a violent tremour; and putting his hand to his bosom, he felt by the side of his heart, a swelling about as big as a man's fist, but neither then nor afterwards was it attended with the slightest pain or wound." The cause of this swelling was discovered by the doctors who examined his body after death. The saint's heart had been dilated under the sudden impulse of love, and in order that it might have sufficient room to move, two ribs had been broken, and curved in the form of an arch. From the time of the miracle till his death, his heart would palpitate violently whenever he performed any spiritual action. During his last years as a layman, Philip's apostolate spread rapidly. In 1548, together with his confessor, Persiano Rosa, he founded the Confraternity of the Most Holy Trinity for looking after pilgrims and convalescents. Its members met for Communion, prayer, and other spiritual exercises in the church of S. Salvatore, and the saint himself introduced exposition of the Blessed Sacrament once a month (see FORTY HOURS' DEVOTION). At these devotions Philip preached, though still a layman, and we learn that on one occasion alone he converted no less than thirty dissolute youths. In 1550 a doubt occurred to him as to whether he should not discontinue his active work and retire into absolute solitude. His perplexity was set at rest by a vision of St. John the Baptist, and by another vision of two souls in glory, one of whom was eating a roll of bread, signifying God's will that he should live in Rome for the good of souls as though he were in a desert, abstaining as far as possible from the use of meat. In 1551, however, he received a true vocation from God. At the bidding of his confessor -- nothing short of this would overcome his humility -- he entered the priesthood, and went to live at S. Girolamo, where a staff of chaplains was supported by the Confraternity of Charity. Each priest had two rooms assigned to him, in which he lived, slept, and ate, under no rule save that of living in charity with his brethren. Among Philip's new companions, besides Persiano Rosa, was Buonsignore Cacciaguerra (see "A Precursor of St. Philip" by Lady Amabel Kerr, London), a remarkable penitent, who was at that time carrying on a vigorous propaganda in favour of frequent Communion. Philip, who as a layman had been quietly encouraging the frequent reception of the sacraments, expended the whole of his priestly energy in promoting the same cause; but unlike his precursor, he recommended the young especially to confess more often than they communicated. The church of S. Girolamo was much frequented even before the coming of Philip, and his confessional there soon became the centre of a mighty apostolate. He stayed in church, hearing confessions or ready to hear them, from daybreak till nearly midday, and not content with this, he usually confessed some forty persons in his room before dawn. Thus he laboured untiringly throughout his long priesthood. As a physician of souls he received marvellous gifts from God. He would sometimes tell a penitent his most secret sins without his confessing them; and once he converted a young nobleman by showing him a vision of hell. Shortly before noon he would leave his confessional to say Mass. His devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, like the miracle of his heart, is one of those manifestations of sanctity which are peculiarly his own. So great was the fervour of his charity, that, instead of recollecting himself before Mass, he had to use deliberate means of distraction in order to attend to the external rite. During the last five years of his life he had permission to celebrate privately in a little chapel close to his room. At the "Agnus Dei" the server went out, locked the doors, and hung up a notice: "Silence, the Father is saying Mass". When he returned in two hours or more, the saint was so absorbed in God that he seemed to be at the point of death. Philip devoted his afternoons to men and boys, inviting them to informal meetings in his room, taking them to visit churches, interesting himself in their amusements, hallowing with his sweet influence every department of their lives. At one time he had a longing desire to follow the example of St. Francis Xavier, and go to India. With this end in view, he hastened the ordination of some of his companions. But in 1557 he sought the counsel of a Cistercian at Tre Fontane; and as on a former occasion he had been told to make Rome his desert, so now the monk communicated to him a revelation he had had from St. John the Evangelist, that Rome was to be his India. Philip at once abandoned the idea of going abroad, and in the following year the informal meetings in his room developed into regular spiritual exercises in an oratory, which he built over the church. At these exercises laymen preached and the excellence of the discourses, the high quality of the music, and the charm of Philip's personality attracted not only the humble and lowly, but men of the highest rank and distinction in Church and State. Of these, in 1590, Cardinal Nicolo Sfondrato, became Pope Gregory XIV, and the extreme reluctance of the saint alone prevented the pontiff from forcing him to accept the cardinalate. In 1559, Philip began to organize regular visits to the Seven Churches, in company with crowds of men, priests and religious, and laymen of every rank and condition. These visits were the occasion of a short but sharp persecution on the part of a certain malicious faction, who denounced him as "a setter-up of new sects". The cardinal vicar himself summoned him, and without listening to his defence, rebuked him in the harshest terms. For a fortnight the saint was suspended from hearing confessions; but at the end of that time he made his defence, and cleared himself before the ecclesiastical authorities. In 1562, the Florentines in Rome begged him to accept the office of rector of their church, S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, but he was reluctant to leave S. Girolamo. At length the matter was brought before Pius IV, and a compromise was arrived at (1564). While remaining himself at S. Girolamo, Philip became rector of S. Giovanni, and sent five priests, one of whom was Baronius, to represent him there. They lived in community under Philip as their superior, taking their meals together, and regularly attending the exercises at S. Girolamo. In 1574, however, the exercises began to be held in an oratory at S. Giovanni. Meanwhile the community was increasing in size, and in 1575 it was formally recognised by Gregory XIII as the Congregation of the Oratory, and given the church of S. Maria in Vallicella. The fathers came to live there in 1577, in which year they opened the Chiesa Nuova, built on the site of the old S. Maria, and transferred the exercises to a new oratory. Philip himself remained at S. Girolamo till 1583, and it was only in obedience to Gregory XIII that he then left his old home and came to live at the Vallicella. The last years of his life were marked by alternate sickness and recovery. In 1593, he showed the true greatness of one who knows the limits of his own endurance, and resigned the office of superior which had been conferred on him for life. In 1594, when he was in an agony of pain, the Blessed Virgin appeared to him, and cured him. At the end of March, 1595, he had a severe attack of fever, which lasted throughout April; but in answer to his special prayer God gave him strength to say Mass on 1 May in honour of SS. Philip and James. On the following 12 May he was seized with a violent haemorrhage, and Cardinal Baronius, who had succeeded him as superior, gave him Extreme Unction. After that he seemed to revive a little and his friend Cardinal Frederick Borromeo brought him the Viaticum, which he received with loud protestations of his own unworthiness. On the next day he was perfectly well, and till the actual day of his death went about his usual duties, even reciting the Divine Office, from which he was dispensed. But on 15 May he predicted that he had only ten more days to live. On 25 May, the feast of Corpus Christi, he went to say Mass in his little chapel, two hours earlier than usual. "At the beginning of his Mass", writes Bacci, "he remained for some time looking fixedly at the hill of S. Onofrio, which was visible from the chapel, just as if he saw some great vision. On coming to the Gloria in Excelsis he began to sing, which was an unusual thing for him, and sang the whole of it with the greatest joy and devotion, and all the rest of the Mass he said with extraordinary exultation, and as if singing." He was in perfect health for the rest of that day, and made his usual night prayer; but when in bed, he predicted the hour of the night at which he would die. About an hour after midnight Father Antonio Gallonio, who slept under him, heard him walking up and down, and went to his room. He found him lying on the bed, suffering from another haemorrhage. "Antonio, I am going", he said; Gallonio thereupon fetched the medical men and the fathers of the congregation. Cardinal Baronius made the commendation of his soul, and asked him to give the fathers his final blessing. The saint raised his hand slightly, and looked up to heaven. Then inclining his head towards the fathers, he breathed his last. Philip was beatified by Paul V in 1615, and canonized by Gregory XV in 1622. It is perhaps by the method of contrast that the distinctive characteristics of St. Philip and his work are brought home to us most forcibly (see Newman, "Sermons on Various Occasions", n. xii; "Historical Sketches", III, end of ch. vii). We hail him as the patient reformer, who leaves outward things alone and works from within, depending rather on the hidden might of sacrament and prayer than on drastic policies of external improvement; the director of souls who attaches more value to mortification of the reason than to bodily austerities, protests that men may become saints in the world no less than in the cloister, dwells on the importance of serving God in a cheerful spirit, and gives a quaintly humorous turn to the maxims of ascetical theology; the silent watcher of the times, who takes no active part in ecclesiastical controversies and is yet a motive force in their development, now encouraging the use of ecclesiastical history as a bulwark against Protestantism, now insisting on the absolution of a monarch, whom other counsellors would fain exclude from the sacraments (see BARONIUS), now praying that God may avert a threatened condemnation (see SAVONAROLA) and receiving a miraculous assurance that his prayer is heard (see Letter of Ercolani referred to by Capecelatro); the founder of a Congregation, which relies more on personal influence than on disciplinary organization, and prefers the spontaneous practice of counsels of perfection to their enforcement by means of vows; above all, the saint of God, who is so irresistibly attractive, so eminently lovable in himself, as to win the title of the "Amabile santo". GALLONIO, companion of the saint was the first to produce a Life of St. Philip, published in Latin (1600) and in Italian (1601), written with great precision, and following a strictly chronological order. Several medical treatises were written on the saint's palpitation and fractured ribs, e. g. ANGELO DA BAGNAREA's Medica disputatio de palpitatione cordis, fractura costarum, aliisque affectionibus B. Philippi Nerii. . .qua ostenditur praedictas affectiones fuisse supra naturam, dedicated to Card. Frederick Borromeo (Rome, 1613). BACCI wrote an Italian Life and dedicated it to Gregory XV (1622). His work is the outcome of a minute examination of the processes of canonization, and contains important matter not found in GALLONIO. BROCCHI's Life of St. Philip, contained in his Vite de' santi e beati Fiorentini (Florence, 1742), includes the saint's pedigree, and gives the Florentine tradition of his early years; for certain chronological discrepancies between GALLONIO, BACCI, and BROCCHI, see notes on the chronology in ANTROBUS' ed. of BACCI. Other Lives are by RICCI (Rome, 1670), whose work was an enlargement of BACCI, and includes his own Lives of the Companions of St. Philip; MARCIANO (1693); SONZONIO (1727); BERNABEI (d. 1662), whose work is published for the first time by the BOLLANDISTS (Acta SS., May, VII); RAMIREZ, who adapts the language of Scripture to St. Philip in a Latin work called the Via lactea, dedicated to Innocent XI (Valencia, 1682); and BAYLE (1859). GEOTHE at the end of his Italien. Reise (Italian Journey) gives a sketch of the saint, entitled Filippo Neri, der humoristische Heilige. The most important modern Life is that of CAPECELATRO (1879), treating fully of the saint's relations with the persons and events of his time. There is an English Life by HOPE (London, New York, Cincinnati, Chicago). An abridged English translation of BACCI appeared in penal times (Paris, 1656), a fact which shows our Catholic forefathers' continued remembrance of the saint, who used to greet the English College students with the words, "Salvete, flores martyrum." FABER's Modern Saints (1847) includes translations of an enlarged ed. of BACCI, and of RICCI's Lives of the Companions. Of the former there is a new and revised edition by ANTROBUS (London, 1902). CAPECELATRO's work has been translated by POPE (London, 1882). English renderings of two of St. Philip's sonnets by RYDER are published at the end of the recent editions of BACCI and CAPECELATRO, together with translations of St. Philip's letters. These were originally published in BISCONI's Raccolta di lettere di santi e beati Fiorentini (Florence, 1737); but since that time twelve other letters have come to light. C. SEBASTIAN RITCHIE Peter Philips Peter Philips (Also known as PETRUS PHILIPPUS, PIETRO PHILLIPO.) Born in England about 1560; date and place of death unknown. It is generally accepted that Philips, remaining faithful to the Church, left England for the Netherlands, whence he went to Rome, and afterwards, returning to Antwerp, became organist at the court of the governor, Duke Albert. Having entered Holy orders, he held a canonry at Bethune, in Flanders, which he exchanged for a similar honour at Soignes in 1612. It has been pointed out that the title-pages of his published works are the best index to his movements and abiding places, and they are various. Philips ranks in importance as a musician with Tallys, Byrd, Morley, and Orlando Gibbons, and is considered one of the great masters of his time. Besides canzoni and madrigals for six and eight voices, he left innumerable instrumental works which have been preserved in the libraries of Antwerp, Leyden, Strasburg, and London. Nineteen of these are contained in "The Fitz-William Virginal Book" by J. A. Fuller- Maitland and W. B. Squire. To the Church, however, Philips devoted his best efforts. Besides single numbers found in various collections of his period, a volume of five-part motets; another of similar works for eight voices; "Gemmulae sacrae" for two and three voices and figured bass; "Les rossignols spirituels", a collection of two- and four-part pieces, some to Latin words, but most of them to French; "Deliciae sacrae", forty-one compositions for two and three parts, are preserved in the British Museum. The library of John IV of Portugal contains Philips's posthumous works -- masses for six, eight, and nine voices, and motets for eight voices. His "Cantiones sacrae" have recently been made available for modern use, and have been added to the repertoire of the choir of Westminster Cathedral. BERGMANS, L'Organiste des archiducs Albert et Isabelle (Ghent, 1903); SQUIRE in GROVE, Dictionary of Music, s.v. JOSEPH OTTEN Philip the Arabian Philip the Arabian (Philippus) Emperor of Rome (244-249), the son of an Arab sheik, born in Bosra. He rose to be an influential officer of the Roman army. In 243 the Emperor Gordianus III was at war with Persia; the administration of the army and the empire were directed with great success by his father-in-law Timesitheus. Timesitheus, however, died in 243 and the helpless Gordianus, a minor, appointed Marcus Julius Philippus as his successor. By causing a scarcity of provisions Philip increased the exasperation of the soldiers against the emperor and they proclaimed Philip emperor. Philip now had Gordianus secretly executed. However, as he erected a monument to Gordianus on the Euphrates and deified him, he deceived the Senate and obtained recognition as emperor. He abandoned the advantages Timesitheus had won from the Persian King Sapor. He withdrew from Asia, and recalled a large number of divisions of the army from Dacia, Rhaetia, and Britain to northern Italy to protect it against incursions from the East. On account of invasions by the Capri he hastened to the lower Danube, where he was successful in two battles. Consequently on coins he bears the surname of Carpicus Maximus. Philip gave high offices of State to his relations who misused these positions. He also made his son Philip, when seven years of age, co-ruler. The most important event of his reign was the celebration of the thousandth year of the existence of Rome in April, 248. The insecurity of his authority in the outlying districts showed itself in the appearance of rival emperors proclaimed by the legions stationed there. The Goths sought to settle permanently in Roman territory; and as the army of the Danube could not defend itself without a centralized control, the soldiers, at the close of 248, forced Decius, sent to suppress the mutinies, to accept the position of emperor. Decius advanced into Italy, where he defeated Philip near Verona. Philip and his son were killed. During Philip's reign Christians were not disturbed. The emperor also issued police regulations for the maintenance of public morality. A statement of St. Jerome's caused Philip to be regarded in the Middle Ages as the first Christian Emperor of Rome. MOMMSEN, Rom. Gesch. V (Berlin, 1885); for further bibliography, see PERTINAX. KARL HOEBER Philistines Philistines (Septuagint phylistieim in the Pentateuch and Josue, elsewhere allophyloi, "foreigners"). In the Biblical account the Philistines come into prominence as the inhabitants of the maritime plain of Palestine from the time of the Judges onward. They are mentioned in the genealogy of the nations (Genesis 10:14; cf. I Par. 1:11-12), where together with the Caphtorim they are set down as descendants of Mesraim. It is conjectured with probability that they came originally from Crete, sometimes identified with Caphtor, and that they belonged to a piratical, seafaring people. They make their first appearance in Biblical history late in the period of the Judges in connection with the prophesied birth of the hero Samson. The angel appearing to Saraa, wife of Manue of the race of Dan, tells her that, though barren, she shall bear a son who "shall begin to deliver Israel from the hands of the Philistines" (Judges 13:1-5); and we are informed in the same passage that the domination of the Philistines over Israel had lasted forty years. In the subsequent chapters graphic accounts are given of the encounters between Samson and these enemies of his nation who were encroaching upon Israel's western border. In the early days of Samuel we find the Philistines trying to make themselves masters of the interior of Palestine, and in one of the ensuing battles they succeeded in capturing the Ark of the Covenant (I Kings 4). The coming of a pestilence upon them, however, induced them to return it, and it remained for many years in the house of Abinadab in Cariathiarim (I Kings 5; 6; 7). After Saul became king the Philistines tried to break his power, but were unsuccessful, chiefly owing to the bravery of Jonathan (I Kings 13; 14). Their progress was not, however, permanently checked, for we are told (I Kings 14:52) that there was a "great war against the Philistines all the days of Saul", and at the end of the latter's reign we find their army still in possession of the rich plain of Jezrael including the city of Bethsan on its eastern border (I Kings 31:10). They met with a severe defeat, however, early in the reign of David (II Kings 5:20-25), who succeeded in reducing them to a state of vassalage (II Kings 8:1). Prior to this date the power of the Philistines seems to have been concentrated in the hands of the rulers of the cities of Gaza, Ascalon, Azotus (Ashdod), Accaron, and Geth, and a peculiar title signifying "Lord of the Philistines" was borne by each of these petty kings. The Philistines regained their independence at the end of the reign of David, probably about the time of the schism, for we find the Kings of Israel in the ninth century endeavouring to wrest from them Gebbethon, a city on the border of the maritime plain (III Kings 15:27; 16:15). Towards the close of the same century the Assyrian ruler, King Adad-Nirari, placed them under tribute and began the long series of Assyrian interference in Philistine affairs. In Amos (1:6, 8) we find a denunciation of the Philistine monarchies as among the independent kingdoms of the time. During the latter part of the eighth century and during the whole of the seventh the history of the Philistines is made up of a continual series of conspiracies, conquests, and rebellions. Their principal foes were the Assyrians on the one side and the Egyptians on the other. In the year of the fall of Samaria (721 B.C.) they became vassals of Sargon. They rebelled, however, ten years later under the leadership of Ashdod, but without permanent success. Another attempt was made to shake off the Assyrian yoke at the end of the reign of Sennacherib. In this conflict the Philistine King of Accaron, who remained faithful to Sennacherib, was cast into prison by King Ezechias of Juda. The allies who were thus brought together were defeated at Eltekeh and the result was the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib (IV Kings 18; 19). Esarhaddon and Asurbanipal in their western campaigns crossed the territory of the Philistines and held it in subjection, and after the decline of Assyria the encroachments of the Assyrians gave place to those of the Egyptians under the Twenty-sixth Dynasty. It is probable that the Philistines suffered defeat at the hands of Nabuchodonosor, though no record of his conquest of them has been preserved. The old title "Lords of the Philistines" has now disappeared, and the title "King" is bestowed by the Assyrians on the Philistine rulers. The siege of Gaza, which held out against Alexander the Great, is famous, and we find the Ptolemies and Seleucids frequently fighting over Philistine territory. The land finally passed under Roman rule, and its cities had subsequently an important history. After the time of the Assyrians the Philistines cease to be mentioned by this name. Thus Herodotus speaks of the "Arabians" as being in possession of the lower Mediterranean coast in the time of Cambyses. From this it is inferred by some that at that time the Philistines had been supplanted. In the ebb and flow of warring nations over this land it is more than probable that they were gradually absorbed and lost their identity. It is generally supposed that the Philistines adopted in the main the religion and civilization of the Chanaanites. In I Kings 5:2, we read: "And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it into the temple of Dragon, and set it by Dragon", from which we infer that their chief god was this Semitic deity. The latter appears in the Tel el-Amarna Letters and also in the Babylonian inscriptions. At Ascalon likewise there was a temple dedicated to the Semitic goddess Ishtar, and as the religion of the Philistines was thus evidently Semitic, so also were probably the other features of their civilization. Besides the standard Commentaries see MASPERO, Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'Orient (6th ed., Paris, 1904), tr., The Dawn of Civilization (4th ed., London, 1901); BRUGSCH, Egypt under the Pharaohs (tr., London, 1880), ix-xiv. JAMES F. DRISCOLL Robert Phillip Robert Phillip Priest, d. at Paris, 4 Jan., 1647. He was descended from the Scottish family of Phillip of Sanquhar, but nothing is known of his early life. Ordained in Rome, he returned in 1612 to Scotland where he was betrayed by his father, seized while saying Mass, and tried at Edinburgh as a seminary priest, 14 Sept., 1613. The sentence of death was commuted to banishment, and he withdrew to France, where he joined the French Oratory recently founded by Cardinal de Bérulle. In 1628 he went to England as confessor to Queen Henrietta Maria, and at her request he besought the pope for financial aid against the king's enemies. The subsequent negotiations were discovered, and Phillip was impeached on the charge of being a papal spy and of having endeavoured to pervert Prince Charles, but proceedings dropped owing to the displeasure of Richelieu at the introduction of his own name into the matter. Later he was committed to the Tower for refusing to be sworn on the Anglican Bible on 2 Nov., 1641, when he had been summoned by the Lords' committee to be examined touching State matters. Released through the queen's influence, he accompanied her to The Hague in March, 1642, and remained with her in Paris till his death. NALSON, Collection of Affairs of State, II (London, 1682-3); BERINGTON, Memoirs of Panzani (Birmingham, 1793); STOTHERT; Catholic Church in Scotland, ed. GORDON (Glasgow, 1869); FOLEY, Records of Eng. Jesuits, V (London, 1879); SECCOMBE in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. PHILIPS, ROBERT; GILLOW, Bible. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v. EDWIN BURTON Phillips, George George Phillips A canonist, born at Königsberg, 6 Sept., 1804; died at Vienna, 6 September, 1872, was the son of James Phillips, an Englishman who had acquired wealth as a merchant in Königsberg, and of a Scotchwoman née Hay. On completing his course at the gymnasium, George studied law at the Universities of Berlin and Göttingen (1822-24); his principal teachers were von Savigny and Eichhorn, and, under the influence of the latter, he devoted himself mainly to the study of Germanic law. After obtaining the degree of Doctor of Law at Göttingen in 1824, he paid a long visit to England. In 1826 he qualified at Berlin as Privatdozent (tutor) for German law, and in 1827 was appointed professor extraordinary in this faculty. In the same year he married Charlotte Housselle, who belonged to a French Protestant family settled in Berlin. Phillips formed a close friendship with his colleague K. E. Jarcke, professor at Berlin since 1825, who had entered the Catholic Church in 1824. Jarcke's influence and his own searching studies into medieval Germany led to the conversion of Phillips and his wife in 1828 (14 May). Jarcke having removed to Vienna in 1832, Phillips accepted in 1833 a call to Munich as counsel in the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior. In 1834 he was named professor of history, and a few months later professor of law at the University of Munich. He now joined that circle of illustrious men including the two Görres, Möhler, Döllinger, and Ringseis, who, filled with enthusiasm for the Church, laboured for the renewal of the religious life, the defence of Catholic rights and religious freedom, and the revival of Catholic scholarship. In 1838 he founded with Guido Görres the still flourishing militant "Historischpolitische Blätter". His lectures, notable for their excellence and form, treated with unusual fullness subjects connected with ecclesiastical interests. In consequence of the Lola Montez affair, in connexion with which Phillips signed, with six other Munich professors, an address of sympathy with the dismissed minister Abel, he was relieved of his chair in 1847. In 1848 he was elected deputy of a Münster district for the National Assembly of Frankfort, at which he energetically upheld the Catholic interests. In 1850, after declining a call as professor to Würzburg, he accepted the chair of German law at Innsbruck, and there resumed his academic activity. Invited to fill the same chair in Vienna in 1851, he removed to the Austrian capital, and remained there until his death. Once (1862-7) he accepted a long leave of absence to complete his "Kirchenrecht". He always maintained his relations with his friends in Munich and other cities of Germany, and never relaxed his activity in furthering Catholic interests. As a writer, his labours lay in the domain of German law, canon law, and their respective histories. At first his activity was directed mainly to the first-mentioned, his principal contributions on the subject being: "Versuch einer Darstellung des angelsächsischen Rechtes" (Göttingen, 1825); "Englische Reichs- und Rechtsgeschichte", of which two volumes (dealing with the period 1066-1189) appeared (Berlin, 1827-8); "Deutsche Geschichte mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Religion, Recht und Verfassung", of which two volumes alone were issued (Berlin, 1832-4), deals with Merovingian and Carlovingian times; "Grundsätze des gemeinen deutschen Privatrechts mit Einschluss des Lehnrechts" (Berlin, 1838); "Deutsche Reichs- und Rechtsgeschichte" (Munich, 1845). After his call to Munich, however, Phillips recognized his chief task in the treatment of canon law from the strictly Catholic standpoint. In addition to numerous smaller treatises, he published in this domain: "Die Diözesansynode" (Freiburg, 1849), and especially his great "Kirchenrecht", which appeared in seven volumes (Ratisbon, 1845-72), and was continued by Vering (vol. VIII, i, Ratisbon, 1889). This comprehensive and important work exercised a great influence on the study of canon law and its principles. Phillips also published a "Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts" (Ratisbon, 1859-62; 3rd ed. by Moufang, 1881) and "Vermischte Schriften" (3 vols., Ratisbon, 1856-60). ROSENTHAL, Konvertitenbilder, I (2nd ad.), 478 sqq., SCHULTE in Allg. deutsche Biogr., XXVI (Leipzig, 1888), 80 sqq.; WURZBACH, Biogr. Lex. d. Kaisertums Oesterreich, XXII, 211 sqq. J. P. KIRSCH. Philo Judaeus Philo Judæus Born about 25 b.c.. His family, of a sacerdotal line, was one of the most powerful of the populous Jewish colony of Alexandria. His brother Alexander Lysimachus was steward to Anthony's second daughter, and married one of his sons to the daughter of Herod Agrippa, whom he had put under financial obligations. Alexander's son, Tiberius Alexander, apostatized and became procurator of Judea and Prefect of Egypt. Philo must have received a Jewish education, studying the laws and national traditions, but he followed also the Greek plan of studies (grammar with reading of the poets, geometry, rhetoric, dialectics) which he reagarded as a preparation for philosophy. Notwithstanding the lack of direct information about his philosophical training, his works show that he had a first hand knowledge of the stoical theories then prevailing, Plato's dialogues, the neo-Pythagorean works, and the moral popular literature, the outcome of Cynicism. He remained, however, profoundly attached to the Jewish religion with all the practices which it implied among the Jews of the dispersion and of which the basis was the unity of worship at the Temple in Jerusalem. Toward the Alexandrine community and the duties which it required of him, his attitude was perhaps changeable; he possessed in his youth a taste for an exclusively contemplative life and solitary retreats; and he complains of an official function which forced him to abandon his studies. Later he became engrossed with the material and moral interests of the community. His "Allegorical Commentary" often alludes to the vocations to which the Alexandrine Jews were subjected; a special treatise is devoted to the persecution of Flaccus, Prefect of Egypt. The best-known episode of his life is the voyage he made to Rome in 39; he had been chosen as head of the embassy which was to lay before Emperor Caius Caligula the complaints of the Jews regarding the introduction of statues of the emperor in the synagogues. This hardship, due to the Alexandrians, was all the more grievous to the Jews, as they had long been known for their loyalty, and their attachment to the empire was doubtless one of the chief causes of anti-Semitism at Alexandria. The drawing up of the account of the embassy shortly after the death of Caius (41) is the latest known fact in the life of Philo. Writings These contain most valuable information, not only on the intellectual and moral situation of the Jewish community at Alexandria, but still more on the philosophical and religious syncretism prevailing in Greek civilization. They may be divided: (1) expositon of the Jewish Law; (2) apologetical works; (3) philosophical treatises. (1) The expositons of the Law are in three works of varied character: (a) "The Exposition of the Law", which begins by a treatise on the creation of the world (Commentaries on the first chapter of Genesis) and continues with treatises on Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (those on Isaac and Jacob are lost). Each of the patriarchs is considered as a type of a virtue and the life as a natural or unwritten law. Then follows a series of treatises on the laws written by Moses, grouped in order according to the Ten Commandments. The Exposition closes with the laws referring to general virtues (On Justice and Courage), and a treatise on the reward reserved to those who obey the Law. (See "De Præmiis et Poe;nis", §§ 1, 2.) (b) The great "Allegorical Commentary on Genesis" is the chief source of information regarding Philo's ideas; in it he applies systematically the method of allegorical interpretation. The commentary follows the order of verses from Gen., ii, 1, to iv, 17, with some more or less important lacunæ. It is not known whether the work began by a treatise on chapter 1, concerning creation; in any case, it can be seen from the allusions to this chapter that Philo had a system of interpretation on this point. Notwithstanding its form, this work is not a series of interpretations strung together verse by verse; the author considers Genesis in its entirety as a history of the soul from its formation in the intelligible world to the complete development of wisdom after its fall and its restoration by repentance (see ed. Mangey, "De Posteritate Caini", p. 259). The object of the allegorical method is to discern in each person and in his actions the symbol of some phase either in the fall or in the restoration of the soul. (c) "Questions and Solutions" are a series of questions set down at each verse of the Mosaic books. An Armenian translation has preserved the questions on Genesis (Gen., ii, 4- xxiii, 8, with lacunæ) and the questions on Exodus (Ex., xii, 2-xxviii, 38), some Greek fragments of these works and of the questions on Leviticus, a very mediocre Latin translation of the last part of the questions on Genesis (iv, 154 sq.). In Samson and Jonas, there is much less unity than in the preceding ones. This first group of works is addressed to readers already initiated in the Mosaic Law, i.e. to the author's coreligionists. (2) It is quite different with his apologetical writings. The "Life of Moses" is a résumé of the Jewish Law, intended for a larger public. The treatise "On Repentance" was written for the edification of the newly converted. The treatise "On Humanity" which followed that "On Piety" seems from its introduction to pertain to the "Life of Moses" and not to the "Exposition of the Law" as tradition and some contemporaneous scholars maintain. The Upothetiná (fragments in Eusebius, "Evangelical Preparation", VIII, v, vi) as well as the "Apology for the Jews" (ibid., VIII, x) were written to defend his coreligionists against calumnies, while the "Contemplative Life" was to cultivate the best fruits of the Mosaic worship. The "Against Flaccus" and the "Embassy to Caius", with another work lost in the persecution of Sejanus, were intended to establish the truth about the pretended impiety of the Jews. (3) Finally, we have purely philosophical treatises: "On the Liberty of the Wise", "On the Incorruptibility of the World" (authenticity contested by Bernays, but generally admitted now), "On Providence", "On Animals" (these last two in the Armenian translations). The small treatise "De Mundo" is merely a compilation of passages from other works. The question of chronology is more difficult than that of classification. The solution of the difficulty would be of great value especially for the subdivisions of the first group of writings, in order to understand the development of Philo's doctrines; but on this point there is a wide divergence of opinion. It is probable, however, that the "Exposition of the Law" with the frequent appeals to the authority of the masters and its cautious way of introducing the allegorical interpretation is anterior to the "Allegorical Commentary" which shows more assurance and independence of thought. Doctrine Philo's work belongs for the most part to the immense literature of commentaries on the Law, and it is especially as a commentator that he must be considered. But in this regard he holds a unique place. First of all, he uses the Greek translation of the Septuagint. The variations that have been pointed out between his text and that which we now possess of the Septuagint may be explained to our satisfaction, not by the reading of the Hebrew text (Ritter), but by the fact that our recension is of a later date than the one he used. Furthermore, his method of interpretation appears as something new and original among the juridical commentaries of the Palestinian rabbis. Eliminating what formed the common basis of all commentaries of this kind-the interpretation of the Hebrew proper names (Philo gives them at times a Greek etymology), the particular rules for the signs which indicate that Moses intended us to look beyond the literal sense (Siegfried), the oral traditions added to the account of the Pentateuch (and again, at the beginning of the "Life of Moses" these traditions are clearly of Alexandrine origin), and the prescriptions of the worship in Jerusalem-two essential features remain: first, the conviction that the Jewish law is identical with the natural; and then the allegorical interpretation. The first, according to which the acts of the prophets and the prescriptions of Moses are regarded as ideals conformable to nature (in the Stoic sense), gives to the Jewish religion a universality incompatible with the narrow national Messianism of the Jewish sibyls. Philo thus abandons entirely the Messianic promises; there is no national tradition to exclude the Gentile from Judaism. To find his precursors one must go back to the Prophets; tradition he revives, but only with serious modifications. To the idea of moral universality he adds the idea of nature which he received from the Stoics. His interpretation is wholly bent on identifying the Mosaic prescription with natural law. The second feature is the allegorical interpretation. Without doubt Philo had his predecessors among the Alexandrines. The proof of this is found not in the fragments of Aristobulus (which are grossly false and later than Philo), but in the work of Philo himself, which is based sometimes on the authority of his predecessors, in the "Wisdom of Solomon" (an Alexandrine work of the first century b.c., which contains some traces of this method), and finally in the description Philo has given us of the occupations of the Therapeutæ and the Essenes. The tradition, however, thus formed cannot have amounted to much, for it does not prevail against personal inspiration and it lacks unity. This interpretation appears to us rather as a day-by-day creation of that age, and in Philo's works we can follow an allegory in process of formation, e.g. the interpretation of man "after the image of God". The development of the interior moral life as Philo conceived it is always bound up with his allegorical method. This method differs from that of most of his Greek predecessors who sought an artificial means to bring out the philosophical conceptions in time-honoured texts, such as that of Homer. As a rule he does not search in the sacred text for any strictly philosophical theory; more often he puts forth these theories directly on their own merits. Though at times enthusiastic in his admiration of Greek philosophers, he does not try to represent them as unavowed disciples of Moses. What he seeks in Genesis is not this or that truth, but the description of the attitudes of the soul towards God, such as innocence, sin, repentance. The allegorical method of Philo neither proves nor attempts to prove anything. It is not a mode of apologetic; in the "Life of Moses" e.g. this method is seldom employed; the only apologetic feature is the presentation of the high moral import of the Jewish laws taken in their literal sense. But the method is indispensable for the interior life; it gives the concrete image which the mystic needs to explain his effusions, and it makes the Jewish books profitable in the spiritual life. The spiritual life consists in the feeling of confidence which gives us faith in God, a feeling which coincides with that of the nothingness of man left to his own strength. Faith in God is not in itself the condition but the end or crowning of this life, and human life oscillates between confidence in self and confidence in God. This God conceived in His relations with the moral needs of man has the omnipotence and infinite goodness of the God of the prophets; it is by no means the God of the Stoics, in direct relation with the cosmos rather than with man. Under this influence the Philonian cult became an eminently moral one: the originality of Philonism consists in its moral interpretation of the actions of the divinity upon the world, which till then had been regarded more in their physical aspect. The fundamental idea is here that of Divine power conceived according to the manner of the Jews as goodness and sovereignty in relation to man. It is remarkable that with this idea the cosmic power of philosophy or of Greek religion is transformed by Philo into moral power. Divine wisdom is without doubt like the Isis in Plutarch's treatise, mother of the world, but above all mother of goodness in the virtuous soul. The "Man of God" is the moral consciousness of man rather than the prototype or ideal. The Divine spirit is transformed from the material ether into the principle of moral inspiration. We recognize, it is true, the traces of the cosmic origin of the Divine intermediaries; the angels are material intermediaries as well as spiritual, and Philo accepts the belief in the power of the heavenly bodies as an inferior degree of wisdom. Nevertheless he did his best to suppress every material intermediary between man and God. This is quite evident in the celebrated theory of the Logos of God. This Logos, which according to the Stoics is the bond between the different parts of the world, and according to the Heracliteans the source of the cosmic oppositions, is regarded by Philo as the Divine word which reveals God to the soul and calms the passions (see Logos). It is finally from this point of view of the interior life that Philo transforms the moral conception of the Greeks which he knew mainly in the most popular forms (cynical diatribes); he discovers in them the idea of the moral conscience accepted though but slightly developed by philosophers up to that time. A very interesting point of view is the consideration of the various moral systems of the Greeks, not simply as true or false, but as so many indications of the soul's progress or recoil at different stages. Consult various editions of Philo's works: Mangey (2 vols., London, 1742); Cohn and Wendland, I-V (Berlin, 1896-1906); Cumont, De Æternitate Mundi (Berlin, 1891); Conybeare, Philo about Contemplative Life (Oxford, 1895); Harris, Fragments of Philo Judæus (Cambridge, 1886); Wendland, Neuentdeckte Fragmente Philos (Berlin, 1891). Writings: Grossmann, De Philonis operum continua serie, I (Leipzig, 1841), II (1842); Massebieau, Le Classement des OEuvres de Philon in Biblioth. de l'Ecole des hautes études, I (1889), 191; Massebieau and BrÉhier, Chronologie de la Vie et des OEuvres de Philon in Revue d'hist. des Relig. (1906), 1-3. Doctrine: Drummond, Philo Judæus (2 vols., London, 1888); Herriot, Philon le Juif; Essai sur l'Ecole Juive d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1898); Martin, Philon (Paris, 1907); BrÉhier, Les Idées Philosophiques et Religieuses de Philon d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1908); SchÜrer, Gesch. des Judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3rd ed., Berlin, 1909); Siegfried, Philo v. Alexandria als Ausleger d. A. T. (Jena, 1875). Emile BrÉhier Philomelium Philomelium A titular see in Pisidia, suffragan of Antioch. According to ancient writers Philomelium was situated in the south-west of Phrygia near the frontier of Lycaonia, on the road from Synnada to Iconium. It formed part of the "conventus" of Synnada. Its coins show that it was allied with the neighbouring city of Mandropolis (now Mandra). In the sixth century it formed part of Pisidia, the inhabitants of which pronounced its name Philomede or Philomene. In the Middle Ages it is often mentioned by Byzantine historians in connexion with the wars with the Seljukian sultans of Iconium. In the twelfth century it was one of the chief cities of the sultanate; from this time it bore the Turkish name of Ak-Sheher (white city), and to-day is the chief town of the caza of the vilayet of Konieh, numbering 4000 inhabitants, nearly all Mussulmans, and is a station on the railway from Eski-Shehr to Konieh. The ancient ruins are unimportant; they include a few inscriptions, some of them Christian. In a suburb is the tomb of Nasr Eddin Hodja, famous for his sanctity among the Turks. Christianity was introduced into Philomelium at an early date. In 196 the Church of Smyrna wrote to the Church of Philomelium announcing the martyrdom of St. Polycarp (Eusebius "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xix). Seven of its bishops are known: Theosebius, present at the Council of Constantinople (381); Paul, at Chalcedon (451); Marcianus, who signed the letter to Emperor Leo from the bishops of Pisidia (458); Aristodemus, present at the Council of Constantinople (553); Marinus, at Constantinople (680 and 692); Sisinnius, at Nicæa (787); Euthymius at the Photian Council of Constantinople (879). In the Greek "Notitiæ episcopatuum" Philomelium is first mentioned among the suffragan sees of Antioch in Pisidia, and in the ninth century among those of Amorium in Phrygia. It receives mention until the thirteenth century. Acta SS., Jan,. III, 317; LE QUIEN, Oriens christ., I, 1059; HAMILTON, Researches, I, 472; II, 184; ARUNDELL, Discoveries, I, 282 sq.; TEXIER, Asie Mineure, 435; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v., contains bibliography ot ancient authors; see also the notes of MÜLLER in Ptolemy, ed, DIDOT, I, 831. S. PÉTRIDÈS Saint Philomena St. Philomena On 25 May, 1802, during the quest for the graves of Roman martyrs in the Catacomb of Priscilla, a tomb was discovered and opened; as it contained a glass vessel it was assumed to be the grave of a martyr. The view, then erroneously entertained in Rome, that the presence of such vessels (supposed to have contained the martyr's blood) in a grave was a symbol of martyrdom, has been rejected in practice since the investigations of De Rossi (cf. Leclercq in "Dict. d.archéol. chrét. et de liturg.", s.v. Ampoules de sang). The remains found in the above-mentioned tomb were shown to be those of a young maiden, and, as the name Filumena was discovered on the earthenware slabs closing the grave, it was assumed that they were those of a virgin martyr named Philumena. On 8 June, 1805, the relics were translated to the church of Mungano, Diocese of Nola (near Naples), and enshrined under one of its altars. In 1827 Leo XII presented the church with the three earthenware tiles, with the inscription, which may be seen in the church even today. On the basis of alleged revelations to a nun in Naples, and of an entirely fanciful and indefensible explanation of the allegorical paintings, which were found on the slabs beside the inscription, a canon of the church in Mugnano, named Di Lucia, composed a purely fictitious and romantic account of the supposed martyrdom of St. Philomena, who is not mentioned in any of the ancient sources. In consequence of the wonderful favours received in answer to prayer before the relics of the saint at Mugnano, devotion to them spread rapidly, and, after instituting investigations into the question, Gregory XVI appointed a special feast to be held on 9 September, "in honorem s. Philumenae virginis et martyris" (cf. the lessons of this feast in the Roman Breviary). The earthenware plates were fixed in front of the grave as follows: LUMENA PAX TECUM FI. The plates were evidently inserted in the wrong order, and the inscription should doubtless read PAX TECUM FILUMENA. The letters are painted on the plates with red paint, and the inscription belongs to the primitive class of epigraphical memorials in the Catacomb of Priscilla, thus, dating from about the middle or second half of the second century. The disarrangement of the inscription proves that it must have been completed before the plates were put into position, although in the numerous other examples of this kind in the same catacomb the inscription was added only after the grave had been closed. Consequently, since the disarrangement of the plates can scarcely be explained as arising from an error, Marucchi seems justified in concluding that the inscription and plates originally belonged to an earlier grave, and were later employed (now in the wrong order) to close another. Apart from the letters, the plates contain three arrows, either as a decoration or a punctuation, a leaf as decoration, two anchors, and a palm as the well-known Christian symbols. Neither these signs nor the glass vessel discovered in the grave can be regarded as a proof of martyrdom. J.P. KIRSCH Philosophy Philosophy + I. Definition of Philosophy. + II. Division of Philosophy. + III. The Principal Systematic Solutions. + IV. Philosophical Methods. + V. The Great Historical Currents of Thought. + VI. Contemporary Orientations. + VII. Is Progress in Philosophy Indefinite, or Is there a Philosophia Perennis? + VIII. Philosophy and the Sciences. + IX. Philosophy and Religion. + X. The Catholic Church and Philosophy. + XI. The Teaching of Philosophy. + XII. Bibliography I. DEFINITION OF PHILOSOPHY Etymology According to its etymology, the word "philosophy" (philosophia, from philein, to love, and sophia, wisdom) means "the love of wisdom". This sense appears again in sapientia, the word used in the Middle Ages to designate philosophy. In the early stages of Greek, as of every other, civilization, the boundary line between philosophy and other departments of human knowledge was not sharply defined, and philosophy was understood to mean "every striving towards knowledge". This sense of the word survives in Herodotus (I, xxx) and Thucydides (II, xl). In the ninth century of our era, Alcuin, employing it in the same sense, says that philosophy is "naturarum inquisitio, rerum humanarum divinarumque cognitio quantum homini possibile est aestimare" -- investigation of nature, and such knowledge of things human and Divine as is possible for man (P.L., CI, 952). In its proper acceptation, philosophy does not mean the aggregate of the human sciences, but "the general science of things in the universe by their ultimate determinations and reasons"; or again, "the intimate knowledge of the causes and reasons of things", the profound knowledge of the universal order. Without here enumerating all the historic definitions of philosophy, some of the most significant may be given. Plato calls it "the acquisition of knowledge", ktêsis epistêmês (Euthydemus, 288 d). Aristotle, mightier than his master at compressing ideas, writes: tên onomazomenên sophian peri ta procirc;ta aitia kai tas archas hupolambanousi pantes -- "All men consider philosophy as concerned with first causes and principles" (Metaph., I, i). These notions were perpetuated in the post-Aristotelean schools (Stoicism, Epicureanism, neo-Platonism), with this difference, that the Stoics and Epicureans accentuated the moral bearing of philosophy ("Philosophia studium summae virtutis", says Seneca in "Epist.", lxxxix, 7), and the neo-Platonists its mystical bearing (see section V below). The Fathers of the Church and the first philosophers of the Middle Ages seem not to have had a very clear idea of philosophy for reasons which we will develop later on (section IX), but its conception emerges once more in all its purity among the Arabic philosophers at the end of the twelfth century and the masters of Scholasticism in the thirteenth. St. Thomas, adopting the Aristotelean idea, writes: "Sapientia est scientia quae considerat causas primas et universales causas; sapientia causas primas omnium causarum considerat" -- Wisdom [i.e. philosophy] is the science which considers first and universal causes; wisdom considers the first causes of all causes" (In Metaph., I, lect. ii). In general, modern philosophers may be said to have adopted this way of looking at it. Descartes regards philosophy as wisdom: "Philosophiae voce sapientiae studium denotamus" -- "By the term philosophy we denote the pursuit of wisdom" (Princ. philos., preface); and he understands by it "cognitio veritatis per primas suas causas" -- " knowledge of truth by its first causes" (ibid.). For Locke, philosophy is the true knowledge of things; for Berkeley, "the study of wisdom and truth" (Princ.). The many conceptions of philosophy given by Kant reduce it to that of a science of the general principles of knowledge and of the ultimate objects attainable by knowledge -- "Wissenschaft von den letzten Zwecken der menschlichen Vernunft". For the numerous German philosophers who derive their inspiration from his criticism -- Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, Schleiermacher, Schopenhauer, and the rest -- it is the general teaching of science (Wissenschaftslehre). Many contemporary authors regard it as the synthetic theory of the particular sciences: "Philosophy", says Herbert Spencer, "is completely unified knowledge" (First Principles, #37). Ostwald has the same idea. For Wundt, the object of philosophy is "the acquisition of such a general conception of the world and of life as will satisfy the exigencies of the reason and the needs of the heart" -- "Gewinnung einer allgemeinen Welt -- und Lebensanschauung, welche die Forderungen unserer Vernunft und die Bedurfnisse unseres Gemüths befriedigen soll" (Einleit. in d. Philos., 1901, p. 5). This idea of philosophy as the ultimate science of values (Wert lehre) is emphasized by Windelband, Déring, and others. The list of conceptions and definitions might be indefinitely prolonged. All of them affirm the eminently synthetic character of philosophy. In the opinion of the present writer, the most exact and comprehensive definition is that of Aristotle. Face to face with nature and with himself, man reflects and endeavours to discover what the world is, and what he is himself. Having made the real the object of studies in detail, each of which constitutes science (see section VIII), he is led to a study of the whole, to inquire into the principles or reasons of the totality of things, a study which supplies the answers to the last Why's. The last Why of all rests upon all that is and all that becomes: it does not apply, as in any one particular science (e.g. chemistry), to this or that process of becoming, or to this or that being (e.g. the combination of two bodies), but to all being and all becoming. All being has within it its constituent principles, which account for its substance (constitutive material and formal causes); all becoming, or change, whether superficial or profound, is brought about by an efficient cause other than its subject; and lastly things and events have their bearings from a finality, or final cause. The harmony of principles, or causes, produces the universal order. And thus philosophy is the profound knowledge of the universal order, in the sense of having for its object the simplest and most general principles, by means of which all other objects of thought are, in the last resort, explained. By these principles, says Aristotle, we know other things, but other things do not suffice to make us know these principles (dia gar tauta kai ek toutôn t'alla gnôrizetai, all' ou tauta dia tôn hupokeimenôn -- Metaph., I). The expression universal order should be understood in the widest sense. Man is one part of it: hence the relations of man with the world of sense and with its Author belong to the domain of philosophy. Now man, on the one hand, is the responsible author of these relations, because he is free, but he is obliged by nature itself to reach an aim, which is his moral end. On the other hand, he has the power of reflecting upon the knowledge which he acquires of all things, and this leads him to study the logical structure of science. Thus philosophical knowledge leads to philosophical acquaintance with morality and logic. And hence we have this more comprehensive definition of philosophy: "The profound knowledge of the universal order, of the duties which that order imposes upon man, and of the knowledge which man acquires from reality" -- "La connaissance approfondie de l'ordre universel, des devoirs qui en résultent pour l'homme et de la science que l'homme acquiert de la rémite"' (Mercier, "Logique", 1904, p. 23). -- The development of these same ideas under another aspect will be found in section VIII of this article. II. DIVISIONS OF PHILOSOPHY Since the universal order falls within the scope of philosophy (which studies only its first principles, not its reasons in detail), philosophy is led to the consideration of all that is: the world, God (or its cause), and man himself (his nature, origin, operations, moral end, and scientific activities). It would be out of the question to enumerate here all the methods of dividing philosophy that have been given: we confine ourselves to those which have played a part in history and possess the deepest significance. A. In Greek Philosophy Two historical divisions dominate Greek philosophy: the Platonic and the Aristotelean. (1) Plato divides philosophy into dialectic, physics, and ethics. This division is not found in Plato's own writings, and it would be impossible to fit his dialogues into the triple frame, but it corresponds to the spirit of the Platonic philosophy. According to Zeller, Xenocrates (314 B.C.) his disciple, and the leading representative of the Old Academy, was the first to adopt this triadic division, which was destined to go down through the ages (Grundriss d. Geschichte d. griechischen Philosophie, 144), and Aristotle follows it in dividing his master's philosophy. Dialectic is the science of objective reality, i.e., of the Idea (idea eidos), so that by Platonic dialectic we must understand metaphysics. Physics is concerned with the manifestations of the Idea, or with the Real, in the sensible universe, to which Plato attributes no real value independent of that of the Idea. Ethics has for its object human acts. Plato deals with logic, but has no system of logic; this was a product of Aristotle's genius. Plato's classification was taken up by his school (the Academy), but it was not long in yielding to the influence of Aristotle's more complete division and according a place to logic. Following the inspirations of the old Academics, the Stoics divided philosophy into physics (the study of the real), logic (the study of the structure of science) and morals (the study of moral acts). This classification was perpetuated by the neo-Platonists, who transmitted it to the Fathers of the Church, and through them to the Middle Ages. (2) Aristotle, Plato's illustrious disciple, the most didactic, and at the same time the most synthetic, mind of the Greek worid, drew up a remarkable scheme of the divisions of philosophy. The philosophical sciences are divided into theoretic, practical, and poetic, according as their scope is pure speculative knowledge, or conduct (praxis), or external production (poiêsis). Theoretic philosophy comprises: (a) physics, or the study of corporeal things which are subject to change (achôrista men all' ouk akinêta) (b) mathematics, or the study of extension, i.e., of a corporeal property not subject to change and considered, by abstraction, apart from matter (akinêta men ou chôrista d'isôs, all' hôs en hulê); (c) metaphysics, called theology, or first philosophy, i.e. the study of being in its unchangeable and (whether naturally or by abstraction) incorporeal determinations (chôrista kau akinêt). Practical philosophy comprises ethics, economics, and politics, the second of these three often merging into the last. Poetic philosophy is concerned in general with the external works conceived by human intelligence. To these may conveniently be added logic, the vestibule of philosophy, which Aristotle studied at length, and of which he may be called the creator. To metaphysics Aristotle rightly accords the place of honour in the grouping of philosophical studies. He calls it "first philosophy". His classification was taken up by the Peripatetic School and was famous throughout antiquity; it was eclipsed by the Platonic classification during the Alexandrine period, but it reappeared during the Middle Ages. B. In the Middle Ages Though the division of philosophy into its branches is not uniform in the first period of the Middle Ages in the West, i.e. down to the end of the twelfth century, the classifications of this period are mostly akin to the Platonic division into logic, ethics, and physics. Aristotle's classification of the theoretic sciences, though made known by Boethius, exerted no influence for the reason that in the early Middle Ages the West knew nothing of Aristotle except his works on logic and some fragments of his speculative philosophy (see section V below). It should be added here that philosophy, reduced at first to dialectic, or logic, and placed as such in the Trivium, was not long in setting itself above the liberal arts. The Arab philosophers of the twelfth century (Avicenna, Averroes) accepted the Aristotelean classification, and when their works -- particularly their translations of Aristotle's great original treatises -- penetrated into the West, the Aristotelean division definitively took its place there. Its coming is heralded by Gundissalinus (see section XII), one of the Toletan translators of Aristotle, and author of a treatise, "De divisione philosophiae", which was imitated by Michael Scott and Robert Kilwardby. St. Thomas did no more than adopt it and give it a precise scientific form. Later on we shall see that, conformably with the medieval notion of sapientia, to each part of philosophy corresponds the preliminary study of a group of special sciences. The general scheme of the division of philosophy in the thirteenth century, with St. Thomas's commentary on it, is as follows: There are as many parts of philosophy as there are distinct domains in the order submitted to the philosopher's reflection. Now there is an order which the intelligence does not form but only considers; such is the order realized in nature. Another order, the practical, is formed either by the acts of our intelligence or by the acts of our will, or by the application of those acts to external things in the arts: e.g., the division of practical philosophy into logic, moral philosophy, and aesthetics, or the philosophy of the arts ("Ad philosophiam naturalem pertinet considerare ordinem rerum quem ratio humana considerat sed non facit; ita quod sub naturali philosophia comprehendamus et metaphysicam. Ordo autem quem ratio considerando facit in proprio actu, pertinet ad rationalem philosophiam, cujus est considerare ordinem partium orationis ad invicem et ordinem principiorum ad invicem et ad conclusiones. Ordo autem actionum voluntariarum pertinet ad considerationem moralis philosophiae. Ordo autem quem ratio considerando facit in rebus exterioribus per rationem humanam pertinet ad artes mechanicas." To natural philosophy pertains the consideration of the order of things which human reason considers but does not create -- just as we include metaphysics also under natural philosophy. But the order which reason creates of its own act by consideration pertains to rational philosophy, the office of which is to consider the order of the parts of speech with reference to one another and the order of the principles with reference to one another and to the conclusions. The order of voluntary actions pertains to the consideration of moral philosophy, while the order which the reason creates in external things through the human reason pertains to the mechanical arts. -- In "X Ethic. ad Nic.", I, lect. i). The philosophy of nature, or speculative philosophy, is divided into metaphysics, mathematics, and physics, according to the three stages traversed by the intelligence in its effort to attain a synthetic comprehension of the universal order, by abstracting from movement (physics), intelligible quantity (mathematics), being (metaphysics) (In lib. Boeth. de Trinitate, Q. v., a. 1). In this classification it is to be noted that, man being one element of the world of sense, psychology ranks as a part of physics. C. In Modern Philosophy The Scholastic classification may be said, generally speaking, to have lasted, with some exceptions, until the seventeenth century. Beginning with Descartes, we find a multitude of classifications arising, differing in the principles which inspire them. Kant, for instance, distinguishes metaphysics, moral philosophy, religion, and anthropology. The most widely accepted scheme, that which still governs the division of the branches of philosophy in teaching, is due to Wolff (1679-1755), a disciple of Leibniz, who has been called the educator of Germany in the eighteenth century. This scheme is as follows: 1. Logic. 2. Speculative Philosophy. o Ontology, or General Metaphysics. o Special Metaphysics. # Theodicy (the study of God). # Cosmology (the study of the World). # Psychology (the study of Man). 3. Practical Philosophy. o Ethics o Politics o Economics Wolff broke the ties binding the particular sciences to philosophy, and placed them by themselves; in his view philosophy must remain purely rational. It is easy to see that the members of Wolff's scheme are found in the Aristotelean classification, wherein theodicy is a chapter of metaphysics and psychology a chapter of physics. It may even be said that the Greek classification is better than Wolff's in regard to speculative philosophy, where the ancients were guided by the formal object of the study -- i.e. by the degree of abstraction to which the whole universe is subjected, while the moderns always look at the material object -- i.e., the three categories of being, which it is possible to study, God, the world of sense, and man. D. In Contemporary Philosophy The impulse received by philosophy during the last half-century gave rise to new philosophical sciences, in the sense that various branches have been detached from the main stems. In psychology this phenomenon has been remarkable: criteriology, or epistemology (the study of the certitude of knowledge) has developed into a special study. Other branches which have formed themselves into new psychological sciences are: physiological psychology or the study of the physiological concomitant of psychic activities; didactics, or the science of teaching; pedagogy, or the science of education; collective psychology and the psychology of people (Volkerpsychologie), studying the psychic phenomena observable in human groups as such, and in the different races. An important section of logic (called also noetic, or canonic) is tending to sever itself from the main body, viz., methodology, which studies the special logical formation of various sciences. On moral philosophy, in the wide sense, have been grafted the philosophy of law, the philosophy of society, or social philosophy (which is much the same as sociology), and the philosophies of religion and of history. III. THE PRINCIPAL SYSTEMATIC SOLUTIONS From what has been said above it is evident that philosophy is beset by a great number of questions It would not be possible here to enumerate all those questions, much less to detail the divers solutions which have been given to them. The solution of a philosophic question is called a philosophic doctrine or theory. A philosophic system (from sunistêmi, put together) is a complete and organized group of solutions. It is not an incoherent assemblage or an encyclopedic amalgamation of such solutions; it is dominated by an organic unity. Only those philosophic systems which are constructed conformably with the exigencies of organic unity are really powerful: such are the systems of the Upanishads, of Aristotle, of neo-Platonism, of Scholasticism, of Leibniz, Kant and Hume. So that one or several theories do not constitute a system; but some theories, i.e. answers to a philosophic question, are important enough to determine the solution of other important problems of a system. The scope of this section is to indicate some of these theories. A. Monism, or Pantheism, and Pluralism, Individualism, or Theism Are there many beings distinct in their reality, with one Supreme Being, God at the summit of the hierarchy; or is there but one reality (monas, hence monism), one All-God (pan-theos) of whom each individual is but a member or fragment (Substantialistic Pantheism), or else a force, or energy (Dynamic Pantheism)? Here we have an important question of metaphysics the solution of which reacts upon all other domains of philosophy. The system of Aristotle, of the Scholastics, and of Leibniz are Pluralistic and Theistic; the Indian, neo-Platonic, and Hegelian are Monistic. Monism is a fascinating explanation of the real, but it only postpones the difficulties which it imagines itself to be solving (e.g. the difficulty of the interaction of things), to say nothing of the objection, from the human point of view, that it runs counter to our most deep-rooted sentiments. B. Objectivism and Subjectivism Does being, whether one or many, possess its own life, independent of our mind, so that to be known by us is only accident to being, as in the objective system of metaphysics (e.g. Aristotle, the Scholastics, Spinoza)? Or is being no other reality than the mental and subjective presence which it acquires in our representation of it as in the Subjective system (e.g. Hume)? It is in this sense that the "Revue de métaphysique et de morale" (see bibliography) uses the term metaphysics in its title. Subjectivism cannot explain the passivity of our mental representations, which we do not draw out of ourselves, and which therefore oblige us to infer the reality of a non-ego. C. Substantialism and Phenomenism Is all reality a flux of phenomena (Heraclitus, Berkeley, Hume, Taine), or does the manifestation appear upon a basis, or substance, which manifests itself, and does the phenomenon demand a noumenon (the Scholastics)? Without an underlying substance, which we only know through the medium of the phenomenon, certain realities, as walking, talking, are inexplicable, and such facts as memory become absurd. D. Mechanism and Dynamism (Pure and Modified) Natural bodies are considered by some to be aggregations of homogeneous particles of matter (atoms) receiving a movement which is extrinsic to them, so that these bodies differ only in the number and arrangement of their atoms (the Atomism, or Mechanism, of Democritus, Descartes, and Hobbes). Others reduce them to specific, unextended, immaterial forces, of which extension is only the superficial manifestation (Leibniz). Between the two is Modified Dynamism (Aristotle), which distinguishes in bodies an immanent specific principle (form) and an indeterminate element (matter) which is the source of limitation and extension. This theory accounts for the specific characters of the entities in question as well as for the reality of their extension in space. E. Materialism, Agnosticism, and Spiritualism That everything real is material, that whatever might be immaterial would be unreal, such is the cardinal doctrine of Materialism (the Stoics, Hobbes, De Lamettrie). Contemporary Materialism is less outspoken: it is inspired by a Positivist ideology (see section VI), and asserts that, if anything supra-material exists, it is unknowable (Agnosticism, from a and gnôsis, knowledge. Spencer, Huxley). Spiritualism teaches that incorporeal, or immaterial, beings exist or that they are possible (Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, the Scholastics, Descartes, Leibniz). Some have even asserted that only spirits exist: Berkeley, Fichte, and Hegel are exaggerated Spiritualists. The truth is that there are bodies and spirits; among the latter we are acquainted (though less well than with bodies) with the nature of our soul, which is revealed by the nature of our immaterial acts, and with the nature of God, the infinite intelligence, whose existence is demontrated by the very existence of finite things. Side by side with these solutions relating to the problems of the real, there is another group of solutions, not less influential in the orientation of a system, and relating to psychical problems or those of the human ego. F. Sensualism and Rationalism, or Spiritualism These are the opposite poles of the ideogenetic question, the question of the origin of our knowledge. For Sensualism the only source of human knowledge is sensation: everything reduces to transformed sensations. This theory, long ago put forward in Greek philosophy (Stoicism, Epicureanism), was developed to the full by the English Sensualists (Locke, Berkeley, Hume) and the English Associationists (Brown, Hartley, Priestley); its modern form is Positivism (John Stuart Mill, Huxley, Spencer, Comte, Taine, Littré etc.). Were this theory true, it would follow that we can know only what falls under our senses, and therefore cannot pronounce upon the existence or non-existence, the reality or unreality, of the super-sensible. Positivism is more logical than Materialism. In the New World, the term Agnosticism has been very happily employed to indicate this attitude of reserve towards the super-sensible. Rationalism (from ratio, reason), or Spiritualism, establishes the existence in us of concepts higher than sensations, i.e. of abstract and general concepts (Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, the Scholastics, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Cousin etc.). Ideologic Spiritualism has won the adherence of humanity's greatest thinkers. Upon the spirituality, or immateriality, of our higher mental operations is based the proof of the spirituality of the principle from which they proceed and, hence, of the immortality of the soul. G. Scepticism, Dogmatism, and Criticism So many answers have been given to the question whether man can attain truth, and what is the foundation of certitude, that we will not attempt to enumerate them all. Scepticism declares reason incapable of arriving at the truth. and holds certitude to be a purely subjective affair (Sextus Empiricus, Ænesidemus). Dogmatism asserts that man can attain to truth, and that, in measure to be further determined, our cognitions are certain. The motive of certitude is, for the Traditionalists, a Divine revelation, for the Scotch School (Reid) it is an inclination of nature to affirm the principles of common sense; it is an irrational, but social, necessity of admitting certain principles for practical dogmatism (Balfour in his "Foundations of Belief" speaks of "non-rational impulse", while Mallock holds that "certitude is found to be the child, not of reason but of custom" and Brunetière writes about "the bankruptcy of science and the need of belief"); it is an affective sentiment, a necessity of wishing that certain things may be verities (Voluntarism; Kant's Moral Dogmatism), or the fact of living certain verities (contemporary Pragmatism and Humanism William James, Schiller). But for others -- and this is the theory which we accept -- the motive of certitude is the very evidence of the connection which appears between the predicate and the subject of a proposition, an evidence which the mind perceives, but which it does not create (Moderate Dogmatism). Lastly for Criticism, which is the Kantian solution of the problem of knowledge, evidence is created by the mind by means of the structural functions with which every human intellect is furnished (the categories of the understanding). In conformity with these functions we connect the impressions of the senses and construct the world. Knowledge, therefore, is valid only for the world as represented to the mind. Kantian Criticism ends in excessive Idealism, which is also called Subjectivism. or Phenomenalism, and according to which the mind draws all its representations out of itself, both the sensory impressions and the categories which connect them: the world becomes a mental poem, the object is created by the subject as representation (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel). H. Nominalism, Realism, and Conceptualism Nominalism, Realism, and Conceptualism are various answers to the question of the real objectivity of our predications, or of the relation of fidelity existing between our general representations and the external world. I. Determinism and Indeterminism Has every phenomenon or fact its adequate cause in an antecedent phenomenon or fact (Cosmic Determinism)? And, in respect to acts of the will, are they likewise determined in all their constituent elements (Moral Determinism, Stoicism, Spinoza)? If so, then liberty disappears, and with it human responsibility, merit and demerit. Or, on the contrary, is there a category of volitions which are not necessitated, and which depend upon the discretionary power of the will to act or not to act and in acting to follow freely chosen direction? Does liberty exist? Most Spiritualists of all schools have adopted a libertarian philosophy, holding that liberty alone gives the moral life an acceptable meaning; by various arguments they have confirmed the testimony of conscience and the data of common consent. In physical nature causation and determinism rule; in the moral life, liberty. Others, by no means numerous, have even pretended to discover cases of indeterminism in physical nature (the so-called Contingentist theories, e.g. Boutroux). J. Utilitarianism and the Morality of Obligation What constitutes the foundation of morality in our actions? Pleasure or utility say some, personal or egoistic pleasure (Egoism -- Hobbes, Bentham, and "the arithmetic of pleasure"); or again, in the pleasure and utility of all (Altruism -- John Stuart Mill). Others hold that morality consists in the performance of duty for duty's sake, the observance of law because it is law, independently of personal profit (the Formalism of the Stoics and of Kant). According to another doctrine, which in our opinion is more correct, utility, or personal advantage, is not incompatible with duty, but the source of the obligation to act is in the last analysis, as the very exigencies of our nature tell us, the ordinance of God. IV. PHILOSOPHICAL METHODS Method (meth' hodos) means a path taken to reach some objective point. By philosophical method is understood the path leading to philosophy, which, again, may mean either the process employed in the construction of a philosophy (constructive method, method of invention), or the way of teaching philosophy (method of teaching, didactic method). We will deal here with the former of these two senses; the latter will be treated in section XI. Three methods can be, and have been, applied to the construction of philosophy. A. Experimental (Empiric, or Analytic) Method The method of all Empiric philosophers is to observe facts, accumulate them, and coordinate them. Pushed to its ultimate consequences, the empirical method refuses to rise beyond observed and observable fact; it abstains from investigating anything that is absolute. It is found among the Materialists, ancient and modern, and is most unreservedly applied in contemporary Positivism. Comte opposes the "positive mode of thinking", based solely upon observation, to the theological and metaphysical modes. For Mill, Huxley, Bain, Spencer, there is not one philosophical proposition but is the product, pure and simple, of experience: what we take for a general idea is an aggregate of sensations; a judgment is the union of two sensations; a syllogism, the passage from particular to particular (Mill, "A System of Logic, Rational and Inductive", ed. Lubbock, 1892; Bain, "Logic", New York, 1874). Mathematical propositions, fundamental axioms such as a = a, the principle of contradiction, the principle of causality are only "generalizations from facts of experience" (Mill, op. cit., vii, #5). According to this author, what we believe to be superior to experience in the enunciation of scientific laws is derived from our subjective incapacity to conceive its contradictory; according to Spencer, this inconceivability of the negation is developed by heredity. Applied in an exaggerated and exclusive fashion, the experimental method mutilates facts, since it is powerless to ascend to the causes and the laws which govern facts. It suppresses the character of objective necessity which is inherent in scientific judgments, and reduces them to collective formulae of facts observed in the past. It forbids our asserting, e.g., that the men who will be born after us will be subject to death, seeing that all certitude rests on experience, and that by mere observation we cannot reach the unchangeable nature of things. The empirical method, left to its own resources, checks the upward movement of the mind towards the causes or object of the phenomena which confront it. B. Deductive, or Synthetic a Priori, Method At the opposite pole to the preceding, the deductive method starts from very general principles, from higher causes, to descend (Lat. deducere, to lead down) to more and more complex relations and to facts. The dream of the Deductionist is to take as the point of departure an intuition of the Absolute, of the Supreme Reality -- for the Theists, God; for the Monists, the Universal Being -- and to draw from this intuition the synthetic knowledge of all that depends upon it in the universe, in conformity with the metaphysical scale of the real. Plato is the father of deductive philosophy: he starts from the world of Ideas, and from the Idea of the Sovereign Good, and he would know the reality of the world of sense only in the Ideas of which it is the reflection. St. Augustine, too, finds his satisfaction in studying the universe, and the least of the beings which compose it, only in a synthetic contemplation of God, the exemplary, creative, and final cause of all things. So, too, the Middle Ages attached great importance to the deductive method. "I propose", writes Boethius, "to build science by means of concepts and maxims, as is done in mathematics." Anselm of Canterbury draws from the idea of God, not only the proof of the real existence of an infinite being, but also a group of theorems on His attributes and His relations with the world. Two centuries before Anselm, Scotus Eriugena, the father of anti-Scholasticism, is the completest type of the Deductionist: his metaphysics is one long description of the Divine Odyssey, inspired by the neo-Platonic, monistic conception of the descent of the One in its successive generations. And, on the very threshold of the thirteenth century, Alain de Lille would apply to philosophy a mathematical methodology. In the thirteenth century Raymond Lully believed that he had found the secret of "the Great Art" (ars magna), a sort of syllogism-machine, built of general tabulations of ideas, the combination of which would give the solution of any question whatsoever. Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz are Deductionists: they would construct philosophy after the manner of geometry (more geometrico), linking the most special and complicated theorems to some very simple axioms. The same tendency appears among the Ontologists and the post-Kantian Pantheists in Germany (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel), who base their philosophy upon an intuition of the Absolute Being. The deductive philosophers generally profess to disdain the sciences of observation. Their great fault is the compromising of fact, bending it to a preconceived explanation or theory assumed a priori, whereas the observation of the fact ought to precede the assignment of its cause or of its adequate reason. This defect in the deductive method appears glaringly in a youthful work of Leibniz's, "Specimen demonstrationum politicarum pro rege Polonorum eligendo", published anonymously in 1669, where he demonstrates hy geometrical methods (more geometrico), in sixty propositions, that the Count Palatine of Neuburg ought to be elected to the Polish Throne. C. Analytico-Synthetic Method This combination of analysis and synthesis, of observation and deduction, is the only method appropriate to philosophy. Indeed, since it undertakes to furnish a general explanation of the universal order (see section I), philosophy ought to begin with complex effects, facts known by observation, before attempting to include them in one comprehensive explanation of the universe. This is manifest in psychology, where we begin with a careful examination of activities, notably of the phenomena of sense, of intelligence, and of appetite; in cosmology, where we observe the series of changes, superficial and profound, of bodies; in moral philosophy, which sets out from the observation of moral facts; in theodicy, where we interrogate religious beliefs and feelings; even in metaphysics, the starting-point of which is really existing being. But observation and analysis once completed, the work of synthesis begins. We must pass onward to a synthetic psychology that shall enable us to comprehend the destinies of man's vital principle; to a cosmology that shall explain the constitution of bodies, their changes, and the stability of the laws which govern them; to a synthetic moral philosophy establishing the end of man and the ultimate ground of duty; to a theodicy and deductive metaphysics that shall examine the attributes of God and the fundamental conceptions of all being. As a whole and in each of its divisions, philosophy applies the analytic-synthetic method. Its ideal would be to give an account of the universe and of man by a synthetic knowledge of God, upon whom all reality depends. This panoramic view -- the eagle's view of things -- has allured all the great geniuses. St. Thomas expresses himself admirably on this synthetic knowledge of the universe and its first cause. The analytico-synthetic process is the method, not only of philosophy, but of every science, for it is the natural law of thought, the proper function of which is unified and orderly knowledge. "Sapientis est ordinare." Aristotle, St. Thomas, Pascal, Newton, Pasteur, thus understood the method of the sciences. Men like Helmholtz and Wundt adopted synthetic views after doing analytical work. Even the Positivists are metaphysicians, though they do not know it or wish it. Does not Herbert Spencer call his philosophy synthetic? and does he not, by reasoning, pass beyond that domain of the "observable" within which he professes to confine himself? V. THE GREAT HISTORICAL CURRENTS Among the many peoples who have covered the globe philosophic culture appears in two groups: the Semitic and the Indo-European, to which may be added the Egyptians and the Chinese. In the Semitic group (Arabs, Babylonians, Assyrians, Aramaeans, Chaldeans) the Arabs are the most important; nevertheless, their part becomes insignificant when compared with the intellectual life of the Indo-Europeans. Among the latter, philosophic life appears successively in various ethnic divisions, and the succession forms the great periods into which the history of philosophy is divided; first, among the people of India (since 1500 B.C.); then among the Greeks and the Romans (sixth century B.C. to sixth century of our era); again, much later, among the peoples of Central and Northern Europe. A. Indian Philosophy The philosophy of India is recorded principally in the sacred books of the Veda, for it has always been closely united with religion. Its numerous poetic and religious productions carry within themselves a chronology which enables us to assign them to three periods. (1) The Period of the Hymns of the Rig Veda (1500-1000 B.C.) This is the most ancient monument of Indo-Germanic civilization; in it may be seen the progressive appearance of the fundamental theory that a single Being exists under a thousand forms in the multiplied phenomena of the universe (Monism). (2) The Period of the Brahmans (1000-500 B.C.) This is the age of Brahminical civilization. The theory of the one Being remains, but little by little the concrete and anthropomorphic ideas of the one Being are replaced by the doctrine that the basis of all things is in oneself (âtman). Psychological Monism appears in its entirety in the Upanishads: the absolute and adequate identity of the Ego -- which is the constitutive basis of our individuality (âtman) -- and of all things, with Brahman, the eternal being exalted above time, space, number, and change, the generating principle of all things in which all things are finally reabsorbed -- such the fundamental theme to be found in the Upanishad under a thousand variations of form. To arrive at the âtman, we must not stop at empirical reality which is multiple and cognizable; we must pierce this husk, penetrate to the unknowable and ineffable superessence, and identify ourselves with it in an unconscious unity. (3) The Post-Vedic or Sanskrit, Period (since 500 B.C.) From the germs of theories contained in the Upanishad a series of systems spring up, orthodox or heterodox. Of the orthodox systems, Vedanta is the most interesting; in it we find the principles of the Upanishads developed in an integral philosophy which comprise metaphysics, cosmology, psychology, and ethics (transmigration, metempsychosis). Among the systems not in harmony with the Vedic dogmas, the most celebrated is Buddhism, a kind of Pessimism which teaches liberation from pain in a state of unconscious repose, or an extinction of personality (Nirvâna). Buddhism spread in China, where it lives side by side with the doctrines of Lao Tse and that of Confucius. It is evident that even the systems which are not in harmony with the Veda are permeated with religious ideas. B. Greek Philosophy This philosophy, which occupied six centuries before, and six after, Christ, may be divided into four periods, corresponding with the succession of the principal lines of research (1) From Thales of Miletus to Socrates (seventh to fifth centuries B.C. -- preoccupied with cosmology) (2) Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (fifth to fourth centuries B.C. -- psychology); (3) From the death of Aristotle to the rise of neo-Platonism (end of the fourth century B.C. to third century after Christ -- moral philosophy); (4) neo-Platonic School (from the third century after Christ, or, including the systems of the forerunners of neo-Platonism, from the first century after Christ, to the end of Greek philosophy in the seventh century-mysticism). (1) The Pre-Socratic Period The pre-Socratic philosophers either seek for the stable basis of things -- which is water, for Thales of Miletus; air, for Anaximenes of Miletus; air endowed with intelligence, for Diogenes of Apollonia; number, for Pythagoras (sixth century B.C.); abstract and immovable being, for the Eleatics -- or they study that which changes: while Parmenides and the Eleatics assert that everything is, and nothing changes or becomes. Heraclitus (about 535-475) holds that everything becomes, and nothing is unchangeable. Democritus (fifth century) reduces all beings to groups of atoms in motion, and this movement, according to Anaxagoras, has for its cause an intelligent being. (2) The Period of Apogee: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. When the Sophists (Protagoras, Gorgias) had demonstrated the insufficiency of these cosmologies, Socrates (470-399) brought philosophical investigation to bear on man himself, studying man chiefly from the moral point of view. From the presence in us of abstract ideas Plato (427-347) deduced the existence of a world of supersensible realities or ideas, of which the visible world is but a pale reflection. These ideas, which the soul in an earlier life contemplated, are now, because of its union with the body, but faintly perceived. Aristotle (384-322), on the contrary, shows that the real dwells in the objects of sense. The theory of act and potentiality, of form and matter, is a new solution of the relations between the permanent and the changing. His psychology, founded upon the principle of the unity of man and the substantial union of soul and body, is a creation of genius. And as much may be said of his logic. (3) The Moral Period After Aristotle (end of the fourth Century B.C.) four schools are in evidence: Stoic, Epicurean, Platonic, and Aristotelean. The Stoics (Zeno of Citium, Cleanthes, Chrysippus), like the Epicureans, make speculation subordinate to the quest of happiness, and the two schools, in spite of their divergencies, both consider happiness to be ataraxia or absence of sorrow and preoccupation. The teachings of both on nature (Dynamistic Monism with the Stoics, and Pluralistic Mechanism with the Epicureans) are only a prologue to their moral philosophy. After the latter half of the second century B.C. we perceive reciprocal infiltrations between the various schools. This issues in Eclecticism. Seneca (first century B.C.) and Cicero (106-43 B.C.) are attached to Eclecticism with a Stoic basis; two great commentators of Aristotle, Andronicus of Rhodes (first century B.C.) and Alexander of Aphrodisia about 200), affect a Peripatetic Eclecticism. Parallel with Eclecticism runs a current of Scepticism (AEnesidemus, end of first century B.C., and Sextus Empiricus, second century A.D.). (4) The Mystical Period In the first century B.C. Alexandria had become the capital of Greek intellectual life. Mystical and theurgic tendencies, born of a longing for the ideal and the beyond, began to appear in a current of Greek philosophy which originated in a restoration of Pythagorism and its alliance with Platonism (Plutarch of Chieronea, first century B.C.; Apuleius of Madaura; Numenius, about 160 and others), and still more in the Graeco-Judaic philosophy of Philo the Jew (30 B.C. to A.D. 50). But the dominance of these tendencies is more apparent in neo-Platonism. The most brilliant thinker of the neo-Platonic series is Plotinus (A.D. 20-70). In his "Enneads" he traces the paths which lead the soul to the One, and establishes, in keeping with his mysticism, an emanationist metaphysical system. Porphyry of Tyre (232-304), a disciple of Plotinus, popularizes his teaching, emphasizes its religious bearing, and makes Aristotle's "Organon" the introduction to neo-Platonic philosophy. Later on, neo-Platonism, emphasizing its religious features, placed itself, with Jamblichus, at the service of the pagan pantheon which growing Christianity was ruining on all sides, or again, as with Themistius at Constantinople (fourth century), Proclus and Simplicius at Athens (fifth century), and Ammonius at Alexandria, it took an Encyclopedic turn. With Ammonius and John Philoponus (sixth century) the neo-Platonic School of Alexandria developed in the direction of Christianity. C. Patristic Philosophy In the closing years of the second century and, still more, in the third century, the philosophy of the Fathers of the Church was developed. It was born in a civilization dominated by Greek ideas, chiefly neo-Platonic, and on this side its mode of thought is still the ancient. Still, if some, like St. Augustine, attach the greatest value to the neo-Platonic teachings, it must not be forgotten that the Monist or Pantheistic and Emanationist ideas, which have been accentuated by the successors of Plotinus, are carefully replaced by the theory of creation and the substantial distinction of beings; in this respect a new spirit animates Patristic philosophy. It was developed, too, as an auxiliary of the dogmatic system which the Fathers were to establish. In the third century the great representatives of the Christian School of Alexandria are Clement of Alexandria and Origen. After them Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Ambrose, and, above all, St. Augustine (354-430) appear. St. Augustine gathers up the intellectual treasures of the ancient world, and is one of the principal intermediaries for their transmission to the modern world. In its definitive form Augustinism is a fusion of intellectualism and mysticism, with a study of God as the centre of interest. In the fifth century, pseudo-Dionysius perpetuates many a neo-Platonic doctrine adapted to Christianity, and his writings exercise a powerful influence in the Middle Ages. D. Medieval Philosophy The philosophy of the Middle Ages developed simultaneously in the West, at Byzantium, and in divers Eastern centres; but the Western philosophy is the most important. It built itself up with great effort on the ruins of barbarism: until the twelfth century, nothing was known of Aristotle, except some treatises on logic, or of Plato, except a few dialogues. Gradually, problems arose, and, foremost, in importance, the question of universals in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries (see NOMINALISM). St. Anselm (1O33-1109) made a first attempt at systematizing Scholastic philosophy, and developed a theodicy. But as early as the ninth century an anti-Scholastic philosophy had arisen with Eriugena who revived the neo-Platonic Monism. In the twelfth century Scholasticism formulated new anti-Realist doctrines with Adelard of Bath, Gauthier de Mortagne, and, above all, Abelard and Gilbert de la Porrée, whilst extreme Realism took shape in the schools of Chartres. John of Salisbury and Alain de Lille, in the twelfth century, are the co-ordinating minds that indicate the maturity of Scholastic thought. The latter of these waged a campaign against the Pantheism of David of Dinant and the Epicureanism of the Albigenses -- the two most important forms of anti-Scholastic philosophy. At Byzantium, Greek philosophy held its ground throughout the Middle Ages, and kept apart from the movement of Western ideas. The same is true of the Syrians and Arabs. But at the end of the twelfth century the Arabic and Byzantine movement entered into relation with Western thought, and effected, to the profit of the latter, the brilliant philosophical revival of the thirteenth century. This was due, in the first place, to the creation of the University of Paris; next, to the foundation of the Dominican and Franciscan orders; lastly, to the introduction of Arabic and Latin translations of Aristotle and the ancient authors. At the same period the works of Avicenna and Averroes became known at Paris. A pleiad of brilliant names fills the thirteenth century -- Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, Bl. Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas Aquinas, Godfrey of Fontaines, Henry of Ghent, Giles of Rome, and Duns Scotus -- bring Scholastic synthesis to perfection. They all wage war on Latin Averroism and anti-Scholasticism, defended in the schools of Paris by Siger of Brabant. Roger Bacon, Lully, and a group of neo-Platonists occupy a place apart in this century, which is completely filled by remarkable figures. In the fourteenth century Scholastic philosophy betrays the first symptoms of decadence. In place of individualities we have schools, the chief being the Thomist, the Scotist, and the Terminist School of William of Occam, which soon attracted numerous partisans. With John of Jandun, Averroism perpetuates its most audacious propositions; Eckhart and Nicholas of Cusa formulate philosophies which are symptomatic of the approaching revolution. The Renaissance was a troublous period for philosophy. Ancient systems were revived: the Dialectic of the Humanistic philologists (Laurentius Valla, Vivés), Platonism, Aristoteleanism, Stoicism. Telesius, Campanella, and Giordano Bruno follow a naturalistic philosophy. Natural and social law are renewed with Thomas More and Grotius. All these philosophies were leagued together against Scholasticism, and very often against Catholicism. On the other hand, the Scholastic philosophers grew weaker and weaker, and, excepting for the brilliant Spanish Scholasticism of the sixteenth century (Bañez, Suarez, Vasquez, and so on), it may be said that ignorance of the fundamental doctrine became general. In the seventeenth century there was no one to support Scholasticism: it fell, not for lack of ideas, but for lack of defenders. E. Modern Philosophy The philosophies of the Renaissance are mainly negative: modern philosophy is, first and foremost, constructive. The latter is emancipated from all dogma; many of its syntheses are powerful; the definitive formation of the various nationalities and the diversity of languages favour the tendency to individualism. The two great initiators of modern philosophy are Descartes and Francis Bacon. The former inaugurates a spiritualistic philosophy based on the data of consciousness, and his influence may be traced in Malebranche, Spinoza, and Leibniz. Bacon heads a line of Empiricists, who regarded sensation as the only source of knowledge. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a Sensualist philosophy grew up in England, based on Baconian Empiricism, and soon to develop in the direction of Subjectivism. Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, and David Hume mark the stages of this logical evolution. Simultaneously an Associationist psychology appeared also inspired by Sensualism, and, before long, it formed a special field of research. Brown, David Hartley, and Priestley developed the theory of association of ideas in various directions. At the outset Sensualism encountered vigorous opposition, even in England, from the Mystics and Platonists of the Cambridge School (Samuel Parker and, especially, Ralph Cudworth). The reaction was still more lively in the Scotch School, founded and chiefly represented by Thomas Reid, to which Adam Ferguson, Oswald, and Dugald Stewart belonged in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and which had great influence over Eclectic Spiritualism, chiefly in America and France. Hobbes's "selfish" system was developed into a morality by Bentham, a partisan of Egoistic Utilitarianism, and by Adam Smith, a defender of Altruism, but provoked a reaction among the advocates of the moral sentiment theory (Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Samuel Clarke). In England, also, Theism or Deism was chiefly developed, instituting a criticism of all positive religion, which it sought to supplant with a philosophical religion. English Sensualism spread in France during the eighteenth century: its influence is traceable in de Condillac, de la Mettrie, and the Encyclopedists; Voltaire popularized it in France and with Jean-Jacques Rousseau it made its way among the masses, undermining their Christianity and preparing the Revolution of 1759. In Germany, the philosophy of the eighteenth century is, directly or indirectly, connected with Leibniz -- the School of Wolff, the Aesthetic School (Baumgarten), the philosophy of sentiment. But all the German philosophers of the eighteenth century were eclipsed by the great figure of Kant. With Kant (1724-1804) modern philosophy enters its second period and takes a critical orientation. Kant bases his theory of knowledge, his moral and aesthetic system, and his judgments of finality on the structure of the mind. In the first half of the eighteenth century, German philosophy is replete with great names connected with Kantianism -- after it had been put through a Monistic evolution, however -- Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel have been called the triumvirate of Pantheism; then again, Schopenhauer, while Herbart returned to individualism. French philosophy in the nineteenth century is at first dominated by an eclectic Spiritualistic movement with which the names of Maine de Biran and, especially, Victor Cousin are associated. Cousin had disciples in America (C. Henry), and in France he gained favour with those whom the excesses of the Revolution had alarmed. In the first half of the nineteenth century French Catholics approved the Traditionalism inaugurated by de Bonald and de Lamennais, while another group took refuge in Ontologism. In the same period Auguste Comte founded Positivism, to which Littré and Taine adhered, though it rose to its greatest height in the English-speaking countries. In fact, England may be said to have been the second fatherland of Positivism; John Stuart Mill, Huxley, Alexander Bain and Herbert Spencer expanded its doctrines, combined them with Associationism and emphasized it criteriological aspect, or attempted (Spencer) to construct a vast synthesis of human sciences. The Associationist philosophy at this time was confronted by the Scotch philosophy which, in Hamilton, combined the teachings of Reid and of Kant and found an American champion in Noah Porter. Mansel spread the doctrines of Hamilton. Associationism regained favour with Thomas Brown and James Mill, but was soon enveloped in the large conception of Positivism, the dominant philosophy in England. Lastly, in Italy, Hegel was for a long time the leader of nineteenth-century philosophical thought (Vera and d'Ercole), whilst Gioberti, the ontologist and Rosmini occupy a distinct position. More recently, Positivism has gained numerous adherents in Italy. In the middle of the century, a large Krausist School existed in Spain, represented chiefly by Sanz del Rio (d. 1869) and N. Salmeron. Balmes (181O-48), the author of "Fundamental Philosophy" is an original thinker whose doctrines have many points of contact with Scholasticism. VI. CONTEMPORARY ORIENTATIONS A. Favourite Problems Leaving aside social questions, the study of which belongs to philosophy in only some of their aspects, it may be said that in the philosophic interest of the present day psychological questions hold the first place, and that chief among them is the problem of certitude. Kant, indeed, is so important a factor in the destinies of contemporary philosophy not only because he is the initiator of critical formalism, but still more because he obliges his successors to deal with the preliminary and fundamental question of the limits of knowledge. On the other hand the experimental investigation of mental processed has become the object of a new study, psycho-physiology, in which men of science co-operate with philosophers, and which meets with increasing success. This study figures in the programme of most modern universities. Originating at Leipzig (the School of Wundt) and Würzburg, it has quickly become naturalized in Europe and America. In America, "The Psychological Review" has devoted many articles to this branch of philosophy. Psychological studies are the chosen field of the American (Ladd, William James, Hall). The great success of psychology has emphasized the subjective character of aesthetics, in which hardly anyone now recognizes the objective and metaphysical element. The solutions in vogue are the Kantian, which represents the aesthetic judgment as formed in accordance with the subjective, structural function of the mind, or other psychologic solutions which reduce the beautiful to a psychic impression (the "sympathy", or Einfühlung, of Lipps; the "concrete intuition" of Benedetto Croce). These explanations are insufficient, as they neglect the objective aspect of the beautiful -- those elements which, on the part of the object, are the cause of the aesthetic impression and enjoyment. It may be said that the neo-Scholastic philosophy alone takes into account the objective aesthetic factor. The absorbing influence of psychology also manifests itself to the detriment of other branches of philosophy; first of all, to the detriment of metaphysics, which our contemporaries have unjustly ostracized -- unjustly, since, if the existence or possibility of a thing-in-itself is considered of importance, it behooves us to inquire under what aspects of reality it reveals itself. This ostracism of metaphysics, moreover, is largely due to misconception and to a wrong understanding of the theories of substance, of faculties, of causes etc., which belong to the traditional metaphysics. Then again, the invasion of psychology is manifest in logic: side by side with the ancient logic or dialectic, a mathematical or symbolic logic has developed (Peano, Russell, Peirce, Mitchell, and others) and, more recently, a genetic logic which would study, not the fixed laws of thought, but the changing process of mental life and its genesis (Baldwin). We have seen above (section II, D) how the increasing cultivation of psychology has produced other scientific ramifications which find favour with the learned world. Moral philosophy, long neglected, enjoys a renewed vogue notably in America, where ethnography is devoted to its service (see, e.g., the publications of the Smithsonian Institution). "The International Journal of Ethics" is a review especially devoted to this line of work. In some quarters, where the atmosphere is Positivist, there is a desire to get rid of the old morality, with its notions of value and of duty, and to replace it with a collection of empiric rules subject to evolution (Sidgwick, Huxley, Leslie Stephen, Durkheim, Levy-Bruhl). As to the history of philosophy, not only are very extended special studies devoted to it, but more and more room is given it in the study of every philosophic question. Among the causes of this exaggerated vogue are the impulse given by the Schools of Cousin and of Hegel, the progress of historical studies in general, the confusion arising from the clash of rival doctrines, and the distrust engendered by that confusion. Remarkable works have been produced by Deussen, on Indian and Oriental philosophy; by Zeller, on Greek antiquity; by Denifle, Hauréau, Bäumker, and Mandonnet, on the Middle Ages; by Windelband, Kuno Fischer, Boutroux and Höffding, on the modern period; and the list might easily be considerably prolonged. B. The Opposing Systems The rival systems of philosophy of the present time may be reduced to various groups: Positivism, neo-Kantianism, Monism, neo-Scholasticism. Contemporary philosophy lives in an atmosphere of Phenomenism, since Positivism and neo-Kantianism are at one on this important doctrine: that science and certitude are possible only within the limits of the world of phenomena, which is the immediate object of experience. Positivism, insisting on the exclusive rights of sensory experience, and Kantian criticism, reasoning from the structure of our cognitive faculties, hold that knowledge extends only as far as appearances; that beyond this is the absolute, the dark depths, the existence of which there is less and less disposition to deny, but which no human mind can fathom. On the contrary, this element of the absolute forms an integral constituent in neo-Scholasticism which has revived, with sobriety and moderation, the fundamental notions of Aristotelean and Medieval metaphysics, and has succeeded in vindicating them against attack and objection. (1) Positivism Positivism, under various forms, is defended in England by the followers of Spencer, by Huxley, Lewes, Tyndall, F. Harrison, Congreve, Beesby, J. Bridges, Grant Allen (James Martineau is a reactionary against Positivism); by Balfour, who at the same time propounds a characteristic theory of belief, and falls back on Fideism. From England Positivism passed over to America, where it soon dethroned the Scottish doctrines (Carus). De Roberty, in Russia, and Ribot, in France, are among its most distinguished disciples. In Italy it is found in the writings of Ferrari, Ardigo, and Morselli; in Germany, in those of Laas, Riehl, Guyau, and Durkheim. Less brutal than Materialism, the radical vice of Positivism is its identification of the knowable with the sensible. It seeks in vain to reduce general ideas to collective images, and to deny the abstract and universal character of the mind's concepts. It vainly denies the super-experiential value of the first logical principles in which the scientific life of the mind is rooted; nor will it ever succeed in showing that the certitude of such a judgment as 2 + 2 = 4 increases with our repeated addition of numbers of oxen or of coins. In morals, where it would reduce precepts and judgments to sociological data formed in the collective conscience and varying with the period and the environment, Positivism stumbles against the judgments of value, and the supersensible ideas of obligation, moral good, and law, recorded in every human conscience and unvarying in their essential data. (2) Kantianism Kantianism had been forgotten in Germany for some thirty years (1830-60); Vogt, Büchner, and Molesehott had won for Materialism an ephemeral vogue; but Materialism was swept away by a strong Kantian reaction. This reversion towards Kant (Rückkehr zu Kant) begins to be traceable in 1860 (notably as a result of Lange's "History of Materialism"), and the influence of Kantian doctrines may be said to permeate the whole contemporary German philosophy (Otto Liebmann, von Hartmann, Paulsen, Rehmke, Dilthey, Natorp, Fueken, the Immanentists, and the Empirico-criticists). French neo-Criticism, represented by Renouvier, was connected chiefly with Kant's second "Critique" and introduced a specific Voluntarism. Vacherot, Secrétan, Lachelier, Boutroux, Fouillée, and Bergson are all more or less under tribute to Kantianism. Ravaisson proclaims himself a follower of Maine de Biran. Kantianism has taken its place in the state programme of education and Paul Janet, who, with F. Bouillier and Caro, was among the last legatees of Cousin's Spiritualism, appears, in his "Testament philosophique", affecting a Monism with a Kantian inspiration. All those who, with Kant and the Positivists, proclaim the "bankruptcy of science" look for the basis of our certitude in an imperative demand of the will. This Voluntarism, also called Pragmatism (William James), and, quite recently, Humanism (Schiller at Oxford), is inadequate to the establishment of the theoretic moral and social sciences upon an unshakable base: sooner or later, reflection will ask what this need of living and of willing is worth, and then the intelligence will return to its position as the supreme arbiter of certitude. From Germany and France Kantianism has spread everywhere. In England it has called into activity the Critical Idealism associated with T. H. Green and Bradley. Hodgson, on the contrary, returns to Realism. S. Laurie may be placed between Green and Martineau. Emerson, Harris, Everett, and Royce spread Idealistic Criticism in America; Shadworth Hodgson, on the other hand, and Adamson tend to return to Realism, whilst James Ward emphasizes the function of the will. (3) Monism With a great many Kantians, a stratum of Monistic ideas is superimposed on Criticism, the thing in itself being considered numerically one. The same tendencies are observable among Positivist Evolutionists like Clifford and Romanes, or G.T. Ladd. (4) Neo-Scholasticism Neo-Scholasticism, the revival of which dates from the last third of the nineteenth century (Liberatore, Taparelli, Cornoldi, and others), and which received a powerful impulse under Leo XIII, is tending more and more to become the philosophy of Catholics. It replaces Ontologism, Traditionalism, Gunther's Dualism, and Cartesian Spiritualism, which had manifestly become insufficient. Its syntheses, renewed and completed, can be set up in opposition to Positivism and Kantianism, and even its adversaries no longer dream of denying the worth of its doctrines. The bearings of neo-Scholasticism have been treated elsewhere (see NEO-SCHOLASTICISM). VII. IS PROGRESS IN PHILOSOPHY INDEFINITE, OR IS THERE A PHILOSOPHIA PERENNIS? Considering the historic succession of systems and the evolution of doctrines from the remotest ages of India down to our own times, and standing face to face with the progress achieved by contemporary scientific philosophy, must we not infer the indefinite progress of philosophic thought? Many have allowed themselves to be led away by this ideal dream. Historic Idealism (Karl Marx) regards philosophy as a product fatally engendered by pre-existing causes in our physical and social environment. Auguste Comte's "law of the three states", Herbert Spencer's evolutionism Hegel's "indefinite becoming of the soul", sweep philosophy along in an ascending current toward an ideal perfection, the realization of which no one can foresee. For all these thinkers, philosophy is variable and relative: therein lies their serious error. Indefinite progress, condemned by history in many fields, is untenable in the history of philosophy. Such a notion is evidently refuted by the appearance of thinkers like Aristotle and Plato three centuries before Christ, for these men, who for ages have dominated, and still dominate, human thought, would be anachronisms, since they would be inferior to the thinkers of our own time. And no one would venture to assert this. History shows, indeed, that there are adaptations of a synthesis to its environment, and that every age has its own aspirations and its special way of looking at problems and their solutions; but it also presents unmistakable evidence of incessant new beginnings, of rhythmic oscillations from one pole of thought to the other. If Kant found an original formula of Subjectivism and the reine Innerlichkeit, it would be a mistake to think that Kant had no intellectual ancestors: he had them in the earliest historic ages of philosophy: M. Deussen has found in the Vedic hymn of the Upanishads the distinction between noumenon and phenomenon, and writes, on the theory of Mâyâ, "Kants Grunddogma, so alt wie die Philosophie" ("Die Philos. des Upanishad's", Leipzig, 1899, p. 204). It is false to say that all truth is relative to a given time and latitude, and that philosophy is the product of economic conditions in a ceaseless course of evolution, as historical Materialism holds. Side by side with these things, which are subject to change and belong to one particular condition of the life of mankind, there is a soul of truth circulating in every system, a mere fragment of that complete and unchangeable truth which haunts the human mind in its most disinterested investigations. Amid the oscillations of historic systems there is room for a philosophia perennis -- as it were a purest atmosphere of truth, enveloping the ages, its clearness somehow felt in spite of cloud and mist. "The truth Pythagoras sought after, and Plato, and Aristotle, is the same that Augustine and Aquinas pursued. So far as it is developed in history, truth is the daughter of time; so far as it bears within itself a content independent of time, and therefore of history, it is the daughter of eternity" [Willmann, "Gesch. d Idealismus", II (Brunswick, 1896), 55O; cf. Commer "Die immerwahrende Philosophie" (Vienna, 1899)]. This does not mean that essential and permanent verities do not adapt themselves to the intellectual life of each epoch. Absolute immobility in philosophy, no less than absolute relativity, is contrary to nature and to history. It leads to decadence and death. It is in this sense that we must interpret the adage: Vita in motu. VIII. PHILOSOPHY AND THE SCIENCES Aristotle of old laid the foundation of a philosophy supported by observation and experience. We need only glance through the list of his works to see that astronomy, mineralogy, physics and chemistry, biology, zoology, furnished him with examples and bases for his theories on the constitution, of the heavenly and terrestrial bodies, the nature of the vital principle, etc. Besides, the whole Aristotelean classification of the branches of philosophy (see section II) is inspired by the same idea of making philosophy -- general science -- rest upon the particular sciences. The early Middle Ages, with a rudimentary scientific culture, regarded all its learning, built up on the Trivium (grammar, rhetoric, dialectic) and Quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music), as preparation for philosophy. In the thirteenth century, when Scholasticism came under Aristotelean influences, it incorporated the sciences in the programme of philosophy itself. This may be seen in regulation issued by the Faculty of Arts of Paris 19 March, 1255, "De libris qui legendi essent" This order prescribes the study of commentaries or various scientific treatises of Aristotle, notably those on the first book of the "Meteorologica", on the treatises on Heaven and Earth, Generation, the Senses and Sensations, Sleeping and Waking, Memory, Plants, and Animals. Here are amply sufficient means for the magistri to familiarize the "artists" with astronomy, botany, physiology, and zoology to say nothing of Aristotle's "Physics", which was also prescribed as a classical text, and which afforded opportunities for numerous observations in chemistry and physics as then understood. Grammar and rhetoric served as preliminary studies to logic, Bible history, social science, and politics were introductory to moral philosophy. Such men as Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon expressed their views on the necessity of linking the sciences with philosophy and preached it by example. So that both antiquity and the Middle Ages knew and appreciated scientific philosophy. In the seventeenth century the question of the relation between the two enters upon a new phase: from this period modern science takes shape and begins that triumphal march which it is destined to continue through the twentieth century, and of which the human mind is justly proud. Modern scientific knowledge differs from that of antiquity and the Middle Ages in three important respects: the multiplication of sciences; their independent value; the divergence between common knowledge and scientific knowledge. In the Middle Ages astronomy was closely akin to astrology, chemistry to alchemy, physics to divination; modern science has severely excluded all these fantastic connections. Considered now from one side and again from another, the physical world has revealed continually new aspects, and each specific point of view has become the focus of a new study. On the other hand, by defining their respective limits, the sciences have acquired autonomy; useful in the Middle Ages only as a preparation for rational physics and for metaphysics, they are nowadays of value for themselves, and no longer play the part of handmaids to philosophy. Indeed, the progress achieved within itself by each particular science brings one more revolution in knowledge. So long as instruments of observation were imperfect, and inductive methods restricted, it was practically impossible to rise above an elementary knowledge. People knew, in the Middle Ages, that Wine, when left exposed to the air, became vinegar; but what do facts like this amount to in comparison with the complex formulae of modern chemistry? Hence it was that an Albertus Magnus or a Roger Bacon could flatter himself, in those days, with having acquired all the science of his time, a claim which would now only provoke a smile. In every department progress has drawn the line sharply between popular and scientific knowledge; the former is ordinarily the starting-point of the latter, but the conclusions and teachings involved in the sciences are unintelligible to those who lack the requisite preparation. Do not, then, these profound modifications in the condition of the sciences entail modifications in the relations which, until the seventeenth century, had been accepted as existing between the sciences and philosophy? Must not the separation of philosophy and science widen out to a complete divorce? Many have thought so, both scientists and philosophers, and it was for this that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries so many savants and philosophers turned their backs on one another. For the former, philosophy has become useless; the particular sciences, they say, multiplying and becoming perfect, must exhaust the whole field of the knowable, and a time will come when philosophy shall be no more. For the philosophers, philosophy has no need of the immeasurable mass of scientific notions which have been acquired, many of which possess only a precarious and provisional value. Wolff, who pronounced the divorce of science from philosophy, did most to accredit this view, and he has been followed by certain Catholic philosophers who held that scientific study may be excluded from philosophic culture. What shall we say on this question? That the reasons which formerly existed for keeping touch with science are a thousand times more imperative in our day. If the profound synthetic view of things which justifies the existence of philosophy presupposes analytical researches, the multiplication and perfection of those researches is certainly reason for neglecting them. The horizon of detailed knowledge widens incessantly; research of every kind is busy exploring the departments of the universe which it has mapped out. And philosophy, whose mission is to explain the order of the universe by general and ultimate reasons applicable, not only to a group of facts, but to the whole body of known phenomena, cannot be indifferent to the matter which it has to explain. Philosophy is like a tower whence we obtain the panorama of a great city -- its plan, its monuments, its great arteries, with the form and location of each -- things which a visitor cannot discern while he goes through the streets and lanes, or visits libraries, churches, palaces, and museums, one after another. If the city grows and develops, there is all the more reason, if we would know it as a whole, why we should hesitate to ascend the tower and study from that height the plan upon which its new quarters have been laid out. It is, happily, evident that contemporary philosophy is inclined to be first and foremost a scientific philosophy; it has found its way back from its wanderings of yore. This is noticeable in philosophers of the most opposite tendencies. There would be no end to the list if we had to enumerate every case where this orientation of ideas has been adopted. "This union", says Boutroux, speaking of the sciences and philosophy, "is in truth the classic tradition of philosophy. But there had been established a psychology and a metaphysics which aspired to set themselves up beyond the sciences, by mere reflection of the mind upon itself. Nowadays all philosophers are agreed to make scientific data their starting-point" (Address at the International Congress of Philosophy in 1900; Revue de Métaph. et de Morale, 1900, p. 697). Boutroux and many others spoke similarly at the International Congress of Bologna (April, 1911). Wundt introduces this union into the very definition of philosophy, which, he says, is "the general science whose function it is to unite ia a system free of all contradictions the knowledge acquired through the particular sciences, and to reduce to their principles the general methods of science and the conditions of knowledge supposed by them" ("Einleitung in die Philosophie", Leipzig, 1901, p. 19). And R. Eucken says: "The farther back the limits of the observable world recede, the more conscious are we of the lack of an adequately comprehensive explanation" -- " Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Philos. u. Lebensanschanung" (Leipzig, 1903), p. 157]. This same thought inspired Leo XIII when he placed the parallel and harmonious teaching of philosophy and of the sciences on the programme of the Institute of Philosophy created by him in the University of Louvain (see NEO-SCHOLASTICISM). On their side, the scientists have been coming to the same conclusions ever since they rose to a synthetic view of that matter which is the object of their study. So it was with Pasteur, so with Newton. Ostwald, professor of chemistry at Leipzig, has undertaken to publish the "Annalen der Naturphilosophie", a review devoted to the cultivation of the territory which is common to philosophy and the sciences A great many men of science, too, are engaged in philosophy without knowing it: in their constant discussions of "Mechanism", "Evolutionism", "Transformism", they are using terms which imply a philosophical theory of matter. If philosophy is the explanation as a whole of that world which the particular sciences investigate in detail, it follows that the latter find their culmination in the former, and that as the sciences are so will philosophy be. It is true that objections are put forward against this way of uniting philosophy and the sciences. Common observation, it is said, is enough support for philosophy. This is a mistake: philosophy cannot ignore whole departments of knowledge which are inaccessible to ordinary experience biology, for example, has shed a new light on the philosophic study of man. Others again adduce the extent and the growth of the sciences to show that scientific philosophy must ever remain an unattainable ideal; the practical solution of this difficulty concerns the teaching of philosophy (see section XI). IX. PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION Religion presents to man, with authority, the solution of man's problems which also concern philosophy. Such are the questions of the nature of God, of His relation with the visible world, of man's origin and destiny Now religion, which precedes philosophy in the social life, naturally obliges it to take into consideration the points of religious doctrine. Hence the close connection of philosophy with religion in the early stages of civilization, a fact strikingly apparent in Indian philosophy, which, not only at its beginning but throughout its development, was intimately bound up with the doctrine of the sacred books (see above). The Greeks, at least during the most important periods of their history, were much less subject to the influences of pagan religions; in fact, they combined with extreme scrupulosity in what concerned ceremonial usage a wide liberty in regard to dogma. Greek thought soon took its independent flight Socrates ridicules the gods in whom the common people believed; Plato does not banish religious ideas from his philosophy; but Aristotle keeps them entirely apart, his God is the Actus purus, with a meaning exclusively philosophic, the prime mover of the universal mechanism. The Stoics point out that all things obey an irresistible fatality and that the wise man fears no gods. And if Epicurus teaches cosmic determinism and denies all finality, it is only to conclude that man can lay aside all fear of divine intervention in mundane affairs. The question takes a new aspect when the influences of the Oriental and Jewish religions are brought to bear on Greek philosophy by neo-Pythagorism, the Jewish theology (end of the first century), and, above all, neo-Platonism (third century B.C.). A yearning for religion was stirring in the world, and philosophy became enamoured of every religious doctrine Plotinus (third century after Christ), who must always remain the most perfect type of the neo-Platonic mentality, makes philosophy identical with religion, assigning as its highest aim the union of the soul with God by mystical ways. This mystical need of the supernatural issues in the most bizarre lucubrations from Plotinus's successors, e.g. Jamblicus (d. about A.D. 330), who, on a foundation of neo-Platonism, erected an international pantheon for all the divinities whose names are known. It has often been remarked that Christianity, with its monotheistic dogma and its serene, purifying morality, came in the fulness of time and appeased the inward unrest with which souls were afflicted at the end of the Roman world. Though Christ did not make Himself the head of a philosophical school, the religion which He founded supplies solutions for a group of problems which philosophy solves by other methods (e.g. the immortality of the soul). The first Christian philosophers, the Fathers of the Church, were imbued with Greek ideas and took over from the circumambient neo-Platonism the commingling of philosophy and religion. With them philosophy is incidental and secondary, employed only to meet polemic needs, and to support dogma; their philosophy is religious. In this Clement of Alexandria and Origen are one with St. Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. The early Middle Ages continued the same traditions, and the first philosophers may be said to have received neo-Platonic influences through the channel of the Fathers. John Scotus Eriugena (ninth century), the most remarkable mind of this first period, writes that "true religion is true philosophy and, conversely, true philosophy is true religion" (De div. praed., I, I). But as the era advances a process of dissociation sets in, to end in the complete separation between the two sciences of Scholastic theology or the study of dogma, based fundamentally on Holy Scripture, and Scholastic philosophy, based on purely rational investigation. To understand the successive stages of this differentiation, which was not completed until the middle of the thirteenth century, we must draw attention to certain historical facts of capital importance. (1) The origin of several philosophical problems, in the early Middle Ages, must be sought within the domain of theology, in the sense that the philosophical discussions arose in reference to theological questions. The discussion, e.g. of transubstantiation (Berengarius of Tours), raised the problem of substance and of change, or becoming. (2) Theology being regarded as a superior and sacred science, the whole pedagogic and didactic organization of the period tended to confirm this superiority (see section XI). (3) The enthusiasm for dialectics, which reached its maximum in the eleventh century, brought into fashion certain purely verbal methods of reasoning bordering on the sophistical. Anselm of Besata (Anselmus Peripateticus) is the type of this kind of reasoner. Now the dialecticians, in discussing theological subjects, claimed absolute validity for their methods, and they ended in such heresies as Gottschalk's on predestination, Berengarius's on transubstantiation, and Roscelin's Tritheism. Berengarius's motto was: "Per omnia ad dialecticam confugere". There followed an excessive reaction on the part of timorous theologians, practical men before all things, who charged dialectics with the sins of the dialecticians. This antagonistic movement coincided with an attempt to reform religious life. At the head of the group was Peter Damian (1007-72), the adversary of the liberal arts; he was the author of the saying that philosophy is the handmaid of theology. From this saying it has been concluded that the Middle Ages in general put philosophy under tutelage, whereas the maxim was current only among a narrow circle of reactionary theologians. Side by side with Peter Damian in Italy, were Manegold of Lautenbach and Othloh of St. Emmeram, in Germany. (4) At the same time a new tendency becomes discernible in the eleventh century, in Lanfranc, William of Hirschau, Rodulfus Ardens, and particularly St. Anselm of Canterbury; the theologian calls in the aid of philosophy to demonstrate certain dogmas or to show their rational side. St. Anselm, in an Augustinian spirit, attempted this justification of dogma, without perhaps invariably applying to the demonstrative value of his arguments the requisite limitations. In the thirteenth century these efforts resulted in a new theological method, the dialectic. (5) While these disputes as to the relations of philosophy and theology went on, many philosophical questions were nevertheless treated on their own account, as we have seen above (universals, St. Anselm's theodicy, Abelard's philosophy, etc.). (6) The dialectic method, developed fully in the twelfth century, just when Scholastic theology received a powerful impetus, is a theological, not a philosophical, method. The principal method in theology is the interpretation of Scripture and of authority; the dialectic method is secondary and consists in first establishing a dogma and then showing its reasonableness, confirming the argument from authority by the argument from reason. It is a process of apologetics. From the twelfth century onward, these two theological methods are fairly distinguished by the words auctoritates, rationes. Scholastic theology, condensed in the "summae" and "books of sentences", is henceforward regarded as distinct from philosophy. The attitude of theologians towards philosophy is threefold: one group, the least influential, still opposes its introduction into theology, and carries on the reactionary traditions of the preceding period (e.g. Gauthier de Saint-Victor); another accepts philosophy, but takes a utilitarian view of it, regarding it merely as a prop of dogma (Peter Lombard); a third group, the most influential, since it includes the three theological schools of St. Victor, Abelard, and Gilbert de la Porrée, grants to philosophy, in addition to this apologetic role, an independent value which entitles it to be cultivated and studied for its own sake. The members of this group are at once both theologians and philosophers. (7) At the opening of the thirteenth century one section of Augustinian theologians continued to emphasize the utilitarian and apologetic office of philosophy. But St. Thomas Aquinas created new Scholastic traditions, and wrote a chapter on scientific methodology in which the distinctness and in dependence of the two sciences is thoroughly established. Duns Scotus, again, and the Terminists exaggerated this independence. Latin Averroism, which had a brilliant but ephemeral vogue in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, accepted whole and entire in philosophy Averroistic Peripateticism, and, to safeguard Catholic orthodoxy, took refuge behind the sophism that what is true in philosophy may be false in theology, and conversely -- wherein they were more reserved than Averroes and the Arab philosophers, who regarded religion as something inferior, good enough for the masses, and who did not trouble themselves about Moslem orthodoxy. Lully, going to extremes, maintained that all dogma is susceptible of demonstration, and that philosophy and theology coalesce. Taken as a whole, the Middle Ages, profoundly religious, constantly sought to reconcile its philosophy with the Catholic Faith. This bond the Renaissance philosophy severed. In the Reformation period a group of publicists, in view of the prevailing strife, formed projects of reconciliation among the numerous religious bodies. They convinced themselves that all religions possess a common fund of essential truths relating to God, and that their content is identical, in spite of divergent dogmas. Besides, Theism, being only a form of Naturism applied to religion, suited the independent ways of the Renaissance. As in building up natural law, human nature was taken into consideration, so reason was interrogated to discover religious ideas. And hence the wide acceptance of Theism, not among Protestants only, but generally among minds that had been carried away with the Renaissance movement (Erasmus, Coornheert). For this tolerance or religious indifferentism modern philosophy in more than one instance substituted a disdain of positive religions. The English Theism or Deism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries criticizes all positive religion and, in the name of an innate religious sense, builds up a natural religion which is reducible to a collection of theses on the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. The initiator of this movement was Herbert of Cherbury (1581-1648); J. Toland (1670-1722), Tindal (1656-1733), and Lord Bolingbroke took part in it. This criticizing movement inaugurated in England was taken up in France, where it combined with an outright hatred of Catholicism. Pierre Bayle (1646-17O6) propounded the thesis that all religion is anti-rational and absurd, and that a state composed of Atheists is possible. Voltaire wished to substitute for Catholicism an incoherent mass of doctrines about God. The religious philosophy of the eighteenth century in France led to Atheism and paved the way for the Revolution. In justice to contemporary philosophy it must be credited with teaching the amplest tolerance towards the various religions; and in its programme of research it has included religious psychology, or the study of the religious sentiment. For Catholic philosophy the relations between philosophy and theology, between reason and faith, were fixed, in a chapter of scientific methodology, by the great Scholastic thinkers of the thirteenth century. Its principles, which still retain their vitality, are as follows: (a) Distinctness of the two sciences. The independence of philosophy in regard to theology, as in regard to any other science whatsoever, is only an interpretation of this undeniable principle of scientific progress, as applicable in the twentieth century as it was in the thirteenth, that a rightly constituted science derives its formal object, its principles, and its constructive method from its own resources, and that, this being so, it cannot borrow from any other science without compromising its own right to exist. (b) Negative, not positive, material, not formal, subordination of philosophy in regard to theology. This means that, while the two sciences keep their formal independence (the independence of the principles by which their investigations are guided), there are certain matters where philosophy cannot contradict the solutions afforded by theology. The Scholastics of the Middle Ages justified this subordination, being profoundly convinced that Catholic dogma contains the infallible word of God, the expression of truth. Once a proposition, e.g. that two and two make four, has been accepted as certain, logic forbids any other science to form any conclusion subversive of that proposition. The material mutual subordination of the sciences is one of those laws out of which logic makes the indispensable guarantee of the unity of knowledge. "The truth duly demonstrated by one science serves as a beacon in another science." The certainty of a theory in chemistry imposes its acceptance on physics, and the physicist who should go contrary to it would be out of his course. Similarly, the philosopher cannot contradict the certain data of theology, any more than he can contradict the certain conclusions of the individual sciences. To deny this would be to deny the conformity of truth with truth, to contest the principle of contradiction, to surrender to a relativism which is destructive of all certitude. "It being supposed that nothing but what is true is included in this science (sc. theology) . . . it being supposed that whatever is true by the decision and authority of this science can nowise be false by the decision of right reason: these things, I say, being supposed, as it is manifest from them that the authority of this science and reason alike rest upon truth, and one verity cannot be contrary to another, it must be said absolutely that reason can in no way be contrary to the authority of this Scripture, nay, all right reason is in accord with it" (Henry of Ghent, "Summa Theologica", X, iii, n.4). But when is a theory certain? This is a question of fact, and error is easy. In proportion as the principle is simple and absolute, so are its applications complex and variable. It is not for philosophy to establish the certitude of theological data, any more than to fix the conclusions of chemistry or of physiology. The certainty of those data and those conclusions must proceed from another source. "The preconceived idea is entertained that a Catholic savant is a soldier in the service of his religious faith, and that, in his hands, science is but a weapon to defend his Credo. In the eyes of a great many people, the Catholic savant seems to be always under the menace of excommunication, or entangled in dogmas which hamper him, and compelled, for the sake of loyalty to his Faith, to renounce the disinterested love of science and its free cultivation" (Mercier, "Rapport sur les études supér. de philos.", 1891, p. 9). Nothing could be more untrue. X. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND PHILOSOPHY The principles which govern the doctrinal relations of philosophy and theology have moved the Catholic Church to intervene on various occasions in the history of philosophy. As to the Church's right and duty to intervene for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of theological dogma and the deposit of faith, there is no need of discussion in this place. It is interesting, however, to note the attitude taken by the Church towards philosophy throughout the ages, and particularly in the Middle Ages, when a civilization saturated with Christianity had established extremely intimate relations between theology and philosophy. A. The censures of the Church have never fallen upon philosophy as such, but upon theological applications, judged false, which were based upon philosophical reasonings. John Scotus Eriugena, Roscelin, Berengarius, Abelard, Gilbert de la Porrée were condemned because their teachings tended to subvert theological dogmas. Eriugena denied the substantial distinction between God and created things; Roscelin held that there are three Gods; Berengarius, that there is no real transubstantiation in the Eucharist; Abelard and Gilbert de la Porrée essentially modified the dogma of the Trinity. The Church, through her councils, condemned their theological errors; with their philosophy as such she does not concern herself. "Nominalism", says Hauréau, "is the old enemy. It is, in fact, the doctrine which, because it best accords with reason, is most remote from axioms of faith. Denounced before council after council, Nominalism was condemned in the person of Abelard as it had been in the person of Roscelin" (Hist. philos. scol., I, 292). No assertion could be more inaccurate. What the Church has condemned is neither the so-called Nominalism, nor Realism, nor philosophy in general, nor the method of arguing in theology, but certain applications of that method which are judged dangerous, i.e. matters which are not philosophical. In the thirteenth century a host of teachers adopted the philosophical theories of Roscelin and Abelard, and no councils were convoked to condemn them. The same may be said of the condemnation of David of Dinant (thirteenth century), who denied the distinction between God and matter, and of various doctrines condemned in the fourteenth century as tending to the negation of morality. It has been the same in modern times. To mention only the condemnation of Gunther, of Rosmini, and of Ontologism in the nineteenth century, what alarmed the Church was the fact that the theses in question had a theologic: bearing. B. The Church has never imposed any philosophical system, though she has anathematized many doctrines, or branded them as suspect. This corresponds with the prohibitive, but not imperative attitude of theology in regard to philosophy. To take one example, faith teaches that the world was created in time; and yet St. Thomas maintains that the concept of eternal creation (ab aeterno) involves no contradiction. He did not think himself obliged to demonstrate creation in time: his teaching would have been heterodox only if, with the Averroists his day, he had maintained the necessary eternity of the world. It may, perhaps, be objected that many Thomistic doctrines were condemned in 1277 by Etienne Tempier, Bishop of Paris. But it is well to note, and recent works on the subject have abundantly proved this, that Tempier's condemnation, in so far as it applied to Thomas Aquinas, was the issue of intrigues and personal animosity, and that, in canon law, it had no force outside of the Diocese of Paris. Moreover, it was annulled by one of Tempier's successors, Etienne de Borrète, in 1325. C. The Church has encouraged philosophy. To say nothing of the fact that all those who applied themselves to science and philosophy in the Middle Ages were churchmen, and that the liberal arts found an asylum in capitular and monastic schools until the twelfth century, it is important to remark that the principal universities of the Middle Ages were pontifical foundations. This was the case with Paris. To be sure, in the first years of the university's aquaintance with the Aristotelean encyclopaedia (late twelfth century) there were prohibitions against reading the "Physics", the "Metaphysics", and the treatise "On the Soul". But these restrictions were of a temporary character and arose out of particular circumstanccs. In 1231, Gregory IX laid upon a commission of three consultors the charge to prepare an amended edition of Aristotle "ne utile per inutile vitietur" (lest what is useful suffer damage through what is useless). The work of expurgatio. was done, in point of fact, by the Albertine-Thomist School, and, beginning from the year 1255, the Faculty of Arts, with the knowledge of the ecclesiastical authority, ordered the teaching of all the books previously prohibited (see Mandonnet, "Siger de Brabant et l'averroïsme latin au XIIIe s.", Louvain 1910). It might also be shown how in modern times and in our own day the popes have encouraged philosophic studies. Leo XIII, as is well known, considered the restoration of philosophic Thomism on of the chief tasks of his pontificate. XI. THE TEACHING OF PHILOSOPHY The methods of teaching philosophy have varied in various ages. Socrates used to interview his auditors, and hold symposia in the market-place, on the porticoes and in the public gardens. His method was interrogation, he whetted the curiosity of the audience and practised what had become known as Socratic irony and the maieutic art (maieutikê techne), the art of delivering minds of their conceptions. His successor opened schools properly so called, and from the place occupied by these schools several systems took their names (the Stoic School, the Academy, the Lyceum). In the Middle Ages and down to the seventeenth century the learned language was Latin. The German discourses of Eckhart are mentioned as merely sporadic examples. From the ninth to the twelfth century teaching was confined to the monastic and cathedral schools. It was the golden age of schools. Masters and students went from one school to another: Lanfranc travelled over Europe; John of Salisbury (twelfth century) heard at Paris all the then famous professors of philosophy; Abelard gathered crowds about his rostrum. Moreover: as the same subjects were taught everywhere, and from the same text-books, scholastic wanderings were attended with few disadvantages. The books took the form of commentaries or monographs. From the time of Abelard a method came into use which met with great success, that of setting forth the pros and cons of a question, which was later perfected by the addition of a solutio. The application of this method was extended in the thirteenth century (e.g. in the "Summa theologica" of St. Thomas). Lastly, philosophy being an educational preparation for theology, the "Queen of the Sciences", philosophical and theological topics were combined in one and the same book, or even in the same lecture. At the end of the twelfth century and the beginning of the thirteenth, the University of Paris was organized, and philosophical teaching was concentrated in the Faculty of Arts. Teaching was dominated by two principles: internationalism and freedom. The student was an apprentice-professor: after receiving the various degrees, he obtained from the chancellor of the university a licence to teach (licentia docendi). Many of the courses of this period have been preserved, the abbreviated script of the Middle Ages being virtually a stenographic system. The programme of courses drawn up in 1255 is well known: it comprises the exegesis of all the books of Aristotle. The commentary, or lectio (from legere, to read), is the ordinary form of instruction (whence the German Vorlesungen and the English lecture). There were also disputations, in which questions were treated by means of objections and answers; the exercise took a lively character, each one being invited to contribute his thoughts on the subject. The University of Paris was the model for all the others, notably those of Oxford and Cambridge. These forms of instruction in the universities lasted as long as Aristoteleanism, i.e. until the seventeenth century. In the eighteenth century -- the siècle des lumières (Erklärung) -- philosophy took a popular and encyclopedic form, and was circulated in the literary productions of the period. In the nineteenth century it resumed its didactic attitude in the universities and in the seminaries, where, indeed its teaching had long continued. The advance of philological and historical studies had a great influence on the character of philosophical teaching: critical methods were welcomed, and little by little the professors adopted the practice of specializing in this or that branch of philosophy -- a practice which is still in vogue. Without attempting to touch on all the questions involved in modern methods of teaching philosophy, we shall here indicate some of the principal features. A. The Language of Philosophy The earliest of the moderns -- as Descartes or Leibniz -- used both Latin and the vernacular, but in the nineteenth century (except in ecclesiastical seminaries and in certain academical exercises mainly ceremonial in character) the living languages supplanted Latin; the result has been a gain in clearness of thought and interest and vitality of teaching. Teaching in Latin too often contents itself with formulae: the living language effects a better comprehension of things which must in any case be difficult. Personal experience, writes Fr. Hogan, formerly superior of the Boston Seminary, in his "Clerical Studies" (Philadelphia, 1895-1901), has shown that among students who have learned philosophy, particularly Scholastic, only in Latin, very few have acquired anything more than a mass of formulae, which they hardly understand; though this does not always prevent their adhering to their formulae through thick and thin. Those who continue to write in Latin -- as many Catholic philosophers, often of the highest worth, still do -- have the sad experience of seeing their books confined to a very narrow circle of readers. B. Didactic Processes Aristotle's advice, followed by the Scholastics, still retains its value and its force: before giving the solution of a problem, expound the reasons for and against. This explains, in particular, the great part played by the history of philosophy or the critical examination of the solutions proposed by the great thinkers. Commentary on a treatise still figures in some special higher courses; but contemporary philosophical teaching is principally divided according to the numerous branches of philosophy (see section II). The introduction of laboratories and practical seminaries (séminaires practiques) in philosophical teaching has been of the greatest advantage. Side by side with libraries and shelves full of periodicals there is room for laboratories and museums, once the necessity of vivifying philosophy by contact with the sciences is admitted (see section VIII). As for the practical seminary, in which a group of students, with the aid of a teacher, investigate to some special problem, it may be applied to any branch of philosophy with remarkable results. The work in common, where each directs his individual efforts towards one general aim, makes each the beneficiary of the researches of all; it accustoms them to handling the instruments of research, facilitates the detection of facts, teaches the pupil how to discover for himself the reasons for what he observes, affords a real experience in the constructive methods of discovery proper to each subject, and very often decides the scientific vocation of those whose efforts have been crowned with a first success. C. The Order of Philosophical Teaching One of the most complex questions is: With what branch ought philosophical teaching to begin, and what order should it follow? In conformity with an immemorial tradition, the beginning is often made with logic. Now logic, the science of science, is difficult to understand and unattractive in the earliest stages of teaching. It is better to begin with the sciences which take the real for their object: psychology, cosmology, metaphysics, and theodicy. Scientific logic will be better understood later on; moral philosophy presupposes psychology; systematic history of philosophy requires a preliminary acquaintance with all the branches of philosophy (see Mercier, "Manuel de philosophie", Introduction, third edition, Louvain, 1911). Connected with this question of the order of teaching is another: viz. What should be the scientific teaching preliminary to philosophy? Only a course in the sciences specially appropriate to philosophy can meet the manifold exigencies of the problem. The general scientific courses of our modern universities include too much or too little: "too much in the sense that professional teaching must go into numerous technical facts and details with which philosophy has nothing to do; too little, because professional teaching often makes the observation of facts its ultimate aim, whilst, from our standpoint, facts are, and can be, only a means, a starting-point, towards acquiring a knowledge of the most general causes and laws" (Mercier, "Rapport sur les études supérieures de philosophie", Louvain, 1891, p. 25). M. Boutroux, a professor at the Sorbonne, solves the problem of philosophical teaching at the university in the same sense, and, according to him, the flexible and very liberal organization of the faculty of philosophy should include "the whole assemblage of the sciences, whether theoretic, mathematico-physical, or philologico-historical" ("Revue internationale de l'enseignement", Paris, 1901, p. 51O). The programme of courses of the Institute of Philosophy of Louvain is drawn up in conformity with this spirit. XII. BIBLIOGRAPHY GENERAL WORKS. -- MERCIER, Cours de philosophie. Logique. Criteriologie générale. Ontologie. Psychologie (Louvain, 1905-10); NYS, Cosmologie (Louvain, 1904); Stonyhurst Philosophical Series: -- CLARKE, Logic (London, 1909); JOHN RICKABY, First Principles of Knowledge (London, 1901); JOSEPH RICKABY, Moral Philosophy (London, 1910); BOEDDER, Natural Theology (London, 1906); MAHER, Psychology (London, 1909); JOHN RICKABY, General Metaphysics (London, 1909); WALKER, Theories of Knowledge (London, 1910--); ZIGLIARA, Summa philos. (Paris); SCHIFFINI, Principia philos. (Turin); URRABURU, Institut. philosophiae (Valladolid); IDEM, Compend. phil. schol. (Madrid); Philosophia Locensis: -- PASCH, Inst. Logicales (Freiburg, 1888); IDEM, Inst. phil. natur. (Freiburg, 1880); IDEM, Inst. psychol. (Freiburg, 1898); HONTHEIM, Inst. theodicaeae; MEYER, Inst. iuris notur.; DOMET DE VORGEs, Abrégé de métaophysique (Paris); FAROES, Etudes phil. (Paris); GUTBERLET, Lehrbuch der Philos. Logik und Erkenntnistheorie, Algemeine Metaphys., Naturphilos., Die psychol., Die Theodicee, Ethik u. Naturrecht, Ethik u. Religion (Münster, 1878-85); RABIER, Leçons de phil. (Paris); WINDELBAND with the collaboration of LIEBMANN, WUNDT, LIPPS, BAUSH, LASK, RICKERT, TROELTSCH, and GROOS, Die Philos. im Beginn des zwanzigsten Jahrhund. (Heidelberg); Systematische Philosophie by DILTHEY, RIEHL, WUNDT, OSTWALD, EBBINGHAUS, EUCKEM, PAULSEN, and MUNCH; LIPPS, Des Gesamtwerkers, Die Kultur der Gegenwärt (Leipzig), pt. I, vi; DE WULF, tr. COFFEY, Scholasticism Old and New. An Introduction to Neo-Scholastic Philosophy (Dublin, 1907); KULPE, Einleitung in die Philos. (Leipzig); WUNDT, Einleitung in die Philos. (Leipzig); HARPER, The Metaphysics of the School (London, 1879-84). DICTIONARIES. -- BALDWIN, Dict. of Philosophy and Psychology (London, 1901-05); FRANCE, Dict. des sciences Phil. (Paris, 1876); EISLER, Wörterbuch der Philosoph. Begriffe (Berlin, 1899); Vocabulaire technique et critique de Phil., in course of publication by the Soc. française do philosophie. COLLECTIONS. -- Bibliothèque de l'Institut supérieur de Philosophie; PEILLAUBE, Bibl. de Phil. expérimentale (Paris); RIVIERE, Bibl. de Phil. contemporaine (Paris); Coll. historique des grands Philosophes (Paris); LE BON, Bibl. de Philosophie scientif. (Paris); PIAT, Les grands Philosophes (Paris); Philosophische Bibliothek (Leipzig). PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS. -- Mind, a quarterly review of psychology and Philosophy (London, 1876--); The Philosoph. Rev. (New York, 1892--); Internat. Jour. of Ethics (Philadelphia); Proc. of Aristotelian Society (London, 1888--); Rev. Neo-scholastique de Phil. (Louvain, 1894--); Rev. des sciences phil. et théol. (Paris) Revue Thomiste (Toulouse, 1893--); Annales de Philosophie Chret. (Paris, 1831--); Rev. de Philos. (Paris); Philosophisches Jahrbuch (Fulda); Zeitschr. für Philos. und Philosophische Kritik, formerly Fichte-Utrisische Zeitschr. (Leipzig, 1847--); Kantstudien (Berlin, 1896--); Arch. f. wissehoftliche Philos. und Soziologie (Leipzig, 1877--); Arch. f. systematische Philos. (Berlin, 1896); Arch. f. Gesch. d. Philos. (Berlin, 1888--); Rev. Phil. de la France et de l'Etranger (Paris, 1876--); Rev. de métaph. et de morale (Paris, 1894--); Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte (Amsterdam, 1907--); Riv. di filosofio neo-scholastico (Florence, 1909--); Rivisto di filosofia (Modena). DIVISION OF PHILOSOPHY. -- Methods. -- MARIETAN, Le probème de la classification des sciences d'Aristote d S. Thomas (Paris, 1901); WILLMANN, Didaktik (Brunswick, 1903). GENERAL HISTORY. -- UEBERWEG, Hist. of Philosophy, tr. HARRIS (New York, 1875-76); ERDMANN, Hist. of Phil. (London, 1898); WINDELBAND, Hist. of Phil. (New York, 1901); TURNER, Hist. of Phil. (Boston, 1903); WILLMANN, Gesch. des Idealismus (Brunswick, 1908); ZELLER, Die Philos. der Griechen (Berlin), tr. ALLEYNE, RETEHEL, GOODWIN, COSTELLOE, and MUIRHEAD (London); DE WULF, Hist. of Mediaeval Phil. (London, 1909; Paris, Tubingen, and Florence, 1912); WINDELRAND, Gesch. der neueren Philos. (Leipzig, 1872-80), tr. TUFTS (New York, 1901); HOFFDING, Den nyere Filosofis Historie (Copenhagen, 1894), tr. MAYER, A Hist. of Mod. Phil. (London, 1900); FISHER, Geschichte der neueren Philosophie (Heidelberg, 1889-1901); STÖCKL, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie (Mainz, 1888; tr. in part by FINLAY, Dublin, 1903); WEBER, History of Philosophy, tr. THILLY (New York, 1901). CONTEMPORARY HISTORY. -- EUCKEN, Geistige Strömungen der Gegenwart (Leipzig, 1901); WINDELBAND, Die Philos. im Beginn d. XX. Jahr., I (Heidelberg); CALDERON, Les courants phil. dans l'Amérique Latine (Heidelberg, 1909); CEULEMANS, Le mouvement phil. en Amérique in Rev. néo-scholast. (Nov., 1909); BAUMANN, Deutsche u. ausserdeutsche Philos. der letzen Jahrzehnte (Gotha, 1903). PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY. -- HEITZ, Essai hist. sur les rapp. entre la philosophie et la foi de Bérenger de Tours à S. Thomas (Paris, 1909); BRUNHES, La foi chrét. et la pil. au temps de la renaiss. caroling. (Paris, 1903); GRABMANN, Die Gesch. der scholast. methode (Freiburg, 1909). MAURICE DE WULF Philoxenus Philoxenus (AKHSENAYA) OF MABBOGH. Born at Tahal, in the Persian province of Beth-Garmai in the second quarter of the fifth century; died at Gangra, in Paphlagonia, 523. He studied at Edessa when Ibas was bishop of that city (435-57). Shortly after he joined the ranks of the Monophysites and became their most learned and courageous champion. In 485 he was appointed Bishop of Hierapolis, or Mabbogh (Manbidj) by Peter the Fuller. He continued to attack the Decrees of Chalcedon and to defend the "Henoticon" of Zeno. He twice visited Constantinople in the interests of his party, and in 512 he persuaded the Emperor Anastasius to depose Flavian of Antioch and to appoint Severus in his stead. His triumph, however, was short-lived. Anastasius died in 518 and was succeeded by the orthodox Justin I. By a decree of the new ruler the bishops who had been deposed under Zeno and Anastasius were restored to their sees, and Philoxenus, with fifty-three other Monophysites, was banished. He went to Philippopolis, in Thrace, and afterwards to Gangra where he was murdered. Philoxenus is considered one of the greatest masters of Syriac prose. He wrote treatises on liturgy, exegesis, moral and dogmatic theology, besides many letters which are important for the ecclesiastical history of his time. Notice must be taken of the Philoxenian Syriac version of the Holy Scriptures. This version was not Philoxenus's own work, but was made, upon his request and under his direction, by the chorepiscopus Polycarp about 505. It seems to have been a free revision of the Peshitta according to the Lucian recension of the Septuagint. It is not known whether it extended to the whole Bible. Of the Philoxenian version of the Old Testament we have only a few fragments of the Book of Isaias (xxviii, 3-17; xlii, 17-xlix, 18, lxvi, 11-23) preserved in Syr. manuscripts Add. 17106 of the British Museum, and published by Ceriani. Of the New Testament we have the Second Epistle of St. Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of St. John and the Epistle of St. Jude, all of which are printed in our Syriac Bibles. There remain also a few fragments of the Epistles of St. Paul (Rom., vi, 20; I Cor., i, 28; II Cor., vii, 13; x, 4; Eph., vi, 12), first published by Wiseman from Syr. MS. 153 of the Vatican. Gwynn is of the opinion that the Syriac text of the Apocalypse published by himself in 1897 probably belongs to the original Philoxenian. DUVAL, Litterature Syriaque (3rd ed., Paris, 1907); WRIGHT, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894); ASSEMANI, Bibliotheca Orientalis, II (Rome, 1719); WISEMAN, Horae Syriacae (Rome, 1828); CERIANI, Monumenta sacra et profana, V (Milan, 1868); RENAUDOT, Liturgiarum orientalium Collectio, II (Frankfort, 1847); MARTIN, Syro-Chaldaicae Institutiones (1873); GUIDI, La Lettera di Filosseno ai monaci di Tell Adda (Rome, 1886); FROTHINGHAM, Stephen bar Sudaili, the Syrian Mystic and the Book of Hierotheos (Leyden, 1886); WALLIS-BUDGE, The Discourses of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbogh (2 vols., London, 1894); VASCHALDE, Three Letters of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbogh (485-519): being the letter to the monks, the first letter to the monks of Beth-Gaugal, and the letter to Emperor Zeno, with an English translation, and an introduction to the life, works, and doctrine of Philoxenus (Rome, 1902); IDEM, Philoxeni Mabbugens is Tractatus de Trinitate et Incarnatione in Corpus, Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (Paris, 1907); GWYNN, The Apocalypse of St. John in a Syria Version hitherto unknown (Dublin, 1897); IDEM, Remnants of the later Syriac Versions of the Bible (Oxford, 1909); BAETHGEN, Philoxenus von Mabug uber den Glaubenin Zeitschrift fur Kirchgeschichte, V (1882), 122-38. A. VASCHLADE Titular See of Phocaea Phocæa A titular see in Asia, suffragan of Ephesus. The town of Phocæa was founded in the eleventh century b.c. by colonists from Phocidia led by two Athenians. They settled first on a small island on the neighbouring coast, a territory given by the Cymæans, between the Bays of Cymæus and Hermæus, 23 miles north of Smyrna. It was admitted to the Ionian Confederation after having accepted kings of the race of Codrus. Its fine position, its two ports, and the enterprising spirit of the inhabitants made it one of the chief maritime cities of ancient times. Historians speak of it but rarely before the Roman wars against Antiochus, The prætor Æmilius Regillus took possession of the town (189 b.c.); he disturbed neither its boundaries nor its laws. During the war against Aristonicus, who reclaimed the throne of Pergamum, the Phocæans took his part and, through the intervention of Massilia, escaped being severely punished by the Romans. At the time the latter had definitively established his power in Asia, Phocæa was only a commercial town; its money was coined until the time of the later Empire; but its harbour gradually silted up and the inhabitants abandoned it. In 978 Theodore Carentenus built Bardas Sclerus near Phocæa. In 1090 the Turk Tchaga of Smyrna took possession of it for a short time. The Venetians traded there after 1082, but the Genoese quickly supplanted them. In 1275 Michael VIII Palæologus gave Manuel Zaccaria the territory of the city and the right to exploit the neighbouring alum mines. In 1304 the Genoese, with the co-operation of the Greeks of the adjoining towns, erected a fortress to defend the town against the Turks, and some distance from the ancient Phocæa founded a city which they called New Phocæa. In 1336 Andronicus the Young, allied with Saroukhan, Sultan of Magnesia, besieged the two towns and obliged them to pay the tribute stipulated in 1275. They continued also to pay annually to Saroukhan 500 ducats. From 1340 to 1345 the Greeks occupied the two towns, and again in 1358 for a short period. At the time of the invasion of Timur in 1403, they purchased peace by the payment of money. In the midst of difficulties the Genoese colony continued until the end of 1455, when it passed into the hands of the Turks. In 1650 a naval battle between the Turks and Venetians took place in sight of Phocæa. To-day Phocæa, in Turkish Fotchatin, or Eski Fotcha (ancient Phocæa), is the capital of a caza of the vilayet of Smyrna, has about 6000 inhabitants (4500 Greeks), and exports salt. About six miles to the north, Yeni Fotcha (new Phocæa) is situated on the Gulf of Tchandarli; it has 4500 inhabitants (3500 Greeks), and exports agricultural products. Seven Greek bishops of Phocæa are known by their signatures at the Councils; Mark, at Sardica (344); Theoctistus, at Ephesus (441); Quintus, at Chalcedon (451); John, at Constantinople (692); Leo, at Nice (787); Nicetas, at Constantinople (869); Paul, at Constantinople (879). In 1387 ancient Phocæa was separated from Ephesus and given to the suffragan of Smyrna. In 1403 it still had a titular. The Genoese colony had its Latin bishops, seven of whose names are recorded from 1346 to 1475; the later ones were undoubtedly non-residents: Bartholomew, 1346; John, 1383; John, before 1427; Nicholas, 1427; Ludovicus, about 1450; Stephanus, 1457; Ægidius, 1475. LE QUIEN, Oriens christ., I, 735; III, 1077; TEXIER, Asie mineure, 371-5; THISQUEN, Phocaica (Bonn, 1842); DE MASLATRIE, Trésor de chronologie (Paris, 1889), 1787; TOMASCHEK, Zur historischen Topographie von Kleinasien im Mittelalter (Vienna, 1891), 25-27; WAECHTER, Der Verfall des Griechentums in Kleinasien im XIV. Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1903), 63; CUINET, La Turquie d'Asie, III, 478-85. S. PÉTRIDÈS. Phoenecia Phoe;nicia Phoe;nicia is a narrow strip of land, about one hundred and fifty miles long and thirty miles wide, shut in between the Mediterranean on the west and the high range of Lebanon on the east, and consisting mostly of a succession of narrow valleys, ravines, and hills, the latter descending gradually towards the sea. On the north it is bounded by the River Orontes and Mount Casius, and by Mount Carmel on the south. The land is fertile and well irrigated by numerous torrents and streams deriving their waters mainly from the melting snows and rain-storms of the winter and spring seasons. The principal vegetation consists of the renowned cedars of Lebanon, cypresses, pines, palms, olive, vine, fig, and pomegranates. On this narrow strip of land, the Phoe;nicians had twenty-five cities of which the most important were Tyre, Sidon, Aradus, Byblus, Marathus, and Tripolis. Less important were Laodicea, Simyra, Arca, Aphaca, Berytus, Ecdippa, Akko, Dor, Joppa, Gabala, Betrys, and Sarepta. The name "Phoe;nicia" is in all probability of Greek origin, phoîniks being a Greek derivative of phoînos, blood-red. Our principal sources of information concerning Phoe;nicia are: first, numerous Phoe;nician inscriptions found in Phoe;nicia, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Sicily, Spain, Africa, Italy, and France, and published in the "Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum", the oldest being a simple one of the ninth century b.c.; the rest of little historical value, and of comparatively late date, i.e., from the fourth century b.c. down; second, Egyptian and Assyro-Babylonian historical inscriptions, especially the Tell-el-Amarna letters of the fifteenth century b.c., in which are found frequent and valuable references to Phoe;nicia and its political relations with Western Asia and Egypt; the Old Testament, especially in III Kings, v, xvi; Isaias, xxiii; Jeremias, xxv, xxvii, and Ezechiel, xxvi-xxxii; finally, some Greek and Latin historians and writers, both ecclesiastical and pagan. The oldest historical references to Phoe;nicia are found in the Egyptian inscriptions of the Pharaohs, Aahmes (1587-62 b.c.) and his successors Thothmes I (1541-16 b.c.), and Thothmes III (1503-1449 b.c.) in which the Phoe;nicians are called "Dahe" or "Zahi", and "Fenkhu". In the Tell-el-Amarna letters is found much interesting information concerning their cities and especially Tyre, famous for her wealth. During all this period Egyptian suzerainty was more or less effective. Sidon was gradually eclipsed by the rising power and wealth of Tyre, against which the Philistines were powerless, though they constantly attacked the former. About the year 1250, after conquering Ashdod, Askelon, Ekron, Gaza, and Gath, they forced the Sidonians to surrender the city of Dor. At this time Tyre became foremost in Phoe;nicia and one of the greatest and wealthiest cities of the Mediterranean region. Its first king was Hiram, the son of Abi-Baal and contemporary of David and Solomon. His reign lasted some forty years, and to his energy Tyre owed much of its renown. He enlarged the city, surrounding it with massive walls, improved its harbours, and rebuilt the temple of Melkarth. He forced the Philistine pirates to retreat, thus securing prosperity in maritime commerce and caravan trade, and Phoe;nician colonization spread along the coast of Asia Minor, Sicily, Greece, and Africa. He established a commercial alliance with the Hebrews, and his Phoe;nician artists and craftsmen greatly aided them in building the temple, and palaces of Solomon. He quelled the revolt in Utica and established Phoe;nician supremacy in North Africa where Carthage, the most important of all Phoe;nician colonies, was later built. Hiram was succeeded in 922 by his son Abd-Starte I, who, after seven years of troubled reign, was murdered, and most of his successors also met with a violent end. About this time hostilities arose between Phoe;nicia and Assyria, although two centuries earlier Tiglath-pileser I, when marching through the northern part of Phoe;nicia, was hospitably entertained by the inhabitants of Aradus. In 880 Ithbaal became King of Phoe;nicia, contemporaneous with Asshur-nasir-pal in Assyria and Achab in Israel. He was succeeded by Baal-azar and Metten I. Metten reigned for nine years and died, leaving Pygmalion, an infant son, but nominating as his successor Sicharbas, the high priest of Melkarth, who was married to Elissa, his daughter. The tale runs that when Pygmalion came to manhood he killed Sicharbas, upon which Elissa, with such nobles as adhered to her, fled first to Cyprus and afterwards to Africa, where the colony of Carthage was founded (c. 850 b.c.). Asshur-nasir-pal and his son and successor Shalmaneser II nominally conquered Phoe;nicia; but in 745 b.c. Tiglath- pileser III compelled the northern tribes to accept Assyrian governors. As soon as this scheme of complete absorption became manifest a general conflict ensued, from which Assyria emerged victorious and several Phoe;nician cities were captured and destroyed. The invasion of Shalmaneser IV in 727 was frustrated, but in 722 he almost sacked the city of Tyre. Sargon, his successor and great general, compelled Elulæus, King of Tyre, to come to honourable terms with him. In 701 Sennacherib conquered the revolting cities of Syria and Phoe;nicia. Elulæus fled to Cyprus and Tubaal was made king. In 680 Abd-Melkarth, his successor, rebelled against the Assyrian domination, but fled before Esarhaddon, the son of Sennacherib. Sidon was practically destroyed, most of its inhabitants carried off to Assyria, and their places filled by captives from Babylonia and Elam. During the reign of Asshurbanipal (668-625 b.c.) Tyre was once more attacked and conquered, but, as usual, honourably treated. In 606 the Assyrian empire itself was demolished by the allied Babylonians and Medes, and in 605 Nabuchadonosor, son and successor of Nabopolassar, after having conquered Elam and the adjacent countries, subdued (586 b.c.) Syria, Palestine, Phoe;nicia, and Egypt. As the Tyrians had command of the sea, it was thirteen years before their city surrendered, but the long siege crippled its commerce, and Sidon regained its ancient position as the leading city. Phoe;nicia was passing through its final stage of national independence and glory. From the fifth century on, it was continually harassed by the incursions of various Greek colonies who gradually absorbed its commerce and industry. It passed repeatedly under the rule of the Medo-Persian kings, Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, and finally Xerxes, who attacked the Athenians at Salamis with the aid of the Phoe;nician navy, but their fleet was defeated and destroyed. In 332, it was finally and completely conquered by Alexander the Great, after whose death and subsequent to the partition of his great Macedonian empire amongst his four generals, it fell to Laodemon. In 214, Ptolemy attacked Laodemon and annexed Phoe;nicia to Egypt. In 198 b.c., it was absorbed by the Seleucid dynasty of Syria, after the downfall of which (65 a.d.), it became a Roman province and remained such till the Mohammedan conquest of Syria in the seventh century. Phoe;nicia now forms one of the most important Turkish vilayets of Syria with Beyrout as its principal city. The whole political history and constitution of Phoe;nicia may be summarized as follows: The Phoe;nicians never built an empire, but each city had its little independent territory, assemblies, kings, and government, and for general state business sent delegates to Tyre. They were not a military, but essentially a seafaring and commercial people, and were successively conquered by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, to whom, because of their great wealth, they fulfilled all their obligations by the payment of tribute. Although blessed with fertile land and well provided by nature, the Phoe;nicians, owing to their small territory and comparatively large population, were compelled, from the very remotest antiquity, to gain their livelihood through commerce. Hence, their numerous caravan routes to the East, and their wonderful marine commerce with the West. They were the only nation of the ancient East who had a navy. By land they pushed their trade to Arabia for gold, agate, onyx, incense, and myrrh; to India for pearls, spices, ivory, ebony, and ostrich plumes; to Mesopotamia for cotton and linen clothes; to Palestine and Egypt for grain, wheat, and barley; to the regions of the Black Sea for horses, slaves, and copper. By sea they encircled all the Mediterranean coast, along Syria, North Africa, Asia Minor, the Ægean Sea, and even Spain, France, and England. A logical result of this remarkable commercial activity was the founding in Cyprus, Egypt, Crete, Sicily, Africa, Malta, Sardinia, Spain, Asia Minor, and Greece of numerous colonies, which became important centres of Phoe;nician commerce and civilization, and in due time left their deep mark upon the history and civilization of the classical nations of the Mediterranean world. Owing to this activity also, the Phoe;nician developed neither literature nor acts. The work done by them for Solomon shows that their architectural and mechanical skill was great only in superiority to that of the Hebrews. The remains of their architecture are heavy and their æsthetic art is primitive in character. In literature, they left nothing worthy of preservation. To them is ascribed the simplification of the primitive, pictorial or ideographic, and syllabic systems of writing into an alphabetic one consisting of twenty-two letters and written from right to left, from which are derived all the later and modern Semitic and European alphabets. This tradition, however, must be accepted with some modification. There is also no agreement as to whether the basis of this Phoe;nician alphabet is of Egyptian (hieroglyphic and hieratic) or of Assyro-Babylonian (cuneiform) origin. Those who derive it from a Cypriot prototype have not as yet sufficiently demonstrated the plausibility and probability of their opinion. The recent discovery of numerous Minoan inscriptions in the Island of Crete, some of them dating as early as 2000 b.c., has considerably complicated the problem. Other inventions, or improvements, in science and mechanics, such as weights and measures, glass manufacture, coinage, the finding of the polar star, and navigation are perhaps justly attributed to the Phoe;nicians. Both ethnographically and linguistically, they belong to the so-called Semitic group. They were called Canaanites, and spoke a dialectical variety of the Canaanite group of Western Semitic tongues, closely akin to the dialects of the Semitic inhabitants of Syria, Palestine, and Canaan. A few specimens of their language, as it was spoken by the colonies in North Africa towards the end of the third century b.c., may still be read in Plautus, from which it appears to have already attained a great degree of consonantal and vocal decay. The dialect of the inscriptions is more archaic and less corrupt. Our information concerning the religion of the Phoe;nicians is meagre and mainly found in the Old Testament, in classical traditions, and legends. Of special interest, however, are the votive inscriptions in which a great number of proper names generally construed with that of some divinity are found. Phoe;nician polytheism, like that of the other Semitic nations, was based partly on Animism and partly on the worship of the great powers of nature, mostly of astral origin. They deified the sun and the moon, which they considered the great forces that create and destroy, and called them Baal and Astaroth. Each city had its divine pair: at Sidon it was Baal Sidon (the sun) and Astarte (the moon); at Gebel, Baal Tummuz and Baaleth; at Carthage, Baal Hamon and Tanith. But the same god changed his name according as he was conceived as creator or destroyer; thus Baal as destroyer was worshipped at Carthage under the name of Moloch. These gods, represented by idols, had their temples, altars, and priests. As creators they were honoured with orgies and tumultuous feasts; as destroyers by human victims. Astoreth (Venus), whom the Sidonians represented by the crescent of the moon and the dove, had her cult in the sacred woods. Baal Moloch was figured at Carthage as a bronze colossus with arms extended and lowered. To appease him children were laid in his arms, and fell at once into a pit of fire. When Agathocles besieged the city the principal Carthaginians sacrificed to Moloch as many as two hundred of their children. Although this sensual and sanguinary religion inspired the surrounding nations with horror, they, nevertheless, imitated it. Hence, the Hebrews frequently sacrificed to Baal on the mountains, and the Greeks adored Astarte of Sidon under the name of Aphrodite, and Baal Melkart of Tyre under the name of Herakles. The principal Phoe;nician divinities are Adonis, El, Eshmon, Baal, Gad, Moloch, Melkarth, Sakan, Anath, Astaroth, Rasaph, Sad, and many others. (For the history of Christianity in Phoe;nicia and its present condition see Syria.) Movers, Die Phönizier (Bonn-Berlin, 1841-56); Lenormant- Babelon, Hist. ancienne de l'Orient (6 vols., Paris, 1881-88), see especially vol. VI; Kenrick, Phoe;nicia (London, 1855); Rawlinson, Hist. of Phoe;nicia (London, 1889); Meyer, Gesch. d. Altertums (Stuttgart, 1884- 1902); Pietschmann, Gesch. d. Phönizier (Berlin, 1889); Renan, La Mission de Phénicie (Paris, 1874); Perrot and Chipiez, Hist. of Art in Phoe;nicia (London, 1885); Baudissin, Studien zur semitischen Religionsgesch., I, II (Leipzig, 1876-78); Baethgen, Beitrage zur Semitisches Religionsgesch., 16-65; SchrÖder, D. Phöniz. Sprache (Halle, 1869); Williams, The Hist. of the Art of Writing (London-New York, 1902); Landau, Die Phönizier in Der Alte Orient (Leipzig, 1903); Eiselen, Sidon, a Study in Oriental Hist. (New York, 1907). Gabriel Oussani Photinus Photinus A heretic of the fourth century, a Galatian and deacon to Marcellus, Metropolitan of Ancyra; d. 376. He became the Bishop of Sirmium in Pannonia, an important position on account of the frequent residence of the Emperor Constantius there. The city was more Latin than Greek, and Photinus knew both languages. Marcellus was deposed by the Arian party, but was restored by Pope Julius and the Synod of Sardica (343), and was believed by them to be orthodox. But Photinus was obviously heretical, and the Eusebian court-party condemned them both at the Synod of Antioch (344), which drew up the "macrostich" creed. Three envoys were sent to the West and in a synod at Milan (345) Photinus was condemned, but not Marcellus; communion was refused to the envoys because they refused to anathematize Arius. It is evident from the way in which Pope Liberius mentions this synod that Roman legates were present, and St. Hilary calls its sentence a condemnation by the Romans. Two years later another synod, perhaps also at Milan, tried to obtain the deposition of Photinus but this was impossible owing to an outbreak of the populace in his favour. Another synod was held against him at Sirmium; some Arianizing propositions from it are quoted by St. Hilary. The heretic appealed to the emperor, who appointed judges before whom he should be heard. For this purpose a great synod assembled at Sirmium (351). Basil, the supplanter of Marcellus as Bishop of Ancyra and the future leader of the Semi-Arians, disputed with Photinus. The heretic was deposed, and twenty-seven anathematisms were agreed to. Photinus probably returned to his see at the accession of Julian, like the other exiled bishops, for St. Jerome says he was banished by Valentinian (364-75). Eventually he settled in Galatia. Epiphanius, writing at about the date of his death, considered his heresy dead in the West. In Pannonia there were still some Photinians in 381, and a Photinian named Marcus, driven from Rome under Innocent I, found adherents in Croatia. In later writers, e. g., St. Augustine, Photinian is the name for any who held Christ to be a mere man. We obtain some knowledge of the heresies of Photinus from the twenty-seven anathematisms of the council of 351, of which all but 1, 10, 12, 13, 18, 23, 24, 25 (according to St. Hilary's order: 1, 10, 11, 12, 17, 22, 24, 25) and possibly 2 are directed against him. We have corroborative evidence from many writers, especially St. Epiphanius, who had before him the complete minutes of the disputation with Basil of Ancyra. The canons obviously misrepresent Photinus's doctrine in condemning it, in so far as they sometimes say "Son" where Photinus would have said "Word". He makes the Father and the Word one Person (prosopon). The Word is equally with the Father unbegotten, or is called a part of the Father, eternally in Him as our logos is in us. The latent Word (endiathetos) becomes the explicit Word (prophorikos) not, apparently, at the creation, but at the Incarnation, for only then is He really Son. The Divine Substance can be dilated and contracted (so St. Hilary translates platynesthai and systellesthai, while Mercator's version of Nestorius's fourth sermon gives "extended and collected"). This is exactly the wording of Sabellius, who said that God platynetai, is broadened out, into Son and Spirit. To Photinus the expansion forms the Son, who is not, until the human birth of Christ. Hence before the Incarnation there is no Son, and God is Father and Word, Logopator. The Incarnation seems to have been conceived after a Nestorian fashion, for Photinus declared the Son of Mary to be mere man, and this is the best-known point in his teaching. He was consequently classed with Paul of Samosata; Jerome even calls him an Ebionite, probably because, like Mercator, he believed him to have denied the Virgin birth. But this is perhaps an error. He certainly said that the Holy Ghost descended upon Christ and that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. By His union with the prophoric Word, Christ was the Son. The Holy Ghost is identified like the Word with the Unbegotten; He is a part of the Father and the Word, as the Word is a part of the Father. It is evident that Photinus went so far beyond Marcellus that it is unfair to call him his follower. In his Trinitarian doctrine he is a Modalist Monarchian, and in his Christology a Dynamistic Monarchian, combining the errors of Theodotus with those of Sabellius. But it is clear that his views were partly motived by the desire to get away from the Ditheism which not only the Arians but even the Eastern moderates were unable to avoid, and he especially denounced the Arian doctrine that the Son is produced by the Will of the Father. His writings are lost; the chief of them were "Contra Gentes" and "Libri ad Valentinianum", according to St. Jerome; he wrote a work in both Greek and Latin against all the heresies, and an explanation of the Creed. See ARIANISM; also HEFELE, Councils, II; WALCH, Historie der Ketzereien, III (Leipzig, 1766); KLOSE, Gesch. und Lehre des Marcellus und Photinus (Hamburg, 1837); ZAHN, Marcellus von Ancyra (Gotha, 1867); FFOULKES in Dict. Christ. Biog. (1887). JOHN CHAPMAN Photius of Constantinople Photius of Constantinople Photius of Constantinople, chief author of the great schism between East and West, was b. at Constantinople c. 815 (Hergenröther says "not much earlier than 827", "Photius", I, 316; others, about 810); d. probably 6 Feb., 897. His father was a spatharios (lifeguard) named Sergius. Symeon Magister ("De Mich. et Theod.", Bonn ed., 1838, xxix, 668) says that his mother was an escaped nun and that he was illegitimate. He further relates that a holy bishop, Michael of Synnada, before his birth foretold that he would become patriarch, but would work so much evil that it would be better that he should not be born. His father then wanted to kill him and his mother, but the bishop said: "You cannot hinder what god has ordained. Take care for yourself." His mother also dreamed that she would give birth to a demon. When he was born the abbot of the Maximine monastery baptized him and gave him the name Photius (Enlightened), saying: "Perhaps the anger of God will be turned from him" (Symeon Magister, ibid., cf. Hergenröther, "Photius", I, 318-19). These stories need not be taken seriously. It is certain that the future patriarch belonged to one of the great families of Constantinople; the Patriarch Tarasius (784-806), in whose time the seventh general council (Second of Nicæa, 787) was held, was either elder brother or uncle of his father (Photius: Ep. ii, P. G., CII, 609). The family was conspicuously orthodox and had suffered some persecution in Iconoclast times (under Leo V, 813-20). Photius says that in his youth he had had a passing inclination for the monastic life ("Ep. ad Orient. et Oecon.", P. G., CII, 1020), but the prospect of a career in the world soon eclipsed it. He early laid the foundations of that erudition which eventually made him one of the most famous scholars of all the Middle Ages. His natural aptitude must have been extraordinary, his industry was colossal. Photius does not appear to have had any teachers worthy of being remembered; at any rate he never alludes to his masters. Hergenröther, however, notes that there were many good scholars at Constantinople while Photius was a child and young man, and argues from his exact and systematic knowledge of all branches of learning that he could not have been entirely self-taught (op. cit., I, 322). His enemies appreciated his learning. Nicetas, the friend and biographer of his rival Ignatius, praises Photius's skill in grammar, poetry, rhetoric, philosophy, medicine, law, "and all science" ("Vita S. Ignatii" in Mansi, XVI, 229). Pope Nicholas I, in the heat of the quarrel writes to the Emperor Michael III: "Consider very carefully how Photius can stand, in spite of his great virtues and universal knowledge" (Ep. xcviii "Ad Mich.", P. G., CXIX, 1030). It is curious that so learned a man never knew Latin. While he was still a young man he made the first draft of his encyclopædic "Myrobiblion". At an early age, also, he began to teach grammar, philosophy, and theology in his own house to a steadily increasing number of students. His public career was to be that of a statesman, coupled with a military command. His brother Sergius married Irene, the emperor's aunt. This connexion and his undoubted merit procured Photius speedy advancement. He became chief secretary of State (protosekretis) and captain of the Life Guard (protospatharios). He was unmarried. Probably about 838 he was sent on an embassy "to the Assyrians" ("Myrobiblion", preface), i. e., apparently, to the Khalifa at Bagdad. In the year 857, then, when the crisis came in his life, Photius was already one of the most prominent members of the Court of Constantinople. That crisis is the story of the Great Schism (see GREEK CHURCH). The emperor was Michael III (842-67), son of the Theodora who had finally restored the holy images. When he succeeded his father Theophilus (829-842) he was only three years old; he grew to be the wretched boy known in Byzantine history as Michael the Drunkard (ho methystes). Theodora, at first regent, retired in 856, and her brother Bardas succeeded, with the title of Cæsar. Bardas lived in incest with his daughter-in-law Eudocia, wherefore the Patriarch Ignatius (846-57) refused him Holy Communion on the Epiphany of 857. Ignatius was deposed and banished (Nov. 23, 857), and the more pliant Photius was intruded into his place. He was hurried through Holy Orders in six days; on Christmas Day, 857, Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse, himself excommunicate for insubordination by Ignatius, ordained Photius patriarch. By this act Photius committed three offences against canon law: he was ordained bishop without having kept the interstices, by an excommunicate consecrator, and to an already occupied see. To receive ordination from an excommunicate person made him too excommunicate ipso facto. After vain attempts to make Ignatius resign his see, the emperor tried to obtain from Pope Nicholas I (858-67) recognition of Photius by a letter grossly misrepresenting the facts and asking for legates to come and decide the question in a synod. Photius also wrote, very respectfully, to the same purpose (Hergenröther, "Photius", I, 407-11). The pope sent two legates, Rodoald of Porto and Zachary of Anagni, with cautious letters. The legates were to hear both sides and report to him. A synod was held in St. Sophia's (May, 861). The legates took heavy bribes and agreed to Ignatius's deposition and Photius's succession. They returned to Rome with further letters, and the emperor sent his Secretary of State, Leo, after them with more explanations (Hergenröther, op. cit., I, 439-460). In all these letters both the emperor and Photius emphatically acknowledge the Roman primacy and categorically invoke the pope's jurisdiction to confirm what has happened. Meanwhile Ignatius, in exile at the island Terebinth, sent his friend the Archimandrite Theognostus to Rome with an urgent letter setting forth his case (Hergenröther, I, 460-461). Theognostus did not arrive till 862. Nicholas, then, having heard both sides, decided for Ignatius, and answered the letters of Michael and Photius by insisting that Ignatius must be restored, that the usurpation of his see must cease (ibid, I, 511-16, 516-19). He also wrote in the same sense to the other Eastern patriarchs (510-11). From that attitude Rome never wavered: it was the immediate cause of the schism. In 863 the pope held a synod at the Lateran in which the two legates were tried, degraded, and excommunicated. The synod repeats Nicholas's decision, that Ignatius is lawful Patriarch of Constantinople; Photius is to be excommunicate unless he retires at once from his usurped place. But Photius had the emperor and the Court on his side. Instead of obeying the pope, to whom he had appealed, he resolved to deny his authority altogether. Ignatius was kept chained in prison, the pope's letters were not allowed to be published. The emperor sent an answer dictated by Photius saying that nothing Nicholas could do would help Ignatius, that all the Eastern Patriarchs were on Photius's side, that the excommunication of the legates must be explained and that unless the pope altered his decision, Michael would come to Rome with an army to punish him. Photius then kept his place undisturbed for four years. In 867 he carried the war into the enemy's camp by excommunicating the pope and his Latins. The reasons he gives for this, in an encyclical sent to the Eastern patriarchs, are: that Latins 1. fast on Saturday 2. do not begin Lent till Ash Wednesday (instead of three days earlier, as in the East) 3. do not allow priests to be married 4. do not allow priests to administer confirmation 5. have added the filioque to the creed. Because of these errors the pope and all Latins are: "forerunners of apostasy, servants of Antichrist who deserve a thousand deaths, liars, fighters against God" (Hergenröther, I, 642-46). It is not easy to say what the Melchite patriarchs thought of the quarrel at this juncture. Afterwards, at the Eighth General Council, their legates declared that they had pronounced no sentence against Photius because that of the pope was obviously sufficient. Then, suddenly, in the same year (Sept. 867), Photius fell. Michael III was murdered and Basil I (the Macedonian, 867-86) seized his place as emperor. Photius shared the fate of all Michael's friends. He was ejected from the patriarch's palace, and Ignatius restored. Nicholas I died (Nov. 13, 867). Adrian II (867-72), his successor, answered Ignatius's appeal for legates to attend a synod that should examine the whole matter by sending Donatus, Bishop of Ostia, Stephen, Bishop of Nepi, and a deacon, Marinus. They arrived at Constantinople in Sept., 869, and in October the synod was opened which Catholics recognize as the Eighth General Council (Fourth of Constantinople). This synod tried Photius, confirmed his deposition, and, as he refused to renounce his claim, excommunicated him. The bishops of his party received light penances (Mansi, XVI, 308-409). Photius was banished to a monastery at Stenos on the Bosphorus. Here he spent seven years, writing letters to his friends, organizing his party, and waiting for another chance. Meanwhile Ignatius reigned as patriarch. Photius, as part of his policy, professed great admiration for the emperor and sent him a fictitious pedigree showing his descent form St. Gregory the Illuminator and a forged prophecy foretelling his greatness (Mansi, XVI, 284). Basil was so pleased with this that he recalled him in 876 and appointed him tutor to his son Constantine. Photius ingratiated himself with everyone and feigned reconciliation with Ignatius. It is doubtful how far Ignatius believed in him, but Photius at this time never tires of expatiating on his close friendship with the patriarch. He became so popular that when Ignatius died (23 Oct, 877) a strong party demanded that Photius should succeed him; the emperor was now on their side, and an embassy went to Rome to explain that everyone at Constantinople wanted Photius to be patriarch. The pope (John VIII, 872-82) agreed, absolved him from all censure, and acknowledged him as patriarch. This concession has been much discussed. It has been represented, truly enough, that Photius had shown himself unfit for such a post; John VIII's acknowledgment of him has been described as showing deplorable weakness. On the other hand, by Ignatius's death the See of Constantinople was now really vacant; the clergy had an undoubted right to elect their own patriarch; to refuse to acknowledge Photius would have provoked a fresh breach with the East, would not have prevented his occupation of the see, and would have given his party (including the emperor) just reason for a quarrel. The event proved that almost anything would have been better than to allow his succession, if it could be prevented. But the pope could not foresee that, and no doubt hoped that Photius, having reached the height of his ambition, would drop the quarrel. In 878, then, Photius at last obtained lawfully the place he had formerly usurped. Rome acknowledged him and restored him to her communion. There was no possible reason now for a fresh quarrel. But he had identified himself so completely with that strong anti-Roman party in the East which he mainly had formed, and, doubtless, he had formed so great a hatred of Rome, that now he carried on the old quarrel with as much bitterness as ever and more influence. Nevertheless he applied to Rome for legates to come to another synod. There was no reason for the synod, but he persuaded John VIII that it would clear up the last remains of the schism and rivet more firmly the union between East and West. His real motive was, no doubt, to undo the effect of the synod that had deposed him. The pope sent three legates, Cardinal Peter of St. Chrysogonus, Paul, Bishop of Ancona, and Eugene, Bishop of Ostia. The synod was opened in St. Sophia's in November, 879. This is the "Psuedosynodus Photiana" which the Orthodox count as the Eighth General Council. Photius had it all his own way throughout. He revoked the acts of the former synod (869), repeated all his accusations against the Latins, dwelling especially on the filioque grievance, anathematized all who added anything to the Creed, and declared that Bulgaria should belong to the Byzantine Patriarchate. The fact that there was a great majority for all these measures shows how strong Photius's party had become in the East. The legates, like their predecessors in 861, agreed to everything the majority desired (Mansi, XVII, 374 sq.). As soon as they had returned to Rome, Photius sent the Acts to the pope for his confirmation. Instead John, naturally, again excommunicated him. So the schism broke out again. This time it lasted seven years, till Basil I's death in 886. Basil was succeeded by his son Leo VI (886-912), who strongly disliked Photius. One of his first acts was to accuse him of treason, depose, and banish him (886). The story of this second deposition and banishment is obscure. The charge was that Photius had conspired to depose the emperor and put one of his own relations on the throne---an accusation which probably meant that the emperor wanted to get rid of him. As Stephen, Leo's younger brother, was made patriarch (886-93) the real explanation may be merely that Leo disliked Photius and wanted a place for his brother. Stephen's intrusion was as glaring an offence against canon law as had been that of Photius in 857; so Rome refused to recognize him. It was only under his successor Antony II (893-95) that a synod was held which restored reunion for a century and a half, till the time of Michael Cærularius (1043-58). But Photius had left a powerful anti-Roman party, eager to repudiate the pope's primacy and ready for another schism. It was this party, to which Cærularius belonged, that triumphed at Constantinople under him, so that Photius is rightly considered the author of the schism which still lasts. After this second deposition Photius suddenly disappears from history. It is not even known in what monastery he spent his last years. Among his many letters there is none that can be dated certainly as belonging to this second exile. The date of his death, not quite certain, is generally given as 6 February, 897. That Photius was one of the greatest men of the Middle Ages, one of the most remarkable characters in all church history, will not be disputed. His fatal quarrel with Rome, though the most famous, was only one result of his many-sided activity. During the stormy years he spent on the patriarch's throne, while he was warring against the Latins, he was negotiating with the Moslem Khalifa for the protection of the Christians under Moslem rule and the care of the Holy Places, and carrying on controversies against various Eastern heretics, Armenians, Paulicians etc. His interest in letters never abated. Amid all his cares he found time to write works on dogma, Biblical criticism, canon law, homilies, an encyclopædia of all kinds of learning, and letters on all questions of the day. Had it not been for his disastrous schism, he might be counted the last, and one of the greatest, of the Greek Fathers. There is no shadow of suspicion against his private life. He bore his exiles and other troubles manfully and well. He never despaired of his cause and spent the years of adversity in building up his party, writing letters to encourage his old friends and make new ones. And yet the other side of his character is no less evident. His insatiable ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to the extreme of dishonesty. His claim was worthless. That Ignatius was the rightful patriarch as long as he lived, and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by any one who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government. And to keep this place Photius descended to the lowest depth of deceit. At the very time he was protesting his obedience to the pope he was dictating to the emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction. He misrepresented the story of Ignatius's deposition with unblushing lies, and he at least connived at Ignatius's ill-treatment in banishment. He proclaimed openly his entire subservience to the State in the whole question of his intrusion. He stops at nothing in his war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have known were lies. His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible. For instance, as one more grievance against Rome, he never tires of inveighing against the fact that Pope Marinus I (882-84), John VIII's successor, was translated from another see, instead of being ordained from the Roman clergy. He describes this as an atrocious breach of canon law, quoting against it the first and second canons of Sardica; and at the same time he himself continually transferred bishops in his patriarchate. The Orthodox, who look upon him, rightly, as the great champion of their cause against Rome, have forgiven all his offences for the sake of this championship. They have canonized him, and on 6 Feb., when they keep his feast, their office overflows with his praise. He is the "far-shining radiant star of the church", the "most inspired guide of the Orthodox", "thrice blessed speaker for God", "wise and divine glory of the hierarchy, who broke the horns of Roman pride" ("Menologion" for 6 Feb., ed. Maltzew, I, 916 sq.). The Catholic remembers this extraordinary man with mixed feelings. We do not deny his eminent qualities and yet we certainly do not remember him as a thrice blessed speaker for God. One may perhaps sum up Photius by saying that he was a great man with one blot on his character---his insatiable and unscrupulous ambition. But that blot so covers his life that it eclipses everything else and makes him deserve our final judgment as one of the worst enemies the Church of Christ ever had, and the cause of the greatest calamity that ever befell her. WORKS Of Photius's prolific literary production part has been lost. A great merit of what remains is that he has preserved at least fragments of earlier Greek works of which otherwise we should know nothing. This applies especially to his "Myriobiblion". 1. The "Myriobiblion" or "Bibliotheca" is a collection of descriptions of books he had read, with notes and sometimes copious extracts. It contains 280 such notices of books (or rather 279; no. 89 is lost) on every possible subject---theology, philosophy, rhetoric, grammar, physics, medicine. He quotes pagans and Christians, Acts of Councils, Acts of Martyrs, and so on, in no sort of order. For the works thus partially saved (otherwise unknown) see Krumbacher, "Byz. Litter.", 518-19. 2. The "Lexicon" (Lexeon synagoge) was compiled, probably, to a great extent by his students under his direction (Krumbacher, ibid., 521), from older Greek dictionaries (Pausanias, Harpokration, Diogenianos, Ælius Dionysius). It was intended as a practical help to readers of the Greek classics, the Septuagint, and the New testament. Only one MS. of it exists, the defective "Codex Galeanus" (formerly in the possession of Thomas Gale, now at Cambridge), written about 1200. 3. The "Amphilochia", dedicated to one of his favourite disciples, Amphilochius of Cyzicus, are answers to questions of Biblical, philosophical, and theological difficulties, written during his first exile (867-77). There are 324 subjects discussed, each in a regular form--question, answer, difficulties, solutions---but arranged again in no order. Photius gives mostly the views of famous Greek Fathers, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, John Damascene, especially Theodoret. 4. Biblical works.---Only fragments of these are extant, chiefly in Catenas. The longest are from Commentaries on St. Matthew and Romans. 5. Canon Law.---The classical "Nomocanon" (q. v.), the official code of the Orthodox Church, is attributed to Photius. It is, however, older than his time (see JOHN SCHOLASTICUS). It was revised and received additions (from the synods of 861 and 879) in Photius's time, probably by his orders. The "Collections and Accurate Expositions" (Eunagolai kai apodeixeis akribeis) (Hergenröther, op. cit., III, 165-70) are a series of questions and answers on points of canon law, really an indirect vindication of his own claims and position. A number of his letters bear on canonical questions. 6. Homilies.---Hergenröther mentions twenty-two sermons of Photius (III, 232). Of these two were printed when Hergenröther wrote (in P. G., CII, 548, sq.), one on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, and one at the dedication of a new church during his second patriarchate. Later, S. Aristarches published eighty-three homilies of different kinds (Constantinople, 1900). 7. Dogmatic and polemical works.---Many of these bear on his accusations against the Latins and so form the beginning of the long series of anti-Catholic controversy produced by Orthodox theologians. The most important is "Concerning the Theology about the Holy Ghost" (Peri tes tou hagiou pneumatos mystagonias, P. G., CII, 264-541), a defence of the Procession from God the Father alone, based chiefly on John, xv, 26. An epitome of the same work, made by a later author and contained in Euthymius Zigabenus's "Panoplia", XIII, became the favourite weapon of Orthodox controversialists for many centuries. The treatise "Against Those who say that Rome is the First See", also a very popular Orthodox weapon, is only the last part or supplement of the "Collections", often written out separately. The "Dissertation Concerning the Reappearance of the Manichæans" (Diegesis peri tes manichaion anablasteseos, P. G., CII, 9-264), in four books, is a history and refutation of the Paulicians. Much of the "Amphilochia" belongs to this heading. The little work "Against the Franks and other Latins" (Hergenröther, "Monumenta", 62-71), attributed to Photius, is not authentic. It was written after Cærularius (Hergenröther, "Photius", III, 172-224). 8. Letters.---Migne, P. G., CII, publishes 193 letters arranged in three books; Balettas (London, 1864) has edited a more complete collection in five parts. They cover all the chief periods of Photius's life, and are the most important source for his history. A. Ehrhard (in Krumbacher, "Byzantinische Litteratur", 74-77) judges Photius as a distinguished preacher, but not as a theologian of the first importance. His theological work is chiefly the collection of excerpts from Greek Fathers and other sources. His erudition is vast, and probably unequalled in the Middle Ages, but he has little originality, even in his controversy against the Latins. Here, too, he only needed to collect angry things said by Byzantine theologians before his time. But his discovery of the filioque grievance seems to be original. Its success as a weapon is considerably greater than its real value deserves (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 372-84). Editions.---The works of Photius known at the time were collected by Migne, P. G., CI-CV. J. Balettas, Photiou epistolai (London, 1864), contains other letters (altogether 260) not in Migne. A. Papadopulos-Kerameus, "S. Patris Photii Epistolæ XLV" (St. Petersburg, 1896) gives forty-five more, of which, however, only the first twenty-one are authentic. S. Aristaches, Photiou logoi kai homiliai 83 (Constantinople, 1900, 2 vols.), gives other homilies not in Migne. Oikonomos has edited the "Amphilochia" (Athens, 1858) in a more complete text. J. Hergenröther, "Monumenta græca ad Photium eiusque historiam pertinentia" (Ratisbon, 1869), and Papadopulos-Kerameus, "Monumenta græca et latina ad historiam Photii patriarchæ pertinentia" (St. Petersburg, 2 parts, 1899 and 1901), add further documents. The Acts of the Synods of 869 and 879 are the most important sources (Mansi, XVI and XVII). THEOGNOSTUS (Archimandrite at Constantinople), Libellos periechon panta ta kata ton megan, a contemporary account of the beginning of the schism (in Mansi, XVI, 295, sq.); NIKETAS DAVID PAPHLAGON (d. 890); Bios Ignatiou (Mansi, XVI, 209 sq.). PAPADOPULOS-KERAMEUS declared this to be a fourteenth-century forgery in the Vizant. Vremennik (1899), 13-38, Pseudoniketas ho paphlagon; he was successfully refuted by VASILJEWSKI (ibid., 39-56); cf. Byzant. Zeitschrift, IX, (1900), 268 sq. GENESIOS, Basileiai (written between 945-959), a history of the emperors and Court from Leo V (813-20) to Basil I (867-86), published in Corpus Scriptorum Hist. Byzantinæ (Bonn, 1834) and P. G., CIX,15 sqq.; LEO GRAMMATICUS, re-edition of SYMEON MAGISTER, Chronicle, in Corpus Script., 1842, and P. G. CVIII, 1037 sqq. HERGENRÖTHER, Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopel, sein Leben, seine Schriften u. das griechische Schisma (Ratisbon, 1867-69) (the most learned and exhaustive work on the subject). DEMETRAKOPULOS, Historia tou schismatos tes latinikes apo tes orthodoxou ekklesias (Leipzig, 1867), is an attempted rejoinder to HERGENRÖTHER, as is also KREMOS, Historia tou schismatos ton duo ekklesion (Athens, 1905-07, two volumes published out of four). LÄMMER, Papst Nikolaus u. die byzantinsche Staatskirche seiner Zeit (Berlin, 1857); PICHLER, Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennung zwischen dem Orient. u. Occident (Munich, 1864-65); NORDEN, Das Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin, 1903); KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur (Munich, 1897), 73-79, 515-524 (with copious bibliography); FORTESCUE, The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907), 135-171; RUINAUT, Le schisme de Photius (Paris, 1910). ADRIAN FORTESCUE Phylacteries Phylacteries ( Phulachterion -- safeguard, amulet, or charm). The word occurs only once in the New Testament (Matthew 23:5), in the great discourse of Our Lord against the Pharisees whom He reproaches with ostentation in the discharge of their religious and social duties: "For they make their phylacteries broad and enlarge their fringes." By the Jews the phylacteries are termed tephillin, plural of the word tephillah, "a prayer," and consist of two small square cases of leather, one of which is worn on the forehead, the other on the upper left arm. The case for the forehead holds four distinct compartments, that for the arm only one. They contain narrow strips of parchment on which are copied passages from the Pentateuch, viz., Exodus 13:1-10; and Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21. The practice of wearing the phylacteries at stated moments is still regarded as a sacred religious duty by the orthodox Jews. KLEIN, Die Totaphoth nach Bibel und Tradition in Jahrbuecher f. Prot. Theol. (Berlin, 1881), 666-689; VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s.v. Phylacteres. JAMES F. DRISCOLL History of Physics History of Physics The subject will be treated under the following heads: I. A Glance at Ancient Physics; II. Science and Early Christian Scholars; III. A Glance at Arabian Physics; IV. Arabian Tradition and Latin Scholasticism; V. The Science of Observation and Its Progress + Astronomers + The Statics of Jordanus + Thierry of Freiberg + Pierre of Maricourt; VI. The Articles of Paris (1277) + Possibility of Vacuum; VII. The Earth's Motion + Oresme; VIII. Plurality of Worlds; IX. Dynamics + Theory of Impetus + Inertia + Celestial and Sublunary Mechanics Identical; X. Propagation of the Doctrines of the School of Paris in Germany and Italy + Purbach and Regiomontanus + Nicholas of Cusa + Vinci; XI. Italian Averroism and its Tendencies to Routine + Attempts at Restoring the Astronomy of Homocentric Spheres; XII. The Copernican Revolution; XIII. Fortunes of the Copernican System in the Sixteenth Century; XIV. Theory of the Tides; XV. Statics in the Sixteenth Century + Stevinus; XVI. Dynamics in the Sixteenth Century; XVII. Galileo's Work; XVIII. Initial Attempts in Celestial Mechanics + Gilbert + Kepler; XIX. Controversies concerning Geostatics; XX. Descartes's Work; XXI. Progress of Experimental Physics; XXII. Undulatory Theory of Light; XXIII. Development of Dynamics; XXIV. Newton's Work; XXV. Progress of General and Celestial Mechanics in the Eighteenth Century; XXVI. Establishment of the Theory of Electricity and Magnetism; XXVII. Molecular Attraction; XXVIII. Revival of the Undulatory Theory of Light; XXIX. Theories of Heat. I. A GLANCE AT ANCIENT PHYSICS Although at the time of Christ's birth Hellenic science had produced nearly all its masterpieces, it was still to give to the world Ptolemy's astronomy, the way for which had been paved for more than a century by the works of Hipparchus. The revelations of Greek thought on the nature of the exterior world ended with the "Almagest", which appeared about a.d. 145, and then began the decline of ancient learning. Those of its works that escaped the fires kindled by Mohammedan warriors were subjected to the barren interpretations of Mussulman commentators and like parched seed, awaited the time when Latin Christianity would furnish a favourable soil in which they could once more flourish and bring forth fruit. Hence it is that the time when Ptolemy put the finishing touches to his "Great Mathematical Syntax of Astronomy" seems the most opportune in which to study the field of ancient physics. An impassable frontier separated this field into two regions in which different laws prevailed. From the moon's orbit to the sphere enclosing the world, extended the region of beings exempt from generation, change, and death, of perfect, divine beings, and these were the star-sphere and the stars themselves. Inside the lunar orbit lay the region of generation and corruption, where the four elements and the mixed bodies generated by their mutual combinations were subject to perpetual change. The science of the stars was dominated by a principle formulated by Plato and the Pythagoreans, according to which all the phenomena presented to us by the heavenly bodies must be accounted for by combinations of circular and uniform motions. Moreover, Plato declared that these circular motions were reducible to the rotation of solid globes all limited by spherical surfaces concentric with the World and the Earth, and some of these homocentric spheres carried fixed or wandering stars. Eudoxus of Cnidus, Calippus, and Aristotle vied with one another in striving to advance this theory of homocentric spheres, its fundamental hypothesis being incorporated in Aristotle's "Physics" and "Metaphysics". However, the astronomy of homocentric spheres could not explain all celestial phenomena, a considerable number of which showed that the wandering stars did not always remain at an equal distance from the Earth. Heraclides Ponticus in Plato's time, and Aristarchus of Samos about 280 b.c. endeavoured to account for all astronomical phenomena by a heliocentric system, which was an outline of the Copernican mechanics; but the arguments of physics and the precepts of theology proclaiming the Earth's immobility, readily obtained the ascendency over this doctrine which existed in a mere outline. Then the labours of Apollonius Pergæus (at Alexandria, 205 b.c.), of Hipparchus (who made observation at Rhodes in 128 and 127 b.c.), and finally of Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemæus of Pelusium) constituted a new astronomical system that claimed the Earth to be immovable in the centre of the universe; a system that seemed, as it were, to reach its completion when, between a.d. 142 and 146, Ptolemy wrote a work called Megale mathematike syntaxis tes astronomias, its Arabian title being transliterated by the Christians of the Middle Ages, who named it "Almagest". The astronomy of the "Almagest" explained all astronomical phenomena with a precision which for a long time seemed satisfactory, accounting for them by combinations of circular motions; but, of the circles described, some were eccentric to the World, whilst others were epicyclic circles, the centres of which described deferent circles concentric with or eccentric to the World; moreover, the motion on the deferent was no longer uniform, seeming so only when viewed from the centre of the equant. Briefly, in order to construct a kinematical arrangement by means of which phenomena could be accurately represented, the astronomers whose work Ptolemy completed had to set at naught the properties ascribed to the celestial substance by Aristotle's "Physics", and between this "Physics" and the astronomy of eccentrics and epicycles there ensued a violent struggle which lasted until the middle of the sixteenth century. In Ptolemy's time the physics of celestial motion was far more advanced than the physics of sublunary bodies, as, in this science of beings subject to generation and corruption, only two chapters had reached any degree of perfection, namely, those on optics (called perspective) and statics. The law of reflection was known as early as the time of Euclid, about 320 b.c., and to this geometrician was attributed, although probably erroneously, a "Treatise on Mirrors", in which the principles of catoptrics were correctly set forth. Dioptrics, being more difficult, was developed less rapidly. Ptolemy already knew that the angle of refraction is not proportional to the angle of incidence, and in order to determine the ratio between the two he undertook experiments the results of which were remarkably exact. Statics reached a fuller development than optics. The "Mechanical Questions" ascribed to Aristotle were a first attempt to organize that science, and they contained a kind of outline of the principle of virtual velocities, destined to justify the law of the equilibrium of the lever; besides, they embod. the happy idea of referring to the lever theory the theory of all simple machines. An elaboration, in which Euclid seems to have had some part, brought statics to the stage of development in which it was found by Archimedes (about 287-212 b.c.), who was to raise it to a still higher degree of perfection. It will here suffice to mention the works of genius in which the great Syracusan treated the equilibrium of the weights suspended from the two arms of a lever, the search for the centre of gravity, and the equilibrium of liquids and floating bodies. The treatises of Archimedes were too scholarly to be widely read by the mechanicians who succeeded this geometrician; these men preferred easier and more practical writings as, for instance, those on the lines of Aristotle's "Mechanical Questions". Various treatises by Heron of Alexandria have preserved for us the type of these decadent works. II. SCIENCE AND EARLY CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS Shortly after the death of Ptolemy, Christian science took root at Alexandria with Origen (about 180-253), and a fragment of his "Commentaries on Genesis", preserved by Eusebius, shows us that the author was familiar with the latest astronomical discoveries, especially the precession of the equinoxes. However, the writings in which the Fathers of the Church comment upon the work of the six days of Creation, notably the commentaries of St. Basil and St. Ambrose, borrow but little from Hellenic physics; in fact, their tone would seem to indicate distrust in the teachings of Greek science, this distrust being engendered by two prejudices: in the first place, astronomy was becoming more and more the slave of astrology, the superstitions of which the Church diligently combatted; in the second place, between the essential propositions of peripatetic physics and what we believe to be the teaching of Holy Writ, contradictions appeared; thus Genesis was thought to teach the presence of water above the heaven of the fixed stars (the firmament) and this was incompatible with the Aristotelean theory concerning the natural place of the elements. The debates raised by this question gave St. Augustine an opportunity to lay down wise exegetical rules, and he recommended Christians not to put forth lightly, as articles of faith, propositions contradicted by physical science based upon careful experiments. St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636), a bishop, considered it legitimate for Christians to desire to know the teachings of profane science, and he laboured to satisfy this curiosity. His "Etymologies" and "De natura rerum" are merely compilations of fragments borrowed from all the pagan and Christian authors with whom he was acquainted. In the height of the Latin Middle Ages these works served as models for numerous encyclopædias, of which the "De natura rerum" by Bede (about 672-735) and the "De universo" by Rabanus Maurus (776-856) were the best known. However, the sources from which the Christians of the West imbibed a knowledge of ancient physics became daily more numerous, and to Pliny the Elder's "Natural History", read by Bede, were added Chalcidius's commentary on Plato's "Timæus" and Martianus Capella's "De Nuptiis Philologiæ et Mercurii", these different works inspiring the physics of John Scotus Eriugena. Prior to a.d. 1000 a new Platonic work by Macrobius, a commentary on the "Somnium Scipionis", was in great favour in the schools. Influenced by the various treatises already mentioned, Guillaume of Conches (1080-1150 or 1154) and the unknown author of "De mundi constitutione liber", which, by the way, has been falsely attributed to Bede, set forth a planetary theory making Venus and Mercury satellites of the sun, but Eriugena went still further and made the sun also the centre of the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Had he but extended this hypothesis to Saturn, he would have merited the title of precursor of Tycho Brahe. III. A GLANCE AT ARABIAN PHYSICS The authors of whom we have heretofore spoken had only been acquainted with Greek science through the medium of Latin tradition, but the time came when it was to be much more completely revealed to the Christians of the West through the medium of Mussulman tradition. There is no Arabian science. The wise men of Mohammedanism were always the more or less faithful disciples of the Greeks, but were themselves destitute of all originality. For instance, they compiled many abridgments of Ptolemy's "Almagest", made numerous observations, and constructed a great many astronomical tables, but added nothing essential to the theories of astronomical motion; their only innovation in this respect, and, by the way, quite an unfortunate one, was the doctrine of the oscillatory motion of the equinoctial points, which the Middle Ages ascribed to Thâbit ibn Kûrrah (836-901), but which was probably the idea of Al-Zarkali, who lived much later and made observations between 1060 and 1080. This motion was merely the adaptation of a mechanism conceived by Ptolemy for a totally different purpose. In physics, Arabian scholars confined themselves to commentaries on the statements of Aristotle, their attitude being at times one of absolute servility. This intellectual servility to Peripatetic teaching reached its climax in Abul ibn Roshd, whom Latin scholastics called Averroës (about 1120-98) and who said: Aristotle "founded and completed logic, physics, and metaphysics . . . because none of those who have followed him up to our time, that is to say, for four hundred years, have been able to add anything to his writings or to detect therein an error of any importance". This unbounded respect for Aristotle's work impelled a great many Arabian philosophers to attack Ptolemy's "Astronomy" in the name of Peripatetic physics. The conflict between the hypotheses of eccentrics and epicycles was inaugurated by Ibn Bâdja, known to the scholastics as Avempace (d. 1138), and Abu Bekr ibn el-Tofeil, called Abubacer by the scholastics (d. 1185), and was vigorously conducted by Averroës, the protégé of Abubacer. Abu Ishâk ibn al-Bitrogi, known by the scholastics as Alpetragius, another disciple of Abubacer and a contemporary of Averroës, advanced a theory on planetary motion wherein he wished to account for the phenomena peculiar to the wandering stars, by compounding rotations of homocentric spheres; his treatise, which was more neo-Platonic than Peripatetic, seemed to be a Greek book altered, or else a simple plagiarism. Less inflexible in his Peripateticism than Averroës and Alpetragius, Moses ben Maimun, called Maimonides (1139-1204), accepted Ptolemy's astronomy despite its incompatibility with Aristotelean physics, although he regarded Aristotle's sublunary physics as absolutely true. IV. ARABIAN TRADITION AND LATIN SCHOLASTICISM It cannot be said exactly when the first translations of Arabic writings began to be received by the Christians of the West, but it was certainly previously to the time of Gerbert (Sylvester II; about 930-1003). Gerbert used treatises translated from the Arabic, and containing instructions on the use of astronomical instruments, notably the astrolabe, to which instrument Hermann the Lame (1013-54) devoted part of his researches. In the beginning of the twelfth century the contributions of Mohammedan science and philosophy to Latin Christendom became more and more frequent and important. About 1120 or 1130 Adelard of Bath translated the "Elements" of Euclid, and various astronomical treatises; in 1141 Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, found two translators, Hermann the Second (or the Dalmatian) and Robert of Rétines, established in Spain; he engaged them to translate the Koran into Latin, and in 1143 these same translators made Christendom acquainted with Ptolemy's planisphere. Under the direction of Raimond (Archbishop of Toledo, 1130; d. 1150), Domengo Gondisalvi (Gonsalvi; Gundissalinus), Archdeacon of Segovia, began to collaborate with the converted Jew, John of Luna, erroneously called John of Seville (Johannes Hispalensis). While John of Luna applied himself to works in mathematics, he also assisted Gondisalvi in translating into Latin a part of Aristotle's physics, the "De Cælo" and the "Metaphysics", besides treatises by Avicenna, Al-Gazâli, Al-Fârâbi, and perhaps Salomon ibn Gebirol (Avicebron). About 1134 John of Luna translated Al-Fergâni's treatise "Astronomy", which was an abridgement of the "Almagest", thereby introducing Christians to the Ptolemaic system, while at the same time his translations, made in collaboration with Gondisalvi, familiarized the Latins with the physical and metaphysical doctrines of Aristotle. Indeed the influence of Aristotle's "Physics" was already apparent in the writings of the most celebrated masters of the school of Chartres (from 1121 until before 1155), and of Gilbert de la Porrée (1070-1154). The abridgement of Al-Fergâni's "Astronomy", translated by John of Luna, does not seem to have been the first work in which the Latins were enabled to read the exposition of Ptolemy's system; it was undoubtedly preceded by a more complete treatise, the "De Scientia stellarum" of Albategnius (Al-Battâni), latinized by Plato of Tivoli about 1120. However, the "Almagest" itself was still unknown. Moved by a desire to read and translate Ptolemy's immortal work, Gerard of Cremona (d. 1187) left Italy and went to Toledo, eventually making the translation which he finished in 1175. Besides the "Almagest", Gerard rendered into Latin other works, of which we have a list comprising seventy-four different treatises. Some of these were writings of Greek origin, and included a large portion of the works of Aristotle, a treatise by Archimedes, Euclid's "Elements" (completed by Hypsicles), and books by Hippocrates. Others were Arabic writings, such as the celebrated "Book of Three Brothers", composed by the Beni Mûsa, "Optics" by Ibn Al-Haitam (the Alhazen of the Scholastics), "Astronomy" by Geber, and "De motu octavæ sphæræ" by Thâbit ibn Kûrrah. Moreover, in order to spread the study of Ptolemaic astronomy, Gerard composed at Toledo his "Theoricæ planetarum", which during the Middle Ages became one of the classics of astronomical instruction. Beginners who obtained their first cosmographic information through the study of the "Sphæra", written about 1230 by Joannes de Sacrobosco, could acquire a knowledge of eccentrics and epicycles by reading the "Theoricæ planetarum" of Gerard of Cremona. In fact, until the sixteenth century, most astronomical treatises assumed the form of commentaries, either on the "Sphæra", or the "Theoricæ planetarum". "Aristotle's philosophy", wrote Roger Bacon in 1267, "reached a great development among the Latins when Michael Scot appeared about 1230, bringing with him certain parts of the mathematical and physical treatises of Aristotle and his learned commentators". Among the Arabic writings made known to Christians by Michael Scot (before 1291; astrologer to Frederick II) were the treatises of Aristotle and the "Theory of Planets", which Alpetragius had composed in accordance with the hypothesis of homocentric spheres. The translation of this last work was completed in 1217. By propagating among the Latins the commentaries on Averroës and on Alpetragius's theory of the planets, as well as a knowledge of the treatises of Aristotle, Michael Scot developed in them an intellectual disposition which might be termed Averroism, and which consisted in a superstitious respect for the word of Aristotle and his commentator. There was a metaphysical Averroism which, because professing the doctrine of the substantial unity of all human intellects, was in open conflict with Christian orthodoxy; but there was likewise a physical Averroism which, in its blind confidence in Peripatetic physics, held as absolutely certain all that the latter taught on the subject of the celestial substance, rejecting in particular the system of epicycles and eccentrics in order to commend Alpetragius's astronomy of homocentric spheres. Scientific Averroism found partisans even among those whose purity of faith constrained them to struggle against metaphysical Averroism, and who were very often Peripatetics in so far as was possible without formally contradicting the teaching of the Church. For instance, William of Auvergne (d. 1249), who was the first to combat "Aristotle and his sectarians" on metaphysical grounds, was somewhat misled by Alpetragius's astronomy, which, moreover, he understood but imperfectly. Albertus Magnus (1193 or 1205-1280) followed to a great extent the doctrine of Ptolemy, although he was sometimes influenced by the objections of Averroës or affected by Alpetragius's principles. Vincent of Beauvais in his "Speculum quadruplex", a vast encyclopædic compilation published about 1250, seemed to attach great importance to the system of Alpetragius, borrowing the exposition of it from Albertus Magnus. Finally, even St. Thomas Aquinas gave evidence of being extremely perplexed by the theory (1227-74) of eccentrics and epicycles which justified celestial phenomena by contradicting the principles of Peripatetic physics, and the theory of Alpetragius which honoured these principles but did not go so far as to represent their phenomena in detail. This hesitation, so marked in the Dominican school, was hardly less remarkable in the Franciscan. Robert Grosseteste or Greathead (1175-1253), whose influence on Franciscan studies was so great, followed the Ptolemaic system in his astronomical writings, his physics being imbued with Alpetragius's ideas. St. Bonaventure (1221-74) wavered between doctrines which he did not thoroughly understand, and Roger Bacon (1214-92) in several of his writings weighed with great care the arguments that could be made to count for or against each of these two astronomical theories, without eventually making a choice. Bacon, however, was familiar with a method of figuration in the system of eccentrics and epicycles which Alhazen had derived from the Greeks; and in this figuration all the motions acknowledged by Ptolemy were traced back to the rotation of solid orbs accurately fitted one into the other. This representation, which refuted most of the objections raised by Averroës against Ptolemaic astronomy, contributed largely to propagate the knowledge of this astronomy, and it seems that the first of the Latins to adopt it and expatiate on its merits was the Franciscan Bernard of Verdun (end of thirteenth century), who had read Bacon's writings. In sublunary physics the authors whom we have just mentioned did not show the hesitation that rendered astronomical doctrines so perplexing, but on almost all points adhered closely to Peripatetic opinions . V. THE SCIENCE OF OBSERVATION AND ITS PROGRESS ASTRONOMERS THE STATICS OF JORDANUS THIERRY OF FREIBERG PIERRE OF MARICOURT Averroism had rendered scientific progress impossible, but fortunately in Latin Christendom it was to meet with two powerful enemies: the unhampered curiosity of human reason, and the authority of the Church. Encouraged by the certainty resulting from experiments, astronomers rudely shook off the yoke which Peripatetic physics had imposed upon them. The School of Paris in particular was remarkable for its critical views and its freedom of attitude towards the argument of authority. In 1290 William of Saint-Cloud determined with wonderful accuracy the obliquity of the ecliptic and the time of the vernal equinox, and his observations led him to recognize the inaccuracies that marred the "Tables of Toledo", drawn up by Al-Zarkali. The theory of the precession of the equinoxes, conceived by the astronomers of Alfonso X of Castile, and the "Alphonsine Tables" set up in accordance with this theory, gave rise in the first half of the fourteenth century to the observations, calculations, and critical discussions of Parisian astronomers, especially of Jean des Linières and his pupil John of Saxonia or Connaught. At the end of the thirteenth century and the beginning of the fourteenth, sublunary physics owed great advancement to the simultaneous efforts of geometricians and experimenters -- their method and discoveries being duly boasted of by Roger Bacon who, however, took no important part in their labours. Jordanus de Nemore, a talented mathematician who, not later than about the beginning of the thirteenth century, wrote treatises on arithmetic and geometry, left a very short treatise on statics in which, side by side with erroneous propositions, we find the law of the equilibrium of the straight lever very correctly established with the aid of the principle of virtual displacements. The treatise, "De ponderibus", by Jordanus provoked research on the part of various commentators, and one of these, whose name is unknown and who must have written before the end of the thirteenth century, drew, from the same principle of virtual displacements, demonstrations, admirable in exactness and elegance, of the law of the equilibrium of the bent lever, and of the apparent weight (gravitas secundum situm) of a body on an inclined plane. Alhazen's "Treatise on Perspective" was read thoroughly by Roger Bacon and his contemporaries, John Peckham (1228-91), the English Franciscan, giving a summary of it. About 1270 Witelo (or Witek; the Thuringopolonus), composed an exhaustive ten-volume treatise on optics, which remained a classic until the time of Kepler, who wrote a commentary on it. Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, and Witelo were deeply interested in the theory of the rainbow, and, like the ancient meteorologists, they all took the rainbow to be the image of the sun reflected in a sort of a concave mirror formed by a cloud resolved into rain. In 1300 Thierry of Freiberg proved by means of carefully-conducted experiments in which he used glass balls filled with water, that the rays which render the bow visible have been reflected on the inside of the spherical drops of water, and he traced with great accuracy the course of the rays which produce the rainbows respectively. The system of Thierry of Freiberg, at least that part relating to the primary rainbow, was reproduced about 1360 by Themon, "Son of the Jew" (Themo ju d i), and, from his commentary on "Meteors", it passed on down to the days of the Renaissance when, having been somewhat distorted, it reappeared in the writings of Alessandro Piccolomini, Simon Porta, and Marco and Antonio de Dominis, being thus propagated until the time of Descartes. The study of the magnet had also made great progress in the course of the thirteenth century; the permanent magnetization of iron, the properties of the magnetic poles, the direction of the Earth's action exerted on these poles or of their action on one another, are all found very accurately described in a treatise written in 1269 by Pierre of Maricourt (Petrus Peregrinus). Like the work of Thierry of Freiberg on the rainbow, the "Epistola de magnete" by Maricourt was a model of the art of logical sequence between experiment and deduction. VI. THE ARTICLES OF PARIS (1277) POSSIBILITY OF VACUUM The University of Paris was very uneasy because of the antagonism existing between Christian dogmas and certain Peripatetic doctrines, and on several occasions it combatted Aristotelean influence. In 1277 Etienne Tempier, Bishop of Paris, acting on the advice of the theologians of the Sorbonne, condemned a great number of errors, some of which emanated from the astrology, and others from the philosophy of the Peripatetics. Among these errors considered dangerous to faith were several which might have impeded the progress of physical science, and hence it was that the theologians of Paris declared erroneous the opinion maintaining that God Himself could not give the entire universe a rectilinear motion, as the universe would then leave a vacuum behind it, and also declared false the notion that God could not create several worlds. These condemnations destroyed certain essential foundations of Peripatetic physics; because, although, in Aristotle's system, such propositions were ridiculously untenable, belief in Divine Omnipotence sanctioned them as possible, whilst waiting for science to confirm them as true. For instance, Aristotle's physics treated the existence of an empty space as a pure absurdity; in virtue of the "Articles of Paris" Richard of Middletown (about 1280) and, after him, many masters at Paris and Oxford admitted that the laws of nature are certainly opposed to the production of empty space, but that the realization of such a space is not, in itself, contrary to reason; thus, without any absurdity, one could argue on vacuum and on motion in a vacuum. Next, in order that such arguments might be legitimatized, it was necessary to create that branch of mechanical science known as dynamics. VII. THE EARTH'S MOTION ORESME The "Articles of Paris" were of about the same value in supporting the question of the Earth's motion as in furthering the progress of dynamics by regarding vacuum as something conceivable. Aristotle maintained that the first heaven (the firmament) moved with a uniform rotary motion, and that the Earth was absolutely stationary, and as these two propositions necessarily resulted from the first principles relative to time and place, it would have been absurd to deny them. However, by declaring that God could endow the World with a rectilinear motion, the theologians of the Sorbonne acknowledged that these two Aristotelean propositions could not be imposed as a logical necessity and thenceforth, whilst continuing to admit that, as a fact, the Earth was immovable and that the heavens moved with a rotary diurnal motion, Richard of Middletown and Duns Scotus (about 1275-1308) began to formulate hypotheses to the effect that these bodies were animated by other motions, and the entire school of Paris adopted the same opinion. Soon, however, the Earth's motion was taught in the School of Paris, not as a possibility, but as a reality. In fact, in the specific setting forth of certain information given by Aristotle and Simplicius, a principle was formulated which for three centuries was to play a great rôle in statics, viz. that every heavy body tends to unite its centre of gravity with the centre of the Earth. When writing his "Questions" on Aristotle's "De Cælo" in 1368, Albert of Helmstadt (or of Saxony) admitted this principle, which he applied to the entire mass of the terrestrial element. The centre of gravity of this mass is constantly inclined to place itself in the centre of the universe, but, within the terrestrial mass, the position of the centre of gravity is incessantly changing. The principal cause of this variation is the erosion brought about by the streams and rivers that continually wear away the land surface, deepening its valleys and carrying off all loose matter to the bed of the sea, thereby producing a displacement of weight which entails a ceaseless change in the position of the centre of gravity. Now, in order to replace this centre of gravity in the centre of the universe, the Earth moves without ceasing; and meanwhile a slow but perpetual exchange is being effected between the continents and the oceans. Albert of Saxony ventured so far as to think that these small and incessant motions of the Earth could explain the phenomena of the precession of the equinoxes. The same author declared that one of his masters, whose name he did not disclose, announced himself in favour of the daily rotation of the Earth, inasmuch as he refuted the arguments that were opposed to this motion. This anonymous master had a thoroughly convinced disciple in Nicole Oresme who, in 1377, being then Canon of Rouen and later Bishop of Lisieux, wrote a French commentary on Aristotle's treatise "De Cælo", maintaining with quite as much force as clearness that neither experiment nor argument could determine whether the daily motion belonged to the firmament of the fixed stars or to the Earth. He also showed how to interpret the difficulties encountered in "the Sacred Scriptures wherein it is stated that the sun turns, etc. It might be supposed that here Holy Writ adapts itself to the common mode of human speech, as also in several places, for instance, where lt is written that God repented Himself, and was angry and calmed Himself and so on, all of which is, however, not to be taken in a strictly literal sense". Finally, Oresme offered several considerations favourable to the hypothesis of the Earth's daily motion. In order to refute one of the objections raised by the Peripatetics against this point, Oresme was led to explain how, in spite of this motion, heavy bodies seemed to fall in a vertical line; he admitted their real motion to be composed of a fall in a vertical line and a diurnal rotation identical with that which they would have if bound to the Earth. This is precisely the principle to which Galileo was afterwards to turn. VIII. PLURALITY OF WORLDS Aristotle maintained the simultaneous existence of several worlds to be an absurdity, his principal argument being drawn from his theory of gravity, whence he concluded that two distinct worlds could not coexist and be each surrounded by its elements; therefore it would be ridiculous to compare each of the planets to an earth similar to ours. In 1277 the theologians of Paris condemned this doctrine as a denial of the creative omnipotence of God; Richard of Middletown and Henry of Ghent (who wrote about 1280), Guillaume Varon (who wrote a commentary on the "Sentences" about 1300), and, towards 1320, Jean de Bassols, William of Occam (d. after 1347), and Walter Burley (d. about 1348) did not hesitate to declare that God could create other worlds similar to ours. This doctrine, adopted by several Parisian masters, exacted that the theory of gravity and natural place developed by Aristotle be thoroughly changed; in fact, the following theory was substituted for it. If some part of the elements forming a world be detached from it and driven far away, its tendency will be to move towards the world to which it belongs and from which it was separated; the elements of each world are inclined so to arrange themselves that the heaviest will be in the centre and the lightest on the surface. This theory of gravity appeared in the writings of Jean Buridan of Béthune, who became rector of the University of Paris in 1327, teaching at that institution until about 1360; and in 1377 this same theory was formally proposed by Oresme. It was also destined to be adopted by Copernicus and his first followers, and to be maintained by Galileo, William Gilbert, and Otto von Guericke. IX. DYNAMICS THEORY OF IMPETUS INERTIA CELESTIAL AND SUBLUNARY MECHANICS IDENTICAL If the School of Paris completely transformed the Peripatetic theory of gravity, it was equally responsible for the overthrow of Aristotelean dynamics. Convinced that, in all motion, the mover should be directly contiguous to the body moved, Aristotle had proposed a strange theory of the motion of projectiles. He held that the projectile was moved by the fluid medium, whether air or water, through which it passed and this, by virtue of the vibration brought about in the fluid at the moment of throwing, and spread through it. In the sixth century of our era this explanation was strenuously opposed by the Christian Stoic, Joannes Philoponus, according to whom the projectile was moved by a certain power communicated to it at the instant of throwing; however, despite the objections raised by Philoponus, Aristotle's various commentators, particularly Averroës, continued to attribute the motion of the projectile to the disturbance of the air, and Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Gilles of Rome, and Walter Burley persevered in maintaining this error. By means of most spirited argumentation, William of Occam made known the complete absurdity of the Peripatetic theory of the motion of projectiles. Going back to Philoponus's thesis, Buridan gave the name impetus to the virtue or power communicated to the projectile by the hand or instrument throwing it; he declared that in any given body in motion, this impetus was proportional to the velocity, and that, in different bodies in motion propelled by the same velocity, the quantities of impetus were proportional to the mass or quantity of matter defined as it was afterwards defined by Newton. In a projectile; impetus is gradually destroyed by the resistance of air or other medium and is also destroyed by the natural gravity of the body in motion, which gravity is opposed to the impetus if the projectile be thrown upward; this struggle explains the different peculiarities of the motion of projectiles. In a falling body, gravity comes to the assistance of impetus which it increases at every instant, hence the velocity of the fall is increasing incessantly. With the assistance of these principles concerning impetus, Buridan accounts for the swinging of the pendulum. He likewise analyses the mechanism of impact and rebound and, in this connexion, puts forth very correct views on the deformations and elastic reactions that arise in the contiguous parts of two bodies coming into collision. Nearly all this doctrine of impetus is transformed into a very correct mechanical theory if one is careful to substitute the expression vis viva for impetus. The dynamics expounded by Buridan were adopted in their entirety by Albert of Saxony, Oresme, Marsile of Inghem, and the entire School of Paris. Albert of Saxony appended thereto the statement that the velocity of a falling body must be proportional either to the time elapsed from the beginning of the fall or to the distance traversed during this time. In a projectile, the impetus is gradually destroyed either by the resistance of the medium or by the contrary tendency of the gravity natural to the body. Where these causes of destruction do not exist, the impetus remains perpetually the same, as in the case of a millstone exactly centred and not rubbing on its axis; once set in motion it will turn indefinitely with the same swiftness. It was under this form that the law of inertia at first became evident to Buridan and Albert of Saxony. The conditions manifested in this hypothetic millstone are realized in the celestial orbs, as in these neither friction nor gravity impedes motion; hence it may be admitted that each celestial orb moves indefinitely by virtue of a suitable impetus communicated to it by God at the moment of creation. It is useless to imitate Aristotle and his commentators by attributing the motion of each orb to a presiding spirit. This was the opinion proposed by Buridan and adopted by Albert of Saxony; and whilst formulating a doctrine from which modern dynamics was to spring, these masters understood that the same dynamics governs both celestial and sublunary bodies. Such an idea was directly opposed to the essential distinction established by ancient physics between these two kinds of bodies. Moreover, following William of Occam, the masters of Paris rejected this distinction; they acknowledged that the matter constituting celestial bodies was of the same nature as that constituting sublunary bodies and that, if the former remained perpetually the same, it was not because they were, by nature, incapable of change and destruction, but simply because the place in which they were contained no agent capable of corrupting them. A century elapsed between the condemnations pronounced by Etienne Tempier (1277) and the editing of the "Traité du Ciel et du Monde" by Oresme (1377) and, within that time, all the essential principles of Aristotle's physics were undermined, and the great controlling ideas of modern science formulated. This revolution was mainly the work of Oxford Franciscans like Richard of Middletown, Duns Scotus, and William of Occam, and of masters in the School of Paris, heirs to the tradition inaugurated by these Franciscans; among the Parisian masters Buridan, Albert of Saxony, and Oresme were in the foremost rank. X. PROPAGATION OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE SCHOOL OF PARIS IN GERMANY AND ITALY PURBACH AND REGIOMONTANUS NICHOLAS OF CUSA VINCI The great Western Schism involved the University of Paris in politico-religious quarrels of extreme violence; the misfortunes brought about by the conflict between the Armagnacs and Burgundians and by the Hundred Years' War, completed what these quarrels had begun, and the wonderful progress made by science during the fourteenth century in the University of Paris suddenly ceased. However, the schism contributed to the diffusion of Parisian doctrines by driving out of Paris a large number of brilliant men who had taught there with marked success. In 1386 Marsile of Inghem (d. 1396), who had been one of the most gifted professors of the University of Paris, became rector of the infant University of Heidelberg, where he introduced the dynamic theories of Buridan and Albert of Saxony. About the same time, another master, reputedly of Paris, Heinrich Heimbuch of Langenstein, or of Hesse, was chiefly instrumental in founding the University of Vienna and, besides his theological knowledge, brought thither the astronomical tradition of Jean des Linières and John of Saxony. This tradition was carefully preserved in Vienna, being magnificently developed there throughout the fifteenth century, and paving the way for Georg Purbach (1423-61) and his disciple Johann Müller of Königsberg, surnamed Regiomontanus (1436-76). It was to the writing of theories calculated to make the Ptolemaic system known, to the designing and constructing of exact instruments, to the multiplying of observations, and the preparing of tables and almanacs (ephemerides), more accurate than those used by astronomers up to that time, that Purbach and Regiomontanus devoted their prodigious energy. By perfecting all the details of Ptolemy's theories, which they never called in question, they were most helpful in bringing to light the defects of these theories and in preparing the materials by means of which Copernicus was to build up his new astronomy. Averroism flourished in the Italian Universities of Padua and Bologna, which were noted for their adherence to Peripatetic doctrines. Still from the beginning of the fifteenth century the opinions of the School of Paris began to find their way into these institutions, thanks to the teaching of Paolo Nicoletti of Venice (flourished about 1420). It was there developed by his pupil Gaetan of Tiene (d. 1465). These masters devoted special attention to propagating the dynamics of impetus in Italy. About the time that Paola of Venice was teaching at Padua, Nicholas of Cusa came there to take his doctorate in law. Whether it was then that the latter became initiated in the physics of the School of Paris matters little, as in any event it was from Parisian physics that he adopted those doctrines that smacked least of Peripateticism. He became thoroughly conversant with the dynamics of impetus and, like Buridan and Albert of Saxony, attributed the motion of the celestial spheres to the impetus which God had communicated to them in creating them, and which was perpetuated because, in these spheres, there was no element of destruction. He admitted that the Earth moved incessantly, and that its motion might be the cause of the precession of the equinoxes. In a note discovered long after his death, he went so far as to attribute to the Earth a daily rotation. He imagined that the sun, the moon, and the planets were so many systems, each of which contained an earth and elements analogous to our Earth and elements, and to account for the action of gravity in each of these systems he followed closely the theory of gravity advanced by Oresme. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) was perhaps more thoroughly convinced of the merits of the Parisian physics than any other Italian master. A keen observer, and endowed with insatiable curiosity, he had studied a great number of works, amongst which we may mention the various treatises of the School of Jordanus, various books by Albert of Saxony, and in all likelihood the works of Nicholas of Cusa; then, profiting by the learning of these scholars, he formally enunciated or else simply intimated many new ideas. The statics of the School of Jordanus led him to discover the law of the composition of concurrent forces stated as follows: the two component forces have equal moments as regards the direction of the resultant, and the resultant and one of the components have equal moments as regards the direction of the other component. The statics derived from the properties which Albert of Saxony attributed to the centre of gravity caused Vinci to recognize the law of the polygon of support and to determine the centre of gravity of a tetrahedron. He also presented the law of the equilibrium of two liquids of different density in communicating tubes, and the principle of virtual displacements seems to have occasioned his acknowledgement of the hydrostatic law known as Pascal's. Vinci continued to meditate on the properties of impetus, which he called impeto or forza, and the propositions that he formulated on the subject of this power very often showed a fairly clear discernment of the law of the conservation of energy. These propositions conducted him to remarkably correct and accurate conclusions concerning the impossibility of perpetual motion. Unfortunately he misunderstood the pregnant explanation, afforded by the theory of impetus, regarding the acceleration of falling bodies, and like the Peripatetics attributed this acceleration to the impulsion of the encompassing air. However, by way of compensation, he distinctly asserted that the velocity of a body that falls freely is proportional to the time occupied in the fall, and he understood in what way this law extends to a fall on an inclined plane. When he wished to determine how the path traversed by a falling body is connected with the time occupied in the fall, he was confronted by a difficulty which, in the seventeenth century, was likewise to baffle Baliani and Gassendi. Vinci was much engrossed in the analysis of the deformations and elastic reactions which cause a body to rebound after it has struck another, and this doctrine, formulated by Buridan, Albert of Saxony, and Marsile of Inghem he applied in such a way as to draw from it the explanation of the flight of birds. This flight is an alternation of falls during which the bird compresses the air beneath it, and of rebounds due to the elastic force of this air. Until the great painter discovered this explanation, the question of the flight of birds was always looked upon as a problem in statics, and was likened to the swimming of a fish in water. Vinci attached great importance to the views developed by Albert of Saxony in regard to the Earth's equilibrium. Like the Parisian master, he held that the centre of gravity within the terrestrial mass is constantly changing under the influence of erosion and that the Earth is continually moving so as to bring this centre of gravity to the centre of the World. These small, incessant motions eventually bring to the surface of the continents those portions of earth that once occupied the bed of the ocean and, to place this assertion of Albert of Saxony beyond the range of doubt, Vinci devoted himself to the study of fossils and to extremely cautious observations which made him the creator of Stratigraphy. In many passages in his notes Vinci asserts, like Nicholas of Cusa that the moon and the other wandering stars are worlds analogous to ours, that they carry seas upon their surfaces, and are surrounded by air; and the development of this opinion led him to talk of the gravity binding to each of these stars the elements that belonged to it. On the subject of this gravity he professed a theory similar to Oresme's. Hence it would seem that, in almost every particular, Vinci was a faithful disciple of the great Parisian masters of the fourteenth century, of Buridan, Albert of Saxony, and Oresme. XI. ITALIAN AVERROISM AND ITS TENDENCIES TO ROUTINE ATTEMPTS AT RESTORING THE ASTRONOMY OF HOMOCENTRIC SPHERES Whilst, through the anti-Peripatetic influence of the School of Paris, Vinci reaped a rich harvest of discoveries, innumerable Italians devoted themselves to the sterile worship of defunct ideas with a servility that was truly astonishing. The Averroists did not wish to acknowledge as true anything out of conformity with the ideas of Aristotle as interpreted by Averroës; with Pompanazzi (1462-1526), the Alexandrists, seeking their inspiration further back in the past, refused to understand Aristotle otherwise than he had been understood by Alexander of Aphrodisias; and the Humanists, solicitous only for purity of form, would not consent to use any technical language whatever and rejected all ideas that were not sufficiently vague to be attractive to orators and poets; thus Averroists, Alexandrists, and Humanists proclaimed a truce to their vehement discussions so as to combine against the "language of Paris", the "logic of Paris", and the "physics of Paris". It is difficult to conceive the absurdities to which these minds were led by their slavish surrender to routine. A great number of physicists, rejecting the Parisian theory of impetus, returned to the untenable dynamics of Aristotle, and maintained that the projectile was moved by the ambient air. In 1499 Nicolò Vernias of Chieti, an Averroist professor at Padua, taught that if a heavy body fell it was in consequence of the motion of the air surrounding it. A servile adoration of Peripateticism prompted many so-called philosophers to reject the Ptolemaic system, the only one which, at that time, could satisfy the legitimate exigencies of astronomers, and to readopt the hypothesis of homocentric spheres. They held as null and void the innumerable observations that showed changes in the distance of each planet from the Earth. Alessandro Achillini of Bologna (1463-1512), an uncompromising Averroist and a strong opponent of the theory of impetus and of all Parisian doctrines, inaugurated, in his treatise "De orbibus" (1498), a strange reaction against Ptolemaic astronomy; Agostino Nifo (1473-1538) laboured for the same end in a work that has not come down to us; Girolamo Fracastorio (1483-1553) gave us, in 1535, his book "De homocentricis", and Gianbattista Amico (1536), and Giovanni Antonio Delfino (1559) published small works in an endeavour to restore the system of homocentric spheres. XII. THE COPERNICAN REVOLUTION Although directed by tendencies diametrically opposed to the true scientific spirit, the efforts made by Averroists to restore the astronomy of homocentric spheres were perhaps a stimulus to the progress of science, inasmuch as they accustomed physicists to the thought that the Ptolemaic system was not the only astronomical doctrine possible, or even the best that could be desired. Thus, in their own way, the Averroists paved the way for the Copernican revolution. The movements forecasting this revolution were noticeable in the middle of the fourteenth century in the writings of Nicholas of Cusa, and in the beginning of the fifteenth century in the notes of Vinci, both of these eminent scientists being well versed in Parisian physics. Celio Calcagnini proposed, in his turn, to explain the daily motion of the stars by attributing to the Earth a rotation from West to East, complete in one sidereal day. His dissertation, "Quod c lum stet, terra vero moveatur", although seeming to have been written about 1530, was not published until 1544, when it appeared in a posthumous edition of the author's works. Calcagnini declared that the Earth, originally in equilibrium in the centre of the universe, received a first impulse which imparted to it a rotary motion, and this motion, to which nothing was opposed, was indefinitely preserved by virtue of the principle set forth by Buridan and accepted by Albert of Saxony and Nicholas of Cusa. According to Calcagnini the daily rotation of the Earth was accompanied by an oscillation which explained the movement of the precession of the equinoxes. Another oscillation set the waters of the sea in motion and determined the ebb and flow of the tides. This last hypothesis was to be maintained by Andrea Cesalpino (1519-1603) in his "Quæstiones peripateticæ" (1569), and to inspire Galileo, who, unfortunately, was to seek in the phenomena of the tides his favourite proof of the Earth's rotation. The "De revolutionibus orbium c lestium libri sex" were printed in 1543, a few months after the death of Copernicus (1473-1543), but the principles of the astronomic system proposed by this man of genius had been published as early as 1539 in the "Narratio prima" of his disciple, Joachim Rhæticus (1514-76). Copernicus adhered to the ancient astronomical hypotheses which claimed that the World was spherical and limited, and that all celestial motions were decomposable into circular and uniform motions; but he held that the firmament of fixed stars was immovable, as also the sun, which was placed in the centre of this firmament. To the Earth he attributed three motions: a circular motion by which the centre of the Earth described with uniform velocity a circle situated in the plane of the ecliptic and eccentric to the sun; a daily rotation on an axis inclined towards the ecliptic, and finally, a rotation of this axis around an axis normal to the ecliptic and passing through the centre of the Earth. The time occupied by this last rotation was a little longer than that required for the circular motion of the centre of the Earth which produced the phenomenon of the precession of the equinoxes. To the five planets Copernicus ascribed motions analogous to those with which the Earth was provided, and he maintained that the moon moved in a circle around the Earth. Of the Copernican hypotheses, the newest was that according to which the Earth moved in a circle around the sun. From the days of Aristarchus of Samos and Seleucus no one had adopted this view. Medieval astronomers had all rejected it, because they supposed that the stars were much too close to the Earth and the sun, and that an annual circular motion of the Earth might give the stars a perceptible parallax. Still, on the other hand, we have seen that various authors had proposed to attribute to the Earth one or the other of the two motions which Copernicus added to the annual motion. To defend the hypothesis of the daily motion of the Earth against the objections formulated by Peripatetic physics, Copernicus invoked exactly the same reasons as Oresme, and in order to explain how each planet retains the various parts of its elements, he adopted the theory of gravity proposed by the eminent master. Copernicus showed himself the adherent of Parisian physics even in the following opinion, enunciated accidently: the acceleration of the fall of heavy bodies is explained by the continual increase which impetus receives from gravity. XIII. FORTUNES OF THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY Copernicus and his disciple Rhæticus very probably regarded the motions which their theory ascribed to the Earth and the planets, the sun's rest and that of the firmament of fixed stars, as the real motions or real rest of these bodies. The "De revolutionibus orbium cælestium libri sex" appeared with an anonymous preface which inspired an entirely different idea. This preface was the work of the Lutheran theologian Osiander (1498-1552), who therein expressed the opinion that the hypotheses proposed by philosophers in general, and by Copernicus in particular, were in no wise calculated to acquaint us with the reality of things: "Neque enim necesse est eas hypotheses esse veras, imo, ne verisimiles quidem, sed sufficit hoc unum si calculum observationibus congruentem exhibeant". Osiander's view of astronomical hypotheses was not new. Even in the days of Grecian antiquity a number of thinkers had maintained that the sole object of these hypotheses was to "save appearances", sozein ta phainomena; and in the Middle Ages, as well as in antiquity, this method continued to be that of philosophers who wished to make use of Ptolemaic astronomy whilst at the same time upholding the Peripatetic physics absolutely incompatible with this astronomy. Osiander's doctrine was therefore readily received, first of all by astronomers who, without believing the Earth's motion to be a reality, accepted and admired the kinetic combinations conceived by Copernicus, as these combinations provided them with better means than could be offered by the Ptolemaic system for figuring out the motion of the moon and the phenomena of the precession of the equinoxes. One of the astronomers who most distinctly assumed this attitude in regard to Ptolemy's system was Erasmus Reinhold (1511-53), who, although not admitting the Earth's motion, professed a great admiration for the system of Copernicus and used it in computing new astronomical tables, the "Prutenicæ tabulæ" (1551), which were largely instrumental in introducing to astronomers the kinetic combinations originated by Copernicus. The "Prutenicæ tabulæ" were especially employed by the commission which in 1582 effected the Gregorian reform of the calendar. Whilst not believing in the Earth's motion, the members of this commission did not hesitate to use tables founded on a theory of the precession of the equinoxes and attributing a certain motion to the earth. However, the freedom permitting astronomers to use all hypotheses qualified to account for phenomena was soon restricted by the exigencies of Peripatetic philosophers and Protestant theologians. Osiander had written his celebrated preface to Copernicus's book with a view to warding off the attacks of theologians, but in this he did not succeed. Martin Luther, in his "Tischrede", was the first to express indignation at the impiety of those who admitted the hypothesis of solar rest. Melanchthon, although acknowledging the purely astronomical advantages of the Copernican system, strongly combatted the hypothesis of the Earth's motion (1549), not only with the aid of arguments furnished by Peripatetic physics but likewise, and chiefly, with the assistance of numerous texts taken from Holy Writ. Kaspar Peucer (1525-1602), Melanchthon's son-in-law, whilst endeavouring to have his theory of the planets harmonize with the progress which the Copernican system had made in this regard, nevertheless rejected the Copernican hypotheses as absurd (1571). It then came to be exacted of astronomical hypotheses that not only, as Osiander had desired, the result of their calculations be conformable to facts, but also that they be not refuted "either in the name of the principles of physics or in the name of the authority of the Sacred Scriptures". This criterion was explicitly formulated in 1578 by a Lutheran, the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), and it was precisely by virtue of these two requirements that the doctrines of Galileo were to be condemned by the Inquisition in 1616 and 1633. Eager not to admit any hypothesis that would conflict with Aristotelean physics or be contrary to the letter of the Sacred Scriptures, and yet most desirous to retain all the astronomical advantages of the Copernican system, Tycho Brahe proposed a new system which virtually consisted in leaving the Earth motionless and in moving the other heavenly bodies in such a way that their displacement with regard to the Earth might remain the same as in the system of Copernicus. Moreover, although posing as the defender of Aristotelean physics, Tycho Brahe dealt it a disastrous blow. In 1572 a star, until then unknown, appeared in the constellation of Cassiopeia, and in showing accurate observations that the new astral body was really a fixed star, Tycho Brahe proved conclusively that the celestial world was not, as Aristotle would have had us believe, formed of a substance exempt from generation and destruction. The Church had not remained indifferent to the hypothesis of the Earth's motion until the time of Tycho Brahe, as it was amongst her members that this hypothesis had found its first defenders, counting adherents even in the extremely orthodox University of Paris. At the time of defending this hypothesis, Oresme was Canon of Rouen, and immediately after he was promoted to the Bishopric of Lisieux; Nicholas of Cusa was Bishop of Brixen and cardinal, and was entrusted with important negotiations by Eugenius IV, Nicholas V, and Pius II; Calcagnini was prothonotary Apostolic; Copernicus was Canon of Thorn, and it was Cardinal Schomberg who urged him to publish his work, the dedication of which was accepted by Paul III. Besides, Oresme had made clear how to interpret the Scriptural passages claimed to be opposed to the Copernican system, and in 1584 Didacus a Stunica of Salamanca found in Holy Writ texts which could be invoked with just as much certainty in favour of the Earth's motion. However, in 1595 the Protestant senate of the University of Tübingen compelled Kepler to retract the chapter in his "Mysterium cosmographicum", in which he had endeavoured to make the Copernican system agree with Scripture. Christopher Clavius (1537-1612), a Jesuit, and one of the influential members of the commission that reformed the Gregorian Calendar, seemed to be the first Catholic astronomer to adopt the double test imposed upon astronomical hypotheses by Tycho Brahe, and to decide (1581) that the suppositions of Copernicus were to be rejected, as opposed both to Peripatetic physics and to Scripture; on the other hand, at the end of his life and under the influence of Galileo's discoveries, Clavius appeared to have assumed a far more favourable attitude towards Copernican doctrines. The enemies of Aristotelean philosophy gladly adopted the system of Copernicus, considering its hypotheses as so many propositions physically true, this being the case with Pierre de La Ramée, called Petrus Ramus (1502-72), and especially with Giordano Bruno (about 1550-1600). The physics developed by Bruno, in which he incorporated the Copernican hypothesis, proceeded from Nicole, Oresme, and Nicholas of Cusa; but chiefly from the physics taught in the University of Paris in the fourteenth century. The infinite extent of the universe and the plurality of worlds were admitted as possible by many theologians at the end of the thirteenth century, and the theory of the slow motion which gradually causes the central portions of the Earth to work to the surface had been taught by Albert of Saxony before it attracted the attention of Vinci. The solution of Peripatetic arguments against the Earth's motion and the theory of gravity called forth by the comparison of the planets with the Earth would appear to have been borrowed by Bruno from Oresme. The apostasy and heresies for which Bruno was condemned in 1600 had nothing to do with the physical doctrines he had espoused, which included in particular Copernican astronomy. In fact it does not seem that, in the sixteenth century, the Church manifested the slightest anxiety concerning the system of Copernicus. XIV. THEORY OF THE TIDES It is undoubtedly to the great voyages that shed additional lustre on the close of the fifteenth century that we must attribute the importance assumed in the sixteenth century by the problem of the tides, and the great progress made at that time towards the solution of this problem. The correlation existing between the phenomenon of high and low tide and the course of the moon was known even in ancient times. Posidonius accurately described it; the Arabian astronomers were also familiar with it, and the explanation given of it in the ninth century by Albumazar in his "Introductorium magnum ad Astronomiam" remained a classic throughout the Middle Ages. The observation of tidal phenomena very naturally led to the supposition that the moon attracted the waters of the ocean and, in the thirteenth century, William of Auvergne compared this attraction to that of the magnet for iron. However, the mere attraction of the moon did not suffice to account for the alternation of spring and neap tides, which phenomenon clearly indicated a certain intervention of the sun. In his "Questions sur les livres des Météores", which appeared during the latter half of the fourteenth century, Themon, "Son of the Jew", introduced in a vague sort of way the idea of superposing two tides, the one due to the sun and the other to the moon. In 1528 this idea was very clearly endorsed by Federico Grisogone of Zara, a Dalmatian who taught medicine at Padua. Grisogone declared that, under the action of the moon exclusively, the sea would assume an ovoid shape, its major axis being directed towards the centre of the moon; that the action of the sun would also give it an ovoid shape, less elongated than the first, its major axis being directed towards the centre of the sun; and that the variation of sea level, at all times and in all places, was obtained by adding the elevation or depression produced by the solar tide to the elevation or depression produced by the lunar tide. In 1557 Girolamo Cardano accepted and briefly explained Grisogone's theory. In 1559 a posthumous work by Delfino gave a description of the phenomena of the tides, identical with that deduced from the mechanism conceived by Grisogone. The doctrine of the Dalmatian physician was reproduced by Paolo Gallucci in 1588, and by Annibale Raimondo in 1589; and in 1600 Claude Duret, who had plagiarized Delfino's treatise, published in France the description of the tides given in that work. XV. STATICS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY STEVINUS When writing on statics Cardano drew upon two sources, the writings of Archimedes and the treatises of the School of Jordanus; besides, he probably plagiarized the notes left by Vinci, and it was perhaps from this source that he took the theorem: a system endowed with weight is in equilibrium when the centre of gravity of this system is the lowest possible. Nicolo Tartaglia (about 1500-57), Cardano's antagonist, shamelessly purloined a supposedly forgotten treatise by one of Jordanus's commentators. Ferrari, Cardano's faithful disciple, harshly rebuked Tartaglia for the theft, which nevertheless had the merit of re-establishing the vogue of certain discoveries of the thirteenth century, especially the law of the equilibrium of a body supported by an inclined plane. By another and no less barefaced plagiarism, Tartaglia published under his own name a translation of Archimedes's "Treatise on floating bodies" made by William of Moerbeke at the end of the thirteenth century. This publication, dishonest though it was, helped to give prominence to the study of Archimedes's mechanical labours, which study exerted the greatest influence over the progress of science at the end of the sixteenth century, the blending of Archimedean mathematics with Parisian physics, generating the movement that terminated in Galileo's work. The translation and explanation of the works of Archimedes enlisted the attention of geometricians such as Franeesco Maurolycus of Messina (1494-1575) and Federico Commandino of Urbino (1509-75), and these two authors, continuing the work of the great Syracusan, determined the position of the centre of gravity of various solids; in addition Coinmandin translated and explained Pappus's mathematical "Collection", and the fragment of "Mechanics" by Heron of Alexandria appended thereto. Admiration for these monuments of ancient science inspired a number of Italians with a profound contempt for medieval statics. The fecundity of the principle of virtual displacements, so happily employed by the School of Jordanus, was ignored; and, deprived of the laws discovered by this school and of the additions made to them by Vinci, the treatises on statics written by over-enthusiastic admirers of the Archimedean method were notably deficient. Among the authors of these treatises Guidobaldo dal Monte (1545-1607) and Giovanni Battista Benedetti (1530-90) deserve special mention. Of the mathematicians who, in statics, claimed to follow exclusively the rigorous methods of Archimedes and the Greek geometricians, the most illustrious was Simon Stevinus of Bruges (1548-1620). Through him the statics of solid bodies recovered all that had been gained by the School of Jordanus and Vinci, and lost by the contempt of such men as Guidobaldo del Monte and Benedetti. The law of the equilibrium of the lever, one of the fundamental propositions of which Stevinus made use, was established by him with the aid of an ingenious demonstration which Galileo was also to employ, and which is found in a small anonymous work of the thirteenth century. In order to confirm another essential principle of his theory, the law of the equilibrium of a body on an inclined plane, Stevinus resorted to the impossibility of perpetual motion, which had been affirmed with great precision by Vinci and Cardano. Stevinus's chief glory lay in his discoveries in hydrostatics; and the determining of the extent and point of application of the pressure on the slanting inner side of a vessel by the liquid contained therein was in itself sufficient to entitle this geometrician from Bruges to a foremost place among the creators of the theory of the equilibrium of fluids. Benedetti was on the point of enunciating the principle known as Pascal's Law, and an insignificant addition permitted Mersenne to infer this principle and the idea of the hydraulic press from what the Italian geometrician had written. Benedetti had justified his propositions by using as an axiom the law of the equilibrium of liquids in communicating vessels, and prior to this time Vinci had followed the same logical proceeding. XVI. DYNAMICS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY The geometricians who, in spite of the stereotyped methods of Averroism and the banter of Humanism, continued to cultivate the Parisian dynamics of impetus, were rewarded by splendid discoveries. Dissipating the doubt in which Albert of Saxony had remained enveloped, Vinci had declared the velocity acquired by a falling body to be proportional to the time occupied by the fall, but he did not know how to determine the law connecting the time consumed in falling with the space passed over by the falling body. Nevertheless to find this law it would have sufficed to invoke the following proposition: in a uniformly varied motion, the space traversed by the moving body is equal to that which it would traverse in a uniform motion whose duration would be that of the preceding motion, and whose velocity would be the same as that which affected the preceding motion at the mean instant of its duration. This proposition was known to Oresme, who had demonstrated it exactly as it was to be demonstrated later by Galileo; it was enunciated and discussed at the close of the fourteenth century by all the logicians who, in the University of Oxford, composed the school of William of Heytesbury, Chancellor of Oxford in 1375; it was subsequently examined or invoked in the fifteenth century by all the Italians who became the commentators of these logicians; and finally, the masters of the University of Paris, contemporaries of Vinci, taught and demonstrated it as Oresme had done. This law which Vinci was not able to determine was published in 1545 by a Spanish Dominican, Domingo Soto (1494-1560), an alumnus of the University of Paris, and professor of theology at Alcalá de Henares, and afterwards at Salamanca. He formulated these two laws thus: The velocity of a falling body increases proportionally to the time of the fall. The space traversed in a uniformly varied motion is the same as in a uniform motion occupying the same time, its velocity being the mean velocity of the former. In addition Soto declared that the motion of a body thrown vertically upward is uniformly retarded. It should be mentioned that all these propositions were formulated by the celebrated Dominican as if in relation to truths generally admitted by the masters among whom he lived. The Parisian theory, maintaining that the accelerated fall of bodies was due to the effect of a continual increase of impetus caused by gravity, was admitted by Julius Cæsar Scaliger (1484-1558), Benedetti, and Gabriel Vasquez (1551-1604), the celebrated Jesuit theologian. The first of these authors presented this theory in such a way that uniform acceleration of motion seemed naturally to follow from it. Soto, Tartaglia, and Cardano made strenuous efforts, after the manner of Vinci, to explain the motion of projectiles by appealing to the conflict between impetus and gravity, but their attempts were frustrated by a Peripatetic error which several Parisian masters had long before rejected. They believed that the motion of the projectile was accelerated from the start, and attributed this initial acceleration to an impulse communicated by the vibrating air. Indeed, throughout the sixteenth century, the Italian Averroists continued to attribute to the ambient air the very transportation of the projectile. Tartaglia empirically discovered that a piece of artillery attained its greatest range when pointed at an angle of forty-five degrees to the horizon. Bruno insisted upon Oresme's explanation of the fact that a body appears to fall in a vertical line in spite of the Earth's motion; to obtain the trajectory of this body it is necessary to combine the action of its weight with the impetus which the Earth has imparted to it. It was as follows that Benedetti set forth the law followed by such an impetus. A body whirled in a circle and suddenly left to itself will move in a straight line tangent to the circle at the very point where the body happened to be at the moment of its release. For this achievement Benedetti deserves to be ranked among the most valuable contributors to the discovery of the law of inertia. In 1553 Benedetti advanced the following argument: in air, or any fluid whatever, ten equal stones fall with the same velocity as one of their number; and if all were combined they would still fall with the same velocity; therefore, in a fluid two stones, one of which is ten times heavier than the other, fall with the same velocity. Benedetti lauded the extreme novelty of this argument with which, in reality, many scholastics had been familiar, but which they had all claimed was not conclusive, because the resistance which the air offered to the heavier stone could certainly not be ten times that which it opposed to the lighter one. Achillini was one of those who clearly maintained this principle. That it might lead to a correct conclusion, Benedetti's argument had to be restricted to the motion of bodies in a vacuum, and this is what was done by Galileo. XVII. GALILEO'S WORK Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) had been in youth a staunch Peripatetic, but was later converted to the Copernican system, and devoted most of his efforts to its defence. The triumph of the system of Copernicus could only be secured by the perfecting of mechanics, and especially by solving the problem presented by the fall of bodies, when the earth was supposed to be in motion. It was towards this solution that many of Galileo's researches were directed, and to bring his labours to a successful issue he had to adopt certain principles of Parisian dynamics. Unfortunately, instead of using them all, he left it to others to exhaust their fecundity. Galilean statics was a compromise between the incorrect method inaugurated in Aristotle's "Mechanical Questions" and the correct method of virtual displacements successfully applied by the School of Jordanus. Imbued with ideas that were still intensely Peripatetic, it introduced the consideration of a certain impeto or momento, proportional to the velocity of the moving body and not unlike the impetus of the Parisians. Galilean hydrostatics also showed an imperfect form of the principle of virtual displacements, which seemed to have been suggested to the great Pisan by the effectual researches made on the theory of running water by his friend Benedetto Castelli, the Benedictine (1577-1644). At first Galileo asserted that the velocity of a falling body increased proportionally to the space traversed, and afterwards, by an ingenious demonstration, he proved the utter absurdity of such a law. He then taught that the motion of a freely falling body was uniformly accelerated; in favour of this law, he contented himself with appealing to its simplicity without considering the continual increase of impetus under the influence of gravity. Gravity creates, in equal periods, a new and uniform impetus which, added to that already acquired, causes the total impetus to increase in arithmetical progression according to the time occupied in the fall; hence the velocity of the falling body. This argument towards which all Parisian tradition had been tending and which, in the last place, had been broached by Scaliger, leads to our modern law: a constant force produces uniformly accelerated motion. In Galileo's work there is no trace either of the argument or of the conclusion deduced therefrom; however, the argument itself was carefully developed by Galileo's friend, Giambattista Baliani (1582-1666). From the very definition of velocity, Baliani endeavoured to deduce the law according to which the space traversed by a falling body is increased proportionally to the time occupied in the fall. Here he was confronted by a difficulty that had also baffled Vinci; however, he eventually anticipated its solution, which was given, after similar hesitation, by another of Galileo's disciples, Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655). Galileo had reached the law connecting the time occupied in the fall with the space traversed by a falling body, by using a demonstration that became celebrated as the "demonstration of the triangle". It was textually that given by Oresme in the fourteenth century and, as we have seen, Soto had thought of using Oresme's proposition in the study of the accelerated fall of bodies. Galileo extended the laws of freely falling bodies to a fall down an inclined plane and subjected to the test of experiment the law of the motion of a weight on an inclined plane. A body which, without friction or resistance of any kind, would describe the circumference of a circle concentric with the Earth would retain an invariable impeto or momento, as gravity would in no wise tend to increase or destroy this impeto: this principle which belonged to the dynamics of Buridan and Albert of Saxony, was acknowledged by Galileo. On a small surface, a sphere concentric with the Earth is apparently merged into a horizontal plane; a body thrown upon a horizontal plane and free from all friction would therefore assume a motion apparently rectilinear and uniform. It is only under this restricted and erroneous form that Galileo recognized the law of inertia and in this he was the faithful disciple of the School of Paris. If a heavy body moved by an impeto that would make it describe a circle concentric with the Earth is, moreover, free to fall, the impeto of uniform rotation and gravity are component forces. Over a small extent the motion produced by this impeto may be assumed to be rectilinear, horizontal, and uniform; hence the approximate law may be enunciated as follows: a heavy body, to which a horizontal initial velocity has been imparted at the very moment that it is abandoned to the action of gravity, assumes a motion which is sensibly the combination of a uniform horizontal motion with the vertical motion that it would assume without initial velocity. Galileo then demonstrated that the trajectory of this heavy body is a parabola with vertical axis. This theory of the motion of projectiles rests upon principles in no wise conformable to an exact knowledge of the law of inertia and which are, at bottom, identical with those invoked by Oresme when he wished to explain how, despite the Earth's rotation, a body seems to fall vertically. The argument employed by Galileo did not permit him to state how a projectile moves when its initial velocity is not horizontal. Evangelista Torricelli (1608-47), a disciple of Castelli and of Galileo, extended the latter's method to the case of a projectile whose initial velocity had a direction other than horizontal, and proved that the trajectory remained a parabola with a vertical axis. On the other hand Gassendi showed that in this problem of the motion of projectiles, the real law of inertia which had just been formulated by Descartes should be substituted for the principles admitted by the Parisian dynamics of the fourteenth century. Mention should be made of Galileo's observations on the duration of the oscillation of the pendulum, as these observations opened up to dynamics a new field. Galileo's progress in dynamics served as a defence of the Copernican system and the discoveries which, with the aid of the telescope, he was able to make in the heavens contributed to the same end. The spots on the sun's surface and the mountains, similar to those upon the Earth, that hid from view certain portions of the lunar disc, gave ample proof of the fact that the celestial bodies were not, as Aristotelean physics had maintained, formed of an incorruptible substance unlike sublunary elements; moreover, the rôle of satellite which, in this heliocentric astronomy, the moon played in regard to the Earth was carried out in relation to Jupiter by the two "Medicean planets", which Galileo had been the first to discover. Not satisfied with having defeated the arguments opposed to the Copernican system by adducing these excellent reasons, Galileo was eager to establish a positive proof in favour of this system. Inspired perhaps by Calcagnini, he believed that the phenomenon of the tides would furnish him the desired proof and he consequently rejected every explanation of ebb and flow founded on the attraction of the sun and the moon, in order to attribute the motion of the seas to the centrifugal force produced by terrestrial rotation. Such an explanation would connect the period of high tide with the sidereal instead of the lunar day, thus contradicting the most ordinary and ancient observations. This remark alone ought to have held Galileo back and prevented him from producing an argument better calculated to overthrow the doctrine of the Earth's rotation than to establish and confirm it. On two occasions, in 1616 and 1633, the Inquisition condemned what Galileo had written in favour of the system of Copernicus. The hypothesis of the Earth's motion was declared falsa in Philosophia et ad minus erronea in fide; the hypothesis of the sun being stationary was adjudged falsa in Philosophia et formaliter hæretica. Adopting the doctrine formulated by Tycho Brahe in 1578, the Holy Office forbade the use of all astronomical hypotheses that did not agree both with the principles of Aristotelean physics, and with the letter of the Sacred Scriptures. XVIII. INITIAL ATTEMPTS IN CELESTIAL MECHANICS GILBERT KEPLER Copernicus had endeavoured to describe accurately the motion of each of the celestial bodies, and Galileo had striven to show that the views of Copernicus were correct; but neither Copernicus nor Galileo had attempted to extend to the stars, what they knew concerning the dynamics of sublunary motions, or to determine thereby the forces that sustain celestial motions. They were satisfied with holding that the daily rotation of the Earth is perpetuated by virtue of an impetus given once for all; that the various parts of an element belonging to a star tend towards the centre of this star by reason of a gravity peculiar to each of the celestial bodies through which the body is enabled to preserve its entireness. Thus, in celestial mechanics, these two great scientists contributed scarcely anything to what had already been taught by Buridan, Oresme, and Nicholas of Cusa. About Galileo's time we notice the first attempts to constitute celestial mechanics, that is to say, to explain the motion of the stars by the aid of forces analogous to those the effects of which we feel upon earth; the most important of these initial attempts were made by William Gilbert (1540-1603), and Johann Kepler (1571-1631). To Gilbert we are indebted for an exhaustive treatise on magnetism, in which he systematically incorporated what was known in medieval times of electrical and magnetic phenomena, without adding thereto anything very essential; he also gave the result of his own valuable experiments. It was in this treatise that he began to expound his "Magnetic Philosophy", that is to say his celestial mechanics, but the work in which he fully developed it was not published until 1651, long after his death. Like Oresme and Copernicus, Gilbert maintained that in each star there was a particular gravity through which the material parts belonging to this star, and these only, tended to rejoin the star when they had been separated from it. He compared this gravity, peculiar to each star, to the action by which a piece of iron flies towards the magnet whose nature it shares. This opinion, held by so many of Gilbert's predecessors and adopted by a great number of his imitators, led Francis Bacon astray. Bacon was the enthusiastic herald of the experimental method which, however, he never practised and of which he had an utterly false conception. According to Gilbert, the Earth, sun, and the stars were animated, and the animating principle of each communicated to the body the motion of perpetual rotation. From a distance, the sun exerted an action perpendicular to the radius vector which goes from the centre of the sun to a planet, and this action caused the planet to revolve around the sun just as a horse turns the horse-mill to which it is yoked. Kepler himself admitted that in his first attempts along the line of celestial mechanics he was under the influence of Nicholas of Cusa and Gilbert. Inspired by the former of these authors, he attributed the Earth's rotation on its axis to an impetus communicated by the Creator at the beginning of time; but, under the influence of Gilbert's theory, he declared that this impetus ended by being transformed into a soul or an animating principle. In Kepler's earliest system, as in Gilbert's, the distant sun was said to exercise over each planet a power perpendicular to the radius vector, which power produced the circular motion of the planet. However, Kepler had the happy thought of submitting a universal attraction for the magnetic attraction that Gilbert had considered peculiar to each star. He assumed that every material mass tended towards every other material mass, no matter to what celestial body each one of them belonged; that a portion of matter placed between two stars would tend towards the larger and nearer one, although it might never have belonged to it; that, at the moment of high tide, the waters of the sea rose towards the moon, not because they had any special affinity for this humid star, but by virtue of the general tendency that draws all material masses towards one another. In the course of numerous attempts to explain the motion of the stars, Kepler was led to complicate his first celestial mechanics. He assumed that all celestial bodies were plunged into an ethereal fluid, that the rotation of the sun engendered a vortex within this fluid the reactions of which interposed to deflect each planet from the circular path. He also thought that a certain power, similar to that which directs the magnetic needle, preserved invariable in space the direction of the axis around which the rotation of each planet is effected. The unstable and complicated system of celestial mechanics taught by Kepler sprang from very deficient dynamics which, on many points, was more akin to that of the Peripatetics than to that of the Parisians. However, these many vague hypotheses exerted an incontestable influence on the attempts of scientists from Kepler to Newton to determine the forces that move the stars. If, indeed, Kepler prepared the way for Newton's work, it was mainly by the discovery of the three admirable laws that have immortalized his name; and, by teaching that the planets described ellipses instead of circles he produced in astronomy a revolution greater by far than that caused by Copernicus; he destroyed the last time-honoured principle of ancient physics, according to which all celestial motions were reducible to circular motion. XIX. CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING GEOSTATICS The "magnetic" philosophy adopted and developed by Gilbert was not only rejected by Kepler but badly abused in a dispute over the principles of statics. A number of the Parisian Scholastics of the fourteenth century, and Albert of Saxony in particular, had accepted the principle that in every body there is a fixed, determined point which tends to join the centre of the World, this point being identical with the centre of gravity as considered by Archimedes. From this principle various authors, notably Vinci, deduced corollaries that retained a place in statics. The Copernican revolution had modified this principle but little, having simply substituted, for the centre of the universe, a particular point in each star, towards which point tended the centre of gravity of each mass belonging to this star. Copernicus, Galileo, and Gilbert admitted the principle thus modified, but Kepler rejected it. In 1635 Jean de Beaugrand deduced from this principle a paradoxical theory on the gravity of bodies, and particularly on the variation in the weight of a body whose distance from the centre of the universe changes. Opinions similar to those proposed by Beaugrand in his geostatics were held in Italy by Castelli, and in France by Pierre Fermat (1608-65). Fermat's doctrine was discussed and refuted by Etienne Pascal (1588-1651) and Gilles Persone de Roberval (1602-75), and the admirable controversy between these authors and Fermat contributed in great measure to the clear exposition of a certain number of ideas employed in statics, amongst them, that of the centre of gravity. It was this controversy which led Descartes to revive the question of virtual displacements in precisely the same form as that adopted by the School of Jordanus, in order that the essential propositions of statics might be given a stable foundation. On the other hand, Torricelli based all his arguments concerning the laws of equilibrium on the axiom quoted above, viz.: a system endowed with weight is in equilibrium when the centre of gravity of all the bodies forming it is the lowest possible. Cardano and perhaps Vinci had derived this proposition from the doctrine of Albert of Saxony, but Torricelli was careful to use it only under circumstances in which all verticals are considered parallel to one another and, in this way he severed all connexion between the axiom that he admitted and the doubtful hypotheses of Parisian physics or magnetic philosophy. Thenceforth the principles of statics were formulated with accuracy, John Wallis (1616-1703), Pierre Varignon (1654-1722), and Jean Bernoulli (1667-1748) having merely to complete and develop the information provided by Stevinus, Roberval, Descartes, and Torricelli. XX. DESCARTES'S WORK We have just stated what part Descartes took in the building of statics by bringing forward the method of virtual displacements, but his active interest in the building up of dynamics was still more important. He clearly formulated the law of inertia as observed by Benedetti: every moving body is inclined, if nothing prevent it, to continue its motion in a straight line and with constant velocity; a body cannot move in a circle unless it be drawn towards the centre, by centripetal movement in opposition to the centrifugal force by which this body tends to fly away from the centre. Because of the similarity of the views held by Deseartes and Benedetti concerning this law, we may conclude that Descartes's discovery was influenced by that of Benedetti, especially as Benedetti's works were known to Marin Mersenne (1588-1648), the faithful friend and correspondent of Descartes. Descartes connected the following truth with the law of inertia: a weight constant in size and direction causes a uniformly accelerated motion. Besides we have seen how, with the aid of Descartes's principles, Gassendi was able to rectify what Galileo had taught concerning falling bodies and the motion of projectiles. In statics a heavy body can very often be replaced by a material point placed at its centre of gravity; but in dynamics the question arises whether the motion of a body be treated as if this body were entirely concentrated in one of these points, and also which point this is? This question relative to the existence and finding of a centre of impulsion had already engrossed the attention of Vinci and after him, of Bernardino Baldi (1553-1617). Baldi asserted that, in a body undergoing a motion of translation, the centre of impulsion does not differ from the centre of gravity. Now, is there a centre of impulsion and, if so, where is it to be found in a body undergoing a motion other than that of translation, for instance, by a rotation around an axis? In other words, is there a simple pendulum that moves in the same way as a given compound pendulum? Inspired, no doubt, by reading Baldi, Mersenne laid this problem before Roberval and Descartes, both of whom made great efforts to solve it but became unfriendly to each other because of the difference in their respective propositions. Of the two, Descartes came nearer to the truth, but the dynamic principles that he used were not sufficiently accurate to justify his opinion in a convincing manner; the glory was reserved to Christian Huygens. The Jesuits, who at the College of La Flèche had been the preceptors of Mersenne and Descartes, did not teach Peripatetic physics in its stereotyped integrity, but Parisian physics; the treatise that guided the instruction imparted at this institution being represented by the "Commentaries" on Aristotle, published by the Jesuits of Coimbra at the close of the seventeenth century. Hence it can be understood why the dynamics of Descartes had many points in common with the dynamics of Buridan and the Parisians. Indeed, so close were the relations between Parisian and Cartesian physics that certain professors at La Flèche, such as Etienne Noël (1581-1660), became Cartesians. Other Jesuits attempted to build up a sort of a combination of Galilean and Cartesian mechanics with the mechanics taught by Parisian Scholasticism, and foremost among these men must be mentioned Honoré Fabri (1606-88), a friend of Mersenne. In every moving body Descartes maintained the existence of a certain power to continue its motion in the same direction and with the same velocity and this power, which he called the quantity of motion, he measured by estimating the product of the mass of the moving body by the velocity that impels it. The affinity is close between the rôle which Descartes attributed to this quantity of motion, and that which Buridan ascribed to impetus. Fabri was fully aware of this analogy and the momentum that he discussed was at once the impetus of the Parisians, and Descartes's quantity of motion. In statics he identified this momentum with what Galileo called momento or impeto, and this identification was certainly conformable to the Pisan's idea. Fabri's synthesis was well adapted to make this truth clear, that modern dynamics, the foundations of which were laid by Descartes and Galileo, proceeded almost directly from the dynamics taught during the fourteenth century in the University of Paris. If the special physical truths demonstrated or anticipated by Descartes were easily traceable to the philosophy of the fourteenth century, the principles on which the great geometrician wished to base these truths were absolutely incompatible with this philosophy. In fact, denying that in reality there existed anything qualitative, Descartes insisted that matter be reduced to extension and to the attributes of which extension seemed to him susceptible, namely, numerical proportions and motion; and it was by combinations of different figures and motions that all the effects of physics could be explained according to his liking. Therefore the power by virtue of which a body tends to preserve the direction and velocity of its motion is not a quality distinct from motion, such as the impetus recognized by the scholastics; it is nothing else than the motion itself as was taught by William of Occam at the beginning of the fourteenth century. A body in motion and isolated would always retain the same quantity of motion, but there is no isolated body in a vacuum, because matter being identical with extension, vacuum is inconceivable, as is also compressibility. The only conceivable motions are those which can be produced in the midst of incompressible matter, that is to say, vortical motions confined within their own bulk. In these motions bodies drive one another from the place they have occupied and, in such a transmission of motion, the quantity of motion of each of these bodies varies; however, the entire quantity of motion of all the bodies that impinge on one another remains constant, as God always maintains the same sum total of motion in the world. This transmission of motion by impact is the only action that bodies can exert over one another and in Cartesian, as well as in Aristotelean physics, a body cannot put another in motion unless it touch it, immediate action at a distance being beyond conception. There are various species of matter, differing from one another only in the size and shape of the contiguous particles of which they are formed. The space that extends between the different heavenly bodies is filled with a certain subtile matter, the very fine particles of which easily penetrate the interstices left between the coarser constituents of other bodies. The properties of subtile matter play an important part in all Cartesian cosmology. The vortices in which subtile matter moves, and the pressure generated by these vortical motions, serve to explain all celestial phenomena. Leibniz was right in supposing that for this part of his work Descartes had drawn largely upon Kepler. Descartes also strove to explain, with the aid of the figures and motions of subtile and other matter, the different effects observable in physics, particularly the properties of the magnet and of light. Light is identical with the pressure which subtile matter exerts over bodies and, as subtile matter is incompressible, light is instantly transmitted to any distance, however great. The suppositions by the aid of which Descartes attempted to reduce all physical phenomena to combinations of figures and motions had scarcely any part in the discoveries that he made in physics; therefore the identification of light with the pressure exerted by subtile matter plays no part in the invention of the new truths which Descartes taught in optics. Foremost amongst these truths is the law of the refraction of light passing from one medium to another, although the question still remains whether Descartes discovered this law himself, or whether, as Huygens accused him of doing, he borrowed it from Willebrord Snellius (1591-1626), without any mention of the real author. By this law Descartes gave the theory of refraction through a prism, which permitted him to measure the indices of refraction; moreover, he greatly perfected the stud of lenses, and finally completed the explanation of the rainbow, no progress having been made along this line from the year 1300, when Thierry of Freiberg had given his treatise on it. However, the reason why the rays emerging from the drops of water are variously coloured was no better known by Descartes than by Aristotle; it remained for Newton to make the discovery. XXI. PROGRESS OF EXPERIMENTAL PHYSICS Even in Descartes's work the discoveries in physics were almost independent of Cartesianism. The knowledge of natural truths continued to advance without the influence of this system and, at times, even in opposition to it, although those to whom this progress was due were often Cartesians. This advancement was largely the result of a more frequent and skilful use of the experimental method. The art of making logically connected experiments and of deducing their consequences is indeed very ancient; in a way the works produced by this art were no more perfect than the researches of Pierre of Maricourt on the magnet or Thierry of Freiberg on the rainbow. However, if the art remained the same, its technic continued to improve; more skilled workmen and more powerful processes furnishing physicists with more intricate and better made instruments, and thus rendering possible more delicate experiments. The rather imperfect tests made by Galileo and Mersenne in endeavouring to determine the specific weight of air mark the beginning of the development of the experimental method, which was at once vigorously pushed forward by discussions in regard to vacuum. In Peripatetic physics the possibility of an empty space was a logical contradiction; but, after the condemnation pronounced at Paris in 1277 by Tempier, the existence of a vacuum ceased to be considered absurd. It was simply taught as a fact that the powers of nature are so constructed as to oppose the production of an empty space. Of the various conjectures proposed concerning the forces which prevent the appearance of a vacuum, the most sensible and, it would seem, the most generally received among sixteenth-century Parisians, was the following: contiguous bodies adhere to one another, and this adhesion is maintained by forces resembling those by which a piece of iron adheres to the magnet which it touches. In naming this force horror vacui, there was no intention of considering the bodies as animate beings. A heavy piece of iron detaches itself from the magnet that should hold it up, its weight having conquered the force by which the magnet retained it; in the same way, the weight of too heavy a body can prevent the horror vacui from raising this body. This very logical corollary of the hypothesis we have just mentioned was formulated by Galileo, who saw therein the explanation of a fact well-known to the cistern makers of his time; namely, that a suction-pump could not raise water higher than thirty-two feet. This corollary entailed the possibility of producing an empty space, a fact known to Torricelli who, in 1644, made the celebrated experiment with mercury that was destined to immortalize his name. However, at the same time, he anticipated a new explanation of this experiment; the mercury is supported in the tube not by the horror vacui that does not exist, but by the pressure which the heavy air exerts on the exterior surface of the basin. Torricelli's experiment quickly attracted the attention of physicists. In France, thanks to Mersenne, it called forth on his part, and on that of those who had dealings with him, many experiments in which Roberval and Pascal (1623-62) vied with each other in ingenuity, and in order to have the resources of technic more easily at his disposal, Pascal made his startling experiments in a glass factory at Rouen. Among the numerous inquirers interested in Torricelli's experiment some accepted the explanation offered by the "column of air", and advanced by the great Italian geometrician himself; whereas others, such as Roberval, held to the ancient hypothesis of an attraction analogous to magnetic action. At length, with a view to settling the difference, an experiment was made which consisted in measuring at what height the mercury remained suspended in Torricelli's tube; observing it first of all at the foot of a mountain and then at its summit. The idea of this experiment seemed to have suggested itself to several physicists, notably Mersenne, Descartes, and Pascal and through the instrumentality of the last named and the courtesy of Périer, his brother-in-law, it was made between the base and summit of Puy-de-Dôme, 19 Sept., 1648. The "Traité de l'équilibre de liqueurs et de la pesanteur de la masse de l'air", which Pascal subsequently composed, is justly cited as a model of the art of logically connected experiments with deductions. Between atomists and Cartesians there were many discussions as to whether the upper part of Torricelli's tube was really empty or filled with subtile matter; but these discussions bore little fruit. However, fortunately for physics, the experimental method so accurately followed by Torricelli, Pascal, and their rivals continued to progress. Otto von Guericke (1602-86) seems 'to have preceded Torricelli in the production of an empty space, since, between 1632 and 1638, he appears to have constructed his first pneumatic machine, with the aid of which instrument he made in 1654 the celebrated Magdeburg experiments, published in 1657 by his friend Caspar Schoot, S.J. (1608-60). Informed by Schoot of Guericke's researches, Robert Boyle (1627-91) perfected the pneumatic machine and, assisted by Richard Townley, his pupil, pursued the experiments that made known the law of the compressibility of perfect gases. In France these experiments were taken up and followed by Mariotte (1620-84). The use of the dilatation of a fluid for showing the changes of temperature was already known to Galileo, but it is uncertain whether the thermoscope was invented by Galileo or by some one of the numerous physicists to whom the priority is attributed, among these being Santorio, called Sanetorius (1560-1636), Fra Paolo Sarpi (1552-1623), Cornelis van Drebbel (1572-1634), and Robert Fludd (1574-1637). Although the various thermoscopes for air or liquid used in the very beginning admitted of only arbitrary graduation, they nevertheless served to indicate the constancy of the temperature or the direction of its variations, and consequently contributed to the discovery of a number of the laws of physics. Hence this apparatus was used in the Accademia del Cimento, opened at Florence 19 June, 1657, and devoted to the study of experimental physics. To the members of this academy we are especially indebted for the demonstration of the constancy of the point of fusion of ice and of the absorption of heat accompanying this fusion. Observations of this kind, made by means of the thermoscope, created an ardent desire for the transformation of this apparatus into a thermometer, by the aid of a definite graduation so arranged that everywhere instruments could be made which would be comparable with one another. This problem, one of the most important in physics, was not solved until 1702 when Guillaume Amontons (1663-1705) worked it out in the most remarkable manner. Amontons took as a starting-point these two laws, discovered or verified by him the boiling point of water under atmospheric pressure is constant. The pressures sustained by any two masses of air, heated in the same way in any two constant volumes, have a relation independent of the temperature. These two laws enabled Amontons to use the air thermometer under constant volume and to graduate it in such a way that it gave what we to-day call absolute temperature. Of all the definitions of the degree of temperature given since Amontons's time, he, at the first stroke, found the most perfect. Equipped with instruments capable of measuring pressure and registering temperature, experimental physics could not but make rapid progress, this being still further augmented by reason of the interest shown by the learned societies that had been recently founded. The Accademia del Cimento was discontinued in 1667, but the Royal Society of London had begun its sessions in 1663 and the Académie des Sciences at Paris was founded or rather organized by Colbert in 1666. These different academies immediately became the enthusiastic centres of scientific research in regard to natural phenomena. XXII. UNDULATORY THEORY OF LIGHT It was to the Académie des Sciences of Paris that, in 1678, Christian Huygens (1629-95) presented his "Treatise on Light". According to the Cartesian system, light was instantly transmitted to any distance through the medium of incompressible subtile matter. Deseartes did not hesitate to assure Fermat that his entire philosophy would give way as soon as it should be demonstrated that light is propagated with a limited velocity. In 1675 Ole Römer (1644-1710), the Danish astronomer, announced to the Académie des Sciences the extent of the considerable but finite velocity with which light traverses the space that separates the planets from one another, the study of the eclipses of Jupiter's satellites having brought him to this conclusion. Descartes's optical theory was destroyed, and Huygens undertook to build up a new theory of light. He was constantly guided by the supposition that, in the midst of compressible ether, substituted for incompressible subtile matter, light is propagated by waves exactly similar to those which transmit sound through a gaseous medium. This comparison led him to an explanation, which is still the standard one, of the laws of reflection and refraction. In this explanation the index of the refraction of light passing from one medium to another equals the ratio of the velocity of propagation in the first medium to the velocity of propagation in the second. In 1850 this fundamental law was confirmed by Foucault's experiments. However, Huygens did not stop here. In 1669 Erasmus Berthelsen, known as Bartholinus (1625-98), discovered the double refraction of Iceland spar. By a generalization, as ingenious as it was daring, of the theory he had given for non-crystallized media, Huygens succeeded in tracing the form of the surface of a luminous wave inside of a crystal such as spar or quartz, and in defining the apparently complex laws of the double refraction of light in the interior of these crystals. At the same time, he called attention to the phenomena of polarization which accompany this double refraction; he was, however, unable to draw from his optical theory the explanation of these effects. The comparison between light and sound caused Malebranche (1638-1715) to make some very effective conjectures in 1699. He assumed that light is a vibratory motion analogous to that produced by sound; the greater or less amplitude of this motion, as the case may be, generates a greater or less intensity but, whilst in sound each period corresponds to a particular note, in light it corresponds to a particular colour. Through this analogy Malebranche arrived at the idea of monochromatic light, which Newton was to deduce from admirably conducted experiments; moreover, he established between simple colour and the period of the vibration of light, the connexion that was to be preserved in the optics of Young and Fresnel. XXIII. DEVELOPMENTS OF DYNAMICS Both Cartesians and atomists maintained that impact was the only process by which bodies could put one another in motion; hence, to Cartesians and atomists, the theory of impact seemed like the first chapter of rational physics. This theory had already enlisted the attention of Galileo, Marcus Marci (1639), and Descartes when, in 1668, the Royal Society of London proposed it as the subject of a competition and, of the three important memoirs submitted to the criticism of this society by John Wallis, Christopher Wren (1632-1723), and Huygens, the last is the only one that we can consider. In his treatise Huygens adopted the following principle: if a material body, subject merely to the action of gravity, starts from a certain position, with initial velocity equal to zero, the centre of gravity of this body can at no time rise higher than it was at the outset of the motion. Huygens justified this principle by observing that, if it were false, perpetual motion would be possible. To find the origin of this axiom it would be necessary to go back to "De Subtilitate" by Cardano, who had probably drawn it from the notes of Vinci; the proposition on which Torricelli had based his statics was a corollary from this postulate. By maintaining the accuracy of this postulate, even in the case where parts of the system clash; by combining it with the law of the accelerated fall of bodies, taken from Galileo's works, and with another postulate on the relativity of motion, Huygens arrived at the law of the impact of hard bodies. He showed that the quantity the value of which remains constant in spite of this impact is not, as Descartes declared, the total quantity of motion, but that which Leibniz called the quantity of vis viva (living force). The axiom that had so happily served Huygens in the study of the impact of bodies he now extended to a body oscillating around a horizontal axis and his "Horologium oscillatorium", which appeared in 1673, solved in the most elegant and complete manner the problem of the centres of oscillation previously handled by Descartes and Roberval. That Huygens's axiom was the subversion of Cartesian dynamics was shown by Leibniz in 1686. If, like Descartes, we measure the efficiency of a force by the work that it does, and if, moreover, we admit Huygens's axiom and the law of falling bodies, we find that this efficiency is not measured by the increase in the quantity of motion of the moving body, but by the increase in half the product of the mass of the moving body and the square of its velocity. It was this product that Leibniz called vis viva. Huygens's "Horologium oscillatorium" not only gave the solution of the problem of the centre of oscillation but likewise a statement of the laws which, in circular motion, govern the magnitude of centrifugal force, and thus it was that the eminent physicist prepared the way for Newton, the lawgiver of dynamics. XXIV. NEWTON'S WORK Most of the great dynamical truths had been discovered between the time of Galileo and Descartes, and that of Huygens and Leibniz. The science of dynamics required a Euclid who would organize it as geometry had been organized, and this Euclid appeared in the person of Isaac Newton (1642-1727) who, in his "Philosophiæ naturalis principia mathematica", published in 1687, succeeded in deducing the entire science of motion from three postulates: inertia; the independence of the effects of previously acquired forces and motions; and the equality of action and reaction. Had Newton's "Principia" contained nothing more than this co-ordination of dynamics into a logical system, they would nevertheless have been one of the most important works ever written; but, in addition, they gave the grandest possible application of this dynamics in utilizing it for the establishment of celestial mechanics. In fact, Newton succeeded in showing that the laws of bodies falling to the surface of the earth, the laws that preside over the motion of planets around the sun, and of satellites around the planets which they accompany, finally, the laws that govern the form of the Earth and of the other stars, as also the high and low tides of the sea, are but so many corollaries from this unique hypothesis: two bodies, whatever their origin or nature, exert over each other an attraction proportional to the product of their masses and in inverse ratio to the square of the distance that separates them. The dominating principle of ancient physics declared the essential distinction between the laws that directed the motions of the stars -- beings exempt from generation, change, and death -- and the laws presiding over the motions of sublunary bodies subject to generation and corruption. From the birth of Christian physics and especially from the end of the thirteenth century, physicists had been endeavouring to destroy the authority of this principle and to render the celestial and sublunary worlds subject to the same laws, the doctrine of universal gravitation being the outcome of this prolonged effort. In proportion as the time approached, when Newton was to produce his system, attempts at cosmology were multiplied, so many forerunners, as it were, of this discovery. When in 1672 Guericke again took up Kepler's celestial mechanics, he made but one correction therein, which unfortunately caused the disappearance of the only proposition by which this work led up to Newton's discoveries. Kepler had maintained that two material masses of any kind attract each other, but, in imitation of Copernicus, Gilbert, and Galileo, Guerieke limited this mutual attraction to parts of the same star, so that, far from being attracted by the Earth, portions of the moon would be repelled by the Earth if placed upon its surface. But, in 1644, under the pseudonym of Aristarchus of Samos, Roberval published a system of celestial mechanics, in which the attraction was perhaps mutual between two masses of no matter what kind; in which, at all events, the Earth and Jupiter attracted their satellites with a power identical with the gravity with which they endow their own fragments. In 1665, on the pretence of explaining the motions of Jupiter's satellites, Giovanni Alfonso Borelli (1608-79) tried to advance a theory which simultaneously comprised the motions of the planets around the sun and of the satellites around the planets. He was the first of modern scientists (Plutarch having preceded him) to hold the opinion that the attraction which causes a planet to tend towards the sun and a satellite to tend towards the star which it accompanies, is in equilibrium with the centrifugal force produced by the circular motion of the planet or satellite in question. In 1674 Robert Hooke (1635-1702) formulated the same idea with great precision. Having already supposed the attraction of two masses to vary inversely as the square of their distance, he was in possession of the fundamental hypotheses of the theory of universal gravitation, which hypotheses were held by Wren about the same time. However, neither of these scientists was able to deduce therefrom celestial mechanics, as both were still unacquainted with the laws of centrifugal force, published just at this time by Huygens. In 1684 Edmund Halley (1656-1742) strove to combine Huygens's theories with Hooke's hypotheses, but, before his work was finished, Newton presented his "Principia" to the Royal Society, having for twenty years silently pursued his meditations on the system of the world. Halley, who could not forestall Newton, had the glory of broadening the domain of universal gravitation by making it include comets (1705). Not satisfied with creating celestial mechanics, Newton also contributed largely to the progress of optics. From ancient times the colouring of the spectrum, produced by the passage of white light through a glass prism, had elicited the wonder of observers and appealed to the acumen of physicists without, however, being satisfactorily explained. Finally, a complete explanation was given by Newton who, in creating a theory of colours, accomplished what all the philosophers from Aristotle down had laboured in vain to achieve. The theory advanced by the English physicist agreed with that proposed by Malebranche at the same time. However, Malebranehe's theory was nothing more than a hypothesis suggested by the analogy between light and sound, whereas Newton's explanation was drawn from experiments, as simple as they were ingenious, its exposition by the author being one of the most beautiful examples of experimental induction. Unfortunately Newton disregarded this analogy between sound and light that had furnished Huygens and Malebranche with such fruitful discoveries. Newton's opinion was to the effect that light is formed of infinitely small projectiles thrown off with extreme velocity by incandescent bodies. The particles of the medium in which these projectiles move exert over them an attraction similar to universal attraction; however, this new attraction does not vary inversely as the square of the distance but according to another function of the distance, and in such a way that it exercises a very great power between a material particle and a luminous corpuscle that are contiguous. Nevertheless this attraction becomes altogether insensible as soon as the two masses between which it operates are separated from each other by a perceptible interval. This action exerted by the particles of a medium on the luminous corpuscles pervading them changes the velocity with which these bodies move and the direction which they follow at the moment of passing from one medium to another; hence the phenomenon of refraction. The index of refraction is the ratio of the velocity of light in the medium which it enters, to the velocity it had in the medium which it leaves. Now, as the index of refraction so understood was precisely the reverse of that attributed to it by Huygens's theory, in 1850 Foucault submitted both to the test of experiment, with the result that Newton's theory of emission was condemned. Newton explained the experimental laws that govern the colouring of thin laminæ, such as soap bubbles, and succeeded in compelling these colours, by suitable forms of these thin laminæ, to assume the regular order known as "Newton's Rings". To explain this phenomenon he conceived that luminous projectiles have a form that may, at the surface of contact of two media, either pass easily or be easily reflected, according to the manner of their presentation at the moment of passage; a rotary motion causes them to pass alternately by "fits of easy transmission or of easy reflection". Newton thought that he had accounted for the principal optical phenomena by supposing that, besides this universal attraction, there existed an attraction, sensible only at a very short distance, exerted by the particles of bodies on luminous corpuscles, and naturally he came to believe that these two kinds of attraction would suffice to explain all physical phenomena. Action extending to a considerable distance, such as electric and magnetic action, must follow laws analogous to those which govern universal gravity; on the other hand, the effects of capillarity and cohesion, chemical decomposition and reaction must depend on molecular attraction extending only to extremely small distances and similar to that exerted over luminous corpuscles. This comprehensive hypothesis proposed by Newton in a "question" placed at the end of the second edition of his "Optics" (1717) gave a sort of outline of the programme which eighteenth-century physics was to attempt to carry out. XXV. PROGRESS OF GENERAL AND CELESTIAL MECHANICS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY This programme made three demands: first, that general mechanics and celestial mechanics advance in the way indicated by Newton; secondly, that electric and magnetic phenomena be explained by a theory analogous to that of universal gravitation; thirdly, that molecular attraction furnish the detailed explanations of the various changes investigated by physics and chemistry. Many followed in the path outlined by Newton and tried to extend the domain of general and celestial mechanics, but there were three who seem to have surpassed all the others: Alexis-Claude Clairaut (1713-65), Jean-Baptiste le Rond d'Alembert (1717-83), and Leonhard Euler (1707-83). The progress which, thanks to these three able men, was made in general mechanics, may be summed up as follows: In 1743, by his principle of the equilibrium of channels, which was easily connected with the principle of virtual displacements, Clairaut obtained the general equations of the equilibrium of liquids. In the same year d'Alembert formulated a rule whereby all problems of motion were reduced to problems of equilibrium and, in 1744, applied this rule to the equation of hydrostatics given by Clairaut and arrived at the equations of hydrodynamics. Euler transformed these equations and, in his studies on the motion of liquids, was enabled to obtain results no less important than those which he had obtained by analysing the motion of solids. Clairaut extended the consequences of universal attraction in all directions, and, in 1743, the equations of hydrostatics that he had established enabled him to perfect the theory of the figure of the earth. In 1752 he published his theory of lunar inequalities, which he had at first despaired of accounting for by Newton's principles. The methods that he devised for the study of the perturbations which the planets produce on the path of a star permitted him, in 1758, to announce with accuracy the time of the return of Halley's Comet. The confirmation of this prediction in which Clairaut had received assistance from Lalande (1732-1807) and Mme. Lepaute, both able mathematicians, placed beyond doubt the applicability of Newton's hypotheses to comets. Great as were Clairaut's achievements in perfecting the system of universal attraction, they were not as important as those of d'Alembert. Newton could not deduce from his suppositions a satisfactory theory of the precession of the equinoxes, and this failure marred the harmony of the doctrine of universal gravitation. In 1749 d'Alembert deduced from the hypothesis of gravitation the explanation of the precession of the equinoxes and of the nutation of the earth's axis; and soon afterwards Euler, drawing upon the admirable resources of his mathematical genius, made still further improvements on d'Alembert's discovery. Clairaut, d'Alembert, and Euler were the most brilliant stars in an entire constellation of mechanical theorists and astronomers, and to this group there succeeded another, in which shone two men of surpassing intellectuality, Joseph-Louis Lagrange (1736-1813) and Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827). Laplace was said to have been born to complete celestial mechanics, if, indeed, it were in the nature of a science to admit of completion; and quite as much could be said of Lagrange with regard to general mechanics. In 1787 Lagrange published the first edition of his "Mécanique analytique"; the second, which was greatly enlarged, was published after the author's death. Laplace s "Mécanique céleste" was published from 1799 to 1805, and both of these works give an account of the greater part of the mechanical conquests made in the course of the eighteenth century, with the assistance of the principles that Newton had assigned to general mechanics and the laws that he had imposed upon universal gravitation. However exhaustive and effective these two treatises are, they do not by any means include all the discoveries in general and celestial mechanics for which we are indebted to their authors. To do Lagrange even meagre justice his able researches should be placed on a par with his "Mécanique analytique"; and our idea of Laplace's work would be very incomplete were we to omit the grand cosmogonic hypothesis with which, in 1796, he crowned his "Exposition du système du monde". In developing this hypothesis the illustrious geometrician was unaware that in 1755 Kant had expressed similar suppositions which were marred by serious errors in dynamic theories. XXVI. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE THEORY OF ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM For a long time the study of electric action was merely superficial and, in the beginning of the eighteenth century, it was still in the condition in which Thales of Miletus had left it, remaining far from the point to which the study of magnetic attraction and repulsion had been carried in the time of Pierre of Maricourt. When, in 1733 and 1734, Charles-François de Cisternay du Fay distinguished two kinds of electricity, resinous and vitreous, and when he proved that bodies charged with the same kind of electricity repel one another, whereas those charged with different kinds attract one another, electrical science was brought up to the level that magnetic science had long before attained, and thenceforth these two sciences, united by the closest analogy, progressed side by side. They advanced rapidly as, in the eighteenth century, the study of electrical phenomena became a popular craze. Physicists were not the only ones devoted to it; men of the world crowded the salons where popularizers of the science, such as the Abbé Nollet (1700-70), enlisted as votaries dandified marquesses and sprightly marchionesses. Numberless experimentalists applied themselves to multiplying observations on electricity and magnetism, but we shall restrict ourselves to mentioning Benjamin Franklin (1706-90) who, by his logically-conducted researches, contributed more than any other man to the formation of the theories of electricity and magnetism. The researches of Henry Cavendish (1731-1810) deserve to be placed in the same rank as Franklin's, though they were but little known before his death. By means of Franklin's experiments and his own, Æpinus (Franz Ulrich Theodor Hoch, 1724-1802) was the first to attempt to solve the problem suggested by Newton and, by the hypothesis of attractive and repellent forces, to explain the distribution of electricity and magnetism over the bodies which they affect. His researches could not be pushed very far, as it was still unknown that these forces depend upon the distance at which they are exerted. Moreover, Æpinus succeeded in drawing still closer the connexion already established between the sciences of electricity and magnetism, by showing the polarization of each of the elements of the insulating plate which separates the two collecting plates of the condenser. The experiment he made in this line in 1759 was destined to suggest to Coulomb the experiment of the broken magnets and the theory of magnetic polarization, which is the foundation of the study of magnets; and was also to be the starting-point of an entire branch of electrical science, namely the study of dielectric bodies, which study was developed in the nineteenth century by Michael Faraday and James Clerk-Maxwell. Their analogy to the fertile law of universal gravitation undoubtedly led physicists to suppose that electrical and magnetic forces vary inversely as the square of the distance that separates the acting elements; but, so far, this opinion had not been confirmed by experiment. However, in 1780 it received this confirmation from Charles-Augustin de Coulomb with the aid of the torsion balance. By the use of this balance and the proof plane, he was enabled to make detailed experiments on the subject of the distribution of electricity over conductive bodies, no such tests having been previously made. Although Coulomb's experiments placed beyond doubt the elementary laws of electricity and magnetism, it still remained to be established by mathematical analysis how electricity was distributed over the surface of conductive bodies of given shape, and how a piece of soft iron was magnetized under given circumstances. The solution of these problems was attempted by Coulomb and also in 1787 by Haüy (q. v.), but neither of these two savants pushed his tests very far. The establishment of principles which would permit of an analysis of the distribution of electricity on conductors, and of magnetism on soft iron, required the genius of Simon-Denis Poisson (1781-1840). In 1812 Poisson showed how the investigation of the distribution of electricity in equilibrium on conductors belonged to the domaln of analysis, and he gave a complete solution of this problem in the case of two conductive spheres influencing each other, whether placed at given distances or in contact. Coulomb's experiments in connexion with contiguous spheres established the truth of Poisson's theory. In 1824 Poisson established on the subject of hollow conductors limited either interiorly or exteriorly by a spherical cavity, theorems which, in 1828, were extended by George Green (1793-1841) to all kinds of hollow conductors and which Faraday was subsequently to confirm through experimentation. Between 1813 and 1824 Poisson took up the study of magnetic forces and magnetization by impulsion and, in spite of a few inaccuracies which the future was to correct, the formulæ which he established remain at the basis of all the research of which magnetism has meanwhile been the object. Thanks to Poisson's memoirs, the theory of the forces exercised in inverse ratio to the square of the distance, by annexing the domain of static electricity and magnetism, markedly enlarged the field which at first included only celestial mechanics. The study of the action of the electric current was to open up to this theory a new and fertile territory. The discoveries of Aloisio Galvani (1737-98) and Alessandro Volta (1745-1827) enriched physics with the voltaic battery. It would be impossible to enumerate, even briefly, the researches occasioned by this discovery. All physicists have compared the conductor, the seat of a current, to a space in which a fluid circulates. In his works on hydrodynamics Euler had established general formulæ which apply to the motion of all fluids and, imitating Euler's method, Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Fourier (1768-1830) began the study of the circulation of heat-then considered a fluid and called caloric-within conductive bodies. The mathematical laws to which he had recourse once more showed the extreme importance of the mathematical methods inaugurated by Lagrange and Laplace in the study of universal attraction, and at the same time extended by Poisson to the study of electrostatics. In order to treat mathematically of the circulation of electric fluid in the interior of conductive bodies, it sufficed to take up Fourier's analysis almost textually, substituting the word electricity for the word heat, this being done in 1827 by Georg Simon Ohm (1789-1854). Meanwhile on 21 July, 1820, Hans Christian Oersted (1777-1851) had discovered the action of the electric current on the magnetic needle. To this discovery André-Marie Ampère (1775-1836) added that of the action exerted over each other by two conductors carrying electric currents and, to the study of electro-dynamic and electro-magnetic forces, he applied a method similar to that used by Newton when studying universal attraction. In 1826 Ampère gave the complete theory of all these forces in his "Mémoire sur la théorie mathématique des phénomènes électro-dynamiques uniquement déduite de l'expérience", a work that can stand the test of comparison with the "Philosophiæ naturalis principia mathematica" and not be found wanting. Not wishing to carry the history of electricity and magnetism beyond this date, we shall content ourselves with making another comparison between the two works we have just mentioned. As Newton's treatise brought about numerous discoveries on the part of his successors, Ampère's memoir gave the initial impetus to researches which have greatly broadened the field of electro-dynamics and electro-magnetism. Michael Faraday (1791-1867), an experimentalist whose activity, skill, and good fortune have perhaps never been equalled, established in 1831 the experimental laws of electro-dynamic and electro-magnetic induction, and, between 1845 and 1847, Franz Ernst Neumann (1798-1895) and Wilhelm Weber (1804-91), by closely following Ampère's method of studying electro-dynamic force, finally established the mathematical theory of these phenomena of induction. Michael Faraday was opposed to Newtonian doctrines, and highly disapproved the theory of action at a distance; in fact, when he applied himself to analysing the polarization of insulated media, which he called dielectrics, he hoped to eliminate the hypothesis of such action. Meantime by extending to dielectric bodies the formulæ that Poisson, Ampère, and Neumann had established for magnets and conductive bodies, James Clerk-Maxwell (1831-79) was enabled to create a new branch of electro-dynamics, and thereby bring to light the long-sought link connecting the sciences of electricity and optics. This wonderful discovery was not one of the least important conquests of the method defined and practised by Newton. XXVII. MOLECULAR ATTRACTION While universal attraction, which varies proportionally as the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance, was being established throughout the science of astronomy, and while, thanks to the study of other forces also varying inversely as the square of the distance, electricity and magnetism were being organized, other parts of physics received no less light from another Newtonian hypothesis, namely, the supposition that, between two material particles, there is an attraction distinct from universal attraction and extremely powerful, while the two particles are contiguous, but ceasing to be appreciable as soon as the two masses which it acts upon are separated by a sensible distance. Among the phenomena to be explained by such attractions, Newton had already signalized the effect of capillarity in connexion with which Francis Hauksbee (d. 1705) had made interesting experiments. In 1718 James Jurin (1684-1750) tried to follow Newton's idea but without any marked success, and it was Clairaut who, in 1743, showed how hydrostatic methods permitted the application of this idea to the explanation of capillary phenomena. Unfortunately his able reasoning led to no important result, as he had ascribed too great a value to the extent of molecular action. Chemical action also was one of the actions which Newton made subject to molecular attraction, and John Keill (1671-1721), John Freind (1675-1728), and Pierre-Joseph Macquer (1718-84) believed in the fruitfulness of this Newtonian opinion. The hypothesis of molecular attraction proved a great annoyance to a man whose scientific mediocrity had not prevented him from acquiring great influence, we mean Georges-Louis-Leclerc de Buffon (1707-88). Incapable of understanding that an attraction could be other than inversely proportional to the square of the distance, Buffon entered into a discussion of the subject with Clairaut, and fondly imagined that he had triumphed over the modest learning of his opponent. Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovich, S.J. (1711-87), published a detailed exposition of the views attacked by Buffon and defended by Clairaut, and, inspired alike by the opinions of Newton and Leibniz, he conceived a cosmology in which the universe is composed solely of material points, these being attracted to each other in pairs. When these points are separated by a sensible distance, their attraction is reduced to mere universal attraction, whereas when they are in very close proximity it assumes a dominant importance. Boscovich's cosmology provided physical theory with a programme which the geometricians of the eighteenth century, and of a great portion of the nineteenth, laboured assiduously to carry out. The efforts of Johann Andreas von Segner (1704-77), and subsequently of Thomas Young (1773-1829) again drew attention to capillary phenomena, and with the assistance of the hypothesis of molecular attraction, as also of Clairaut's method Laplace advanced in 1806 and 1807 an admirable theory which Karl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855) improved in 1829. Being a thoroughly-convinced partisan of Boscovich's cosmological doctrine, Laplace communicated his convictions to numerous geometricians, who surrendered to the ascendency of his genius; we shall only mention Claude-Louis-Marie Navier (1785-1836), Poisson, and Augustin Cauchy (1789-1857). In developing the consequences of the hypothesis of molecular attraction Navier, Poisson, and Cauchy succeeded in building up the theory of the equilibrium and small motions of elastic bodies, one of the finest and most fruitful theories of modern physics. The discredit into which the progress of present-day thermodynamics has brought Boscovich's cosmology has, however, affected scarcely anything of what Laplace, Gauss, Navier, Poisson, Cauchy, and many others have deduced from the principles of this cosmology. The theories which they established have always been readily justified with the assistance of new methods, the way of bringing about this justification having been indicated by Cauchy himself and George Green. After Macquer, many chemists used the hypothesis of molecular attraction in an attempt to disentangle the laws of reaction which they studied, and among these scientists we may mention Torbern Bergman (1735-1784), and above all Claude-Louis Berthollet (1784-1822). When the latter published his "Statique chimique" in 1803, he believed that the science of chemical equilibria, subject at last to Newton's method, had found its true direction; however, it was not to enter upon this direction until much later on, when it would be guided by precepts altogether different and which were to be formulated by thermodynamics. XXVIII. REVIVAL OF THE UNDULATORY THEORY OF LIGHT The emission theory of light not only led Newton to conceive the hypothesis of molecular attraction, but seemed to provide this hypothesis with an opportunity for further success by permitting Laplace to find, in the emission system, the laws of the double refraction of Iceland spar, which laws Huygens had discovered by the use of the undulatory theory. In this way Newton's optics appeared to rob Huygens's optics of the one advantage in which it glorified. However, at the very moment that Laplace's discovery seemed to ensure the triumph of the emission system, the undulatory theory carried off new and dazzling victories, won mainly through the efforts of Thomas Young and Augustin-Jean Fresnel (1788-1827). Between 1801 and 1803 Young made the memorable discoveries which provoked this revival of undulatory optics. The comparison of the ether that vibrates in a ray of light to the air that vibrates in a resonant tube led him to explain the alternately light and dark fringes that show in a place illumined by two equal beams slightly inclined to each other. The principle of interference, thus justified, allowed him to connect with the undulatory theory the explanation of the colours of thin laminæ that Newton had demanded of the "fits of easy transmission and easy reflection" of the particles of light. In 1815 Fresnel, who combined this principle of interference with the methods devised by Huygens, took up the theory of the phenomena of diffraction which had been discovered by Francesco Maria Grimaldi, S.J. (1618-63), and had remained a mystery to opticians. Fresnel's attempts at explaining these phenomena led him to draw up in 1818 a memoir which in a marked degree revealed the essential character of his genius, namely, a strange power of divination exercised independently of all rules of deductive reasoning. Despite the irregularity of his procedure, Fresnel made known very complicated formulæ, the most minute details of which were verified by experiment, and long afterwards justified according to the logical method of mathematicians. Never did physicist conquer more important and more unthought-of truths, and yet never was there employed a method more capable of leading the common mind into error. Up to this time the vibrations of ether in a ray of light had been supposed to be longitudinal, as it is in the air of a resonant tube, but in 1808 Etienne-Louis Malus (1775-1812) discovered the polarization of light when reflected on glass, and, in 1817, when studying this phenomenon, Young was led to suppose that luminous vibrations are perpendicular to the ray which transmits them. Fresnel, who had conceived the same idea, completed an experiment (1816) in collaboration with Arago (1786-1853), which proved the view that luminous vibrations are transverse to the direction of propagation. The hypothesis of transverse vibrations was, for Fresnel, the key to all the secrets of optics, and from the day that he adopted it he made discoveries with great rapidity. Among these discoveries were: (a) The complete theory of the phenomena of polarization accompanying the reflection or refraction of light on the surface of contact of two isotropic media. The peculiarities which accompany total reflection gave Fresnel an opportunity to display in a most striking manner his strange power of divination and thus throw out a veritable challenge to logic. This divination was no less efficient in the second discovery. (b) In studying double refraction, Huygens limited himself to determining the direction of luminous rays in the interior of crystals now called uniaxial, without, however, being able to account for the polarization of these rays; but with the aid of the wave-surface, Fresnel succeeded in giving the most elegant form to the law of the refraction of rays in biaxial crystals, and in formulating rules by which rays polarize in the interior of all crystals, uniaxial as well as biaxial. Although all these wonderful theories destroyed the theory of emission, the hypothesis of molecular attraction was far from losing ground. In fact Fresnel thought he could find in the elasticity of the ether, which transmits luminous vibrations, the explanation of all the optical laws that he had verified by experiment, and he sought the explanation of this elasticity and its laws in the attraction which he believed to exist between the contiguous particles of this fluid. Being too little of a mathematician and too little of a mechanician to go very far in the analysis of such a problem, he left its solution to his successors. To this task, so clearly defined by Fresnel, Cauchy devoted the most powerful efforts of his genius as an algebraist and, thanks to this pupil of Laplace, the Newtonian physics of molecular attraction became an active factor in the propagation of the theory of undulatory optics. Fresnel's discoveries did not please all Newtonians as much as they did Cauchy. Arago could never admit that luminous vibrations were transverse, notwithstanding that he had collaborated with Fresnel in making the experiment by which this point was verified, and Jean-Baptiste Biot (1774-1862), whose experimental researches were numerous and skilful, and who had furnished recent optics with very valuable matter, remained strongly attached to the system of emission by which he endeavoured to explain all the phenomena that Fresnel had discovered and explained by the undulatory system. Moreover, Biot would not acknowledge himself defeated, or regard the system of emission as condemned until Foucault (1819-68) proved that light is propagated much more quickly in air than in water. XXIX. THEORIES OF HEAT The idea of the quantity of heat and the invention of the calorimeter intended for measuring the amount of heat emitted or absorbed by a body under given circumstances are due to Joseph Black (1728-99) and Adair Crawford (1749-95), who, by joining calorimetry with thermometry, veritably created the science of heat, which science remained unborn as long as the only thing done was the comparison of temperatures. Like Descartes, Newton held that heat consisted in a very lively agitation of the smallest parts of which bodies are composed. By showing that a certain quantity of heat is furnished to ice which melts, without however raising the temperature of the ice, that this heat remains in a "latent state" in the water resulting from the melting and that it again becomes manifest when the water returns to ice, the experiments of Black and Crawford led physicists to change their opinion concerning the nature of heat. In it they beheld a certain fluid which combines with other matter when heat passes into the latent state, and separates from it when heat is liberated again, and, in the new nomenclature that perpetuated the revolution brought about by Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier (1743-94), this imponderable fluid was assigned a place among simple bodies and named caloric. Air becomes heated when it is compressed, and cools again when rarefied under the receiver of the pneumatic machine. Johann Heinrich Lambert (1728-77), Horace de Saussure (1740-79), and John Dalton (1766-1844) recognized the importance of this already old experiment, but it is to Laplace that we are indebted for a complete explanation of this phenomenon. The experiment proved to Laplace that, at a given temperature, a mass of air contains a quantity of caloric proportional to its volume. If we admit the accuracy of the law of compressibility enunciated by Boyle and Mariotte, this quantity of heat combined with a given mass of air, also of given temperature, is proportional to the volume of this air. In 1803 Laplace formulated these propositions in a short note inserted in Berthollet's "Statique chimique". In order to verify the consequences which Laplace deduced therefrom concerning the expansion of gases, Louis-Joseph Gay-Lussac (1778-1850) began researches on this subject, and in 1807 on the variations of temperature produced when a gas contained in a receiver enters another receiver previously empty. Laplace's views entail an evident corollary; to raise to a certain number of degrees the temperature of a gas of a fixed volume, the communication of less heat is required than if this gas were expanded under an invariable pressure. Hence a gas admits of two distinct kinds of specific heat which depend on whether it is heated at constant volume or under constant pressure; the specific heat being greater in the latter case than in the former. Through these remarks the study of the specific heat of gases was signalized as one of the most important in which experimenters could engage. The Institute made this study the subject of a competition which called forth two notable memoirs, one by Delaroche and Bérard on the measurement of the specific heats of various gases under constant pressure; and the other by Desormes and Clément, published in 1812, on the determination of the increase of heat due to a given compression in a given mass of air. The experiments of Desormes and Clément enabled Laplace to deduce, in the case of air, the ratio of specific heat under constant pressure to specific heat under constant volume, and hence to test the ideas he had formed on the propagation of sound. In applying to air the law of compressibility discovered by Boyle, Newton had attempted to calculate the velocity of the propagation of sound in this fluid, and the formula which he had established gave values very inferior to those furnished by experimental determination. Lagrange had already shown that, by modifying Boyle s law of compressibility, this disagreement could be overcome; however, the modification was to be justified not by what Lagrange said but by what Laplace discovered. When sound is propagated in air by alternate condensations and rarefactions, the temperature at each point instead of remaining unchanged, as Boyle's law supposed, is alternately raised and lowered about a mean value. Hence velocity of sound was no longer expressed by the formula Newton had proposed; this expression had to be multiplied by the square root of the ratio of specific heat under constant pressure to specific heat under constant volume. Laplace had this thought in mind in 1803 (Berthollet, "Statique chimique"); its consequences being developed in 1807 by Poisson, his disciple. In 1816 Laplace published his new formula; fresh experiments by Desormes and Clément, and analogous experiments by Gay-Lussac and Welter gave him tolerably exact values of the relation of the specific heats of gases. Henceforth the great geometrician could compare the result given by his formula with that furnished by the direct determination of the velocity of sound, the latter, in metres per second, being represented by the number 340-889, and the former by the number 337 715. This agreement seemed a very strong confirmation of the hypothesis of caloric and the theory of molecular action, to both of which it was attributable. It would appear that Laplace had a right to say: "The phenomena of the expansion of heat and vibration of gases lead back to the attractive and repellent forces sensible only at imperceptible distances. In my theory on capillary action, I have traced to similar forces the effects of capillarity. All terrestrial phenomena depend upon this species of force, just as celestial phenomena depend upon universal gravitation, and the study of these forces now seems to me the principal object of mathematical philosophy" (written in 1823). In 1824 a new truth was formulated from which was to be developed a doctrine which was to overturn, to a great extent, natural philosophy as conceived by Newton and Boscovich and carried out by Laplace and his disciples. However, Sadi Carnot (1796-1832), the author of this new truth, still assumed the correctness of the theory of caloric. He proposed to extend to heat-engines the principle of the impossibility of perpetual motion recognized for engines of unchanging temperature, and was led to the following conclusion: In order that a certain quantity of calorie may produce work of the kind that human industry requires, this caloric must pass from a hot to a cold body; when the quantity of caloric is given, as well as the temperatures to which these two bodies are raised, the useful work produced admits of a superior limit independent of the nature of the substances which transmit the caloric and of the device by means of which the transmission is effected. The moment that Carnot formulated this fertile truth, the foundations of the theory of caloric were shaken. However, in the hypothesis of caloric, how could the generation of heat by friction be explained? Two bodies rubbed together were found to be just as rich in caloric as they had been; therefore, whence came the caloric evolved by friction? As early as 1783 Lavoisier and Laplace were much troubled by the problem, which also arrested the attention of physicists; as in 1798 when Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford (1753-1814) made accurate experiments on the heat evolved by friction, and, in 1799, when similar experiments were made by Sir Humphrey Davy (1778-1829). In 1803, beside the notes in which Laplace announced some of the greatest conquests of the doctrine of caloric, Berthollet, in his "Statique chimique", gave an account of Rumford's experiments, trying in vain to reconcile them with the prevailing opinion. Now these experiments, which were incompatible with the hypothesis that heat is a fluid contained in a quantity in each body, recalled to mind the supposition of Descartes and Newton, which claimed heat to be a very lively agitation of the small particles of bodies. It was in favour of this view that Rumford and Davy finally declared themselves. In the last years of his life Carnot consigned to paper a few notes which remained unpublished until 1878. In these notes he rejected the theory of caloric as inconsistent with Rumford's experiments. "Heat", he added, "is therefore the result of motion. It is quite plain that it can be produced by the consumption of motive power and that it can produce this power. Wherever there is destruction of motive power there is, at the same time, production of heat in a quantity exactly proportional to the quantity of motive power destroyed; and inversely, wherever there is destruction of heat, there is production of motive power". In 1842 Robert Mayer (1814-78) found the principle of the equivalence between heat and work, and showed that once the difference in two specific heats of a gas is known, it is possible to calculate the mechanical value of heat. This value differed little from that found by Carnot. Mayer's pleasing work exerted scarcely any more influence on the progress of the theory of heat than did Carnot's unpublished notes. However, in 1843 James Prescott Joule (1818-89) was the next to discover the principle of the equivalence between heat and work, and conducted several of the experiments which Carnot in his notes had requested to have made. Joule's work communicated to the new theory a fresh impetus. In 1849 William Thomson, afterwards Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), indicated the necessity of reconciling Carnot's principle with the thenceforth incontestable principle of the mechanical equivalent of heat; and in 1850 Rudolf Clausius (1822-88) accomplished the task; thus the science of thermodynamics was founded. When in 1847 Hermann von Helmholtz published his small work entitled "Ueber die Erhaltung der Kraft", he showed that the principle of the mechanical equivalent of heat not only established a bond between mechanics and the theory of heat, but also linked the studies of chemical reaction, electricity, and magnetism, and in this way physics was confronted with the carrying-out of an entirely new programme, whose results are at present too incomplete to be judged even by scientists. ALMAGIÀ, La dottrina della marea nell' antichità classica et nel media eno, taken from Memorie della Reale Accademia dei Lincei (Rome, 1905); CAVERNI, Storia del metodo sperimentale in Italia (Florence, 1891-8); DUHEM, Les théories de la Chaleur in Revue des Deux Mondes (1895), CXXIX, 869; CXXX, 380, 851; IDEM, L'évolution de la Mécanique (Paris, 1903); IDEM, Les origines de la Statique (2 vols., Paris, 1905-6); IDEM, Etudes sur Léonard de Vinci, ceux qu'il a lus et ceux gui l'ont lu (2 vols., Paris, 1906-9); IDEM, La théorie physique, son objet et sa structure (Paris, 1906); IDEM, Sozein ta phainomena. Essai sur la notation de Théorie physique de Platon à Galilée (Paris, 1908); DÜHRING, Kritische Gesch. d. allg. Mechanik (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1877); HELLER, Gesch. d. Physik v. Aristoteles bis auf d. neueste Zeit (2 vols., Stuttgart, 1882-4); HELLMANN, Neudrucke von Schriften u. Karten über Meteorologie u. Erdmagnetisnus (15 vols., Berlin, 1893-1904); JOUGUET, Lectures de Mécanique, La Mécanique enseignée par les auteurs originaux (2 vols., Paris, 1908-9); KLEIN, D. Principien d. Mechanik, historisch u. kritisch dargestellt (Leipzig, 1872); LASSWITZ, Gesch. d. Atomistik vom Mittelalter bis Newton (2 vols., Hamburg and Leipzig, 1890); LIBRI, Hist. des Sciences mathématiques en Italie, depuis la Renaissance des Lettres jusqu'à la fin du XVIIe siècle (4 vols., Paris, 1838-41); MACH, D. Mechanik in ihrer Entwickelung, histor. -- kritisch dargestellt (6th ed., Leipzig, 1908); PASCAL, uvres, ed. BRUNSCHVICG AND BOUTROUX (3 vols., Paris, 1908); ROUSE BALL, An Essay on Newton's Principia (London and New York, 1893); Mémoires sur l'Electrodynamique in Collection de Mémoires publiés par la Société française de Physique, II-III (Paris, 1885-7); SUE AINE, Hist. du Galvanisme et analyse des différens ouvrages publiés sur cette découverte, depuis son origine jusqu'à nos jours (4 vols., Paris), an X (1802) -- an XIII (1803); THIRION, Pascal, l'horreur du vide et la pression atmosphérique in Revue des Quest. scien., 3rd series; XII (1907), 384; XIII (1908), 149; XV (1909), 149; THUROT, Recherches histor. sur le Principe d'Archimède in Revue Archéologique (new Series, Paris), XVIII (1868), 389; XIX (1869), 42; III, 284, 345; XX (1869), 14; TODHUNTER, A Hist. of Mathematical Theories of Attraction and the Figure of the Earth from time of Newton to that of Laplace (2 vols., London, 1873); TODHUNTER AND PEARSON, A Hist. of the Theory of Elasticity (2 vols., Cambridge, 1886-93); VENTURI, Commentari sopra la Storica e le Teorie dell' Ottica (Bologna, 1814); VERDET, Introduction aux uvres d'Augustin Fresnel, I (Paris, 1866-70), pp. ix-xcix; WEIDEMANN, D. Lehre v. d. Elektricität, 2nd ed. (3 vols., Brunswick, 1893-5); WOHLWILL, D. Entdeckung d, Beharrungsgesetzes in Zeitschrift f. Völkerpsychologie u. Sprachwissenschaft (Berlin), XIV (1883), 365; XV (1884), 70, 337; IDEM, Galilei u. sein Kampf f.d. Copernicanische Lehre (Hamburg and Leipzig, 1909). PIERRE DUHEM Physiocrats Physiocrats ( physis, nature, kratein, rule) A school of writers on political and economic subjects that flourished in France in the second half of the eighteenth century, and attacked the monopolies, exclusive corporations, vexatious taxes, and various other abuses which had grown up under the mercantile system. Statesmen of the mercantile school in France and elsewhere had adopted a system of tutelage which often gave an artificial growth to industry but which pressed hardly upon agriculture. The physiocrats proposed to advance the interests of agriculture by adopting a system of economic freedom. Laissez faire et laissez passer was their watchword. François Quesnay (1694-1774), physician to Mme de Pompadour and Louis XV, founded the school (1758). The term "physiocracy" was probably used by Quesnay to convey the idea that the new system provides for the reign of the natural law. Quesnay and his disciples were called économistes by their contemporaries; the term physiocrates was not used until the beginning of the nineteenth century. Political Philosophy In metaphysics Quesnay was a follower of Descartes and borrowed from him the mathematical method used in his "Tableau Economique". He accepted a modified form of the natural rights theory which pervades eighteenth-century literature and gave it an optimistic interpretation. He emphasizes the distinction between the natural order (ordre naturel) and the positive order (ordre positif). The first is founded upon the laws of nature which are the creation of God and which can be discovered by reason. The second is man-made; when its laws coincide with those of the natural order the world will be at its best. He objected to the natural rights philosophers of his day that they concerned themselves only with the positive order to the neglect of the natural. He held that primitive man upon entering society does not give up any of his natural rights, thus taking issue with Rousseau's theory of the social contract. From his optimistic doctrines concerning the laws of the natural order he deduces his doctrine of laissez faire. Economic evils arise from the monopolies and restrictions of the positive order; statesmen should aim to harmonize the positive order with the natural by abolishing these excrescences. The state should withdraw its support from the attempts of special interests to bolster up industry artificially. In the language of the physiocrats, "He governs best who governs least". Although ultimately their principles proved favourable to the Revolution, Quesnay and his disciples were in favour of an absolute monarchy subject only to the laws of the "natural order". They considered that it would be easier to persuade a prince than a nation and that the triumph of their principles would be sooner secured by the sovereign power of a single man. Economic Doctrine Quesnay divides the citizens of a nation into three classes: the productive, which cultivates the soil and pays a rent to the landed proprietors, the proprietors (Turgot's classe disponible), who receive the rent or net product (produit net) of agriculture, and the barren (classe stérile), which comprises those engaged in other occupations than that of agriculture, and produces no surplus. For example, in a country producing five billions of agricultural wealth annually, two billions will go to the proprietors as rent. With this the proprietors will buy one billion's worth of agricultural products and one billion's worth of the manufactured products of the barren class. The productive class also will buy one billion's worth of the products of the barren class. The barren class will spend the two billions which it receives in buying one billion's worth of agricultural products upon which to subsist and one billion's worth of raw material to work up into its finished product. Thus the barren class receive two billions and spend two billions. The value of their product equals the cost of their subsistence plus the cost of the raw material. Thus industry and commerce are barren. Agriculture is productive, since it supports those who are engaged in it and produces in addition a surplus. The national welfare depends upon having this surplus production as large as possible. In other words, a nation will prosper not in proportion as it succeeds in getting foreign money in return for its manufactures, but in proportion to the amount of its net product. The mercantilists, therefore, made a mistake in encouraging manufactures and commerce at the expense of agriculture. The true policy is to encourage agriculture. Statesmen of the mercantile school thought it desirable to have cheap food so that the home industries could compete with the foreign and thus the nation might secure a favourable balance of trade which would bring money into the country. The physiocrats rejected the balance of trade argument and held that dear food was desirable because this meant the prosperity of agriculture and the swelling of the net product. Quesnay even held that under some circumstances it might be desirable to levy a duty on imported agricultural products or to grant an export bounty in order to keep up prices. Holding that the incomes received by the productive and sterile classes were just sufficient for their support, the physiocrats believed that any tax levied upon the members of either of these classes must be shifted until it finally fell upon the net product belonging to the proprietors. In the interest of economy of administration, therefore, they urged that a single tax be levied upon rent. This was their celebrated impôt unique. The proposal was somewhat similar to the more recent demands of Henry George for a single tax. The physiocrats sought to protect the landed proprietors, while George wished to expropriate them. The School Most of the ideas of the physiocratic school are found in earlier writings. The expression laissez faire is said to have been used by a French merchant, Legendre, in answering a question addressed by Colbert to a gathering of merchants concerning the needs of industry. The idea is developed in the writings of Bois-Guillebert (1712) and the policy was advocated by the Marquis d'Argenson in 1735. Gournay, a contemporary of Quesnay, seems to have originated the extended expression laissez faire et laissez passer. This formula called for freedom of internal commerce and manufacture. Some critics hold that Gournay is equally entitled with Quesnay to be called the founder of the physiocratic school on account of the currency which he gave to the doctrine of freedom of trade. Other sources are Hume's criticism of the balance of trade theory, and Cantillon, "Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général", in which the importance of agriculture is recognized and the doctrine of produit net developed. The elder Mirabeau was Quesnay's first disciple. His "Philosophie rurale" (1763) gained disciples. Dupont de Nemours, who later exerted considerable influence in the Constituent Assembly in the discussions on taxation, wrote several works in defence of the system. Other important writers were Baudeau, Mercier de la Rivière, and Letrosne. The most eminent of Quesnay's disciples was Turgot, who, as Intendant of Limoges and afterwards as minister of finance under Louis XVI, attempted to apply some of the physiocratic principles practically (Réflexions sur la formation et la distribution des richesses, 1766). Outside of France the school had not many disciples. The best known are the Swiss Iselin and the German Schlettwein. The latter was engaged by the Margrave Karl Friedrich of Baden, a friend of Mirabeau, to introduce the single tax in three villages of Baden. The experiment, made under unfavourable conditions, was soon abandoned. In Italy the physiocratic school had few followers. In England, on account of the advanced position of trade and industry, it had none. Criticism The principal service of the physiocrats to modern political economy was not the discovery of any one of their doctrines, but their attempt to formulate a science of society out of materials already at hand. It was from this system as a base that Adam Smith set out to give a new impetus to the study of economic phenomena. Another important contribution consisted in calling attention to the weaknesses of the mercantile system. Laissez faire was a good doctrine for the eighteenth century because there was need of a reaction, but it was a mistake to set it up as a universal principle applicable under all conditions, The chief weakness in the physiocratic teaching lay in its theory of value. While agriculture brings forth the raw material of production, commerce and manufactures are equally productive of wealth. In a sense, the physiocrats recognized this, but they held that in producing this wealth the manufacturing and commercial classes use up an equivalent amount of value. This is a gratuitous assumption, but even if true, the same thing could be said of the so-called productive class. Moreover, if wages were governed by the "iron law" both in agriculture and in manufactures and commerce, as the physiocrats assume, the "net product" would be made up of wealth created by the commercial and manufacturing classes as well as by the agricultural class. The theory of the impôt unique or single tax rested upon the assumption that all incomes, except those of the proprietors, were at the existence minimum. Since this is not true, it is also not true that all taxes levied upon the other classes will ultimately be paid by the proprietors. HIGGS, The Physiocrats (London, 1897); ONCKEN, OEuvres économiques et philosophiques de Fr. Quesnay (Frankfort, 1888); IDEM in Handwörterbuch d. Staatswissenschaften, s. v. Quesnay; HASBACH, D. allg. philosophischen. Grundlagen d. von F. Quesnay u. A. Smith begründeten politischen Oekonomie (Leipzig, 1890). FRANK O'HARA. Physiologus Physiologus An early Christian work of a popular theological type, describing animals real or fabulous and giving each an allegorical interpretation. Thus the story is told of the lion whose cubs are born dead and receive life when the old lion breathes upon them, and of the phoe;nix which burns itself to death and rises on the third day from the ashes; both are taken as types of Christ. The unicorn also which only permits itself to be captured in the lap of a pure virgin is a type of the Incarnation; the pelican that sheds its own blood in order to sprinkle therewith its dead young, so that they may live again, is a type of the salvation of mankind by the death of Christ on the Cross. Some allegories set forth the deceptive enticements of the Devil and his defeat by Christ; others present qualities as examples to be imitated or avoided. The book, originally written in Greek at Alexandria, perhaps for purposes of instruction, appeared probably in the second century, though some place its date at the end of the third or in the fourth century. In later centuries it was ascribed to various celebrated Fathers, especially St. Epiphanius, St. Basil, and St. Peter of Alexandria. Origen, however, had cited it under the title "Physiologus", while Clement of Alexandria and perhaps even Justin Martyr seem to have known it. The assertion that the method of the "Physiologus" presupposes the allegorical exegesis developed by Origen is not correct; the so-called "Letter of Barnabas" offers, before Origen, a sufficient model, not only for the general character of the "Physiologus" but also for many of its details. It can hardly be asserted that the later recensions, in which the Greek text has been preserved, present even in the best and oldest manuscripts a perfectly reliable transcription of the original, especially as this was an anonymous and popular treatise. "Physiologus" is not the original title; it was given to the book because the author introduces his stories from natural history with the phrase: "the physiologus says", that is, the naturalist says, the natural philosophers, the authorities for natural history say. About 400 the "Physiologus" was translated into Latin; in the fifth century into Æthiopic [edited by Hommel with a German translation (Leipzig, 1877), revised German translation in "Romanische Forschungen", V, 13-36]; into Armenian [edited by Pitra in "Spicilegium Solesmense", III, 374-90; French translation by Cahier in "Nouveaux Mélanges d'archéologie, d'histoire et de littérature" (Paris, 1874)]; into Syrian [edited by Tychsen, "Physiologus Syrus" (Rostock, 1795), a later Syrian and an Arabic version edited by Land in "Anecdota Syriaca", IV (Leyden, 1875)]. Numerous quotations and references to the "Physiologus" in the Greek and the Latin fathers show that it was one of the most generally known works of Christian antiquity. Various translations and revisions were current in the Middle Ages. The earliest translation into Latin was followed by various recensions, among them the "Dicta Johannis Chrysostomi de naturis bestiarum", edited by Heider in "Archiv für Kunde österreichischer Geschichtsquellen" (II, 550 sqq., 1850). A metrical Latin "Physiologus" was written in the eleventh century by a certain Theobaldus, and printed by Morris in "An Old English Miscellany" (1872), 201 sqq.; it also appears among the works of Hildebertus Cenomanensis in P. L., CLXXI, 1217-24. To these should be added the literature of the "Bestiaries" (q. v.), in which the material of "Physiologus" was used; the "Tractatus de bestiis et alius rebus", attributed to Hugo of St. Victor, and the "Speculum naturale" of Vincent of Beauvais. Translations and adaptations from the Latin introduced the "Physiologus" into almost all the languages of Western Europe. An eleventh-century German translation was printed by Müllenhoff and Scherer in "Denkmäler deutscher Poesie und Prosa" (No. LXXXI); a later translation (twelfth century) has been edited by Lauchert in "Geschichte des Physiologus" (pp. 280-99); and a rhymed version appears in Karajan, "Deutsche Sprachdenkmale des XII. Jahrhunderts" (pp. 73-106), both based on the Latin text known as "Dicta Chrysostomi". Fragments of a ninth-century Anglo-Saxon "Physiologus", metrical in form, still exist; they are printed by Thorpe in "Codex Exoniensis" (pp. 335-67), and by Grein in "Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Poesie" (I, 223- 8). About the middle of the thirteenth century there appeared an English metrical "Bestiary", an adaptation of the Latin "Physiologus Theobaldi"; this has been edited by Wright and Halliwell in "Reliquiæ antiquæ" (I, 208-27), also by Morris in "An Old English Miscellany" (1-25). Icelandic literature includes a "Physiologus" belonging to the early part of the thirteenth century, edited by Dahlerup (Copenhagen, 1889). In the twelfth and thirteenth century there appeared the "Bestiaires" of Philippe de Thaun, a metrical Old-French version, edited by Thomas Wright in "Popular Treatises on Science Written during the Middle Ages" (74-131), and by Walberg (Lund and Paris, 1900); that by Guillaume, clerk of Normandy, called "Bestiare divin", and edited by Cahier in his "Mélanges d'archéologie" (II-IV), also edited by Hippeau (Caen, 1852), and by Reinsch (Leipzig, 1890); the "Bestiare" of Gervaise, edited by Paul Meyer in "Romania" (I, 420-42); the "Bestiare" in prose of Pierre le Picard, edited by Cahier in "Mélanges" (II-IV). A singular adaptation is found in the old Waldensian literature, and has been edited by Alfons Mayer in "Romanische Forschungen" (V, 392 sqq.). As to the Italian bestiaries, a Tosco-Venetian "Bestiarius" has been edited (Goldstaub and Wendriner, "Ein tosco-venezianischer Bestiarius", Halle, 1892). Extracts from the "Physiologus" in Provençal have been edited by Bartsch, "Provenzalisches Lesebuch" (162-66). The "Physiologus" survived in the literatures of Eastern Europe in books on animals written in Middle Greek, among the Slavs to whom it came from the Byzantines, and in a Roumanian translation from a Slavic original (edited by Gaster with an Italian translation in "Archivio glottologico italiano", X, 273-304). Medieval poetical literature is full of allusions to the "Physiologus", and it also exerted great influence on the symbolism of medieval ecclesiastical art; symbols like those of the phoe;nix and the pelican are still well-known and popular. Lauchert, Gesch. d. Physiologus (Strasburg, 1889), supplemented in Romanische Forschungen, V, 3-12, and in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, XXXIII (1909), 177-79; Keppler, D. mittelalterliche Physiologus in Archiv für christ. Kunst, IX (1891), n. 2-4, pp. 14-16, 23-4, 32-6; Michael, Gesch. d. deutschen Volkes, III (Freiburg, 1903), 413-17; Pitra, in Spicilegium Solesmense, III (Paris, 1855), 338-73; Karnejev, D. Physiologus d. Moskauer Synodalbibliothek in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, III (1894), 26-63; Peters, D. griechische Physiologus u. seine orientalischen Uebersetzungen (Berlin, 1898); the Latin text has been edited by Cahier and Martin, Mélanges d'archéologie, d'hist. et de litt., II-IV (Paris, 1851- 56); Goldstaub, D. Physiologus u., seine Weiterbildung besonders in d. lateinischen u. byzantinischen Lit. in Philologus, supplementary vol. VIII (1901), 337-404; Krumbacher, Gesch. d. byzantinischen Lit. (2nd ed., Munich, 1897), 874-77; Strzygowski, D. Bilderkreis d. griechischen Physiologus in Byzantinischen Archiv, II (Leipzig, 1899); Leitschuh, Gesch. d. karolingischen Malerei (Berlin, 1894), 405 sq.; Schmid, Christ. Symbole aus alter u. neuer Zeit (2nd ed., Freiberg, 1909); Dreves, D. Jagd d. Einhorns in Stimmen aus Maria-Lauch, XLIII (1892), 66-76. Friederich Lauchert Piacenza Piacenza DIOCESE OF PIACENZA (PLACENTINENSIS) Piacenza is a diocese in Emilia, central Italy. The city is situated on the right of the Po, near its junction with the Trebbia, in an important strategic position. Agriculture is the chief industry. The cathedral is of the ninth century; it was remodelled by Santa da Sambuceto and others (1122-1223) in beautiful Lombard style. The campanile, over 216 feet high, is surmounted by an angel, in brass; the cupola is a more recent part of the edifice; there are frescoes by Guercino and by Morazzone, Ludovico Carracci, Procaccino, and others. Its Cappella del Crocifisso has an arch with statues of Nero and of Vespasian; the Cappella di S. Corrado has an admirable Madonna by Zitto di Tagliasacchi, and contained once a picture of St. Conrad by Lanfranco, but it was taken to France. Among the churches is S. Antonio (fourth century), many times restored; until 877 it was the cathedral; in 1183 the preliminaries of the Peace of Constance were concluded in this church; here also are paintings by Procaccino, Mulinaretto, Novoloni etc.; the sacristy contains a triptych with the gesta of S. Antonio. In the pastor's residence of S. Andrea there is an ancient mosaic. S. Bartolommeo, formerly a church of the Jesuits, contains besides its beautiful paintings two crucifixes, one very ancient, the other dating from 1601. S. Francesco (1278) has beautiful columns, but has been disfigured by incongruous restorations; it contains a Pietà by Bernardo Castelli, a Madonna by Francia, and the tomb of the famous Franciscan, Francesco Mairone (1477). S. Giovanni in Canali (1220), formerly of the Templars, and later of the Dominicans, has also been disfigured by its restorations; it contains statues of Pius V and Benedict XI, the tomb of the Scotti family and of the physician Gulielmo da Saliceto. S. Savino (903) was restored several times and entirely transformed in the eighteenth century; formerly there was a monastery annexed to it; in its recent restorations, paintings of the fourteenth century were discovered, and also pillars and other sculptures of the original construction, as well as mosaics, a crucifix carved in wood, and other objects. Outside the city the monastery of the Cassinesi Benedictines, S. Sisto, founded in 874 by Queen Angilberga, is a veritable sanctuary of art; the famous Sistine Madonna by Raphael, was first here, but was sold by the monks, to obtain funds for repairs. Santa Maria in Campagna contains a very ancient statue in marble of Our Lady, four statues in wood by Hermann Geernaert, and paintings by Procaccino, Pordenone, Guercino, and others. The Palazzo Ducale, a work of Vignola (1558), has since 1800 served as a barracks. The Palazzo Anguissola da Grazzano contains fine paintings. The Palazzo Brandini has a gallery of paintings by Correggio, Reni, Guercino, Andrea del Sarto, and Murillo. The Palazzo Landi contains paintings by Van Dyck. The Palazzo Palastrelli has a library of works on the history of Piacenza. Cardinal Alberoni established in this town a famous college. Its church has paintings by Paolo Veronese, Guido Reni, and others. The Piazza de Cavalli has equestrian statues of Alessandro and of Ranuccio I, Farnese, by Mocchi da Montevarchi. Placentia, with Cremona, was founded in 218 B. C., to hold in check the Gauls after their defeat near Clastidium. The Via Æmilia terminated there. Scipio, defeated near the Trebbia, retreated to this town. In 206 it was besieged in vain by Hasdrubal and burned by the Gauls in 200. There Emperor Otho defeated Vitellius (69) and then Aurelian was defeated by the Alamanni (271); there also Emperor Orestes was decapitated (467). The Lombards took possession of it, at the beginning of their invasion, and thereafter it remained in their power. From the ninth century the temporal power was in the hands of the bishops, until the twelfth century, when the town became a commune, governed by consuls, and later (1188), by a podestà. In the wars between the Lombard cities and with the emperors, Piacenza was an ally of Milan, on account of its hatred of Cremona and of Pavia; wherefore it was Guelph and a party to both of the Lombard leagues. Twice, Uberto Palavicino made himself lord of the city (1254 and 1261), but the free commune was re-established. From 1290 to 1313, Alberto Scotti was lord of Piacenza; his rule had many interruptions, as in 1308, by Guido della Torre of Milan, in 1312, by Henry VII. The latter's vicar, Galeazzo Visconti, was expelled by the pontifical legate Bertrando del Poggetto (1322-35). In 1336 Piacenza came again under the rule of the dukes of Milan; between 1404 and 1418 they were compelled to retake the city on various occasions. In 1447 there was a new attempt to re-establish independent government. The fortunes of war gave Piacenza to the Holy See in 1512; in 1545 it was united to the new Duchy of Parma. After the assassination of Pier Luigi Farnese, which occurred at Piacenza (1547), the city was occupied by the troops of the imperial governor of Milan and was not restored to the Duchy of Parma for ten years. In 1746 the Austrians obtained a great victory there over the French and Spaniards, and in 1799 the Russians and Austrians defeated the French. Napoleon made Lebrun Duke of Piacenza. St. Antonius, who is said to have belonged to the Theban Legion, suffered martyrdom at Piacenza, in the second or third century. The first known bishop is St. Victor, present at the Council of Sardica (343); St. Savinus, present at Aquileia (381), was probably the Savinus to whom St. Ambrose wrote several letters. Other bishops were St. Maurus, St. Flavianus, St. Majorianus (451). Whether the emperor of this name intended to become Bishop of Piacenza is uncertain; he was not its bishop, having been killed soon after his abdication. Joannes was a contemporary of St. Gregory the Great; Thomas (737) was very influential with King Luitprand; Podo (d. 839) was honoured with a metrical epitaph; Guido (904), a man of arms rather than of the Church; Boso (940) freed himself from the jurisdiction of the metropolitan See of Ravenna (re-established by Gregory V), and became the antipope John XVI; Pietro (1031) was exiled to Germany by Conrad II; Dionisio was deposed in 1076 by Gregory VII; St. Bonizo (1088), who had been Bishop of Sutri and a great supporter of Gregory VII, was killed in 1089; during the incumbency of Aldo (1096), Emilia was temporarily taken from the jurisdiction of Ravenna; Arduino (1118) founded the new cathedral; Ugo (1155), a nephew of Anacletus II, was driven from his diocese by the schismatics; under Ardizzone (1192) and Grumerio (1199) grave contentions began between the clergy and the consuls, and Grumerio was driven from the diocese; Orlando da Cremona, O.P., was mortally wounded by a Catharist while preaching (1233); P. Alberto Pandoni (1243), an Augustinian; Pietro Filargo (1386) became Pope Alexander V; Pietro Maineri (1388) was formerly the physician of Galeazzo II; Branda Castiglione (1404) was a professor of law at Pavia, and took part in the conciliabulum of Pisa and in the Council of Constance, and became a cardinal; Alessio da Siregno (1412) was a famous preacher; Fabrizio Marliani (1476) was very zealous for the reform of morals in the clergy and in the people; Cardinal Scaramuzza Trivulzio (1519); Catalano Trivulzio (1525); Cardinal Giovanni Bernardino Scotti (1559) was a very learned Theatine; the Bl. Paolo Burali (1570), a Theatine, became a cardinal; Cardinal Filippo Sega (1578); Alessandro Scappi (1627) was obliged to leave the duchy for having excommunicated the duke, Odoardo; Alessandro Pisani's election (1766) was one of the causes of dissension with the Holy See; Stefano Fallot de Beaumont (1807) was present at the national council of Paris (1810). Bl. Corrado (d. at Noto in 1351) was from Piacenza. The councils of Piacenza were those of 1076 (concerning the schismatics against Gregory VII), 1090 (Urban II against the concubinage of the clergy, and in favour of the crusade), 1132 (Innocent II against Anacletus II). There were ten synods under Bishop Marliani (1476-1508). In 1582 the diocese was made a suffragan of Bologna; it is now immediately dependent upon the Holy See. It has 350 parishes, with 310,000 inhabitants, 11 religious houses for men, and 29 for women, 5 educational establishments for male students, and 18 for girls, 1 daily paper, and 1 monthly periodical. The diocese has a house of missionaries for emigrants established by the late bishop, Mgr. Scalabrini. UNIVERSITY OF PIACENZA Piacenza was the first Italian city to apply for a Bull erecting its town-schools into a studium generale, which Bull was granted by Innocent IV in 1248, and conferred all the usual privileges of other studia generalia; by it the power of giving degrees was vested in the Bishop of Piacenza. But no practical work was done here until 1398, when Gian Galeazzo Visconti, Duke of Milan and Pavia, refounded the university in his capacity of Vicar of the Empire. The University of Pavia was suppressed, as he did not wish to have a university in either of his capitals. Gian Galeazzo liberally endowed Piacenza, organizing a university of jurists as well as a university of arts and medicine, each with an independent rector. Between 1398 and 1402 seventy-two salaried professors are recorded as having lectured, including not only the usual professors of theology, law, medicine, philosophy, and grammar, but also the new chairs of astrology, rhetoric, Dante, and Seneca. But this endeavour to establish a large university in a small town which had no natural influx of students was doomed to failure, and little or no work was done after Gian Galeazzo's death in 1402. In 1412 Pavia had its university restored, and the subjects of the duchy were forbidden to study elsewhere. Piacenza then obtained an unenviable notoriety as a market for cheap degrees. This traffic was still flourishing in 1471, though no lectures had been given for sixty years. A college of law and a college of arts and medicine, however, maintained a shadowy existence for many years later. Among the famous teachers at Piacenza may be named the jurist Placentinus, founder of the law-school at Montpellier (d. there 1192); and Baldus (b. 1327), the most famous jurist of his day (Muratori, "Rer. It. SS.", XX, 939). DIOCESE.--CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XV; CAMPI, Historia ecclesiastica di Piacenza; POGGIALI, Memorie storiche di Piacenza (12 vols., 1757-66); GIARELLI, Storia di Piacenza (2 vols., 1889); MURATORI, Rerum italicarum Scr., XX; MALCHIODI (and others), La regia basilica di S. Savino in Piacenza (Piacenza, 1903). See also PARMA. UNIVERSITY.--CAMPI, Hist. Univers. delle cose eccl. come seculari di Piacenza, II (Piacenza, 1651), 187 sq.; RASHDALL, Univ. of Europe in the Middle Ages, II, pt. I (Oxford, 1895), 35. U. BENIGNI & C.F. WEMYSS BROWN Giambattista Pianciani Giambattista Pianciani Scientist, b. at Spoleto, 27 Oct., 1784; d. at Rome, 23 March, 1862. He entered the Society of Jesus on 2 June, 1805; after having received the ordinary Jesuit training he was sent to various cities in the Papal States to teach mathematics and physics and finally was appointed professor in the Roman College, where he lectured and wrote on scientific subjects for twenty-four years. He was an active member of the Accademia d'Arcadia, his academical pseudonym being "Polite Megaride", of the Accademia de' Lincei, and of other scientific societies. His scientific labours were abruptly brought to an end by the Revolution of 1848; he succeeded, however, in making his escape from Rome and having come to America he taught dogmatic theology during the scholastic year 1849-50 at the Jesuit theologate then connected with Georgetown College, Washington, D. C. When peace was restored in Rome he returned thither and from 1851 till his death was engaged chiefly in administrative duties and in teaching philosophy both in the Roman College and in the Collegio Filosofico in the University of Rome, of which latter college he was president during the last two years of his life. Besides numerous articles on scientific subjects, especially on electricity and magnetism, and on philosophico-religious subjects, he published the following works: "Istituzioni fisico-chemiche" (4 vols., Rome, 1833-4); "Elementi di fisico-chimica" (2 vols., Naples, 1840-41); "In historiam creationis mosaicam commentarius" (Naples, 1851), which he wrote whilst at Georgetown and of which there is a German translation by Schöttl (Ratisbon, 1853); "Saggi filosfici" (Rome, 1855); "Nuovi saggi filosofici" (Rome, 1856); "Cosmogonia naturale comparata col Genesi" (Rome, 1862). SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J., VI (Brussels, 1895). EDWARD C. PHILLIPS Piano Carpine, Giovanni Da Giovanni da Pianô Carpine Born at Pian di Carpine (now called della Magione), near Perugia, Umbria, 1182; died probably in 1252. Having entered the Franciscan Order he was a companion of Cæsar of Spires, the leader of the second mission of the Franciscans to Germany in 1221. He took a leading part in founding various new establishments of the order, and was several times provincial in Saxony and once in Spain. In 1245 Innocent IV, in compliance with the resolutions passed at the first council of Lyons, entrusted Carpine with an embassy to the princes and people of Mongolia or Tatary with a view to checking the invasions of these formidable hordes and eventually effecting their conversion. Carpine set out early in 1246; among his companions were Brothers Stephen of Bohemia and Benedict of Poland, who were to act as interpreters. They were hospitably entertained by Duke Vasilico in Russia, where they read the pope's letters to the assembled schismatic bishops, leaving them favourably disposed towards reunion. They reached Kanieff, a town on the Tatar frontier, early in February. The Tatar officials referred them to Corenza, commander of the advance guards, who in his turn directed them to Batu, Khan of Kipchak etc., then encamped on the banks of the Volga. Batu commissioned two soldiers to escort the papal envoys to Karâkorum, the residence of the Great Khan. They reached their destination in the middle of July after a journey of indescribable hardships. The death of the Great Khan Okkodai made it necessary to defer negotiations till the end of August when Kuyuk, his successor, ascended the throne. After much delay Kuyuk finally demanded a written statement of the pope's propositions. His letter in reply is still preserved. Its tone is dignified and not unfriendly, but independent and arrogant. In it he says in substance: "If you desire peace, come before me! We see no reason why we should embrace the Christian religion. We have chastised the Christian nations because they disobeyed the commandments of God and Jenghiz Khan. The power of God is manifestly with us." The superscription reads; "Kuyuk, by the power of God, Khan and Emperor of all men -- to the Great Pope!" Carpine procured a translation of the letter in Arabic and Latin. On their homeward journey the envoys halted at the former stations, arriving at Kieff (Russia) in June, 1247. They were enthusiastically received everywhere, especially by the Dukes Visilico and Daniel, his brother, Carpine's proposals for reunion had been accepted in the meantime, and special envoys were to accompany him to the papal Court. From a political and religious aspect the mission to Tatary proved successful only in a remote sense, but the ambassadors brought with them invaluable information regarding the countries and peoples of the Far East. Carpine's written account, the first of its kind and remarkable for its accuracy, was exhaustively drawn upon by such writers as Cantù and Huc ("Travels in Tatary, Thibet and China", 2 vols., 1852). It has been published by d'Azevac: "Jean de Plan de Carpin, Relation des Mongols ou Tartares" in "Recueil de voyages", IV (Paris, 1839), and later by Külb: "Geschichte der Missionsreisen nach der Mongolei", I (Ratisbon, 1860), 1-129. Salimbene, who met Carpine in France, found him "a pleasant man, of lively wit, eloquent, well-instructed, and skilful in many things". Innocent IV bestowed upon him every mark of esteem and affection. Having been sent as papal legate to St. Louis, King of France, Carpine was shortly afterwards named Archbishop of Antivari in Dalmatia. Chronica Fr. Jordani dà Jano in Analecta Franciscana (Quaracchi, 1885-), I, 8-18; II, 71; III, 266; WADDING, Scriptores (Rome, 1906), s. v.; SBARALEA, Supplementum (Rome, 1806), s. v.; DA CIVEZZA, Storia universale della missione francescane, I (Rome, 1857), 324 sqq.; IV (Rome, 1860), 186; EUBEL. Gesch. der oberdeutschen Minoritenprovinz (Würzburg, 1886), 4, 6, 9, 20, 206; IDEM, Die Bischöfe aus dem Minoritenorden in Röm. Quartalschrift, IV, 207, n. 9; VOIGY in Abhandlungen der philolog,-histor. Klasse der königl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wissensch., V (Leipzig, 1870). 465 sqq.; HUC, Christianity in China, Tatary and Thibet, I, (tr., New York, 1897), v; DA MALIGNANO, The Life of St. Francis of Assisi and a Sketch of the Franciscan Order (tr., New York, 1887), 444 sqq.; VIATOR in Etudes franciscaines, V (1901), 505 sqq., 600 sqq.; GOLUBOVICH, Biblioteca bio-bib, delia Terra Santa, I (Quaracchi, 1906), 190 sqq. SCHLAGER, Mongotenfahrten der Franziskaner in Aus allen Zonen (Bilder aus den Missionen der Franziskaner in Verg. u. Gegenw.), II, 1-43. THOMAS PLASSMANN. Piatto Cardinalizio Piatto Cardinalizio An allowance granted by the pope to cardinals residing in curia or otherwise employed by the Church, to enable them to maintain their dignity with decorum. It was not given to cardinals supported in Rome by their sovereign, nor is it accepted by cardinals of noble family. The entire allowance was not always granted. If the cardinal had other revenues, he received enough to make up the amount of the allowance. This designation piatto was first used in the conclave of 1458. Paul II fixed the sum at 100 gold florins a month for cardinals whose revenues were not more than 4000 florins. This sum was called "the poor cardinal's plate". Leo XI intended to provide otherwise for the needful revenues. Paul V raised the piatto to 1500 scudi a year for cardinals whose ecclesiastical revenues were less than 6000 scudi. Then the custom was introduced of giving 6000 scudi annually to cardinals without ecclesiastical revenues. This sum was reduced in 1746 to 4000 scudi, as determined in 1464, and 1484, the amount allowed to-day, the cardinals renouncing their ecclesiastical benefices. For some distinguished cardinals the amount was larger. The piazzo cardinalizio is reckoned today at 4000 Roman scudi (about $4000). It is reduced according to the other revenues of the cardinal. MORONI, Dizionario, LII, 274 sqq. U. BENIGNI Piauhy, Diocese of Diocese of Piauhy (DE PIAUHY, PIAHUNENSIS) Suffragan of the Archdiocese of Belem do Para, in the State of Piauhy, north-eastern Brazil, The state is bounded on the north by the Atlantic, west by Maranhao, south by Bahia, east by Pemambuco and Ceara. It takes its name from the river Piauhy. Its area is 116,218 sq. miles, and it has a coast line of ten miles. Piauhy is one of the poorest of the Brazilian states. It has a small trade in cotton and cattle, Frequent periods of drought, followed by famine and typhus, add to the disadvantages of its unhealthful climate. Except in mountainous districts, vegetation is scanty; even the agricultural products -- sugar-cane, coffee, tobacco -- barely support the population. Therezina is the capital and Parnahyba the chief port. Emigration is making heavy drains on the population, and attempts to colonize by immigration have proved unsuccessful. The Diocese of Piauhy, formerly included in the Diocese of São Luiz do Maranhao, was, on 11 August, 1902, erected by Leo XIII into a separate diocese. Its jurisdiction comprises the Piauhy State, and its population (1911) is 425,000, with 32 parishes. Its first bishop, Mgr de Aranjo Pereira (born at Limolira, 4 Nov., 1853), was consecrated on 9 Nov., 1903, and the present bishop Mgr Joachim Antonio de Almeida (born 7 Aug., 1868) on 14 December, 1905. J. MORENO-LACALLE. Piazza Armerina, Diocese of Diocese of Piazza Armerina (PLATIENSIS) Located in the province of Caltanissetta, Sicily. The city of Piazza Armerina is situated on a high hill in a very fertile district. Its origin is obscure. Gulielmo il Malo destroyed it in 1166 on account of a rebellion, and Gulielmo il Buono rebuilt it, together with the church of l'Asunta, now the cathedral, and in which there is an admirable picture of the Assumption by Paladino. The church of the priory of S. Andrea also has fine paintings and frescoes. The diocese, taken from that of Catania was created in 1817, its first prelate was Girolamo Aprile e Benzi; it is a suffragan of Syracuse, has 23 parishes, with 184,500 inhabitants, 7 religious houses of men and 19 of women, 1 school for boys and 7 for girls, and 1 Catholic weekly. CAPPELLEITTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XXI. U. BENIGNI. Piazzi Giuseppe Piazzi Astronomer, b. at Ponte in Valtellina, 16 July, 1746; d. at Naples, 22 July, 1826. He took the habit of the Theatines at Milan and finished his novitiate at the convent of San Antonio. Studying at colleges of the order at Milan, Turin, Rome, and Genoa, under such preceptors as Tiraboschi, Beccaria, Le Seur, and Jacquier, he acquired a taste for mathematics and astronomy. He taught philosophy for a time at Genoa and mathematics at the new University of Malta while it lasted. In 1779, as professor of dogmatic theology in Rome, his colleague was Chiaramonti, later Pius VII. In 1780 he was called to the chair of higher mathematics at the academy of Palermo. There he soon obtained a grant from Prince Caramanico, Viceroy of Sicily, for an observatory. As its director he was charged to get the necessary instruments. He went to Paris in 1787 to study with Lalande, to England in 1788 to work with Maskelyne and the famous instrument-maker Ramsden. A large vertical circle with reading microscopes, a transit, and other apparatus were sent to Palermo in 1789, where they were placed on top of a tower of the royal palace. Observations were started in May, 1791, and the first reports were published as early as 1792. Soon he was able to correct errors in the estimation of the obliquity of the ecliptic, of the aberration of light, of the length of the tropical year, and of the parallax of the fixed stars. He saw the necessity for a revision of the existing catalogues of stars and for the exact determination of their positions. In 1803 he published a list of 6784 stars and in 1814 a second catalogue containing 7646 stars. Both lists were awarded prizes by the Institute of France. While looking for a small star mentioned in one of the earlier lists he made his great discovery of the first known planetoid, 1 Jan., 1801. Locating a strange heavenly body of the eighth magnitude and repeating the observation several nights in succession, he found that this star had shifted slightly. Believing it to be a comet, he announced its discovery. These few but exact measurements enabled Gauss to calculate the orbit and to find that this was a new planet, between Mars and Jupiter. Kepler and Bode had called attention to the apparent gap between these two, so that the placing of this new body within that space caused great excitement among astronomers. Piazzi proposed the name of Ceres Ferdinandea, in honour of his king. Over 600 of these so-called planetoids have since been located within the same space. The king desired to strike a gold medal with Piazzi's effigy, in commemoration, but the astronomer requested the privilege of using the money for the purpose of a much-needed equatorial telescope. In 1812 he received the commission to reform the weights and measures of Sicily in accordance with the metric system. In 1817 as director-general of the observatories of the Two Sicilies he was charged with the plans of the new observatory which Murat was establishing in Naples. He was a member of the Academies of Naples, Turin, Göttingen, Berlin, and St. Petersburg, foreign associate of the Institute of Milan etc. Besides the numerous memoirs published in the proceedings of the various academies, the following works may be mentioned: "Della specula astronomica di Palermo libri quatro" (Palermo, 1792); "Sull' orologio Italiano e l'Europeo" (Palermo, 1798); "Della scoperta del nuovo planeta Cerere Ferdinandea" (Palermo, 1802); "Præcipuarum stellarum inerrantium positiones mediæ ineunte seculo XIX ex obsrvationibus habitis in specula Panormitana at 1793 ad 1802" (Palermo, 1803, 1814); "Codice metrico siculo" (Catane, 1812); "Lezioni di astronomia" (Palermo, 1817; tr. Westphal, Berlin, 1822); "Raggnaglio dal reale osservatorio d'Napoli" (Naples, 1821). Wolf, Geschichte der Astronomie (Munich, 1871); Maineri, L'Astronomo Giovanni Piazzi (Milan, 1871); Cosmos (Paris, 2 March, and 15 June, 1901); Kneller, Das Christentum (Freiburg, 1904), 75-80. WILLIAM FOX John Pibush Ven. John Pibush English martyr, born at Thirsk, Yorkshire; died at St Thomas's Waterings, Camberwell, 18 February, 1600-1. According to Gillow he was probably a son of Thomas Pibush, of Great Fencott, and Jane, sister to Peter Danby of Scotton. He came to Reims on 4 August, 1580, received minor orders and subdiaconate in September, and diaconate in December, 1586, and was ordained on 14 March, 1587. He was sent on the English mission on 3 January, 1588-9, arrested at Morton-in-Marsh, Gloucestershire, in 1593, and sent to London, where he arrived before 24 July. The Privy Council committed him to the Gatehouse at Westminster, where he remained a year. He was then tried at the Gloucester Assizes under 27 Eliz., c. 2, for being a priest, but not sentenced, and was returned to Gloucester gaol, whence he escaped on 19 February (1594-5). The next day he was recaptured at Matson and taken back to Gloucester gaol, whence he was sent to the Marshalsea, London, and again tried under the same statute at Westminster on 1 July, 1595. He was sentenced to suffer the penalties of high treason at St. Thomas's Waterings, and in the meantime was to be returned to the Marshalsea. However, by the end of the year he was in the Queen's Bench prison, where he remained for more than five years. The sentence was carried out after one day's notice. Knox, Douay Diaries (London, 1878), 169, 179, 198, 212, 214, 222; Pollen, Acts of the English Martyrs (London, 1901), 333-6; English Martyrs, 1584- 1603 (London Cath. Rec. Soc., 1908), 337-40; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; Challoner, Missionary Preists, I, n. 123; Dasent, Acts of the Privy Council (London, 1880-1907) xxiv, 421. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Jean Picard Jean Picard Astronomer, b. at La Flêche, 21 July, 1620; d. at Paris, 12 Oct., 1682. He was a priest and prior of Rillé in Anjou. As a pupil of Gassendi he observed with him the solar eclipse of 25 Aug., 1645. In 1655 he succeeded his master as professor of astronomy at the College de France. His principal achievement was the accurate measurement of an arc of a meridian of the earth, the distance from Sourdon, near Amiens, to Malvoisine, south of Paris, in 1669-70. His result, 57060 toises (a toise = about 6.4 ft.) for the degree of arc, has been found to be only 14 toises too small. He applied telescopes and micrometers to graduated astronomical and measuring instruments as early as 1667. The quadrant he used had a radius of 38 inches and was so finely graduated that he could read the angles to one quarter of a minute. The sextant employed for determining the meridian was 6 feet in radius. In 1659 he was able to observe stars on the meridian during day-time and to measure their position with the aid of cross-wires at the focus of his telescope. In order to make sure that his standard toise should not be lost, like those used by others before him, he conceived the idea of comparing it with the length of the simple pendulum beating seconds at Paris, and thus made it possible to reproduce the standard at any time. Picard is regarded as the founder of modern astronomy in France. He introduced new methods, improved the old instruments, and added new devices, such as the pendulum clock. As a result of Picard's work, Newton was able to revise his calculations and announce his great law of universal gravitation. The discovery of the aberration of light also became a possibility on account of Picard's study of Tycho Brahe's observations. In 1671 he received from Bartholinus at Copenhagen an exact copy of Tycho's records and then went with Bartholinus to the Island of Hveen in order to determine the exact position of Tycho's observatory at Uranienborg. He was modest and unselfish enough to recommend the rival Italian astronomer Cassini to Colbert and Louis XIV for the direction of the new observatory at Paris. Cassini, on the contrary, proved envious, ignoring Picard's insistent recommendations of a mural circle for accurate meridional observations, until after the latter's death. Picard was among the first members of the Academy. He also started the publication of the annual "Connaissance des temps" in 1679 (Paris, 1678), and continued the same until 1683. Since then it has been published continuously. His "Mesure de la terre" was brought out in 1671, Paris. Wolf, Geschichte der Astronomie (Munich, 1879); Delambre, Hist. de l'astr. mod., II (Paris, 1821), 567-632. WILLIAM FOX Alessandro Piccolomini Alessandro Piccolomini Littérateur, philosopher, astronomer, b. 13 June, 1508; d. 12 March, 1578. He passed his youth in the study of literature and wrote several comedies ("Amor costante", "Alessandro", "Ortensio"), translated into Italian verse Ovid's "Metamorphoses", part of the "Æneid", Aristotle's "Poetics" and "Rhetoric", composed a hundred sonnets (Rome, 1549), and other rhyme. He repudiated in later years "Raffaello" or "Dialogo della creanza donne" as too licentious. In 1540 he became professor of philosophy at Padua, where he wrote "Istituzione di tutta la vita dell' uomo nato nobile e in città libera", "Filosofia naturale" in which he followed the theories of ancient and medieval philosophers, while in his "Trattato della grandezza della terra e dell' acqua" (Venice, 1558), he combatted the Aristotelean and Ptolemaic opinion that water was more extensive than land, thereby provoking, with Antonio Berga, professor at Mondovi, a controversy, in which he was assisted by Giambattista Bennedetti. In astronomy ("Sfera del mondo", "Delle stelle fisse", "Speculazioni de' pianeti") he adhered to the Ptolemaic theory. He also wrote on the reform of the calendar (1578), and a commentary on the mechanics of Aristotle. To counteract "Raffaella" he wrote his "Orazione in lode delle donne" (Rome, 1549). His fame extended beyond Italy. Gregory XIII, in 1574, appointed him titular Bishop of Patræ and coadjutor to Francesco Bandini, Archbishop of Siena, who survived him. FABIANI, Vita di Alessandro Piccolomini (Siena, 1749 and 1759); TIRABOSCHI, Storia della letteratura italiana, VII, pt. i. U. BENIGNI Jacopo Piccolomini-Ammannati Jacopo Piccolomini-Ammannati A cardinal, born in the Villa Basilica near Lucca, 1422; died at San Lorenzo near Bolsena, 10 Sept., 1479. He was related to the Piccolomini of Siena. His literary and theological education he acquired in Florence. Under Nicholas V he went to Rome, where, for a while, he lived in extreme penury. In 1450 he became private secretary to Cardinal Domenico Capranica; later Calistus III appointed him secretary of Briefs. He was retained in this office by Pius II, who also made him a member of the pontifical household, on which occasion he assumed the family name of Piccolomini. In 1460 he was made Bishop of Pavia by Pius II, and throughout the pontificate of the latter was his most trusted confidant and adviser. He exhibited paternal solicitude in the government of his diocese, and during his prolonged absences entrusted its affairs to able vicars, with whom he remained in constant touch, On 18 December, 1461, he was made cardinal, and was commonly known as the Cardinal of Pavia. He accompanied Pius II to Ancona, and attended him in his last illness. In the subsequent conclave he favoured the election of Paul II, whose displeasure he afterward incurred by insisting on the full observance of the ante-election capitulations that the pope had signed. The imprisonment of his private secretary by Paul II on a charge of complicity in the conspiracy of the "Accademici' offended Piccolomini still more, and his open defence of the secretary aggravated the pope's ill-will. The disfavour in which he was held by Paul II did not exempt his episcopal revenues from sequestration by the Duke of Milan, Galeazzo Maria. It was due to his insistence that Paul II took energetic measures against George Podiebrad, King of Bohemia. Sixtus IV was scarcely more favourable towards Piccolomini than Paul II. He was the friend of students and scholars, and protected Jacopo de Volterra. In 1470 he was transferred to the See of Lucca and was named papal envoy to Umbria. He wrote a continuation in seven books of the "Commentarii" of Pius II. His style is elegant, but he is not always impartial, especially apropos of Paul II or Sixtus IV. His Commentaries, nevertheless, remain an important source for contemporary history and his valuable letters have been collected and published. Ammannati is one of the most sympathetic personalities of the Italian Renaissance. He enjoyed the friendship of noted prelates and humanists, among others, Cardinals Bessarion, Carvajal, Roverella etc. Bessarion (Pastor, "Geschichte der Päpste", II, 731), praises his executive ability and readiness, his charity and zeal. Epistoloe et commentarii Jacobi Piccolomini cardinalis Papiensis (Milan, 1506), added also to the Frankfort ad. of the Commentarii of Pius II (Frankfort, 1614); PAULI, Disquisizione istorica della patria e compendio della vita del Card. Jacopo Ammannati (Lucca, 1712); CARDELLA, Vite del' Cardinali, III, 153. U. BENIGNI Pichler Pichler A renowned Austrian family of gem-cutters who lived and died in Italy. ANTONIO (JOHANN ANTON) born at Brixen, Tyrol, 12 April, 1697; died in Rome, 14 Sept., 1779. He was the son of a physician and had been a merchant until, travelling in Italy, he resolved to devote himself to art, He went to work in Naples with a goldsmith and engraver of precious stones. In 1743, proficient in his new calling, he moved to Rome and copied many antiques. He attained excellence and fame, but was somewhat limited in his field for want of early training and grounding in design. GIOVANNI (JOHANN ANTON), the son of the foregoing, was born at Naples, 1 Jan., 1734; died in Rome, 25 Jan., 1791. He was a painter, gem-cutter, and experimenter in encaustic and mosaic, a pupil of his father, and of the painter Corvi. His scholarship and knowledge of the fine arts gave him unusual advantages. Early in life he executed a series of historical paintings for the Franciscans at Orioli, and the Augustinians at Braccian; also a St. Michael for the Pauline nuns in Rome. Later he devoted himself wholly to intaglio; he wrought gems of great beauty and finish, which resembled the classic so closely in style and execution that Winckelmann is said to have thought them antiques. He was held in high regard and received innumerable honours and lucrative commissions. Works: Hercules strangling the Lion; Leander crossing the Hellespont; Nemesis, Leda, Galatea, Venus, Dancers, the Vestal Tuccia, Arethusa, Ariadne Antinous, Sappho; portraits of Pius VI and the Emperor Joseph II; and many other subjects. His son GIACOMO was trained to be a gem-cutter and executed many works in Milan, whither he had gone to be near his sister Theresa, married to the poet Vincenzo Monti. He died in early manhood. GIUSEPPE (JOHANN JOSEPH), born in Rome, 1760; died there, 1820. He was a son of Antonio by a second marriage and half brother to Giovanni, who taught him the family art. Among his works are the portrait of Alexander I of Russia; the Three Graces after Canova; Achilles, Bacchus, Ceres, Io, Medusa, Perseus etc. He signs in Greek, like the older Pichlers IIIHLER, using the initial F. LUIGI, the most distinguished of the Pichler family, was born in Rome 31 Jan., 1773, of the second marriage of Antonio; died 13 March, 1854. Losing his father while very young, he was indebted to his half-brother, Giovanni, for his careful education under a private tutor and for four years of art training with the painter De Angelis. Almost in childhood the boy had taken to himself the tools of the gem-cutter and, as he grew older, showed a special liking for cameo. Giovanni taught him their common art, and connoisseurs esteem that Luigi's incisions have even more finish, clearness, and light-gathering quality than those of his brother. He received many commissions from the Vatican and the Courts of France and Austria, and kept a splendid house where music and masques were frequently given. He made several trips to Vienna and was asked to found a school there. In 1818 he copied in enamel five hundred gems of the Vienna Cabinet which the emperor wished to present to the pope. For the same city he made a complete collection of copies of the intaglios of his father and brother, adding a set of his own, thus bringing the historical collection of 1400 antiques up to modern times. Venus, Cupid and Psyche, Apollo, Head of Julius Cæsar, Mars, Iris, the Day and Night of Thorwaldsen; and two exquisite heads of Christ are some of his subjects; besides many originals and portraits, including Giovanni Pichler's, Winckelmann's, Joseph II, Pius VII, and Gregory XVI. Luigi received innumerable honours from the popes and sovereigns of his day. His last gem, a head of Ajax, which he wished to present to Pius IX, was placed by the pope in a gold case in the Vatican collection with the signature II. L or IIIHLER, L. The tomb of the Pichlers is in S. Lorenzo in Lucina, Rome. ROSSI, Vita del Cav, Giov, Pichler (Rome, 1792); MUGNA, I tre Pichler (Vienna. 1844); ROLLETT, Die drei Meister der Gemmoglyptik, Antonio, Giovanni und Luigi Pichler (Vienna, 1874); NAGLER in Neues allgemeines Künstler Lex. (Munich, 1841); BOCCARDO in Nuova Enciclopedia Italiana (Turin, 1884). M. L. HANDLEY. Vitus Pichler Vitus Pichler Distinguished canonist and controversial writer, b. at Grosberghofen, 24 May, 1670; d. at Munich, 15 Feb., 1736. He studied for the secular priesthood, but after ordination entered the Society of Jesus, 28 Sept., 1696. For four years he was professor of philosophy at Briggs and Dillingen. He was then advanced to the chair of philosophy, controversial and scholastic, at Augsburg. He acquired fame in the field of canon law, which he taught for nineteen years at Dillingen, and at Ingolstadt, where he was the successor of the illustrious canonist, Fr. Schmalzgrueber. His latest appointment was as prefect of higher studies at Munich. His first important literary work was, "Lutheranismus constanter errans" (1709); "Una et vera fides" (1710); "Theologia polemica paticularis" (1711). In his "Cursus theologiæ polemicæ universæ" (1713), Pichler devotes the first part to the fundamentals of polemical theology and the second part to the particular errors of the reformers. It is said that he is the first writer to lay down, clearly and separately, the distinction between fundamental theology and other divisions of the science. He also wrote an important work on papal infallibility, "Papatus nunquan errans in proponendis fidei articulis" (1709). Although widely renown as a polemical theologian, Pichler is better known as a canonist. He published his "Candidatus juris prudentiæ sacræ" in 1722; this was followed by "Summa jurisprudentiæ sacræ universæ" in 1723 sqq. He also issued "Manipulus casuum jiridicorum" and several epitomes of his larger canonical treatises. Pichler's controversial works were in great vogue during the eighteenth century, while his books on canon law were used as textbooks in many universities. His solutions to difficult cases in jurisprudence gave a decided impetus to the study of the canons and afforded a key to the intricate portions of the "Corpus juris canonici". Fourteen of Pichler's works, excluding the many editions and alterations, are enumerated. HURTER, Nomenclator literarius, III (Innsbruck, 1895); SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus, VI (Brussels, 1895); de BACKER, Bibliothèque des éscrevains S. J. (Liège, 1853-76). WILLIAM H.W. FANNING Pickering Ven. Thomas Pickering Lay brother and martyr, a member of an old Westmoreland family, b. c. 1621; executed at Tyburn, 9 May, 1679. He was sent to the Benedictine monastery of St. Gregory at Douai, where he took vows as a lay brother in 1660. In 1665 he was sent to London, where, as steward or procurator to the little community of Benedictines who served the queen's chapel royal, he became known personally to the queen and Charles II; and when in 1675, urged by the parliament, Charles issued a proclamation ordering the Benedictines to leave England within a fixed time, Pickering was allowed to remain, probably on the ground that he was not a priest. In 1678 came the pretended revelations of Titus Oates, and Pickering was accused of conspiring to murder the king. No evidence except Oates's word was produced and Pickering's innocence was so obvious that the queen publicly announced her belief in him, but the jury found him guilty, and with two others he was condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. The king was divided between the wish to save the innocent men and fear of the popular clamour, which loudly demanded the death of Oates's victims, and twice within a month the three prisoners were ordered for execution and then reprieved. At length Charles remitted the execution of the other two, hoping that this would satisfy the people and save Pickering from his fate. The contrary took place, however, and 26 April, 1679, the House of Commons petitioned for Pickering's execution. Charles yielded and the long-deferred sentence was carried out on the ninth of May. A small piece of cloth stained with his blood is preserved among the relics at Downside Abbey. The Tryals of William Ireland, Thomas Pickering and John Grove for conspiring to murder the king ... (London, 1678); An exact abridgment of all the Trials ... relating to the popish and pretended protestant plots in the reigns of Charles II and James II (London, 1690), 464; Dodd, Church History of England, III (Brussels, 1742), 318; Challoner, Memoirs of Missionary Priests, II (London, 1742), 376; Oliver, Collections illustrating the History of the Catholic Religion in Cornwall, Devon, etc. (London, 1847), 500; Corker, Remonstrance of piety and innocence (London, 1683), 178; Weldon, Chronological Notes on the English Congregation of the Order of St. Benedict, ed. Dolan (Worcester, 1881), 219; Downside Review, II (London, 1883), 52-60. G. ROGER HUDLESTON Piconio, Bernardine A Bernadine a Piconio (HENRI BERNARDINE DE PICQUIGNY) Born at Picquigny, Picardy, 1633; died in Paris, 8 December, 1709; was educated at Picquigny, and joined the Capuchins in 1649. As professor of theology he shed great lustre upon his order; his best-known work is his "Triplex expositio epistolarum sancti Pauli" (Paris, 1703 [French], 1706 [English, tr. Prichard], London, 1888), which has ever been popular among Scriptural scholars. Piconio also wrote "Triplex expositio in sacrosancta D. N. Jesu Christi Evangelia" (Paris, 1726), and a book of moral instructions, A complete edition of his works, "Opera omnia Bernardini a Piconio", was published at Paris (1870-2). HURTER, Nomenclator literarius, II, 788. WILLIAM C. NEVILS. Francois Picquet François Picquet A celebrated Sulpician missionary in Canada, b. at Bourg, Bresse, France, 4 Dec., 1708; d. at Verjon, Ain, France, in 1781. He entered the seminary of Lyons (1727), where he was ordained deacon in 1731. At the Seminary of St. Sulpice in Paris, after winning his doctorate at the Sorbonne, he was raised to the priesthood, and became a Sulpician. The same year he begged to be sent to Canada, and in the month of July arrived at Montreal, where for five years (1734-9) he was engaged in the ministry. On the Indian mission of the Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes (now Oka), he acquired the Algonquin and Iroquois tongues so perfectly that he surpassed the ablest orators of these tribes. His influence enabled him to win a large number of these savages to the true Faith. The Lake mission became very populous: Nipissings, Outaouois, Mohawks, and Hurons crowded alongside the Algonquins and Iroquois. Picquet fortified this Catholic centre against pagan tribes, and erected the Calvary which still exists, with its well-built stations stretching along the mountain side facing the lake. In the intercolonial war between France and England (1743-8), the Indian allies of these two powers came to arms. Due to the influence of their missionary the Five Nations, hitherto allies of the English, remained neutral, while the other savages carried on a guerilla war in New England or served as scouts for the French troops. When peace was restored, Picquet volunteered to establish an Indian post on the Presentation River, whence he spread the Gospel among the Iroquois nations, as far as the Indians of the West. Founded on 1 June, 1749, this post became the Fort of the Presentation in the following year; from it arose the town of Ogdensburg, New York. In 1751 Picquet travelled round lake Ontario to gather into his mission as many Iroquois as possible, and succeeded in establishing 392 families at the Presentation. In 1752 Mgr. de Pontbriand, the last French Bishop of Quebec, baptized 132 of them. A banner, preserved in the church of Oka, perpetuates the souvenir of this event, and the memory of the fidelity of the Five Nations to the cause of France, for, in the course of the Seven years' War, it floated side by side with the Fleur-de-lis on many a battlefield. In1753 Picquet went to France and presented to the minister of the Navy a well-documented memorandum concerning Canada, in which he pointed out the best means for preserving that colony for the French Crown. Hardly had he returned to Canada (1754) when hostilities were resumed. He directed his savages against the English, whom he considered as much the enemies of Catholicism as of France, and for six years accompanied them on their expeditions and into the field of battle. "Abbe Picquet was worth several regiments", said Governor Duquesne of him. The English set a price on his head. When all hope of the cause was lost, by the order of his superiors who feared he might fall into the hands of the English, Picquet returned to France, passing thither through Louisiana (1760). He was engaged in the ministry in Paris till 1772. He then returned to his homeland, Bresse, and was named canon of the cathedral of Bourg, where he died. "Lettres edificantes et curieuses (Memoires des Indes). XXVI (Paris, 1783), 1-63; GOSSELIN, "Le fondateur de la Presentation, l'abbe Picquet" in "Memoires et Comptes-rendus de la Societe royale du Canada, XII, sect. 1, (1894); BERTRAND, "Bibliotheque sulpicienne ou Histoire litteraire di la Compagnie de Saint-Sulpice, I (Paris, 1900), 394-401; CHAGNY, "Un defenseur de la Nouvelle-France, François Picquet 'le Canadien'" (Lyons, 1911). A. FOURNET Louis-Edouard-Desire Pie Louis-Edouard-Désiré Pie Cardinal, born at Pontgouin, Diocese of Chartres, 1815; died at Angouleme, 1880. He studied at the Seminary of Chartres and at St. Sulpice, was ordained 1839, became Vicar-General of Chartres, 1844, and Bishop of Poitiers 1849. He created many parishes, established in his Seminary a canonical faculty of theology, founded for the missions of the diocese the Oblates of St. Hilary and brought the Jesuits to Poitiers and the Benedictines to Solesmes and Ligugé. To his initiative were largely due the resumption of the provincial synods in France, the promotion of St. Hilary's cultus and the erection of the national shrine of the Sacred Heart at Montmartre. He is however, best known for his opposition to modern errors, and his championship of the rights of the Church. Regarding as futile the compromises accepted by other Catholic leaders, he fought alike all philosophical theories and political arrangements that did not come up to the full traditional Christian standard. His stand in matters philosophical was indicated as early as 1854-55 in two synodal instructions against "the errors of the present day and of philosophy". In politics a staunch follower of the Comte de Chambord, he trusted but little the other regimes under which he lived. To Napoleon III who had declared untimely certain measures suggested by the bishop, Pie said one day: "Sire, since the time has not come for Christ to reign, then the time has not come for government to last". Such was the vigour with which he stigmatized the imperial insincerity regarding the independence of the Papal States that he was denounced to both the Council of State and the Holy See. The former pronounced him guilty of abuse of power, but Cardinal Antonelli valiantly stood by him. At the Vatican Council he did not sign the postulation petitioning for the definition of papal infallibilty, but once it was placed on the programme of the council, he proved one of the best exponents and defenders of it. As a reward for his loyal services, Leo XIII made him Cardinal, 1879. Sincerely attached to his diocese, Mgr. Pie had refused all offers of preferment: a seat at the national Assembly, the Archbishopric of Tours, and even the primatial See of Lyons. His works, full of doctrine and unction, were published serially during his lifetime at Poitiers, but were later collected into "Oeuvres épiscopales", 10 vols., Paris, s.d., and "Oeuvres sacerdotales", 2 vols., paris, s.d. J.F. SOLLIER Piedmont Piedmont (Ital. Piemonte). A part compartimento of northern Italy, bounded on the north by Switzerland, on the west by France, on the south by Liguria, and on the east by Lombardy. It includes the plain of the Upper Po, and the Alpine valleys that descend towards the plain from the south side of the Pennine Alps, from the east side of the Graiian and Cottian, and from the north side of the Maritime Alps. Its name, pedes montium, from which arose Pedimontium, came from its geographical position, enclosed on three sides by high mountains. At the present time it includes the four Italian provinces of Turin, Novara, Alessandria, and Cuneo. In the Middle Ages and in antiquity the country was important chiefly because it contained the passes over the Alps which led from Italy to Gaul. Until the beginning of the fourth century Christianity had made little progress. However, in the course of the fourth and fifth centuries Christianity spread rapidly among the people, now completely Romanized. The earliest episcopal sees were established in this era, namely Turin, Asti, and Aosta. In the early Middle Ages various petty feudal states were formed in the Piedmontese country, the most important of which were the Marquessates of Ivrea, Suso, Saluzzo, Montferrat, and the Countship of Turin. The counts of Savoy early made successful attempts to establish their authority in this region. At the beginning of the eleventh century Aosta and the territory under its control belonged to Count Humbert I of Savoy. His son Oddo (Otto, d. 1060) married the Marchioness Adelaide of Turin, and in this way became possessed of the Marquessate of Susa, with the towns of Turin and Pinerolo, the foundation of the later Piedmont. After the death (1232) of Thomas I, Count of Savoy, this marquessate went to a younger branch, the descendants of Thomas II (d. 1259), son of Thomas I; Amadeus V, son of Thomas II, is the ancestor of the present Italian royal family. These rulers called themselves Counts of Piedmont. On account of the position of their territories the Dukes of Savoy had a large share in the wars for supremacy in northern Italy. Besides extending their authority into Switzerland in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, they also gained new domains in Italy: the lordships of Vercelli, Asti, and Cava, and the feudal suzerainty over Montferrat. In the wars between the Emperor Charles V and Francis I of France, Duke Charles III (d. 1553) of Piedmont lost the greater part of his duchy. In the Peace of Câteau-Cambresis (1559), however, his son Emmanuel Philibert (d. 1580) regained nearly all of his father's possessions, and obtained, in exchange for other territories, the Marquessate of Tenda and the Principality of Oneglia. Emmanuel Philibert's successor, Charles Emmanuel I (1580-1630), acquired the Marquessate of Saluzzo and a large part of Montferrat, which his son Victor Amadeus I (1630-37) was able to retain by conceding two other lordships to France. During the regency of the widow of Victor Amadeus I, the French Princess Christine, the influence of France in the Duchy of Savoy was greatly increased. Her son Charles Emmanuel II (d. 1675) sought in vain to escape this dominating control. Victor Amadeus II (1675-1730) joined the great alliance against France in the War of the Spanish Succession. By the victory of Turin in 1706 Prince Eugene drove out the French troops that had made a sudden descent upon Piedmont, thus ridding the duke of his enemies. As a reward for joining the alliance the duke received by the Peace of Utrecht of 1713 the Marquessate of Montferrat, the City of Alessandria, and the Districts of Val Sesia and Lomellina, so that the part of his territories situated in Italy had essentially the same extent as the present Department of Piedmont. Outside of these new territories he was granted the Island of Sicily, which, however, he lost again when Spanish troops attacked the island in 1718. In 1720 as compensation for this loss he received the island of Sardinia. He now assumed the title of King of Sardinia; besides the island, the kingdom included Savoy and Piedmont on the mainland. In the Polish and Austrian wars of succession the next king, Charles Emmanuel III (as king, Charles Emmanuel I, 1730-73), acquired the additional Italian districts of Tortona and Novara, also Anghiera, Bobbio, and a part of the principality of Pavia. His son Victor Amadeus III (1773-96) was a weak man of little importance. During his reign the storms caused by the French Revolution swept over his kingdom. Napoleon's victories obliged him in 1796 to cede Savoy and Nice to France, and his son and successor Charles Emmanuel II (1796-1802) lost all his territories on the mainland, which, together with Liguria and Parma, were united to Fance. The king abdicated, entered the Society of Jesus, and in 1802 resigned the crown to his brother Victor Emmanuel I. At first the latter resided in Sardinia. Until the seventeenth century the position of the Church in Piedmont was a satisfactory one; no restriction was placed upon its activities. The country contained numerous dioceses; of these Aosta was a suffragan of Tarentaise, Nice of Embrun, and the other dioceses on Italian soil were suffragans of Milan. In 1515 Turin, where the Dukes of Savoy lived, was made an archdiocese with the two suffragan sees of Ivrea and Mondovi. As lord chancellor and first secretary of state the Archbishop of Turin was by law a member of the council of state. The ducal family was very religious, and until the end of the seventeenth century maintained close relations with the Papal See, which had established a permanent nunciature at Turin in the sixteenth century, while an agent of the Government of Piedmont resided at Rome. For some of their domains the dukes were vassals of the Holy See, but this relation caused no difficulties. There was a large body of clergy, and monasteries were numerous. There were also two religious orders of knights, that of St. Lazarus, an order of hospitallers for the care of the sick, especially lepers, and that of St. Mauritius, which had been founded by Amadeus VIII in 1434 and confirmed in 1572 by Gregory XII. The same pope confirmed the union of the two orders, of which the duke was the perpetual grand master. The original purpose of these knightly orders was, however, very soon lost sight of; in recent times they have been changed into a secular decoration. Duke Charles Emmanuel I was very zealous in the struggle against Protestantism, and both he and his two successors took energetic measures against the growth of the Waldensians. However, Emmanuel Philibert made the execution of the judgments of the ecclesiastical Inquisition dependent on the consent of the senate and judicial investigation by the Government. Towards the end of the seventeenth century the dukes, who had become absolute rulers, and their administrative officials began to suppress the liberties of the Church in imitation of France. They even interfered in the purely ecclesiastical government of the Church. Thus during the administration of Victor Amadeus, who was the actual ruler from 1684, violent dissensions with the Holy See arose and seriously injured religious life, especially because large numbers of dioceses and higher ecclesiastical benefices remained vacant for a long period. Lengthy negotiations were carried on with Rome. An edict issued by Victor Amadeus in 1694 for the benefit of the Waldensians was rejected at Rome, because it annulled the old law for the protection of the Catholic Church. The duke took the most severe measures against this Roman decree. The senate forbade its publication under heavy penalties, so that it could not be executed, and the tribunal of the Inquisition of Piedmont lost nearly all its importance. The Dioceses of Casale, Acqui, and Ventimiglia included parts of the territory of Piedmont, although the bishops did not rside in the duchy; this was regarded as a great grievance. The duke wished to force these bishops to appoint episcopal vicars for the supervision of those of his subjects belonging to their dioceses; this the bishops refused to do. Whereupon the landed property in Piedmont belonging to the Diocese of Nice was sequestrated; this led the bishop, after three years of unsuccessful negotiations, to excommunicate the secular officials who had carried out the ducal decree. The senate forbade the recognition of the sentence of excommunication under the severest penalties, for the laity the penalty of death, and commanded the priests to grant the sacraments to the excommunicated. This last command, however, was recalled by the duke as too extreme a measure against ecclesiastical authority. Victor Amadeus now claimed the entire right of presentation to all the sees and to all the abbeys in his territories granted by the pope in consistory, on ground of a privilege conferred by Pope Nicholas V in 1451 upon Duke Louis of Savoy, whereby the pope, before filling sees and abbacies, would ask for the opinion and consent of the duke in regard to the persons nominated. This privilege had been confirmed on various occasions during the sixteenth century. Rome was not willing to acknowledge the privilege in this enlarged form. The duke had also issued an edict by which a secular judge was not to grant permission to those desiring to enter the clergy until he had fully informed himself concerning the ability of the candidate, the number of parishes in the locality, and of the priests and monks there, and the nature of the property to be assigned to the candidate for his support. In 1700 a bitter dispute arose between the Archbishop of Turin and the ducal delegation, when the archbishop by a decree declared invalid the ecclesiastical arrangements proposed by the laity against the decrees of the Apostolic See. However, the bishops, supported by the nuncio, followed the instructions of the pope in all ecclesiastical questions. Further disputes also arose concerning the testamentary competency of regulars, a right which was denied the regular clergy by the Government, and as to the rights of the pope in the fiefs of the Roman Church that were possessed by the dukes. These questions were exhaustively examined at Rome, and the advocate of the consistory, Sardini, was sent to Turin to negotiate the matters; but the agreement adjusting the difficulty that was obtained by him was not accepted at Rome. New troubles constantly arose when the duke confiscated the revenues of benefices accruing during their vacancy and abrogated the spolia (property of ecclesiastics deceased intestate) of ecclesiastical benefices. The Government appointed an administrator of its own for the care and administration of the estates of vacant benefices, but he was not recognized by the bishops. Secular approval of ecclesiastical acts and ordinances was made necessary in a continually increasing number of cases. New negotiations, undertaken in 1710 at Rome by Count de Gubernatis, produced no results. The only agreement reached was in regard to the administrator of vacant benefices, who was also appointed the Apostolic administrator for this purpose. In this form the office of the Apostolic-royal steward continued to exist. When the Island of Sardinia was granted to Piedmont in 1720 a new conflict arose, as the pope claimed to be the sovereign of the island. The basis of this was that Boniface VIII had invested the King of Aragon with the island under the condition that it should never be separated from the crown of Aragon. Consequently the demand was made upon the new King of Sardinia that he should seek papal investiture. As Victor Amadeus refused to do this, the pope rejected the arrangements for filling the episcopal sees and ecclesiastical benefices made by the king, who also claimed all the rights of patronage exercised by the Spanish sovereign. As a consequence most of the sees on the islands were without incumbents, which increased the difficulties. Benedict XIII (1724-30) sought to bring about a reconciliation in order to put an end to the injury inflicted on religious life. In Turin the necessity of an accommodation was also realized, and the king sent the adroit and skillful Marquese d'Ormea to Rome to prepare the way for the negotiations. The peace-loving pope made large concessions, although the king made still further encroachments upon the rights of the Church. The negotiations were carried on by a congegation composed of four cardinals and the prelate Merlini. Several points were adjusted, especially the king's right of presentation to the bishoprics and abbacies, while others were discussed, particularly the immunity of the Church, the right of the pope to claim the spolia, also the right to charge ecclesiastical revenues with pensions. Most of the difficulties were finally adjusted, and an agreement was signed in 1727, so that the vacant sees could now be filled and ecclesiastical administration resumed. King Charles Emmanuel III (1730-73) made new conventions with Benedict XIV (1740-59), who had formerly supported the Marquess d'Ormea in his negotiations, and had always maintained friendly relations with him. By two conventions made in 1741 the King of Sardinia was granted the Apostolic vicariate for the papal fiefs on condition of paying a quit-rent, and the questions of the ecclesiastical benefices, the revenues of benefices during vacancy, and the administration of these vacant benefices were adjusted. Notwithstanding his friendliness, the papal commissioner had a very difficult position to maintain in his relations with the president of the senate, Caissotti. Finally on 6 Jan., 1742, the pope issued instructions to the bishops, in which both sides had concurred; in these it was made the duty of foreign bishops to appoint vicars for the parts of their dioceses in the territory of Piedmont, ecclesiastical jurisdiction was curtailed, and the landed property of the Church that had been obtained after 1620 was made subject to the ordinary civil taxes. In 1750 the pope resigned various revenues that the Apostolic See derived from Piedmont in return for a very small indemnity. Charles Emmanuel III now remained on the best of terms with Rome notwithstanding isolated difficulties and disputes which still arose. Merlini was once more received at Turin as nuncio, and the piously- inclined king sought to promote the interests of religion, to protect Christian discipline, and to support the rights of the Church in other countries. The last period of the history of the Kingdom of Sardinia began after the Napoleonic era. In 1814- 15 Victor Emmanuel I regained Piedmont with the territories of Genoa (Liguria) and Grenoble. The Government again sought to base the administration on the old political principles of the period before the French Revolution, while a large part of the citizens of the country were filled with ideas of political independence and Liberalism, and the revolutionary secret society, the Carbonari, was at work. When in 1821 a military insurrection broke out, the king abdicated in favour of his brother Charles Felix (1821-31). Before Charles Felix arrived the country was administered by Charles Albert, the heir- presumptive to the throne, who was a member of the Savoy-Carignan branch of the family. Charles at once established the Spanish constitution of 1812 and summoned a Liberal minisstry. However, Charles Felix crushed the Liberal opposition with the aid of Austrian troops and reestablished former administrative conditions. At his death the direct line of the dynasty of Savoy was extinct, and he was succeeded by Charles Albert of Savoy- Carignan (1821-49). The king gave the country a constitution in 1848, summoned a Liberal ministry, and assumed the leadership of the movement for the national unity of Italy. This led to a war with Austria in which he was defeated at Novara, and consequently was obliged to abdicate on 4 Nov., 1849, in favour of his son Victor Emmanuel II (1849-78). Count Camillo de Cavour (d. 6 June, 1861) was soon made the head of the administration. Journeys in France and England had imbued Cavour with ideas of political and parliamentary freedom; from 1848 he had sought to spread his opinions by publishing with the aid of Balbo, Santa Rosa, and others the journal "Il Risorgimento". On 4 Nov., 1852, he was made president of the ministry; he now sought by the economic development of the country and by diplomatic relations, especially on the occasion of the Crimean War, and at the Congress of Paris in 1856, where the "Italian" question was raised, to prepare for war with Austria. In a second agreement with Napoleon III made at Plombières on 20 July, 1858, he gained the support of the French emperor by promising to cede Savoy and Nice to France. In this way Victor Emmanuel II was able in 1859 to begin war against Austria with the aid of Napoleon, and the two allies defeated the Austrian army at Magenta (4 June) and at Solferino (24 June). At the same time a revolution broke out in central Italy that had been planned by the followers of Mazzini, and the national union founded by him in Piedmont. Tuscany, the duchies, and the districts ruled by delegation received Piedmontese administrators. In his choice of means the only principle followed by Cavour was to use whatever might prove advantageous to him. His connexion with men like Mazzini, Garibaldi, and others shows the lack of principle in his conduct. Piedmont adopted the cause of the revolution. In the Peace of Zurich, 10 Nov., 1859, it was stipulated that Lombardy would be given to Piedmont. In 1860 the people of Savoy and Nice voted for union with France, so that these territories now became a part of France, and the royal dynasty of Piedmont resigned its native land of Savoy. As compensation for this loss Piedmont received Tuscany and Emilia. On 2 April, 1860, the "National Parliament" was opened at Turin; the parliament, asserting the principle of nationality, demanded "Italy for the Italians". Soon other Italian domains were absorbed, and on 17 March, 1861, Victor Emmanuel II assumed the title of King of Italy (see Italy), whereby Piedmont and the Kingdom of Italy were merged into the united Kingdom of Italy. On 29 March, 1861, Cavour announced that Rome was the future capital of united Italy. After the readjustment of ecclesiastical conditions in 1817 there were seven Church provinces in the Kingdom of Sardinia that had been formed and enlarged in the period following the Napoleonic era. These archdioceses were: in Piedmont, Turin with 10 suffragans, to which in 1860 an eleventh, Aosta (which had belonged to Chambéry), was added; Vercelli with 5 suffragans; in Luguria, Genoa with 6 suffragans; in Savoy, Chambéry with 4 suffragans (after the withdrawal of Aosta only 3); on the Island of Sardinia the three Archdioceses of Cagliari, Oristano, and Sassari, with 8 suffragans. Both the Liberal movement and the intrigues of the revolutionary party in Piedmont were in every way inimical to the Church. In March, 1848, the expulsion of the Jesuits was begun in the harshest manner. In October a law regarding instruction was issued that was adverse to the Church. In the next year began the hostilities directed against Archbishop Luigi Franconi of Turin and other bishops. The Archbishops of Turin and Sassari were even imprisoned. In 1850 the ecclesiastical immunities were suppressed and ecclesiastical jurisdiction was limited. In 1851 the Government regulated theological instruction without the concurrence of the Church; in 1852 civil marriage was introduced; in 1853 the office of the Apostolic royal-steward was completely secularized; in 1854 laws were issued directed against the monasteries; in 1855 the ecclesiastical academy of Superga was suppressed; in 1856 and the following years oppressive measures were issued against parish priests and parish administration, such as confiscation of the greater part of the lands of the Church. Using the party cry of a "free Church in a free state", Cavour and his confederates robbed the Church in many directions of its essential rights and freedom, as well as of its rightful possessions. The same spirit of hostility to the Church was shown towards the papacy; the nunciature at Turin was suppressed. Thus the union of Italy was carried on, even by Piedmont, that had allied itself to revolutionary elements hostile to the Church, in a manner inimical throughout to the Church and religion. This hostility continued to control the official measures as well as the entire course of the Italian Government. Monumenta historiæ patriæ, I sqq. (Turin, 1836); Carutti, Regesta comitum Sabaudiæ, marchionum in Italia, usque ad an. 1258 (Turin, 1889); Dibrario, Operette e frammenti storici (Florence, 1856); Idem, Origini e progresso delle istituzioni della monarchia di Savoia (2nd ed., 2 vols., Florence, 1869); Carutti, Storia del regno di Vittorio Amadeo II (Turin, 1856); Ricotti, Storia della monarchia Piemontese (6 vols., Florence, 1851-60); Gabotto, Storia del Piemonte 1292-1349 (Rome, 1894); Gallenga, History of Piedmont (3 vols., London, 1854-55); Brofferio Storia del Piemonte dal 1814 a giorni nostri (5 vols, Turin, 1849-52); Vallauri, Storia delle Università degli studi in Piemonte (Turin, 1845); Savio, Gli antichi vescovi d'Italia: I. Il Piemonte (Turin, 1898); Meyranesius, Pedemontium sacrum, I sq. (Turin, 1834-); HergenrÖther, Piemonts Unterhandlungen mit dem hl. Stuhle im 18. Jahrh. in Katholische Studien, III (Würzburg, 1876); Colomiatti, Msgre. Luigi dei marchesi Franconi, archivescove di Torino 1832-1862 (Turin, 1902); Bianchi, Il conte Camillo Cavour (3rd ed., Turin, 1863); Kraus, Cavour. Die Erhebung Italiens im 19. Jahrh. in Weltgeschichte in Charakterbildern (Mainz, 1902); Manno, Bibliografia storica degli stati della monarchia di Savoia (8 vols., Turin, 1884- 1908). J. P. KIRSCH Piel Peter Piel A pioneer in the movement for reform of church music, b. at Kessewick, near Bonn, 12 Aug., 1835; d. at Boppard, on the Rhine, 21 Aug., 1904. Educated in the seminary for teachers at Kempen, he was instructed in music by Albert Michael Jopken (1828-78), and became professor of music at the Seminary of Boppard in 1868, a position which he held until his death. During all the years of his incumbency Piel displayed extraordinary activity as composer, teacher, and critic. He wrote a number of masses, both for equal and mixed voices, numerous motets, antiphons in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary for four and eight voices, Magnificats in the eight Gregorian modes, and a Te Deum, all of which have enjoyed great vogue. Piel's compositions reveal the resourceful contrapuntist, and are of classic purity of style. His trios, preludes, and postludes for the organ are models of finish and smoothness. It is as a teacher, however, and through the large number of distinguished musicians whom he formed that Piel exerted the greatest influence. His "Harmonielehre" has passed through a number of editions and is a standard book of instruction in liturgical music. In 1887 he received from the German Government the title of Royal Director of Music. Hoeveler, Peter Piel (Düsseldorf, 1907); Cäcilienverein's Catalog (Ratisbon, 1870). JOSEPH OTTEN Pie Pelicane, Jesu, Domine Pie Pelicane, Jesu, Domine The sixth quatrain of Adoro Te Devote, sometimes used as a separate hymn at Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Pierius Pierius A priest and probably head master of the catechetical school at Alexandria conjointly with Achillas, flourished while Theonas was bishop of that city; died at Rome after 309. His skill as an exegetical writer and as a preacher gained for him the appellation, "Origen the Younger". Philip of Side, Photius, and others assert that he was a martyr. However, since St. Jerome assures us that he survived the Diocletian persecution and spent the rest of his life at Rome, the term "martyr" can only mean that he underwent sufferings, not death, for his Faith, The Roman Martyrology commemorates him on 4 November. He wrote a work (biblion) comprising twelve treatises or sermons (logoi), in some of which he repeats the dogmatic errors attributed by some authors to Origen, such as the subordination of the Holy Ghost to the Father and the Son, and the pre-existence of human souls. His known sermons are: one on the Gospel of St. Luke (eis to kata Loukan); an Easter sermon on Osee (eis to pascha kai ton Osee); a sermon on the Mother of God (peri tes theotokou); a few other Easter sermons; and a eulogy on St. Pamphilus, who had been one of his disciples (eis ton bion tou hagiou Pamphilou). Only some fragments of his writings are extant. They were edited by Routh in "Reliquiæ Sacræ", III, 423-35, in P.G., X, 241-6, and, with newly discovered fragments, by Boor in "Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur", V, ii ((Leipzig, 1888), 165-184. For an English translation see Salmond in "Ante-Nicene Fathers" (New York, 1896), 157. RADFORD, Three Teachers of Alexandria (Cambridge, 1908); BARDENHEWER, Gesch. der altchrist. Lit., II (Freiburg, 1903), 198-203; IDEM, Patrologie, tr. SHAHAN (Freiburg, 1908), 158; HARNACK, Gesch. der altchrist. Lit., I (Leipzig, 1893), 439-44; Acta SS., II Nov., 254-64. MICHAEL OTT Blessed Pierre de Castelnau Blessed Pierre de Castelnau Born in the Diocese of Montpellier, Languedoc, now Department of Hérault, France; died 15 Jan., 1208. He embraced the ecclesiastical state, and was appointed Archdeacon of Maguelonne (now Montpellier). Pope Innocent III sent him (1199) with two Cistercians as his legate into the middle of France, for the conversion of the Albigenses. Some time later, about 1202, he received the Cistercian habit at Fontfroide, near Narbonne. He was again confirmed as Apostolic legate and first inquisitor. He gave himself untiringly to his work, strengthening those not yet infected with error, reclaiming with tenderness those who had fallen but manifested good will, and pronouncing ecclesiastical censures against the obdurate. Whilst endeavouring to reconcile Raymond, Count of Toulouse, he was, by order of the latter, transpierced with a lance, crying as he fell, "May God forgive you as I do." His feast is celebrated in the Cistercian order, by one part on 5 March, and by the other on 14 March. He is also honoured as a martyr in the Dioceses of Carcassonne and Treves. His relics are interred in the church of the ancient Abbey of St-Gilles. Breviarium cisterciense (5 March); CHALEMOT, Series sanctorum et Beatorum s.o.c. (Paris, 1670); Annus cisterciensis (Wettingen, 1682); HENRIQUEZ, Menologium cisterciense (Antwerp, 1630); CAUVET, Etude historique sur Fontfroide (Montpellier, 1875); CARETTO, Santorale cisterciense, II (Turin, 1708). EDMOND M. OBRECHT Pierre de Maricourt Pierre de Maricourt Surnamed PETER THE PILGRIM (Petrus Peregrinus) A physician of the Middle Ages. Under the name of "Magister Petrus de Maharne-curia, Picardus", he is quoted by Roger Bacon in his "Opus Majus" as the only author of his time who possessed an exact knowledge of perspective. According to Bacon he came from Picardy, and the village of Maricourt is situated in the Department of the Somme, near Péronne. He has left a remarkable treatise on the magnet, "Epistola Petri Peregrini de Maricourt ad Sygerum de Foucaucourt, militem, de magnete"; Syger de Foucaucourt was a friend and neighbour of the author, his domain bordering on that of Maricourt, It is dated 8 August, 1269, and bears the legend: Actum in castris, in obsidione Lucerioe (done in camp during the siege of Luceria), whence we know that the author was in the army of Charles of Anjou, who, in 1269, laid siege to the city of Lucera or Nocera, the only detail of his life known. The sobriquet "Pilgrim" would lead us to suppose, in addition, that he was a crusader, The "Epistola de magnete" is divided into two parts. The first, a model of inductive reasoning based on definite experiences correctly interpreted, sets forth the fundamental laws of magnetism. His part seems to have been, not the discovery of these laws, but their presentation in logical order. In the second division less admirable, an attempt is made to prove that with the help of magnets it is possible to realize perpetual motion, From medieval times the work was exceedingly popular; in 1326 Thomas Bradwardine quotes it in his "Tractatus de proportionibus", and after his time the masters of Oxford University make frequent use of it. The manuscripts containing it are very numerous, and it has been printed a number of times. The first edition was issued at Augsburg, 1558, by Achilles Gasser. In 1572 Jean Taisner or Taisnier published from the press of Johann Birkmann of Cologne a work entitled "Opusculum perpetua memoria dignissimum, de natura magnetis et ejus effectibus, Item de motu continuo", In this celebrated piece of plagiarism Taisnier presents, as though from his own pen, the "Epistola de magnete" of Pierre de Maricourt and a treatise on the fall of bodies by Gianbattista Benedetti, The "Epistola de magnete" was later issued by Libri (Histoire des sciences mathématiques en Italie, II, Paris, 1838; note v, pp. 487-505), but this edition was full of defects; correct editions were published by P. D. Timoteo Bertelli (in "Bulletino di bibliografia e di storia delle scienze matematiche e fisiche pubblicata da B. Boncampagni", I, 1868, pp. 70-80) and G. Hellmann ("Neudrucke von Schriften und Karten über Meteorologie und Erdmagnetismus, No. 10, Rara magnetica", Berlin, 1898). A translation into English has been made by Silvanus P. Thompson ("Peter Peregrinus of Maricourt, Epistle to Sygerus of Foucaucourt, Soldier, concerning the Magnet", Chiswick Press, s. d.), also by Brother Arnold ("The Letter of Petrus Peregrinus on the Magnet, a.d. 1269", with introductory note by Brother Potamian, New York, 1904). BERTELLI, Sopra Pietro Peregrino di Maricourt e la sua Epistola de Magnete in Bulletino publicata da B. Boncompagni, I (1868), 1-32; IDEM, Sulla Epistola di Pietro Peregrino di Maricourt e sopra alcuni trovati e teorie magnetiche del secolo XIII, ibid., 65-99, 319-420; IDEM, Intorno a due codici Vaticani della Epistola de magnete di Pietro Peregrino di Maricourt ed alle prime osservazioni della declinazione magnetica, ibid., IV (1871), 303-31; BONCOMPAGNI, Intorno alle edizioni della Epistola de magnete di Pietro Peregrino de Maricourt, ibid., 332-39. PIERRE DUHEM. Jean Pierron Jean Pierron A missionary, born at Dun-sur-Meuse, France, 28 Sept., 1631; date and place of death unknown. He entered the Jesuit novitiate at Nancy, 21 Nov., 1650, and after studying at Pont-à-Mousson he became an instructor at Reims and Verdun; he completed the curriculum in 1665 and spent two years more as an instructor at Metz. On his arrival in Canada in June, 1667, he was sent to the Iroquois mission of Sainte-Marie. in a letter written the same year he described his impressions of the country, the characteristics and customs of the savages, and expressed an admiration for the Iroquois language, which reminded him of Greek. He arrived at Tionontoguen, the principal village of the Mohawks, on 7 Oct., 1668, where he replaced Father Fremin. These people were one of the most flourishing of the Iroquois nations, valiant and proud warriors, and difficult to convert. Father Pierron made use of pictures which he painted himself in order to make his teachings more impressive, and invented a game by means of which the indians learned the doctrines and devotions of the Church; he taught the children to read and write. He spent one winter in Acadia to ascertain if it were possible to re-establish the missions which had been expelled in 1655, and travelled through New England, Maryland (which at that time had a Catholic governor, Charles Calvert), and Virginia; returning to the Iroquois, he worked among them until 1677 and went to France in the following year. He was a man of rare virtue, and during all his missionary career fought against a natural repugnance to the Iroquois. Ed. THWAITES, Jesuit Relations (Cleveland, 1896-1901); CAMPBELL, Pioneer Priests of North America (New York, 1909). J. ZEVELY. Philippe Pierson Philippe Pierson Born at Ath, Hainaut (Belgium), 4 January, 1642; died at Lorette, Quebec, 1688. At the age of eighteen he entered the Jesuit novitiate at Tournai, and pursued his studies at Louvain, Lille, and Douay. He was an instructor at Armentières and Bethune before he went to Canada in 1666, where he taught grammar in the college at Quebec, and presented a successful Latin play on the Passion of Our Lord. After studying theology for two years he was ordained in 1669, then worked among the Indians at Prairie de la Madeleine and Sillery. From 1673 to 1683 he did excellent work by spreading Christianity among the Hurons of the Makinac mission. In a letter from St. Ignace he described how his church increased in numbers and grew strong in faith. Later, from 1683 he was a missionary among the Sioux west of Lake Superior, and remained as such until his death. Ed. THWAITES, Jesuit Relations (Cleveland, 1896-1901). J. ZEVELY. Pietism Pietism Pietism is a movement within the ranks of Protestantism, originating in the reaction against time fruitless Protestant orthodoxy of the seventeenth century, and aiming at the revival of devotion and practical Christianity. Its appearance in the German Lutheran Church, about 1670, is connected with the name of Spener. Similar movements had preceded it in the Reformed Church of the Netherlands (Gisbert Voetius, Jodocus von Lodensteyn) and on the German Lower Rhine (Gerhard Tersteegen). Among German Lutherans the mystics Valentin Weigel and Johannes Arndt and the theologians Johann Gerhard, Johann Matthias Meyfart, and Theophilus Grossgebauer may be regarded as precursors of Spener. Philipp Jakob Spener, born in 1635 at Rappoltsweiler in Alsace, had been from his earliest years, under the influence of the pious Countess Agathe von Rappoltstein, familiar with such ascetical works as Arndt's "Sechs Bücher vom wahren Christenthum". At Geneva, whither he went as student in 1660, he was profoundly impressed by Jean de Labadie, then active as a Reformed preacher, but later a separatist fanatic. Spener found his first sphere of practical work at Frankfort on the Main, where he was appointed pastor and senior in 1666. His sermons, in which he emphasized the necessity of a lively faith and the sanctification of daily life, brought him many adherents among the more serious of his hearers; but recognizing the impossibility of leading the people at large to the desired degree of perfection, he conceived the idea of an ecclesiola in ecclesia, established in 1670 the so-called "Collegia pietatis" (whence the name Pietists), i. e. private assemblies in his own house for pious reading and mutual edification, and wrote "Pia desideria oder herzliches Verlangen nach gottgefälliger Besserung der wahren evangelischen Kirche" (1675). After criticizing the prevalent abuses, he makes six suggestions for the improvement of ecclesiastical conditions: In view of the inadequacy of sermons for the purpose, private gatherings should be held to secure among the people a more thorough acquaintance with the Word of God; the idea of a universal priesthood, which had not attained its rightful significance in the previous development of the Lutheran Church, was to be more fully realized; with the knowledge of Christianity was to be closely joined the exercise of Charity and the spirit of forgiveness; the attitude towards unbelievers should be determined upon not by a controversial spirit, but by the charitable desire of winning these souls; the theological course should be reformed in order to spur the students not only to diligence, but also to a devout life, in which the professors should set the example; in preaching, rhetoric should be abandoned and stress laid upon inculcating faith and a living, practical Christianity. Spener further defended his ideas of a universal priesthood in "Das geistliche Priesterthum, aus göttlichem Wort kürzlich beschrieben" (1677). His "Pia Desideria" won him many adherents, but also aroused violent opposition among Lutheran theologians. A wider sphere of activity opened to Spener in 1686 when he was appointed court preacher at Dresden. During the same year, August Hermann Francke, Paul Anton, and Johann Kaspar Sehade established at Leipzig, along the line of Spener's ideas, the "Collegia philobiblica", for the practical and devotional explanation of Holy Scripture, which attracted large numbers of masters and students. The Pietist movement at Leipzig, however, came to an end a few years later owing to the opposition of the theological faculty, headed by Professor Johann Benedict Carpzov. The Pietists were accused of false doctrines, contempt for public worship and the science of theology, and separatistic tendencies. The "Collegia philobiblica" was dissolved in 1690 and the leaders of the movement, forbidden to lecture on theology, left Leipzig. Spener, who had fallen into disfavour with the Elector of Saxony, removed in 1691 to Berlin, where he was appointed provost to the church of St. Nicholas and counsellor to the consistory. Pietism was also attacked in Carpzov's Easter programme of 1691 and the anonymous treatise "Imago Pietismi" (1691), probably the work of Pastor Roth of Halle. A lively exchange of controversial pamphlets ensued. Spener's call to Berlin was of great significance for Pietism, as he here enjoyed the full confidence of Prince Frederick III (later King Frederick I of Prussia) and wielded a decisive influence in the selection of professors for the theological faculty of the recently founded University of Halle. Francke, who had been working at Erfurt since his departure from Leipzig, went to Halle as professor and pastor in January, 1692; his friend, Joachim Justus Breithaupt, had preceded him in October, 1691, as first professor of theology and director of the theological seminary. Somewhat later Paul Anton, formerly a colleague of Francke's at Leipzig, also received a chair at Halle. Professors in other faculties, like the celebrated jurist Christian Thomasius, organizer of the new university, were at least on friendly terms with the Pietist theologians, even if they did not share their religious beliefs. Thus Hale became the centre of the Pietistic movement in Lutheran Germany. Francke ranks high also in the history of education, owing to the establishment (1695) of his orphan asylum, around which he grouped various institutions suited to the needs of teachers and pupils. He also turned his attention to foreign missions; the Pietists promoted the dissemination of the Bible through the establishment (1710), by Freiherr von Canstein, of a bible house at the Halle orphan asylum. The Pietists on the whole preserved the doctrinal content of Lutheran dogma, but treated systematic theology and philosophy as quite secondary. in preaching against the prevalent laxity of morals they relegated to the background the Lutheran dogma of justification by faith alone and insisted on a life of active devotion, and the doctrine of repentance, conversion, and regeneration. The Pietist conventicles sought to further the "penitential conflict" leading to regeneration by prayer, devout reading, and exhortations. The so-called "adiaphora", theatres, dancing, etc., were regarded as sinful. After the foundation of the University of Halle the campaign against Pietism was pursued with increased vigour by the orthodox Lutherans, notably Samuel Schelwig at Danzig, Valentin Alberti at Leipzig, and the theological faculty of Wittenberg, with Johann Deutschmann at its head. Later came Valentin Ernst Löscher (died 1747), against whom Pietism was defended by Joachim Lange, professor at Halle. During these struggles the founders of Pietism had passed away, Spener in 1705, Francke in 1727, Breithaupt in 1732, and then followed the period of decline. Meanwhile, despite opposition, the influence of Pietism had spread, and its prestige, with the support of King Frederick I and Frederick William I, survived Francke's death. Frederick William I decreed (1729) that all theologians desiring appointments in Prussia should study at Halle for two years; but the favour shown the Pietists ceased with the accession of Frederick II. Besides Halle, the Universities of Königsberg and Giessen aided in the spread of Pietism. It had also a powerful patron in Frederick IV, King of Denmark, who encouraged the movement in his country, sent Danish students of theology to Halle, and requested Francke to recommend missionaries for the Danish East Indian possessions. At Würtemberg Pietism took on a special character; while holding in essentials to the ideas of Spener and Francke, it was more moderate, adhered more closely to the organization and theology of the Lutheran Church, kept clear of eccentricities, had more scholarly interests, and flourished longer than the Pietism of Northern Germany. Francke, who had travelled through Würtemberg in 1717, was held in great veneration, while there was no intercourse at all with the later representatives of Pietism in Northern Germany. The leader of the movement at Würtemberg was Johann Albrecht Bengel (died 1752), who, like many other Würtemberg theologians, had studied at Halle; with him were associated Eberhard Weismann and Friedrich Christoph Oetinger. A separatistic community which grew out of Pietism was the "Herrnhüter, whose founder, Count von Zinzendorf, had been educated in Francke's institutions at Halle. In Switzerland, Pietism was widespread, especially in the cantons of Bern, Zurich, Basle, and Waadt. So far as it followed the paths traced by Spener and Francke, Pietism produced some beneficial results. In the subjective bias of the whole movement, however, there lay from the beginning the danger of many abuses. It often degenerated into fanaticism, with alleged prophecies, visions, and mystical states (e. g., bloody sweats). This decadent Pietism led to the formation of various independent communities, some fanatic (Nillenarians, etc.), others criminal, indulging in lewd orgies (e. g. the Wittgenstein scandals and the Buttlar gang). Among the theologians who, starting as Pietists, advanced to an independent position, quite at variance with organized Protestantism, the most conspicuous were Gottfried Arnold (died 1714), representative of a fanatical mysticism, and his disciple, Johann Konrad Dippel, who attacked all forms of orthodox Christianity. Though the founders of Pietism had no idea of forsaking the basis of Lutheran dogma, the Pietistic movement, with its treatment of dogma as a secondary matter and its indifference to variations in doctrine, prepared the ground for the theological rationalism of the period of enlightenment. Johann Salomo Semler, the father of rationalism, came from the Halle school of Pietism, and his appointment as professor of theology at the University of Halle in 1752 opened the way to the ascendancy of rationalism, against which the devout Pietists were as powerless as the representatives of Protestant orthodoxy. Pietism revived in Protestant Germany and Protestant Switzerland, early in the nineteenth century, as a reaction against the rationalistic enlightenment and a response to more deeply felt religious needs. A far-reaching activity along these lines was exerted in many parts of Germany and Switzerland by Freifrau von Krüdener by means of her sermons on penance. Tract societies and associations for propagating home missions did much to promote the spirit of Pietism, On the other hand, along with good results, this movement again degenerated into mystical fanaticism and sectarianism (e. g., the "sanctimonious hypocrites" at Königsberg about 1835; the adherents of Schönherr, Ebel, and Diestel). There are also connecting links between the subjectivism of the Pietists and the theological liberalism of Albrecht Ritschl and his school, whose insistence on interior religious experience in the form of feeling is a basic idea of Pietism, although the Ritschlian school is opposed by devout Pietists as well as by Orthodox Lutherans. SCHMID, Die Gesch. des Pietismus (Nördlingen, 1863); THOLUCK, Gesch. des Rationalismus. I. Gesch. des Pietismus u. des ersten Stadiums der Aufklärung (Berlin, 1865); RITSCHL, Gesch. des Pietismus (Bonn, 1880-86); SACHSSE, Ursprung u. Wesen des Pietismus (Wiesbaden, 1884); HÜBENER, Ueber den Pietismus in Verhandlungen der 25. Jahresversammlung der Synode der ev.-luth. Freikirche in Sachsen (Zwickau, 1901), 17-156; HADORN, Gesch. des Pietismus in den schweizerischen reformierten Kirchen (Constance, 1901); RENNER, Lebensbilder aus der Pietistenzeit (Bremen, 1886); HOSSBACH, Ph. J. Spener u. seine Zeit (Berlin, 1828; 2nd ed., 1853); GRÜNBERG, Ph. J. Spener (Göttingen, 1893-1906); NIEMEYER, A. H. Francke (Halle, 1794); GUERICKE, A. H. Francke (Halle, 1827); KRAMER, A. H. Francke (Halle, 1880-2); HARTMANN, A. H. Francke (Calw and Stuttgart, 1897); OTTO, A. H. Francke (Halle, 1902); KAYSER, Christian Thomasius u. der Pietismus, supplement to Jahresbericht des Wilhelm Gymnasiums in Hamburg (Hamburg, 1900). FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT. Albert Pighius Albert (Pigghe) Pighius A theologian, mathematician, and astronomer, born at Kampen, Overyssel, Holland, about 1490; died at Utrecht, 26 Dec., 1542. He studied philosophy and began the study of theology at Louvain, where Adrian of Utrecht, later Pope Adrian VI, was one of his teachers. Pighius completed his studies at Cologne and received in 1517 the degree of Doctor of Theology. He then followed his teacher Adrian to Spain, and, when the latter became pope, to Rome, where he also remained during the reigns of Clement VII and Paul III, and was repeatedly employed in ecclesiastico-political embassies. He had taught mathematics to Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, afterwards Paul III; in 1535 Paul III appointed him provost of St. John's at Utrecht, where he had held a canonry since 1524. At the religious disputation of Ratisbon in 1541 he was on the Catholic side. Among his writings the following belong to the sphere of his mathematico-astronomical studies: "Astrologiæ defensio adversus prognosticatorum vulgus, qui annuas prædictiones edunt et se astrologos mentiuntur" (Paris, 1518); also the treatise addressed to Leo X upon the reform of the calendar, "De æquinoctiarum solstitiorumque inventione et de ratione paschalis celebrationis deque restitutione ecclesiastici Calendarii (Paris, 1520); also "Apologia adversus novam Marci Beneventani astronomiam" (Paris, 1522); and "Defensio Apologiæ adversus Marci Beneventani astronomiam" (Paris, 1522). As a theologian he zealously defended the authority of the Church against the Reformers. His most important theological work is a rejoinder to Henry VIII of England and is entitled: "Hierarchiæ ecclesiasticæ assertio" (Cologne, 1538, dedicated to Paul III; later editions, 1544, 1558, 1572). In reply John Leland wrote his "Antiphilarchia"; of. "Dict. Nat. Biog." (new ed., London, 1909), XI, 893. Pighius also wrote: "Apologia indicti a Paulo III. Concilii, adversus Lutheranas confederationes" (Cologne, 1537; Paris, 1538); "De libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia libri X" (Cologne, 1542), against Luther and Calvin; "Controversiarum præcipuarum in Comitiis Ratisponensibus tractatarum . . . explicatio (Cologne, 1542). To this were added the two treatises: "Quæstio de divortiatorum novis coniugiis et uxorum pluralitate sub lege evangelica" and "Diatriba de actis VI. et VII. Synodi". Other theological works were: "Ratio componendorum dissidiorum et sarciendæ in religione concordiæ" (Cologne, 1542), and his last work, "Apologia adversus Martini Buceri calumnias" (Mainz, 1543). A treatise "Adversus Græcorum errores", dedicated to Clement VII, is preserved in manuscript in the Vatican Library. Pighius was in his convictions a faithful adherent of the Church and a man of the best intentions, but on some points he advanced teachings which are not in harmony with the Catholic position. One was his opinion that original sin was nothing more than the sin of Adam imputed to every child at birth, without any inherent taint of sinfulness being in the child itself. In the doctrine of justification also he made too many concessions to Protestants. He originated the doctrine of the double righteousness by which man is justified, that has justly been characterized as "semi-Lutheranism". According to this theory, the imputed righteousness of Christ is the formal cause of the justification of man before God, while the individual righteousness inherent in man is always imperfect and therefore insufficient. These opinions of Pighius were adopted by Johannes Gropper and Cardinal Contarini; during the discussion at the Council of Trent of the "Decretum de Justificatione" they were maintained by Seripando, but the Council, with due regard for the ideas that were justifiable in themselves, rejected the untenable compromise theory itself. LINSENMANN, Albertus Pighius und sein theologischer Standpunkt in Theol. Quartalschrift, XLVIII (1866), 571-644; PASTOR, Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V. (Freiburg im Br., 1879), 167 sq.; DITTRICH, Gasparo Contarini (Braunsberg, 1885), 660-69; HEFELE-HERGENRÖTHER, Conciliengesch., IX (Freiburg im Br., 1890), 936-38; HEFNER, Die Entstehungsgesch. des Trienter Rechtfertigungsdecretes (Paderborn. 1909), 165 sq. His correspondence was published by FRIEDENSBURG, Beiträge sum Briefwechsel der kathol. Gelehrten Deutschlands im Reformationszeitalter in Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch., XXIII (1902), 110-55. FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT. Ven. Giuseppe Maria Pignatelli Ven. Giuseppe Maria Pignatelli Born 27 December, 1737, in Saragossa, Spain; died 11 November, 1811. His family was of Neapolitan descent and noble lineage. After finishing his early studies in the Jesuit College of Saragossa, he entered the Society of Jesus (8 May, 1753) notwithstanding his family's opposition. On concluding his ecclesiastical studies he was ordained, and taught at Saragossa. In 1766 the Governor of Saragossa was held responsible for the threatened famine, and so enraged was the populace against him that they were about to destroy his palace by fire. Pignatelli's persuasive power over the people averted the calamity. Despite the letter of thanks sent by Charles III the Jesuits were accused of instigating the above-mentioned riot. Pignatelli's refutation of the calumny was followed by the decree of expulsion of the Fathers of Saragossa (4 April, 1767). Minister Aranda offered to reinstate Nicola and Giuseppe Pignatelli, providing they abandon their order, but in spite of Giuseppe's ill-health they stood firm. Not permitted by Clement III to land at Civita Vecchia, with the other Jesuits of Aragon, he repaired to St. Boniface in Corsica where he displayed singular ability for organization in providing for five hundred fathers and students. His sister, the Duchess of Acerra, aided him with money and provisions. He organized studies and maintained regular observance. When France assumed control of Corsica, he was obliged to return to Genoa. He was again detailed to secure a location in the legation of Ferrara, not only for the fathers of his own province of Aragon, but also for those of Peru and Mexico, but the community was dissolved in August, 1773. The two Pignatelli brothers were then obliged to betake themselves to Bologna, where they lived in retirement (being forbidden to exercise the sacred ministry). They devoted themselves to study and Pignatelli himself collected books and manuscripts bearing on the history of the Society. On ascertaining from Pius IV that the Society of Jesus still survived in White Russia, he desired to be received there. For various reasons he was obliged to defer his departure. During this delay he was invited, on the instance of Ferdinand, Duke of Parma, to re-establish the Society in his States; and in 1793, having obtained through Catharine II a few fathers from Russia, with other Jesuits, an establishment was made. On 6 July, 1797, Pignatelli there renewed his vows. In 1799 he was appointed master of novices in Colerno. On the decease of the Duke of Parma, the States of Parma were placed under allegiance of France. Notwithstanding this fact, the Jesuits remained undisturbed for eighteen months, during which period Pignatelli was appointed Provincial of Italy. After considerable discussion he obtained the restoration of the Jesuits in Naples. The papal Brief (30 July, 1804) was much more favourable than that granted for Parma. The older Jesuits soon asked to be received back; many, however, engaged in various ecclesiastical callings, remained at their posts. Schools and a college were opened in Sicily, but when this part of the kingdom fell into Napoleon's power, the dispersion of the Jesuits were ordered; but the decree was not rigorously executed. Pignatelli founded colleges in Rome, Tivoli, and Orvieto, and the fathers were invited to other cities. During the exile of Pius VII and the French occupation the Society continued unmolested, owing largely to the prudence and the merits of Pignatelli; he even managed to avoid the oaths of allegiance to Napoleon. He also secured the restoration of the Society in Sardinia (1807). Under Gregory XVI the cause of his beatification was introduced. Nonell, El V.P. Jose M. Pignatelli y la C. de J. en su estinction y restablecimiento (3 vols., Manresa, 1893-4; Boero, Istoria del V. Padre Gius. M. Pignatelli (Rome, 1856). U. BENIGNI William Pike Ven. William Pike Martyr, born in Dorsetshire; died at Dorchester, dec., 1591. He was a joiner, and lived at West Moors, West Parley. On his way from Dorchester to his home, he fell in with the venerable martyr Thomas Pilchard, who converted him, probably in 1586. At his trial for being reconciled with the See of Rome "the bloody question about the Pope's supremacy was put to him, and he frankly confessed that he maintained the authority of the Roman See, for which he was condemned to die a traitor's death". When they asked him to recant in order to save his life and his family, "he boldly replied that it did not become a son of Mr. Pilchard to do so". "Until he died, Mr. Pilchard's name was constantly on his lips." Being asked at death what had moved him to that resolution etc., he said "Nothing but the smell of a pilchard". The date of his death is not recorded, but in the Menology his name is under 22 Dec. Pollen, Acts of the English Martyrs (London, 1901), 267; English Martyrs 1584-1603 (London, 1908), 289; Challoner, Missionary Priests, I, no. 89; Stanton, Menology of England and Wales (London, 1887), 606, 689. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Nuestra Senora Del Pilar Nuestra Señora Del Pilar "Our Lady of the Pillar", a celebrated church and shrine, at Saragossa, Spain, containing a miraculous image of the Blessed Virgin, which is the object of very special devotion throughout the kingdom. The image, which is placed on a marble pillar, whence the name of the church, was crowned in 1905 with a crown designed by the Marquis of Griñi, and valued at 450,000 pesetas (£18,750, 1910). The present spacious church in Baroque style was begun in 1681. According to an ancient Spanish tradition, given in the Roman Breviary (for 12 October, Ad. mat., lect. vi), the original shrine was built by St. James the Apostle at the wish of the Blessed Virgin, who appeared to him as he was praying by the banks of the Ebro at Saragossa. There has been much discussion as the truth of the tradition. Mgr L. Duchesne denies, as did Baronius, the coming of St. James to Spain, and reproduces arguments founded on the writings of the Twelfth Ecumenical Council, discovered by Loaisa, but rejected as spurious by the Jesuit academician Fita and many others. Those who defend the tradition adduce the testimony of St. Jerome (PL XXIV, 373) and that of the Mozarabic Office. The oldest written testimony of devotion to the Blessed Virgin in Saragossa usually quoted is that of Pedro Librana (1155). Fita has published data of two Christian tombs at Saragossa, dating from Roman days, on which the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is represented. J.M. MARCH Pontius Pilate Pontius Pilate After the deposition of the eldest son of Herod, Archelaus (who had succeeded his father as ethnarch), Judea was placed under the rule of a Roman procurator. Pilate, who was the fifth, succeeding Valerius Gratus in A.D. 26, had greater authority than most procurators under the empire, for in addition to the ordinary duty of financial administration, he had supreme power judicially. His unusually long period of office (A.D. 26-36) covers the whole of the active ministry both of St. John the Baptist and of Jesus Christ. As procurator Pilate was necessarily of equestrian rank, but beyond that we know little of his family or origin. Some have thought that he was only a freedman, deriving his name from pileus (the cap of freed slaves) but for this there seems to be no adequate evidence, and it is unlikely that a freedman would attain to a post of such importance. The Pontii were a Samnite gens. Pilate owed his appointment to the influence of Sejanus. The official residence of the procurators was the palace of Herod at Caearea; where there was a military force of about 3,000 soldiers. These soldiers came up to Jerusalem at the time of the feasts, when the city was full of strangers, and there was greater danger of disturbances, hence it was that Pilate had come to Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion. His name will be forever covered with infamy because of the part which he took in this matter, though at the time it appeared to him of small importance. Pilate is a type of the worldly man, knowing the right and anxious to do it so far as it can be done without personal sacrifice of any kind, but yielding easily to pressure from those whose interest it is that he should act otherwise. He would gladly have acquitted Christ, and even made serious efforts in that direction, but gave way at once when his own position was threatened. The other events of his rule are not of very great importance. Philo (Ad Gaium, 38) speaks of him as inflexible, merciless, and obstinate. The Jews hated him and his administration, for he was not only very severe, but showed little consideration for their susceptibilities. Some standards bearing the image of Tiberius, which had been set up by him in Jerusalem, caused an outbreak which would have ended in a massacre had not Pilate given way. At a later date Tiberius ordered him to remove certain gilt shields, which he had set up in Jerusalem in spite of the remonstrances of the people. The incident mentioned in St. Luke, xiii, 1, of the Galilaeans whose blood Pilate mingled with the sacrifices, is not elsewhere referred to, but is quite in keeping with other authentic events of his rule. He was, therefore, anxious that no further hostile reports should be sent to the emperor concerning him. The tendency, already discernible in the canonical Gospels, to lay stress on the efforts of Pilate to acquit Christ, and thus pass as lenient a judgment as possible upon his crime, goes further in the apocryphal Gospels and led in later years to the claim that he actually became a Christian. The Abyssinian Church reckons him as a saint, and assigns 25 June to him and to Claudia Procula, his wife. The belief that she became a Christian goes back to the second century, and may be found in Origen (Hom., in Mat., xxxv). The Greek Church assigns her a feast on 27 October. Tertullian and Justin Martyr both speak of a report on the Crucifixion (not extant) sent in by Pilate to Tiberius, from which idea a large amount of apocryphal literature originated. Some of these were Christian in origin (Gospel of Nicodemus), others came from the heathen, but these have all perished. His rule was brought to an end through trouble which arose in Samaria. An imposter had given out that it was in his power to discover the sacred vessels which, as he alleged, had been hidden by Moses on Mount Gerizim, whither armed Samaritans came in large numbers. Pilate seems to have thought the whole affair was a blind, covering some other more important design, for he hurried forces to attack them, and many were slain. They appealed to Vitellius, who was at that time legate in Syria, saying that nothing political had been intended, and complaining of Pilate's whole administration. He was summoned to Rome to answer their charges, but before he could reach the city the Emperor Tiberius had died. That is the last we know of Pilate from authentic sources, but legend has been busy with his name. He is said by Eusebius (H.E., ii, 7), on the authority of earlier writers, whom he does not name, to have fallen into great misfortunes under Caligula, and eventually to have committed suicide. Other details come from less respectable sources. His body, says the "Mors Pilati", was thrown into the Tiber, but the waters were so disturbed by evil spirits that the body was taken to Vienne and sunk in the Rhone, where a monument, called Pilate's tomb, is still to be seen. As the same thing occurred there, it was again removed and sunk in the lake at Lausanne. Its final disposition was in a deep and lonely mountain tarn, which, according to later tradition, was on a mountain, still called Pilatus, close to Lucerne. The real origin of this name is, however, to be sought in the cap of cloud which often covers the mountain, and serves as a barometer to the inhabitants of Lucerne. The are many other legends about Pilate in the folklore of Germany, but none of them have the slightest authority. ARTHUR S. BARNES Venerable Thomas Pilchard Venerable Thomas Pilchard (Or PILCHER). Martyr, born at Battle, Sussex, 1557; died at Dorchester, 21 March 1586-7. He became a Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, in 1576, and took the degree of M.A., in 1579, resigning his fellowship the following year. He arrived at Reims 20 November, 1581, and was ordained priest at Laon, March, 1583, and was sent on the mission. He was arrested soon after, and banished; but returned almost immediately. He was again arrested early in March, 1586-7, and imprisoned in Dorchester Gaol, and in the fortnight between committal to prison and condemnation converted thirty persons. He was so cruelly drawn upon the hurdle that he was fainting when he came to the place of execution. When the rope was cut, being still alive he stood erect under the scaffold. The executioner, a cook, carried out the sentence so clumsily that the victim, turning to the sheriff, exclaimed "Is this then your justice, Mr. Sheriff?" According to another account "the priest raised himself and putting out his hands cast forward his own bowels, crying 'Miserere mei'". Father Warford says: "There was not a priest in the whole West of England, who, to my knowledge, was his equal in virtue." JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Pilgrimage of Grace Pilgrimage of Grace The name given to the religious rising in the north of England, 1536. The cause of this great popular movement, which extended over five counties and found sympathizers all over England, was attributed to Robert Aske, the leader of the insurgents, to "spreading of heretics, suppression of houses of religion and other matters touching the commonwealth". And in his "Narrative to the King", he declared: In all parts of the realm men's hearts much grudged with the suppression of abbeys, and the first fruits, by reason the same would be the destruction of the whole religion in England. And their especial great grudge is against the lord Crumwell. The movement broke out on 13 October, 1536, immediately following the failure of the Lincolnshire Rising; and Robert Aske, a London barrister of good Yorkshire family, who had been to some extent concerned in the Lincolnshire rising, putting himself at the head of nine thousand insurgents, marched on York, which he entered. There he arranged for the expelled monks and nuns to return to their houses; the king's tenants were driven out and religious observance resumed. The subsequent success of the rising was so great that the royal leaders, the Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Shrewsbury, opened negotiations with the insurgents at Doncaster, where Aske had assembled between thirty and forty thousand men. As a result of this, Henry authorized Norfolk to promise a general pardon and a Parliament to be held at York within a year. Aske then dismissed his followers, trusting in the king's promises. But these promises were not kept, and a new rising took place in Cumberland and Westmoreland, and was spreading to Yorkshire. Upon this, the king arrested Aske and several of the other leaders, who were all convicted of treason and executed. The loss of the leaders enabled Norfolk to crush the rising. The king avenged himself on Cumberland and Westmoreland by a series of massacres under the form of martial law. Though Aske had tried to prevent the rising he was put to death. Lord Darcy, Sir Henry Percy, and several other gentlemen, together with the four Abbots of Fountains, Jervaulx, Barlings, and Sawley, who were executed at Tyburn, have been reckoned by Catholic writers as martyrs for the Faith, and their names inserted in martyrologies, but they have not included in the cause of beatification of English martyrs. EDWIN BURTON Pilgrimages Pilgrimages (Mid. Eng., pilgrime, Old Fr., pelegrin, derived from Lat. peregrinum, supposed origin, per and ager-with idea of wandering over a distance). Pilgrimages may be defined as journeys made to some place with the purpose of venerating it, or in order to ask there for supernatural aid, or to discharge some religious obligation. ORIGIN The idea of a pilgrimage has been traced back by some (Littledale in "Encycl. Brit.", 1885, XIX, 90; "New Internat. Encyc.", New York, 1910, XVI, 20, etc.) to the primitive notion of local deities, that is, that the divine beings who controlled the movements of men and nature could exercise that control only over certain definite forces or within set boundaries. Thus the river gods had no power over those who kept away from the river, nor could the wind deities exercise any influence over those who lived in deserts or clearings or on the bare mountain-side. Similarly there were gods of the hills and gods of the plains who could only work out their designs, could only favour or destroy men within their own locality (III Kings, xx, 23). Hence, when some man belonging to a mountain tribe found himself in the plain and was in need of divine help, he made a pilgrimage back again to the hills to petition it from his gods. It is therefore the broken tribesmen who originate pilgrimages. Without denying the force of this argument as suggesting or extending the custom, for it has been admitted as plausible by distinguished Catholics (cf. Lagrange, "Etudes sur les relig. sémit., VIII, Paris, 1905, 295, 301), we may adhere to a less arbitrary solution by seeking its cause in the instinctive notion of the human heart. For pilgrimages properly so called are made to the places where the gods or heroes were born or wrought some great action or died, or to the shrines where the deity had already signified it to be his pleasure to work wonders. Once theophanies are localized, pilgrimages necessarily follow. The Incarnation was bound inevitably to draw men across Europe to visit the Holy Places, for the custom itself arises spontaneously from the heart. It is found in all religions. The Egyptians journeyed to Sekket's shrine at Bubastis or to Ammon's oracle at Thebes; the Greeks sought for counsel from Apollo at Delphi and for cures from Asclepius at Epidaurus; the Mexicans gathered at the huge temple of Quetzal; the Peruvians massed in sun-worship at Cuzco and the Bolivians in Titicaca. But it is evident that the religions which centered round a single character, be he god or prophet, would be the most famous for their pilgrimages, not for any reason of tribal returns to a central district where alone the deity has power, but rather owing to the perfectly natural wish to visit spots made holy by the birth, life, or death of the god or prophet. Hence Buddhism and Mohammedanism are especially famous in inculcating this method of devotion. Huge gatherings of people intermittently all the year round venerate Kapilavastu where Gaukama Buddha began his life, Benares where he opened his sacred mission, Kasinagara where he died; and Mecca and Medina have become almost bywords in English as the goals of long aspirations, so famous are they for their connexion with the prophet of Islam. Granting then this instinctive movement of human nature, we should expect to find that in Christianity God would Himself satisfy the craving He had first Himself created. The story of His appearance on earth in bodily form when He "dwelt amongst us" could not but be treasured up by His followers, and each city and site mentioned became a matter of grateful memory to them. Then again the more famous of His disciples, whom we designate as saints, themselves began to appeal to the devotion of their fellows, and round the acts of their lives soon clustered a whole cycle of venerated shrines. Especially would this be felt in the case of the martyrs; for their passion and death stamped more dramatically still the exact locality of their triumph. Moreover, it seems reasonable to suppose that yet another influence worked to the same end. There sprang up in the early Church a curious privilege, accorded to dying martyrs, of granting the remission of canonical penances. No doubt it began through a generous acceptance of the relation of St. Stephen to St. Paul. But certain it is that at an early date this custom had become so highly organized that there was a libellus, or warrant of reconciliation, a set form for the readmittance of sinners to Christian fellowship (Batiffol, "Etudes d'hist. et de théol. posit.", I, Paris, 1906, 112- 20). Surely then it is not fanciful to see how from this came a further development. Not only had the martyrs in their last moments this power of absolving from ecclesiastical penalties, but even after their deaths, their tombs and the scenes of their martyrdom were considered to be capable also-if devoutly venerated-of removing the taints and penalties of sin. Accordingly it came to be looked upon as a purifying act to visit the bodies of the saints and above all the places where Christ Himself had set the supreme example of a teaching sealed with blood. Again it may be noted how, when the penitential system of the Church, which grouped itself round the sacrament of the confessional, had been authoritatively and legally organized, pilgrimages were set down as adequate punishments inflicted for certain crimes. The hardships of the journey, the penitential garb worn, the mendicity it entailed made a pilgrimage a real and efficient penance (Beazley, "Dawn of Modern Geography", II, 139; Furnival, "The Stacions of Rome and the Pilgrim's Sea Voyage", London, 1867, 47). To quote a late text, the following is one of the canons enacted under King Edgar (959-75): "It is a deep penitence that a layman lay aside his weapons and travel far barefoot and nowhere pass a second night and fast and watch much and pray fervently, by day and by night and willingly undergo fatigue and be so squalid that iron come not on hair or on nail" (Thorpe, "Ancient Laws", London, 1840, 411-2; cf. 44, 410, etc.). Another witness to the real difficulties of the wayfaring palmer may be cited from "Syr Isenbras", an early English ballad:- "They bare with them no maner of thynge That was worth a farthynge Cattell, golde, ne fe; But mekely they asked theyre meate Where that they myght it gette. For Saynct Charyte." (Uterson, "Early Popular Poetry", I, London, 1817, 83). And the Earl of Arundel of a later date obtained absolution for poaching on the bishop's preserves at Hoghton Chace only on condition of a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Richard of Chichester ("Archæologia", XLV, 176; cf. Chaucer, "Works", ed. Morris, III, 266). And these are but late descriptions of a practice of penance which stretches back beyond the legislation of Edgar and the organization of St. Theodore to the sub-Apostolic age. Finally a last influence that made the pilgrimage so popular a form of devotion was the fact that it contributed very largely to ease the soul of some of its vague restlessness in an age when conditions of life tended to cramp men down to certain localities. It began to be looked upon as a real help to the establishment of a perfectly controlled character. It took its place in the medieval manuals of psychology. So John de Burg in 1385 (Pupilla oculi, fol. LXII), "contra acediam, opera laboriosa bona ut sint peregrinationes ad loca sancta." HISTORY IN GENERAL In a letter written towards the end of the fourth century by Sts. Paula and Eustochium to the Roman matron Marcella, urging her to follow them out to the Holy Places, they insist on the universality of the custom of these pilgrimages to Palestine:-"Whosoever is noblest in Gaul comes hither. And Britain though divided from us yet hastens from her land of sunset to these shrines known to her only through the Scriptures." They go on to enumerate the various nationalities that crowded round these holy places, Armenians, Persians, Indians, Ethiopians, and many others (P. L., XXII; Ep. xlvi, 489-900). But it is of greater interest to note how they claim for this custom a continuity from Apostolic days. From the Ascension to their time, bishops, martyrs, doctors, and troops of people, say they, had flocked to see the sacred stones of Bethlehem and of wherever else the Lord had trod (489). It has been suggested that this is an exaggeration, and certainly we can offer no proof of any such uninterrupted practice. Yet when the first examples begin to appear they are represented to us without a word of astonishment or a note of novelty, as though people were already fully accustomed to like adventures. Thus in Eusebius, "History" (tr. Crusé, London, 1868, VI, xi, 215), it is remarked of Bishop Alexander that "he performed a journey from Cappadocia to Jerusalem in consequence of a vow and the celebrity of the place." And the date given is also worthy of notice, a.d. 217. Then again there is the story of the two travellers of Placentia, John and Antoninus the Elder (Acta SS., July, II, 18), which took place about 303-4. Of course with the conversion of Constantine and the visit to Jerusalem of the Empress St. Helena the pilgrimages to the Holy Land became very much more frequent. The story of the finding of the Cross is too well known to be here repeated (cf. P. L., XXVII, 1125), but its influence was unmistakable. The first church of the Resurrection was built by Eustathius the Priest (loc. cit., 1164). But the flow of pilgrimages began in vigour four years after St. Helena's visit (Acta SS., June, III, 176; Sept., III, 56). Then the organization of the Church that partly caused and partly resulted from the Council of Nicæa continued the same custom. In 333 was the famous Bordeaux Pilgrimage ("Palestine Pilgrim Text Society", London, 1887, preface and notes by Stewart). It was the first of a whole series of pilgrimages that have left interesting and detailed accounts of the route, the peoples through which they passed, the sites identified with those mentioned in the Gospels. Another was the still better-known "Peregrinatio Silviæ" (ed. Barnard, London, 1891, Pal. Pilg. Text Soc.; cf. "Rev. des quest. hist." 1903, 367, etc.). Moreover, the whole movement was enormously increased by the language and action of St. Jerome whose personality at the close of the fourth century dominated East and West. Slightly earlier St. John Chrysostom emphasized the efficacy in arousing devotion of visiting even the "lifeless spots" where the saints had lived (In Phil., 702-3, in P. G., LXII). And his personal love of St. Paul would have unfailingly driven him to Rome to see the tomb of the Apostles, but for the burden of his episcopal office. He says ("In Ephes. hom. 8, ii, 57, in P. G., LXII), "If I were freed from my labours and my body were in sound health I would eagerly make a pilgrimage merely to see the chains that had held him captive and the prison where he lay." While in another passage of extraordinary eloquence he expresses his longing to gaze on the dust of the great Apostle, the dust of the lips that had thundered, of the hands that had been fettered, of the eyes that had seen the Master; even as he speaks he is dazzled by the splendour of the metropolis of the world lit up by the glorious tombs of the twin prince Apostles (In Rom. hom. 32, iii, 678, etc., in P. G., LX). Nor in this is he advocating a new practice, for he mentions without comment how many people hurried across the seas to Arabia to see and venerate the dunghill of Job (Ad pop. Antioch. hom. 5, 69, in P. G., XLIX). St. Jerome was cramped by no such official duties as had kept St. Chrysostom to his diocese. His conversion, following on the famous vision of his judgment, turned him from his studies of pagan classics to the pages of Holy Writ, and, uniting with his untiring energy and thoroughness, pushed him on to Palestine to devote himself to the Scriptures in the land where they had been written. Once there the actual Gospel scenes appealed with supreme freshness to him, and on his second return from Rome his enthusiasm fired several Roman matrons to accompany him and share his labours and his devotions. Monasteries and convents were built and a Latin colony was established which in later times was to revolutionize Europe by inaugurating the Crusades. From the Holy Land the circle widens to Rome, as a centre of pilgrimages. St. Chrysostom, as has been shown, expressed his vehement desire to visit it. And in the early church histories of Eusebius, Zosimus, Socrates, and others, notices are frequent of the journeyings of celebrated princes and bishops of the City of the Seven Hills. Of course the Saxon kings and royal families have made this a familiar thing to us. The "Ecclesiastical History" of St. Bede is crowded with references to princes and princesses who laid aside their royal diadems in order to visit the shrine of the Apostles; and the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" after his death takes up the same refrain. Then from Rome again the shrines of local saints begin to attract their votaries. In the letter already cited in which Paula and Eustochium invite Marcella to Palestine they argue from the already established custom of visiting the shrines of the martyrs: "Martyrum ubique sepulchra veneramur" (Ep. xlvi, 488, in P. L., XXII). St. Augustine endeavours to settle a dispute by sending both litigants on a pilgrimage to the tomb of St. Felix of Nola, in order that the saint may somehow or other make some sign as to which party was telling the truth. He candidly admits that he knows of no such miracle having been performed in Africa, but argues to it from the analogy of Milan where God had made known His pleasure through the relics of Sts. Gervasius and Protasius (Ep. lxxvii, 269, in P. L., XXXIII). Indeed, the very idea of relics, which existed as early as the earliest of the catacombs, teaches the essential worth of pilgrimages, i. e., of the journeying to visit places hallowed by events in the lives of heroes or of gods who walked in the guise of men (St. Aug., "De civ. Dei", XXII, 769, in P. L., XXXVIII). At first a mere question of individual travelling, a short period was sufficient to develop into pilgrimages properly organized companies. Even the "Peregrinatio Silviæ" shows how they were being systematized. The initiators were clerics who prepared the whole route beforehand and mapped out the cities of call. The bodies of troops were got together to protect the pilgrims. Moreover, Christian almsgiving invented a method of participation in the merits of a pilgrimage for those unable actually to take part in them; it established hospices along the line (Ordericus Vitalis, "Hist. eccles.", ed. Le Prévost, Suc. hist. France, II, 64, 53; Toulmin Smith, "English Guilds", passim). The conversion of the Hungarians amplified this system of halts along the road; of St. Stephen, for example, we read that "he made the way very safe for all and thus allowed by his benevolence a countless multitude both of noble and common people to start for Jerusalem" (Glaber, "Chron.", III, C. I. Mon. Germ. Hist., VII, 62). Thus these pious journeys gradually harden down and become fixed and definite. They are allowed for by laws, civil and ecclesiastical. Wars are fought to insure their safety, crusades are begun in their defence, pilgrims are everywhere granted free access in times alike of peace and war. By the "Consuetudines" of the canons of Hereford cathedral we see that legislation was found to be necessary. No canon was to make more than one pilgrimage beyond the seas in his own lifetime. But each year three weeks were allowed to enable any that would to visit shrines within the kingdom. To go abroad to the tomb of St. Denis, seven weeks of absence was considered legal, eight weeks to the body of St. Edmund at Pontigny, sixteen weeks to Rome, or to St. James at Compostella, and a year to Jerusalem (Archæol., XXXI, 251-2 notes). Again in another way pilgrimages were being regarded as part of normal life. In the registers of the Inquisition at Carcassone (Waterton, "Pictas Mariana Britannica", 112) we find the four following places noted as being the centres of the greater pilgrimages to be imposed as penances for the graver crimes, the tomb of the Apostles at Rome, the shrine of St. James at Compostella, St. Thomas's body at Canterbury, and the relics of the Three Kings at Cologne. Naturally with all this there was a great deal of corruption. Even from the earliest times the Fathers perceived how liable such devotions were to degenerate into an abuse. St. John Chrysostom, so ardent in his praise of pilgrimages, found it necessary to explain that there was "need for none to cross the seas or fare upon a long journey; let each of us at home invoke God earnestly and He will hear our prayer" (Ad pop. Antioch, hom. iii, 2, 49, in P. G., XLIX; cf. hom. iv, 6, 68). St. Gregory Nazianzen is even stronger in his condemnation. He has a short letter in which he speaks of those who regard it as an essential part of piety to visit Jerusalem and see the traces of the Passion of Christ. This, he says, the Master has never commanded, though the custom is not therefore without merit. But still he knows that in many cases the journey has proved a scandal and caused serious harm. He witnesses, therefore, both to the custom and the abuse, evidently thinking that the latter outweighed the former (Ep. ii, 1009, in P. G., XLVI). So again St. Jerome writes to Paulinus (Ep. lxviii in P. L., XXII) to explain, in an echo of Cicero's phrase, that it is not the fact of living in Jerusalem, but of living there well, that is worthy of praise (579); he instances countless saints who never set foot in the Holy Land; and dares not tie down to one small portion of the Earth Him whom Heaven itself is unable to contain. He ends with a sentence that is by now famous, "et de Hierusolymis et de Britannia æqualiter patet aula coe;lestis" (581). Another well-quoted passage comes from a letter of St. Augustine in which he expounds in happy paradox that not by journeying but by loving we draw nigh unto God. To Him who is everywhere present and everywhere entire we approach not by our feet but by our hearts (Ep. clv, 672, in P. L. XXXII). For certainly pilgrimages were not always undertaken for the best of motives. Glaber (ed. Prou, Paris, 1886, 107) thinks it necessary to note of Lethbald that he was far from being one of those who were led to Jerusalem simply from vanity, that they might have wonderful stories to tell, when they came back. Thus, as the centuries pass, we find human nature the same in its complexity of motives. Its noblest actions are found to be often caused by petty spites or vanity or overvaulting ambition; and even when begun in good faith as a source of devotion, the practices of piety at times are degraded into causes of vice. So the author of the "Imitation of Christ' raises his voice against overmuch pilgrimage-making: "Who wander much are but little hallowed." Now too the words of the fifteenth-century English Dominican, John Bromyard ("Summa Prædicantium", Tit. Feria n. 6, fol. 191, Lyons, 1522):-"There are some who keep their pilgrimages and festivals not for God but for the devil. They who sin more freely when away from home or who go on pilgrimage to succeed in inordinate and foolish love-those who spend their time on the road in evil and uncharitable conversation may indeed say peregrinamur a Domino-they make their pilgrimage away from God and to the devil." But the most splenetic scorn is to be found in the pages of that master of satire, Erasmus. His "Religious Pilgrimage" ("Colloquies" ed. Johnson, London, 1878, 11, 1-37) is a terrible indictment of the abuses of his day. Exaggerated no doubt in its expressions, yet revealing a sufficient modicum of real evil, it is a graphic picture from the hand of an intelligent observer. There is evident sign that pilgrimages were losing in popularity, not merely because the charity of many was growing cold, but because of the excessive credulity of the guardians of the shrines, their overwrought insistence on the necessity of pilgrimage-making, and the fact that many who journeyed from shrine to shrine neglected their domestic duties. These three evils are quaintly expressed in the above mentioned dialogue, with a liberty of speech that makes one astonished at Rome's toleration in the sixteenth century. With all these abuses Erasmus saw how the spoiler would have ready to hand excuses for suppressing the whole system and plundering the most attractive treasures. The wealth might well be put, he suggested, to other uses; but the idea of a pilgrimage contained in it nothing opposed to the enlightened opinions of this prophet of "sweet reasonableness". "If any shall do it of their own free choice from a great affection to piety, I think they deserve to be left to their own freedom" (op. cit., 35). This was evidently the opinion also of Henry VIII, for, though in the Injunctions of 1536 and 1538 pilgrimages were to be discouraged, yet both in the bishop's book (The Institution of the Christian Man, 1537) and the king's book (The Necessary Doctrine and Erudition of the Christian Man, 1543), it is laid down that the abuse and not the custom is reprehensible. What they really attack is the fashion of "putting differences between image and image, trusting more in one than in another" (cf. Gairdner, "Lollardy and the Reformation", II, London, 1908, IV, ii, 330, etc.). All this shows how alive Christendom has been to evils which Reformers are forever denouncing as inseparable from Catholicism. It admits the danger but does not allow it to prejudice the good use ("Diayloge of Syr Thomas More", London,1529). Before dealing with each pilgrimage in particular one further remark should be made. Though not properly included under a list of abuses, a custom must be noted of going in search of shrines utterly at haphazard and without any definite notion of where the journey was to end (Waterton, "Piet. Mar. Britt.", London, 1879, III, 107; "Anglo-Sax. Chron.", tr. Thorpe in R. S., London, 1861, II, 69; Beazley, "Dawn of Mod. Geog.", London, 1897-1906, I, 174-5; Tobl. Bibl. Geog. Pal. 26, ed. of 1876). HISTORY IN PARTICULAR It will be necessary to mention and note briefly the chief places of Catholic pilgrimage, in early days, in the Middle ages, and in modern times. Aachen, Rhenish Prussia.-This celebrated city owes its fame as a centre of pilgrimage to the extraordinary list of precious relics which it contains. Of their authenticity there is no need here to speak, but they include among a host of others, the swaddling clothes of the child Jesus, the loin-cloth which Our Lord wore on the Cross, the cloth on which the Baptist's head lay after his execution, and the Blessed Virgin's cloak. These relics are exposed to public veneration every seven years. The number of pilgrims in 1881 was 158,968 (Champagnac, "Dict. des pèlerinages", Paris, 1859, I, 78). Alet, Limoux, France, contains a shrine of the Blessed Virgin dating traditionally from the twelfth century. The principal feast is celebrated on 8 September, when there is still a great concourse of pilgrims from the neighbourhood of Toulouse. It is the centre of a confraternity of the Immaculate Heart of Mary founded for the conversion of sinners, the members of which exceed several thousands (Champagnac, II, 89). Ambronay, Burgundy, France, an ancient shrine of the Blessed Virgin, dating back to the seventh century. It is still a centre of pilgrimage. Amorgos, or Morgo, in the Greek Archipelago, has a quaint picture of the Blessed Virgin painted on wood, which is reputed to have been profaned and broken at Cyprus and then miraculously rejoined in its present shrine. Near by is enacted the pretended miracle of the Urne, so celebrated in the Archipelago (Champagnac, I, 129). Ancona, Italy.-The Cathedral of St. Cyriacus contains a shrine of the Blessed Virgin which became famous only in 1796. On 25 June of that year, the eyes of the Madonna were seen filled with tears, which was later interpreted to have prefigured the calamities that fell on Pius VI and the Church in Italy owing to Napoleon. The picture was solemnly crowned by Pius VII on 13 May, 1814, under the title "Regina Sanctorum Omnium" (Champagnac, I, 133; Anon., "Pèlerinages aux sanct. de la mère de Dieu", Paris, 1840). Anges, Seine-et-Oise, France.-The present chapel only dates from 1808; but the pilgrimage is really ancient. In connexion with the shrine is a spring of miraculous water (Champagnac, I, 146). Arcachon, Gironde, France.-It is curious among the shrines of the Blessed Virgin as containing an alabaster statue of the thirteenth century. Pius IX granted to this statue the honour of coronation in 1870, since which time pilgrimages to it have greatly increased in number and in frequency. Ardilliers, Saumur, France.-A chapel of the Blessed Virgin founded on the site of an ancient monastery. It has been visited by famous French pilgrims such as Anne of Austria, Louis XIII, Henrietta Maria, etc. The sacristy was built by Cesare, Duke of Vendôme, and in 1634 Cardinal Richelieu added a chapel (Champagnac, I, 169). Argenteuil, Seine-et-Oise, France, is one of the places which boasts of possessing the Holy Coat of Jesus Christ. Its abbey was also well known as having had as abbess the famous Héloïse. Whatever may be thought of the authenticity of the relic, the antiquity of pilgrimages drawn to its veneration dates from its presentation to St. Louis in 1247. From the pilgrimage of Queen Blanche in 1255 till our own day there has been an almost uninterrupted flow of visitors. The present châsse was the gift of the Duchess of Guise in 1680 (Champagnac, I, 171-223). Aubervilles, Seine, France, an ancient place of pilgrimage from Paris. It is mentioned in the Calendars of that diocese under the title of Notre-Dame-des- Vertus, and its feast was celebrated annually on the second Tuesday in May. An early list of miraculouos cures performed under the invocation of this Madonna was printed at Paris in 1617 (Champagnac, I, 246). Auriesville, Montgomery Co., New York, U. S. A., is the centre of one of the great pilgrimages of the New World. It is the scene of martyrdom of three Jesuit missionaries by Mohawk Indians; but the chapel erected on the spot has been dedicated to Our Lady of Martyrs, presumably because the cause of the beatification of the three fathers is as yet uncompleted. 15 August is the chief day of pilgrimage; but the practice of visiting Auriesville increases yearly in frequency, and lasts intermittently throughout the whole summer (Wynne, "A Shrine in the Mohawk Valley", New York, 1905; Gerard in "The Month", March, 1874, 306). Bailleul-le-Soc, Oise, France, possesses a chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, dating from the reign of Louis XIV. It has received no episcopal authorization, and in fact was condemned by the Bishop of Beauvais, Mgr de Saint-Aignan, 24 February, 1716. This was in consequence of the pilgrimage which sprang up, of visiting a well of medicinal waters. Owing to its health-giving properties, it was called Saine-Fontaine, but, by the superstition of the people, who at once invented a legend to account for it, this was quickly changed to Sainte-Fontaine. It is still a place of veneration; and pilgrims go to drink the waters of the so-called holy well (Champagnac, I, 264). Bétharram, Basses-Pyrénées, France, one of the oldest shrines in all France, the very name of which dates from the Saracenic occupation of the country. A legend puts back the foundation into the fourth century, but this is certainly several hundred years too early. In much more recent times a calvary, with various stations, has been erected and has brought back the flow of pilgrims. The Basque population round about knows it as one of its most sacred centres (Champagnac, I, 302-11). Boher, near Leith Abbey, King's Co., Ireland, contains the relics of St. Manchan, probably the abbot who died in 664. The present shrine is of twelfth- century work and is very well preserved considering its great age and the various calamities through which it has passed. Pilgrimages to it are organized from time to time, but on no very considerable scale (Wall, "Shrines of British Saints", 83-7). Bonaria, Sardinia, is celebrated for its statue of Our Lady of Mercy. It is of Italian workmanship, probably about 1370, and came miraculously to Bomaria, floating on the waters. Every Saturday local pilgrimages were organized; but to-day it is rather as an object of devotion to the fisherfolk that the shrine is popular (Champagnac, I, 1130-1). Boulogne, France, has the remains of a famous statue that has been a centre of pilgrimage for many centuries. The early history of the shrine is lost in the legends of the seventh century. But whatever was the origin of its foundation there has always been a close connexion between this particular shrine and the seafaring population on both sides of the Channel. In medieval France the pilgrimage to it was looked upon as so recognized a form of devotion that not a few judicial sentences are recorded as having been commuted into visits to Notre-Dame-de-Boulogne-sur-mer. Besides several French monarchs, Henry III visited the shrine in 1255, the Black Prince and John of Gaunt in 1360, and later Charles the Bold of Burgundy. So, too, in 1814 Louis XVIII gave thanks for his restoration before this same statue. The devotion of Our Lady of Boulogne has been in France and England increased by the official recognition of the Archconfraternity of Our Lady of Compassion, established at this shrine, the object of which is to pray for the return of the English people to the Faith (Champagnac, I, 342-62; Hales in "Academy", 22 April, 1882, 287). Bruges, Belgium, has its famous relic of the Holy Blood which is the centre of much pilgrimage. This was brought from Palestine by Thierry of Alsace on his return from the Second Crusade. From 7 April, 1150, this relic has been venerated with much devotion. The annual pilgrimage, attended by the Flemish nobility in their quaint robes and thousands of pilgrims from other parts of Christendom, takes place on the Monday following the first Sunday in May, when the relic is carried in procession. But every Friday the relic is less solemnly exposed for the veneration of the faithful (Smith, "Bruges", London, 1901, passim; cf. "Tablet", LXXXIII, 817). Buglose, Landes, France, was for long popular as a place of pilgrimage to a statue of the Blessed Virgin; but it is perhaps as much visited now as the birthplace of St. Vincent de Paul. The house where he was born and where he spent his boyhood is still shown (Champagnac, I, 374-90). Canterbury, Kent, England, was in medieval times the most famous of English shrines. First as the birthplace of Saxon Christianity and as holding the tomb of St. Augustine; secondly as the scene of the martyrdom of St. Thomas Becket, it fitly represented the ecclesiastical centre of England. But even from beyond the island, men and women trooped to the shrine of the "blissful martyr", especially at the great pardons or jubilees of the feast every fifty years from 1220 to 1520; his death caused his own city to become, what Winchester had been till then, the spiritual centre of England (Belloc, "The Old Road", London, 1904, 43). The spell of his name in his defence of the spirituality lay so strongly on the country that Henry VIII had to make a personal attack on the dead saint before he could hope to arrogate himself full ecclesiastical authority. The poetry of Chaucer, the wealth of England, the crown jewels of France, and marble from ruins of ancient Carthage (a papal gift) had glorified the shrine of St. Thomas beyond compare; and the pilgrim signs (see below) which are continually being discovered all over England and even across the Channel ("Guide to Mediæval Room, British Museum", London, 1907, 69-71) emphasize the popularity of this pilgrimage. The precise time of the year for visiting Canterbury seems difficult to determine (Belloc, ibid., 54), for Chaucer says spring, the Continental traditions imply winter, and the chief gatherings of which we have any record point to the summer. It was probably determined by the feasts of the saint and the seasons of the year. Thle place of the martyrdom has once more become a centre of devotion mainly through the action of the Guild of Ransom (Wall, "Shrines", 152-171; Belloc, op. cit.; Danks, "Canterbury", London, 1910). Carmel, Palestine, has been for centuries a sacred mountain, both for the Hebrew people and for Christians. The Mohammedans also regard it with devotion, and from the eighteenth century onwards have joined with Christians and Jews in celebrating the feast of Elias in the mountain that bears his name. Ceylon may be mentioned as possessing a curious place of pilgrimage, Adam Peak. On the summit of this mountain is a certain impression which the Mohammedans assert to be the footprint of Adam, the Brahmins that of Rama, the Buddhists that of Buddha, the Chinese that of Fu, and the Christians of India that of St. Thomas the Apostle (Champagnac, I, 446). Chartres is in many respects the most wonderful sanctuary in Europe dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, as it boasts of an uninterrupted tradition from the times of the druids who dedicated there a statue of virgini parituræ. This wonder statue is said to have been still existing in 1793, but to have been destroyed during the Revolution. Moreover, to enhance the sacredness of the place a relic was preserved, presented by Charlemagne, viz., the chemise or veil of the Blessed Virgin. Whatever may be the history or authenticity of the relic itself, it certainly is of great antiquity and resembles the veils now worn by women in the East. A third scource of devotion is the present stone image of the Blessed Virgin inaugurated with great pomp in 1857. The pilgrimages to this shrine at Chartres have naturally been frequent and of long continuance. Amongst others who have taken part in these visits of devotion were popes, kings of France and England, saints like Bernard of Clairvaux, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, Vincent de Paul, and Francis de Sales, and the hapless Mary Queen of Scots. There is, moreover, an annual procession to the shrine on 15 March (Champagnac, I, 452-60; Northcote, "Sanct. of the Madonna", London, 1868, IV, 169-77; Chabarmes, "Hist. de N.-D. de Chartres", Chartres, 1873). Chichester, Sussex, England, had in its cathedral the tomb of St. Richard, its renowned bishop. The throng of pilgrims to this shrine, made famous by the devotion of Edward I, was so great that the body was dismembered so as to make three separate stations. Even then, in 1478, Bishop Storey had to draw up stringent rules so that the crowd should approach in a more seemly manner. Each parish was to enter at the west door in the prescribed order, of which notice had to be given by the parish priests in their churches on the Sunday preceding the feast. Besides 3 April, another pilgrimage was made on Whit-Saturday (Wall, 126-31). Cologne, Rhenish Germany, as a city of pilgrimage centres round the shrine of the Three Kings. The relics are reputed to have been brought by St. Helena to Constantinople, to have been transferred thence to Milan, and evidently in the twelfth century to have been carried in triumph by Frederick Barbarossa to Cologne. The present châsse is considered the most remarkable example extant of the medieval goldsmith's art. Though of old reckoned as one of the four greater pilgrimages, it seems to have lost the power of attracting huge crowds out of devotion; though many, no doubt, are drawn to it by its splendour (Champagnac, I, 482). Compostella, Spain, has long been famous as containing the shrine of St. James the Greater (q. v., where the authenticity of the relics etc. is discussed at some length). In some senses this was the most renowned medieval pilgrimage; and the custom of those who bore back with them from Galicia scallop shells as proofs of their journey gradually extended to every form of pilgrimage. The old feast-day of St. James (5 August) is still celebrated by the boys of London with their grottos of oyster shells. The earliest records of visits paid to this shrine date from the eighth century; and even in recent years the custom has been enthusiastically observed (cf. Rymer, "Foe;dera", London, 1710, XI, 371, 376, etc.). Concepción, Chile, has a pilgrimage to a shrine of the Blessed Virgin that is perhaps unique, a rock-drawn figure of the Mother of God. It was discovered by a child in the eighteenth century and was for long popular among the Chilians. Cordova, Spain, possesses a curious Madonna which was originally venerated at Villa Viciosa in Portugal. Because of the neglect into which it had fallen, a pious shepherd carried it off to Cordova, whence the Portuguese endeavoured several times to recover it, being frustrated each time by a miraculous intervention (Champagnac, I, 525). Cracow, Poland, is said to possess a miraculous statue of the Blessed Virgin brought to it by St. Hyacinth, to which in times past pilgrimages were often made (Acta SS., Aug., III, 317-41). Croyland, Lincolnshire, England, was the centre of much pilgrimage at the shrine of St. Guthlac, due principally to the devotion of King Wiglaf of Mercia (Wall, 116-8). Czenstochowa, Poland, is the most famous of Polish shrines dedicated to the Mother of God, where a picture painted on cypress wood and attributed to St. Luke is publicly venerated. This is reputed to be the richest sanctuary in the world. A copy of the picture has been set up in a chapel of St. Roch's church by the Poles in Paris (Champagnac, I, 540). Downpatrick, County Down, Ireland, is the most sacred city of Ireland in that the bodies of Ireland's highest saints were there interred. "In the town of Down, buried in one grave Bridget, Patrick, and the pious Columba." Nothing need be said here about the relics of these saints; it is sufficient merely to hint at the pilgrimages that made this a centre of devotion (Wall, 31-2). Drumlane, Ireland, was at one time celebrated as containing the relics of S. Moedoc in the famous Breac Moedoc. This shrine was in the custody of the local priest till 1846, when it was borrowed and sold to a Dublin jeweller, from whom in turn it was bought by Dr. Petrie. It is now in the museum of the Royal Irish Academy (Wall, 80-3). Dumfermline, Fife, Scotland, was the resort of countless pilgrims, for in the abbey was the shrine of St. Margaret. She was long regarded as the most popular of Scottish saints and her tomb was the most revered in all that kingdom. Out of devotion to her, Dumfermline succeeded Iona as being the burial place of the kings (Wall, 48-50). Durham, England, possessed many relics which drew to it the devotion of many visitors. But its two chief shrines were those of St. Cuthbert and St. Bede. The former was enclosed in a gorgeous reliquary, which was put in its finished state by John, Lord Nevill of Raby, in 1372. Some idea may be had of the number of pilgrims from the amount put by the poorer ones into the money-box that stood close by. The year 1385-6 yielded £63 17s. 8d. which would be equivalent in our money to £1277 13s. 4d. A dispute rages round the present relics of St. Cuthbert, and there is also some uncertainty about the body of St. Bede (Wall, 176-107, 110-6). Edmundsbury, Suffolk, England, sheltered in its abbey church the shrine of St. Edmund, king and martyr. Many royal pilgrims from King Canute to Henry VI knelt and made offerings at the tomb of the saint; and the common people crowded there in great numbers because of the extraordinary miracles worked by the holy martyr (Wall, 216-23; Mackinlay, "St. Edmund King and Martyr", London, 1893; Snead-Cox, "Life of Cardinal Vaughan", London, 1910, II, 287-94). Einsiedeln, Schwyz, Switzerland, has been a place of pilgrimage since Leo VIII in 954. The reason of this devotion is a miraculous statue of the Blessed Virgin brought by St. Meinrad from Zurich. The saint was murdered in 861 by robbers who coveted the rich offerings which already at that early date were left by the pilgrims. The principal days for visiting the shrine are 14 Sept. and 13 Oct.; it is calculated that the yearly number of pilgrims exceeds 150,000. Even Protestants from the surrounding cantons are known to have joined the throng of worshippers (Northcote, "Sanctuaries", 122-32). Ely, Cambridgeshire, England, was the centre of a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Etheldreda. One of her hands is still preserved in a shrine in the (pre-Reformation) Catholic church dedicated to her in London (Wall, 55-6). Ephesus, Asia Minor, is the centre of two devotions, one to the mythical Seven Sleepers, the other to the Mother of God, who lived here some years under the care of St. John. Here also it was that the Divine maternity of Our Lady was proclaimed, by the Third OEcumenical Council, a.d. 491 ("Pélerinages aux sanct. de la mère de Dieu", Paris, 1840, 119-32; Champagnac, I, 608- 19). Evreux, Eure, France, has a splendid cathedral dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, but the pilgrimage to it dates only from modern times (Champagnac, I, 641). Faviers, Seine-et-Oise, France, is the centre of a pilgrimage to the church of St. Sulpice, where there are relics of the saint. St. Louis IX paid his homage at the shrine; and even now, from each parish of St. Sulpice (a common dedication among French churches) deputies come here annually on pilgrimage for the three Sundays following the feast which occurs on 27 August (Champagnac, I, 646-7). Garaison, Tarbes, France, was the scene of an apparition of Our Lady of Good Counsel to a shepherdess of twelve years old, Aglèse de Sagasan, early in the sixteenth century. The sanctuary was dedicated afresh after the Revolution and is once more thronged with pilgrims. The chief festival is celebrated on 8 September (Champagnac, I, 95-9). Genezzano, Italy, contains the miraculous picture of Our Lady of Good Counsel which is said to have been translated from Albania. It has, since its arrival 25 April, 1467, been visited by popes, cardinals, kings, and by countless throngs of pilgrims; and devotion to the shrine steadily increases (Northcote, "Sanctuaries", 15-24). Glastonbury, Somerset, England, has been a holy place for many centuries and round it cluster legends and memories, such as no other shrine in England can boast. The Apostles, St. Joseph of Arimathea, Sts. Patrick and David, and King Arthur begin the astonishing cycle which is continued by names like St. Dunstan, etc. The curious thorn which blossomed twice yearly, in May and at Christmastide, also proved an attraction for pilgrims, though the story of its miraculous origin does not seem to go back much before the sixteenth century. A proof of the devotion which the abbey inspired is seen in the "Pilgrim's Inn," a building of late fifteenth century work in the Perpendicular style yet standing in the town (Marson, "Glastonbury. The English Jerusalem", Bath, 1909). Grace, Lot-et-Garonne, France, used to be the seat of an ancient statue of the Blessed Virgin which entered the town in a miraculous fashion. It was enshirined in a little chapel perched on the bridge that spans the river Lot. Hence its old name, Nostro Damo del cap del Pount. Even now some pilgrimages are made to the restored shrine (Champagnac, I, 702-5). Grottaferrata, Campagna, Italy, a famous monastery of the Greek Rite, takes its name (traditionally) from a picture of the Madonna found, protected by a grille, in a grotto. It is still venerated in the abbey church, and is the centre of a local pilgrimage (Champagnac, I, 714-15). Guadalupe, Estramadura, Spain, is celebrated for its wonder-working statue of the Blessed Virgin. But it has been outshone by another shrine of the same name in Mexico, which has considerably gained in importance as the centre of pilgrimage. As a sanctuary the latter takes the place of one dedicated to an old pagan goddess who was there worshipped. The story of the origin of this shrine (see Guadalupe, Shrine of) is astonishing. Hal, Belgium, contains a wooden statue of the Blessed Virgin which is decorated with a golden crown. It has been described by Justus Lipsius in his "Diva Virgo Hallensis" ("Omnia Opera", Antwerp, 1637, III, 687- 719); as a place of pilgrimage, it has been famous in all Europe and has received gifts from many noble pilgrims. The monstrance given by Henry VIII was lent for use during the Eucharistic Congress in London in 1909. The miracles recorded are certainly wonderful. Holywell, North Wales, still draws large bodies of pilgrims by its wonderful cures. It has done so continuously for over a thousand years, remaining the one active example of what were once very common (Holy Wells, Chalmers, "Book of Days", II, 6-8). The well is dedicated to St. Winefride and is said to mark the spot of her martyrdom in 634 (Maher, "Holywell in 1894" in "The Month", February, 1895, 153). Iona, Scotland, though not properly, until recently, a place of pilgrimage, can hardly be omitted with propriety from this list. The mention of it is sufficient to recall memories of its crowded tombs of kings, chieftains, prelates, which witness to the honour in which it was held as the Holy Island (Trenholme, "Story of Iona", Edinburgh, 1909). Jerusalem, Palestine, was in many ways the origin of all pilgrimages. It is the first spot to which the Christian turned with longing eyes. The earliest recorded pilgrimages go back to the third century with the mention of Bishop Alexander; then, in the fourth century came the great impulse given by the Empress Helena who was followed by the Bordeaux Pilgrims and the "Peregrinatio Silviæ" and others (cf. Acta SS., June, III, 176; Sept., III, 56). The action of St. Jerome and his aristocratic lady friends made the custom fashionable and the Latin colony was established by them which made it continuous (Gregory of Tours, "Hist. Franc.", Paris, 1886, ed. by Omont, II, 68; V, 181; etc.). So too comes the visit of Arnulf, cited by St. Bede ("Eccl. Hist.", V, xv, 263, ed. Giles, London, 1847) from the writings of Adamnan; of Cadoc the Welsh bishop mentioned below (cf. St. Andrews); of Probus sent by Gregory I to establish a hospice in Jerusalem (Acta SS., March, II, § 23, 150, 158a, etc.). There are also the legendary accounts of King Arthur's pilgrimage, and that of Charlemagne (Paris, "Romania", 1880, 1-60; 1902, 404, 616, 618). A few notices occur of the same custom in the tenth century (Beazley, II, 123), but there is a lull in these visits to Jerusalem till the eleventh century. Then, at once, a new stream begins to pour over to the East at times in small numbers, as Foulque of Nerra in 1011, Meingoz took with him only Simon the Hermit, and Ulric, later prior of Zell, was accompanied by one who could chant the psalms with him; at times also in huge forces as in 1026 under Richard II of Normandy, in 1033 a record number (Glaber, Paris, 1886, IV, 6, 106, ed. Prou), in 1035 another under Robert the Devil (ibid., 128), and most famous of all in 1065 that under Gunther, Bishop of Bamberg, with twelve thousand pilgrims (Lambert of Gersfield, "Mon. Germ. Hist.", Hanover, 1844, V, 169). This could only lead to the Crusades which stamped the Holy Land on the memory and heart of Christendom. The number who took the Cross seems fabulous (cf. Girandus Cambrensis, "Itin. Cambriæ", II, xiii, 147, in R. S., ed. Dimock, 1868); and many who could not go themselves left instructions for their hearts to be buried there (cf. Hovenden, "Annals", ed. Stubbs, 1869, in R. S., II, 279; "Chron. de Froissart", Bouchon, 1853, Paris, 1853, I, 47; cf. 35-7). So eager were men to take the Cross, that some even branded or cut its mark upon them ("Miracula s. Thomæ", by Abbot Benedict, ed. Giles, 186) or "with a sharpe knyfe he share, A crosse upon his shoulder bare" ("Syr Isenbras" in Utterson, "Early Pop. Poetry", London, 1817, I, 83). From the twelfth century onwards the flow is uninterrupted, Russians (Beazley, II, 156), Northerners (II, 174), Jews (218-74), etc. And the end is not yet ("Itinera hierosolymitana sæculi IV-VIII", ed. Geyer in the "Corp. script. eccl. lat.", 39, Vienna, 1898; Palestine Pilg. Text Soc., London, 1884 sqq.; "Deutsche Pilgerreisen nach dem heiligen Lande", II, Innsbruck, 1900, etc.; Bréhier, "L'église et l'Orient au moyen-âge", Paris, 1907, 10-15, 42-50). Kavelaer, Guelders, is a daughter-shrine to the Madonna of Luxemburg, a copy of which was here enshrined in 1642 and continues to attract pilgrims (Champagnac, I, 875). La Quercia, Viterbo, Italy, is celebrated for its quaint shrine. Within the walls of a church built by Bramante is a tabernacle of marble that enfolds the wonder-working image, painted of old by Batiste Juzzante and hung up for protection in an oak. A part of the oak still survives within the shrine, which boasts, as of old, its pilgrims (Mortier, "Notre Dame de la Quercia", Florence, 1904). La Salette, Dauphiney, France, is one of the places where the Blessed Virgin is said to have appeared in the middle of the nineteenth century. This is no place to discuss the authenticity of the apparition. As a place of pilgrimage it dates from 19 Sept., 1846, immediately after which crowds began to flock to the shrine. The annual number of visitors is computed to be about 30,000 (Northcote, "Sanctuaries", 178-229). La Sarte, Huy, Belgium, boasts a shrine of the Blessed Virgin that dominates the surrounding country. Perched on the top of a hill, past a long avenue of wayside chapels, is the statue found by chance in 1621. Year by year during May countless pilgrims organized in parishes climb the steep ascent in increasing numbers (Halflants, "Hist. de N.-D. de la Sarte", Huy, 1871). Laus, Hautes-Alpes, France, is one of the many seventeenth-century shrines of the Blessed Virgin. There is the familiar story of an apparition to a shepherdess with a command to found a church. So popular has this shrine become that the annual number of pilgrims is said to be close on 80,000. The chief pilgrimage times are Pentecost and throughout October (Northcote, "Sanctuaries", 146-59). Le Puy, Haute-Loire, France, boasts the earliest scene of any of the Blessed Virgin's apparitions. The legend begins about the year 50. After the Crusades had commenced, Puy-Notre-Dame became famous as a sanctuary of the Blessed Virgin throughout all Christendom. Its great bishop, Adhemar of Montheil, was the first to take the Cross, and he journeyed to Jerusalem with Godfrey de Bouillon as legate of the Holy See. The "Salve Regina" is by some attributed to him, and was certainly often known as the "Anthem of Puy". Numberless French kings, princes, and nobles have venerated this sanctuary; St. Louis IX presented it with a thorn from the Sacred Crown. The pilgrimages that we read of in connexion with the shrine must have been veritable pageants, for the crowds, even as late as 1853, exceeded 300,000 in number (Northcote, "Sanctuaries", 160-9). Lichfield, Staffordshire, England, is one of the places of pilgrimage which has ceased to be a centre of devotion; for the relics of St. Chad, cast out of their tomb by Protestant fanaticism, have now found a home in a Catholic church (the Birmingham cathedral), and it is to the new shrine that the pilgrims turn (Wall, 97-102). Liesse, Picardy, France, was before the rise of Lourdes the most famous centre in France of pilgrimage to the Blessed Virgin. The date of its foundation is pushed back to the twelfth century and the quaint story of its origin connects it with Christian captives during the Crusades. Its catalogue of pilgrims reads like an "Almanach de Gotha"; but the numberless unnamed pilgrims testify even more to its popularity. It is still held in honour (Champagnac, I, 918- 22). Lincoln, Lincolnshire, England, in its splendid cathedral guarded the relics of its bishop, St. Hugh. At the entombment in 1200, two kings and sixteen bishops, at the translation in 1280, one king, two queens, and many prelates took part. The inflow of pilgrims was enormous every year till the great spoliation under Henry VIII (Wall, 130-40). Loges, Seine-et-Oise, France, was a place much frequented by pilgrims because of the shrine of St. Fiacre, an Irish solitary. In 1615 it became, after a lapse of some three centuries, once more popular, for Louis XIII paid several visits there. Among other famous worshippers were James II and his queen from their place of exile at St.-Germain. The chief day of pilgrimage was the feast of St. Stephen, protomartyr (26 December). It was suppressed in 1744 (Champagnac, I, 934-5). Loreto, Ancona, Italy, owing to the ridicule of one half of the world and the devotion of the other half, is too well-known to need more than a few words. Nor is the authenticity of the shrine to be here at all discussed. As a place of pilgrimage it will be sufficient to note that Dr. Stanley, an eyewitness, pronounced it to be "undoubtedly the most frequented shrine in Christendom" (Northcote, "Sanctuaries", 65-106; Dolan in "The Month", August, 1894, 545; cf. ibid., February, 1867, 178-83). Lourdes, Pyrénées, France, as a centre of pilgrimage is without rival in popularity throughout the world. A few statistics are all that shall be recorded here. From 1867 to 1903 inclusively 4271 pilgrimages passed to Lourdes numbering some 387,000 pilgrims; the last seven years of this period average 150 pilgrimages annually. Again within thirty-six years (1868 to 1904) 1643 bishops (including 63 cardinals) have visited the grotto; and the Southern Railway Company reckon that Lourdes station receives over a million travellers every yeard (Bertrin, "Lourdes", tr. Gibbs, London, 1908; "The Month":, October, 1905, 359; February, 1907, 124). Luxemburg possesses a shrine of the Blessed Virgin under the title of "Consoler of the Afflicted". It was erected by the Jesuit Fathers and has become much frequented by pious pilgrims from all the country round. The patronal feast is the first Sunday of July, and on that day and the succeeding octave the chapel is crowded. Whole villages move up, headed by their parish priests; and the number of the faithful who frequent the sacraments here is sufficient justification for the numerous indulgences with which this sanctuary is enriched (Champagnac, I, 985-97). Lyons, Rhône, France, boasts a well-known pilgrimage to Notre-Dame-de-Fourvières. This shrine is supposed to have taken the place of a statue of Mercury in the forum of Old Lugdunum. But the earliest chapel was utterly destroyed by the Calvinists in the sixteenth century and again during the Revolution. The present structure dates from the reinauguration by Pius VII in person, 19 April, 1805. It is well to remember that Lyons was ruled by St. Irenæus who was famed for his devotion to the Mother of God (Champagnac, I, 997-1014). Malacca, Malay Peninsula, was once possessed of a shrine set up by St. Francis Xavier, dedicated under the title Our Lady of the Mount. It was for some years after his death (and he was buried in this chapel, before the translation of his relics to Goa, cf. "The Tablet", 31 Dec., 1910, p. 1055), a centre of pilgrimage. When Malacca passed from Portuguese to Dutch rule, the exercise of the Catholic religion was forbidded, and the sanctuary became a ruin (Champagnac, I, 1023-5). Mantua, Lombardy, Italy, has outside the city walls a beautiful church, S. Maria della Grazie, dedicated by the noble house of Gonzaga to the Mother of God. It enshrines a picture of the Madonna painted on wood and attributed to St. Luke. Pius II, Charles V, the Constable of Bourbon are among the many pilgrims who have visited this sanctuary. The chief season of pilgrimage is about the feast of the Assumption (15 August), when it is computed that over one hundred thousand faithful have some years attended the devotions (Champagnac, I, 1042). Maria-Stein, near Basle, Switzerland, is the centre of a pilgrimage. An old statue of the Blessed Virgin, no doubt the treasure of some unknown hermit, is famed for its miracles. To it is attached a Benedictine monastery-a daughter-house to Einsiedeln (Champagnac, I, 1044). Mariazell, Styria, a quaint village, superbly situated but badly built, possesses a tenth- century statue of the Madonna. To it have come almost all the Habsburgs on pilgrimage, and Maria Theresa left there, after her visit, medallions of her husband and her children. From all the country round, from Carinthia, Bohemia, and the Tyrol, the faithful flock to the shrine during June and July. The Government used to decree the day on which the pilgrims from Vienna were to meet in the capital at the old Cathedral of St. Stephen and set out in ordered bands for their four days' pilgrimage (Champagnac, I, 1045-7). Marseilles, France, as a centre of pilgrimage has a noble shrine, Notre-Dame-de-la-Garde. Its chapel, on a hill beyond the city, dominates the neighbourhood, where is the statue, made by Channel in 1836 to take the place of an older one destroyed during the Revolution (Champagnac, I, 1062). Mauriac, Cantal, France, is visited because of the thirteenth-century shrine dedicated to Notre-Dame-des-Miracles. The statue is of wood, quite black. The pilgrimage day is annually celebrated on 9 May (Champagnac, I, 1062). Messina, Sicily, the luckless city of earthquake, has a celebrated shrine of the Blessed Virgin. It was peculiar among all shrines in that it was supposed to contain a letter written or rather dictated by the Mother of God, congratulating the people of Messina on their conversion to Christianity. During the destruction of the city in 1908, the picture was crushed in the fallen cathedral (Thurston in "The Tablet", 23 Jan., 1908, 123-5). Montaigu, Belgium, is perhaps the most celebrated of Belgian shrines raised to the honour of the Blessed Virgin. All the year round pilgrimages are made to the statue; and the number of offerings day by day is extraordinary. Montmartre, Seine, France, has been for centuries a place of pilgrimage as a shrine of the Mother of God. St. Ignatius came here with his first nine companions to receive their vows on 15 Aug., 1534. But it is famous now rather as the centre of devotion to the Sacred Heart, since the erection of the National Basilica there after the war of 1870 (Champagnac, I, 1125-46). Montpellier, Herault, France, used to possess a famous statue of black wood-Notre- Dame-des-Tables. Hidden for long within a silver statue of the Blessed Virgin, life-size, it was screened from public view, till it was stolen by the Calvinists and has since disappeared from history. From 1189 the feast of the Miracles of Mary was celebrated with special Office at Montpellier on 1 Sept., and throughout an octave (Champagnac, I, 1147). Mont St-Michel, Normandy, is the quaintest, most beautiful, and interesting of shrines. For long it was the centre of a famous pilgrimage to the great archangel, whose power in times of war and distress was earnestly implored. Even to-day a few bands of peasants, and here and there a devout pilgrim, come amid the crowds of visitors to honour St. Michael as of old (Champagnac, I, 1151). Montserrat, Spain, lifts itself above the surrounding country in the same way as it towers above other Spanish centres of pilgrimage to the Blessed Virgin. Its existence can be traced to the tenth century, but it was not a centre of much devotion till the thirteenth. The present church was only consecrated on 2 Feb., 1562. It is still much sought after in pilgrimage (Champagnac, I, 1152-73). Naples, Italy, is a city which has been for many centuries and for many reasons a centre of pilgrimage. Two famous shrines there are the Madonna del Carmine and Santa Maria della Grotta (Northcote, "Sanctuaries", 1007-21; see also Januarius, Saint.) Oostacker, Ghent, Belgium, is one of the famous daughter-shrines of Lourdes. Built in imitation of that sanctuary and having some of the Lourdes water in the pool of the grotto, it has almost rivalled its parent in the frequency of its cures. Its inauguration began with a body of 2000 pilgrims, 29 July, 1875, since which time there has been a continuous stream of devout visitors. One has only to walk out there from Ghent on an ordinary afternoon to see many worshippers, men, women, whole parishes with their curés, etc., kneeling before the shrine or chanting before the Blessed Sacrament in the church (Scheerlinck, "Lourdes en Flandre", Ghent, 1876). Oxford, England, contained one of the premier shrines of Britain, that of St. Frideswide. Certainly her relics were worthy of grateful veneration, especially to Oxford dwellers, for it is to her that the city and univerrsity alike appear to owe their existence. Her tomb (since restored at great pains, 1890) was the resort of many pilgrims. Few English kings cared to enter Oxford at all; but the whole university, twice a year, i.e. mid-Lent and Ascension Day, headed by the chancellor, came in solemn procession to offer their gifts. The Catholics of the city have of late years reorganized the pilgrimage on the saint's feast-day, 19 Oct. (Wall, 63-71). Padua, Italy, is the centre of a pilgrimage to the relics of St. Anthony. In a vast choir behind the sanctuary of the church that bears his name is the treasury of St. Anthony; but his body reposes under the high altar. Devotion to this saint has increased so enormously of late years that no special days seem set apart for pilgrimages. They proceed continuously all the year round (Chérancé, "St. Anthony of Padua", tr. London, 1900). Pennant Melangell, Montgomery, Wales, to judge from the sculptured fragments of stone built into the walls of the church and lych gate, was evidently a place of note, where a shrine was built to St. Melangell, a noble Irish maiden. The whole structure as restored stands over eight feet high and originally stood in the Cell-y-Bedd, or Cell of the Grave, and was clearly a centre of pilgrimage (Wall, 48). Pontigny, Yvonne, France, was for many centuries a place of pilgrimage as containing the shrine of St. Edmund of Canterbury. Special facilities were allowed by the French king for English pilgrims. The Huguenots despoiled the shrine, but the relics were saved to be set up again in a massive châsse of eighteenth-century workmanship. In spite of the troubles in France the body remains in its old position, and is even carefully protected by the Government (Wall, 171-5). Puche, Valencia, Spain, is the great Spanish sanctuary dedicated to Our Lady of Mercy, in honour of wom the famous Order of Mercy came into being through Spanish saints. The day of pilgrimage was the feast of Our Lady of Mercy, 24 Sept. (Champagnac, II, 488-92). Rocamadour, Lot, France, was the centre of much devotion as a shrine of the Blessed Virgin. Amongst its pilgrims may be named St. Dominic; and the heavy mass of from iron hanging outside the chapel witnesses to the legendary pilgrimage of Roland, whose good sword Durendal was deposited there till it was stolen with the other treasures by Henry II's turbulent eldest son, Henry Court Mantel (Drane, "Hist. of St. Dominic", London, 1891, 301-10; Laporte, "Guide du pèlerin à Rocamadour", Rocamadour, 1862). Rocheville, Toulouse, France.-The legend of the origin fixes the date of its apparition of the Blessed Virgin as 1315. Long famous, then long neglected, it has once more been restored. During the octave of the Nativity of Our Lady (8-15 Sept.) it is visited by quite a large body of devout pilgrims (Champagnac, II, 101). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, contains a sanctuary dedicated to Our Lady of Travel. This statue is in a convent of nuns situated just outside the city, on the east of the bay. It is devoutly venerated by the pious people of Brazil, who invoke the protection of the Blessed Virgin on their journeys (Champagnac, II, 517-8). Rome, Italy, has had almost as much influence on the rise of Christian pilgrimages as the Holy Land. The sacred city of the Christian world, where lay the bodies of the twin prince Apostles, attracted the love of every pious Christian. We have quoted the words of St. Chrysostom, who yearned to see the relics of St. Paul; and his desire has been expressed in action in every age of Christian time. The early records of every nation (of the histories of Eusebius, Zosimus, Socrates, Bede, etc. passim) give name after name of bishop, king, noble, priest, layman who have journeyed to visit as pilgrims the limina Apostolorum. Full to repletion as the city is with relics of Christian holiness, the "rock on which the Church is built" has been the chief attraction; and Bramante has well made it the centre of his immortal temple. Thus St. Marcius came with his wife Martha and his two sons all the way from Persia in 269; St. Paternus from Alexandria in 253; St. Maurus from Africa in 284. Again Sts. Constantine and Victorian on their arrival at Rome went straight to the tomb of St. Peter, where soldiers caught them and put them to death. So also St. Zoe was found praying at the tomb of St. Peter and martyred. Even then in these early days the practice of pilgrimages was in full force, so that the danger of death did not deter men from it (Barnes, "St. Peter in Rome", London, 1901, 146). Then to overleap the centuries we find records of the Saxon and Danish kings of England trooping Romewards, so that the very name of Rome has become a verb to express the idea of wandering (Low Lat., romerus; Old Fr., romieu; Sp., romero; Port., romeiro; A. S., romaign; M. E. romen; Modern, roam). And of the Irish, the same uninterrupted custom has held good till our own day (Ulster Archæolog. Jour., VII, 238-42). Of the other nations there is no need to speak. It is curious, however, to note that though the chief shrine of Rome was undoubtedly the tomb of the Apostles-to judge from all the extant records-yet the pilgrim sign (see below) which most commonly betokened a palmer from Rome was the "vernicle" or reproduction of St. Veronica's veil. Thus Chaucer (Bell's edition, London, 1861, 105) describes the pardoner:- "That strait was comen from the Court of Rome A vernicle had he served upon his cappe". However, there was besides a medal with a reproduction of the heads of Sts. Peter and Paul and another with the crossed keys. These pilgrimages to Rome, of which only a few early instances have been given, have increased of late years, for the prisoner of the Vatican, who cannot go out to his children, has become, since 1870, identified with the City of the Seven Hills in a way that before was never for long experienced. Hence the pope is looked upon as embodying in his person the whole essence of Rome, so that to-day it is the pope who is the living tomb of St. Peter. All this has helped to increase the devotion and love of the Catholic world for its central city and has enormously multiplied the annual number of pilgrims. Within the city itself, mention must just be made of the celebrated pilgrimage to the seven churches, a devotion so dear to the heart of St. Philip (Capecelatro, "Life of St. Philip", tr. Pope, London, 1894, I, 106, 238, etc.). His name recalls the great work he did for the pilgrims who came to Rome. He established his Congregation of the Trinità dei Pellegrini (ibid., I, 138-54), the whole work of which was to care for and look after the thronging crowds who came every year, more especially in the years of jubilee. Of course, many such hospices already existed. The English College had originally been a home for Saxon pilgrims; and there were and are many others. But St. Philip gave the movement a new impetus. St. Albans, Hertford, England, was famous over Europe in the Middle Ages. This is the more curious as the sainted martyr was no priest or monk, but a simple layman. The number of royal pilgrims practically includes the whole list of English kings and queens, but especially devoted to the shrine were Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Richard II. During the last century the broken pieces of the demolished shrine (to the number of two thousand fragments) were patiently fitted together, and now enable the present generation to picture the beauty it presented to the pilgrims who thronged around it (Wall, II, 35-43). St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland.-Though more celebrated as a royal burgh and as the seat of Scotland's most ancient university, its earlier renown came to it as a centre of pilgrimage. Even as far back as the year 500 we find a notice of the pilgriimages made by the Welsh bishop, Cadoc. He went seven times to Rome, thrice to Jerusalem, and once to St. Andrews (Acta SS., Jan., III, 219). St. David's, Pembrokeshire, Wales, was so celebrated a place of pilgrimage that William I went there immediately after the conquest of England. The importance of this shrine and the reverence in which the relics of St. David were held may be gathered from the papal Decree that two pilgrimages here were equal to one to Rome (Wall, 91-5). St. Anne d'Auray, Vannes, Brittany, a centre of pilgrimage in one of the holiest cities of the Bretons, celebrated for its pardons in honour of St. Anne. The principal pilgrimages take place at Pentecost and on 26 July. Ste Anne de Beaupré, Quebec, Canada, has become the most popular centre of pilgrimage in all Canada within quite recent years. A review, or pious magazine, "Les Annales de la Bonne S. Anne", has been founded to increase the devotion of the people; and the zeal of the Canadian clergy has been displayed in organizing parochial pilgrimages to the shrine. The Eucharistic Congress, held at Montreal in 1910, also did a great deal to spread abroad the fame of this sanctuary. Sainte-Baume.-S. Maximin, Toulouse, France, is the centre of a famous pilgrimage to the supposed relics of St. Mary Magdalene. The historical evidence against the authentication of the tombs is extraordinarily strong and has not been really seriously answered. The pilgrimages, however, continue; and devout worshippers visit the shrine, if not of, at least, dedicated to, St. Mary Magdalene. The arguments against the tradition have been marshalled and fully set out by Mgr Duchesne ("Fastes épiscopaux de l'ancienne Gaul", Paris, 1894-1900) and appeared in English form in "The Tablet", XCVI (1900), 88, 282, 323, 365, 403, 444. St. Patrick's Purgatory, Donegal, Ireland, has been the centre of a pilgrimage from far remote days. The legends that describe its foundation are full of Dantesque episodes which have won for the shrine a place in European literature. It is noticed by the medieval chroniclers, found its way into Italian prose, was dramatized by Calderón, is referred to by Erasmus, and its existence seems implied in the remark of Hamlet, concerning the ghost from purgatory: "Yes by St. Patrick but there is, Horatio" (Act I, sc. V). Though suppressed even before the Reformation, and of course during the Penal Times, it is still extraordinarily popular with the Irish people, for whom it is a real penitential exercise. It seems the only pilgrimage of modern times conducted like those of the Middle Ages (Chambers, "Book of Days", London, I, 725-8, Leslie in "The Tablet", 1910). Saragossa, Aragon, Spain, is celebrated for its famous shrine dedicated to the Blessed Virgin under the title Nuestra Señora del Pilar. Tradition asserts that the origin of this statue goes back to the time of St. James, when, in the lifetime of the Mother of God, it was set up by order of the Apostle. This was approved by Callistus III in 1456. It is glorious on account of the many miracles performed there, and is the most popular of all the shrines of the Blessed Virgin in the Peninsula and the most thronged with pilgrims (Acta SS., July, VII, 880-900). Savona, Genoa, Italy, claims to possess the oldest sanctuary dedicated to the Blessed Virgin in all Italy, for to it Constantine is said to have gone on pilgrimage. The statue was solemnly crowned by Pius VII, not while spending his five years of captivity in the city, but later, i. e., on 10 May, 1815, assisted by King Victor Emmanuel and the royal family of Savoy (Champagnac, II, 852-7). Teneriffe, Canary Islands, has a statue of the Blessed Virgin which tradition asserts was found by the pagan inhabitants and worshipped as some strange deity for a hundred years or so. For some time after the conversion of the islanders it was a centre of pilgrimage (Champagnac, II, 926-7). Toledo, New Castile, Spain, in its gorgeous cathedral enshrines a statue of the Blessed Virgin in a chapel of jasper, ornamented with magnificent and unique treasures. This centre of devotion to the Blessed Virgin which draws to it annually a great number of pilgrims, is due to the tradition of the apparition to St. Ildephonsus (Champagnac, II, 944-6). Tortosa, Syria, was in the Middle Ages famous for a shrine of the Blessed Virgin, which claimed to be the most ancient in Christendom. There is a quaint story about a miracle there told by Joinville who made a pilgrimage to the shrine, when he accompanied St. Louis to the East (Champagnac, II, 951). Tours, Indre-et-Loire, France, has long been celebrated for the tomb of St. Martin, to which countless pilgrims journeyed before the Revolution (Goldie in "The Month", Nov., 1880, 331). Trier, Rhenish Prussia, has boasted for fifteen centuries of the possession of the Holy Coat. This relic, brought back by St. Helena from the Holy Land, has been the centre of pilgrimage since first date. It has been several times exposed to the faithful and each time has drawn countless pilgrims to its veneration. In 1512 the custom of an exposition taking place every seven years was begun, but it has been often interrupted. The last occasion on which the Holy Coat was exhibited for public veneration was in 1891, when 1,900,000 of the faithful in a continual stream passed before the relic (Clarke, "A Pilgrimage to the Holy Coat of Treves", London, 1892). Turin, Piedmont, Italy, is well known for its extraordinary relic of the Holy Winding-Sheet or Shroud. Whatever may be said against its authenticity, it is an astonishing relic, for the impression which it bears in negative of the body of Jesus Christ could with difficulty have been added by art. The face thereon impressed agrees remarkably with the traditional portraits of Christ. Naturally the exposition of the sacred relic are the occasions of numerous pilgrimages (Thurston in "The Month", January, 1903, 17 February, 162). Vallambrosa, Tuscany, Italy, has become a place of pilgrimage, even though the abbey no longer contains its severe and picturesque throng of monks. Its romatic site has made it a ceaseless attraction to minds like those of Dante, Ariosto, Milton, etc.; and Benvenuto Cellini tells us that he too made a pilgrimage to the shrine of the Blessed Virgin there to thank her for the many beautiful works of art he had composed; and as he went he sang and prayed (Champagnac, II, 1033-7). Walsingham, Norfolk, England, contained England's greatest shrine of the Blessed Virgin. The chapel dates from 1061, almost from which time onward it was the most frequented Madonna sanctuary in the island, both by foreigners and the Englsih. Many of the English kings went to it on pilgrimage; and the destruction of it weighed most heavily of all his misdeeds on the conscience of the dying Henry VIII. Erasmus in his "Religious Pilgrimage" ("Colloquies", London, 1878, II, 1-37) has given a most detailed account of the shrine, though his satire on the whole devotion is exceptionally caustic. Once more, annually, pilgrimages to the old chapel have been revived; and the pathetic "Lament of Walsingham" is ceasing to be true to actual facts ("The Month", Sept., 1901, 236; Bridgett, "Dowry of Mary", London, 1875, 303-9). Westminster, London, England, contained one of the seven incorrupt bodies of saints of England (Acta SS., Aug., I, 276), i. e., that of St. Edward the Confessor, the only one which yet remains in its old shrine and is still the centre of pilgrimage. From immediately after the king's death, his tomb was carefully tended, especially by the Norman kings. At the suggestion of St. Thomas Becket a magnificent new shrine was prepared by Henry II in 1163, and the body of the saint there translated on 13 Oct. At once pilgrims began to flock to the tomb for miracles, and to return thanks for favours, as did Richard I, after his captivity (Radulph Coggeshall, "Chron. Angl.", in R. S., ed. Stevenson, 1875, 63). So popular was this last canonized English king, that on the rebuilding of the abbey by Henry III St. Edward's tomb really overshadowed the primary dedication to St. Peter. The pilgrim's sign was a king's head surmounting a pin. The step on which the shrine stands was deeply worn by the kneeling pilgrims, but it has been relaid so that the hollows are now on the inner edge. Once more this sanctuary, too, has become a centre of pilgrimage (Stanley, "Mem. of Westminster", London, 1869, passim; Wall, 223-35). GARB In older ages, the pilgrim had a special garb which betokened his mission. This has been practically omitted in modern times, except among the Mohammedans, with whom ihram still distinguishes the Hallal and Hadj from the rest of the people. As far as one can discover, the dress of the medieval pilgrim consisted of a loose frock or long smock, over which was thrown a separate hood with a cape, much after the fashion of the Dominican and Servite habit. On his head, he wore a low-crowned, broad-brimmed hat, such as is familiar to us from the armorial bearings of cardinals. This was in wet and windy weather secured under his chin by two strings, but strings of such length that when not needed the hat could be thrown off and hang behind the back. Across his breast passed a belt from which was suspended his wallet, or script, to contain his relics, food, money, and what-not. In some illuminations it may be noted as somehow attached to his side (cf. blessing infra). In one hand he held a staff, composed of two sticks swathed tightly together by a withy band. Thus in the grave of Bishop Mayhew (d. 1516), which was opened a few years ago in Hereford cathedral, there was found a stock of hazel-wood between four and five feet long and about the thickness of a finger. As there were oyster shells also buried in the same grave, it seems reasonable to suppose that this stick was the bishop's pilgrim staff; but it has been suggested recently that it represents a crosier of a rough kind used for the burial of prelates (Cox and Harvey, "Church Furniture", London, 1907, 55). Occasionally these staves were put to uses other than those for which they were intended. Thus on St. Richard's day, 3 April, 1487, Bishop Story of Chichester had to make stringent regulations, for there was such a throng of pilgrims to reach the tomb of the saint that the struggles for precedence led to blows and the free use of the staves on each other's heads. In one case a death had resulted. To prevent a recurrence of this disorder, banners and crosses only were to be carried (Wall, 128). Some, too, had bells in their hands or other instruments of music: "some others pilgrimes will have with them baggepipes; so that everie towne that they came through, what with the noice of their singing and with the sound of their piping and with the jangling of their Canterburie bells, and with the barking out of dogges after them, that they make more noice then if the King came there away with all his clarions and many other minstrels" (Fox, "Acts", London, 1596, 493). This distinctive pilgrim dress is described in most medieval poems and stories (cf. "Renard the Fox", London, 1886, 13, 74, etc.; "Squyr of Lowe Degree", ed. Ritson in "Metrical Romanceës", London, 1802, III, 151), most minutely and, of course, indirectly, and very late by Sir Walter Raleigh:- "Give me my scallop-shell of quiet. My staff of faith to walk upon, My scrip of joy, immortal diet, My bottle of Salvation, My gown of glory (hope's true gage), And then I'll take my pilgrimage." (Cf. Furnivall, "The Stacions of Rome and the Pilgrim's Sea Voyage".) In penance they went alone and barefoot. Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini tells of his walking without shoes or stockings through the snow to Our Lady of Whitekirk in East Lothian, a tramp of ten miles; and he remembered the intense cold of that pilgrimage to his life's end (Paul, "Royal Pilgrimages in Scotland" in "Trans. of Scottish Ecclesiological Soc.", 1905), for it brought on a severe attack of gout (Boulting, "Æneas Sylvius", London, 1908, 60). Pilgrim Signs A last part of the pilgrim's attire must be mentioned, the famous pilgrim signs. These were badges sewn on to the hat or hung round the neck or pinned on the clothes of the pilgrim. "A bolle and a bagge He bar by his syde And hundred ampulles; On his hat seten Signes of Synay, And Shelles of Galice, And many a conche On his cloke, And keys of Rome, And the Vernycle bi-fore For men sholde knowe And se bi hise signes Whom he sought hadde" (Piers Plowman, ed. Wright, London, 1856, I, 109). There are several moulds extant in which these signs were cast (cf. British Museum; Musée de Lyon; Musée de Cluny, Paris; etc.), and not a few signs themselves have been picked up, especially in the beds of rivers, evidently dropped by the pilgrims from the ferry-boats. These signs protected the pilgrims from assault and enabled them to pass through even hostile ranks ("Paston Letters", I, 85; Forgeais, "Coll. de plombs historiés", Paris, 1863, 52-80; "Archæol. Jour.", VII, 400; XIII, 105), but as the citation from Piers Plowman shows, they were also to show "whom he sought hadde". Of course the cross betokened the crusader (though one could also take the cross against the Moors of Spain, Simeon of Durham, "Hist. de gestis regum Angliæ", ed. Twysden, London, 1652, I, 249), and the colour of it the nation to which he belonged, the English white, the French red, the Flemish green (Matthew Paris, "Chron. majora", ed. Luard, London, 1874, II, 330, an. 1199, in R. S.); the pilgrim to Jerusalem had two crossed leaves of palm (hence the name "palmer"); to St. Catherine's tomb on Mount Sinai, the wheel; to Rome, the heads of Sts. Peter and Paul or the keys or the vernicle (this last also might mean Genoa where there was a rival shrine of St. Veronica's veil); to St. James of Compostella the scallop or oyster shell; to Canterbury, a bell or the head of the saint on a brooch or a leaden ampulla filled with water from a well near the tomb tinctured with an infinitesimal drop of the martyr's blood ("Mat. for Hist. of Thomas Beckett", 1878 in R. S., II, 269; III, 152, 187); to Walsingham, the virgin and child; to Amiens, the head of St. John the Baptist, etc. Then there was the horn of St. Hubert, the comb of St. Blaise, the axe of St. Olave, and so on. And when the tomb was reached, votive offerings were left of jewels, models of limbs that had been miraculously cured, spears, broken fetters. etc. (Rock, "Church of our Fathers", London, 1852, III, 463). EFFECTS Among the countless effects which pilgrimages produced the following may be set down: Towns-Matthew Paris notes ("Chron. major." in R. S., I, 3, an. 1067) that in England (and the same thing really applies all over Europe) there was hardly a town where there did not lie the bodies of martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins, and though no doubt in very many cases it was the importance of the towns that made them the chosen resting-places of the saint's relics, in quite as many others the importance of the saint drew so many religious pilgrims to it that the town sprang up into real significance. So it has been noted that Canterbury, at least, outshone Winchester, and since the Reformation has once more dwindled into insignificance. Bury Saint Edmunds, St. Albans, Walsingham, Compostella, Lourdes, La Salette have arisen, or grown, or decayed, accordingly as the popularity among pilgrims began, advanced, declined. Roads were certainly made in many cases by the pilgrims. They wore out a path from the sea- coast to Canterbury and joined Walsingham to the great centres of English life and drove tracks and paths across the Syrian sands to the Holy City. And men and women for their soul's sake made benefactions so as to level down and up, and to straighten out the wandering ways that led from port to sanctuary and from shrine to shrine (Digby, "Compitum", London, 1851, I, 408). Thus they hoped to get their share also in the merits of the pilgrim. The whole subject has been illuminated in a particular instance by a monograph of Hillaire Belloc in the "Old Road" (London, 1904). Geography too sprang from the same source. Each pilgrim who wrote an account of his travels for the instruction and edification of his fellows was unconsciously laying the foundations of a new science; and it is astonishing how very early these written accounts begin. The fourth century saw them rise, witnessed the publication of many "Peregrinationes" (cf. Palestine Pilg. Text Soc., passim), and started the fashion of writing these day-to-day descriptions of the countries through which they journeyed. It is only fair to mention with especial praise the names of the Dominicans Ricaldo da Monte Cruce (1320) and Bourchard of Mount Sion (Beazley, II, 190, 383), the latter of whom has given measurements of several Biblical sites, the accuracy of which is testified to by modern travellers. Again we know that Roger of Sicily caused the famous work "The Book of Roger, or the Delight of whoso loves to make the Circuit of the World" (1154) to be compiled, from information gathered from pilgrims and merchants, who were made to appear before a select committee of Arabs (Symonds, "Sketches in Italy", Leipzig, 1883, I, 249); and we even hear of a medieval Continental guidebook to the great shrines, prefaced by a list of the most richly indulgenced sanctuaries and containing details of where money could be changed, where inns and hospitals were to be found, what roads were safest and best, etc. ("The Month", March, 1909, 295; "Itineraries of William Wey", ed. for Roxburgh Club, London, 1857; Thomas, "De passagis in Terram Sanctam", Venice, 1879; Bounardot and Longnon, "Le saint voyage de Jhérusalem du Seigneur d'Auglure", Paris, 1878). Crusades also naturally arose out of the idea of pilgrimages. It was these various peregrinationes made to the Sepulchre of Jesus Christ that at all familiarized people with the East. Then came the huge columns of devout worshippers, growing larger and larger, becoming more fully organized, and well protected by armed bands of disciplined troops. The most famous pilgrimage of all, that of 1065, which numbered about 12,000, under Gunther, Bishop of Bamberg, assisted by the Archbishop of Mainz, and the Bishops of Ratisbon and Utrecht, was attacked by Bedouins after it had left Cæsarea. The details of that Homeric struggle were brought home to Europe (Lambert of Gersfield, "Mon. Germ. Hist.", 1844, V, 169) and at once gave rise to Crusades. Miracle Plays are held to be derived from returning pilgrims. This theory is somewhat obscurely worked out by Père Monestrier (Représentations en musique anc. et modernes; cf. Champagnac, I, 9). But he bases his conclusions on the idea that the miracle plays begin by the story of the Birth or Death of Christ and holds that the return to the West of those who had visited the scenes of the life of Christ naturally led them to reproduce these as best they could for their less fortunate brethren (St. Aug., "De civ. Dei" in P. L., XXXVIII, 764). Hence the miracle plays that deal with the story of Christ's Passion were imported for the benefit of those who were unable to visit the very shrines. But the connexion between the pilgrimages and these plays comes out much more clearly when we realize that the scene of the martyrdom of the saint or some legend concerning one of the miracles was not uncommonly acted before his shrine or during the pilgrimage that was being made to it. It was performed in order to stimulate devotion, and to teach the lessons of his life to those who probably knew little about him. It was one way and the most effective way of seeing that the reason for visiting the shrine was not one of mere idle superstition, but that it had a purpose to achieve in the moral imporvement of the pilgrim. International Communications owed an enormous debt to the continued interchange of pilgrims. Pilgrimages and wars were practically the only reasons that led the people of one country to visit that of another. It may safely be hazarded that an exceedingly large proportion of the foreigners who came to England, came on purpose to venerate the tomb of the "Holy blissful Martyr", St. Thomas Becket. Special enactments allowed pilgrims to pass unmolested through districts that were in the throes of war. Again facilities were granted, as at Pontigny, for strangers to visit the shrines of their own saints in other lands. The result of this was naturally to increase communications between foreign countries. The matter of road-making has been already alluded to and the establishment of hospices along the lines of march, as the ninth-century monastery at Mount Cenis, or in the cities most frequented by pilgrims, fulfilled the same purpose (Acta SS., March, II, 150, 157; Glaber, "Chron." in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script, VII, 62). Then lastly it may be noted that we have distinct notices, scattered, indirect, and yet all the more convincing, that pilgrims not unfrequently acted as postmen, carrying letters from place to place as they went; and that people even waited with their notes written till a stray pilgrim should pass along the route (Paston Letters, II, 62). Religious Orders began to be founded to succour the pilgrims, and these even the most famous orders of the medieval Church. The Knights Hospitallers, or Knights of St. John, as their name implies, had as their office to guard the straggling bands of Latin Christians; the Knights of Rhodes had the same work to carry out; as also had the Knights Templars. In fact the seal of these last represented simply a knight rescuing a helpless pilgrim (compare also the Trinità dei Peregrini of St. Philip). Scandals effected by this form of devotion are too obvious and were too often denounced by the saints and other writers from St. Jerome to Thomas a Kempis to need any setting out here. The "Canterbury Tales" of Chaucer are sufficient evidence. But the characteristic ones: (i) excessive credulity of the guardian of the shrine; (ii) insistence upon the obligation of pilgrimages as though they were necessary for salvation; (iii) the neglect on the part of too many of the pilgrims of their own duties at home in order to spend more time in passing from one sanctuary to another; (iv) the wantonness and evil-living and evil-speaking indulged in by the pilgrims themselves in many cases. Not as though these abuses invalidated the use of pilgrimages. Erasmus himself declares that they did not; but they certainly should have been more stringently and rigorously repressed by the church rulers. The dangers of these scandals are evidently reduced to a minimum by the speed of modern travel; yet from time to time warnings need to be repeated lest the old evils should return. BLESSING To complete this article, it will be well to give the following blessings taken from the Sarum Missal (London, 1868, 595-6). These should be compared with Mohammedan formularies (Champagnac, II, 1077-80, etc.):- Blessing of Scrip and Staff V. The Lord be with you. R. And with thy spirit. Let us pray. O Lord Jesus Christ who of Thy unspeakable mercy at the bidding of the Father and by the Co-operation of the Holy Ghost wast willing to come down from Heaven and to seek the sheep that was lost by the deceit of the devil, and to carry him back on Thy shoulders to the flock of the Heavenly Country; and didst commend the sons of Holy Mother Church by prayer to ask, by holy living to seek, by persevering to knock that so they may the more speedily find the reward of saving life; we humbly call upon Thee that Thou wouldst be pleased to bless these scrips (or this scrip) and these staves (or this staff) that whosoever for the love of Thy name shall desire to wear the same at his side or hang it at his neck or to bear it in his hands and so on his pilgrimage to seek the aid of the Saints with the accompaniment of humble prayer, being protected by the guardianship of Thy Right Hand may be found meet to attain unto the joys of the everlasting vision through Thee, O Saviour of the World, Who livest and reignest in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God for ever and ever. Amen. Here let the scrip be sprinkled with Holy Water and let the Priest put it round each pilgrim's neck, saying: In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ receive this scrip, the habit of thy pilgrimage, that after due chastisement thou mayest be found worthy to reach in safety the Shrine of the Saints to which thou desirest to go; and after the accomplishment of thy journey thou mayest return to us in health. Through, etc. Here let him give the Staff to the Pilgrim, saying: Receive this staff for thy support in the travail and toil of thy pilgrimage, that thou mayest be able to overcome all the hosts of the enemy and reach in safety the Shrine of the Saints whither thou desirest to go; and having obediently fulfilled thy course mayest return again to us with joy. Through, etc. The Blessing of the Cross for one on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem V. The Lord be with you. R. And with thy spirit. Let us pray. O God, whose power is invincible and pity cannot be measured, the aid and sole comfort of pilgrims; who givest unto Thy servants armour which cannot be overcome; we beseech Thee to be pleased to bless this dress which is humbly devoted to Thee, that the banner of the venerated Cross, the figure whereof is upon it, may be a most mighty strength to Thy servants against the wicked temptations of the old enemy; a defence by the way, a protection in Thy house, and a security to us on every side. Through, etc. Here let the garment marked with the Cross be sprinkled with Holy Water and given to the pilgrim, the priest saying: Receive this dress whereupon the sign of the Cross of the Lord Our Saviour is traced, that through it safety, benediction and strength to journey in prosperity, may accompany thee to the Sepulchre of Him, who with God the Father and the Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth one God, world without end. Amen. Marx, Das Wallfahren in der katholischen Kirche (Trier, 1842); Sivry and Champagnac, Dictionn. des pèlerinages (Paris, 1859); Rock, The Church of Our Fathers (London, 1852); Le Roy, Hist. des pèler. de la sainte Vierge en France (Paris, 1875); Waterton, Pietas Mariana Britannica (London, 1879); Chambers, Book of Days (London, s. d.); Jusserand, tr. Smith, English Wayfaring Life in the Middle Ages (London, 1892); Itinéraires français XI ^e-XIII ^e siecles, ed. Michelant and Raynaud (1882-); Palestine Pilgrim Text Society (London, 1884-); Deutsche Pilgerreisen nach dem heiligen Lands (Innsbruck, 1900); Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography (London, 1897-1906); Wall, Shrines of British Saints (London, 1905); BrÉhier, L'eglise et l'Orient au moyen-âge (Paris, 1907); Camm, Forgotten Shrines (London, 1910); Revue de l'Orient latin (Paris, 1883-); Messenger of the Sacred Heart (New York, 1892-9), passim. BEDE JARRETT Piligrim Piligrim Bishop of Passau, date of birth unknown; died 20 May, 991. He was educated at the Benedictine monastery of Niederaltaich, and was made bishop in 971. To him are attributed some, if not all, of the ""Forgeries of Lorch", a series of documents, especially Bulls of Popes Symmachus, Eugene II, Leo VII, and Agapetus II, fabricated to prove that Passau was a continuation of a former archdiocese named Lorch. By these he attempted to obtain from Benedict VI the elevation of Passau to an archdiocese, the re-erection of those dioceses in Pannonia and Moesia which had been suffragans of Lorch, and the pallium for himself. While Piligrim was ambitious, he also had at heart the welfare of the captive Christians in Hungary and the Christianization of that country. There is extant an alleged Bull of Benedict VI granting Piligrim's demands; but this is also the work of Piligrim, possibly a document drawn up for the papal signature, which it never received. Apart from these forgeries, common enough at the time, Piligrim was a good and zealous bishop, and converted numerous heathens in Hungary, built many schools and churches, restored the Rule of St. Benedict in Niederaltaich, transferred the relics of St. Maximilian from Oetting to Passau, and held synods (983-91) at Ennsburg (Lorch), Mautern, and Mistelbach. In the "Niebelungenlied" he is lauded as a contemporary of the heroes of that epic. DÜMMLER, Piligrim von Passau und das Erzbisthum Lorch (Leipzig, 1854); IDEM in Berliner Sitzungsberichte (1898), 758-75; UHLIRZ, Die Urkundenfälschung zu Passau im zehnten Jahrhundert in Mittheilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, III (Vienna, 1882), 177-228; IDEM, ibid., supplementary vol., II (1888), 548 sq.; HEUWIESER, Sind die Bischöfe von Passau Nachfolger der Bischöfe von Lorch? in Theologisch-praktische Monats-Schrift, XXI (Passau, 1910), 13-23, 85-90; MITTERMÜLLER, War Bischof Piligrim von Passau ein Urkundenfälscher? in Der Katholik, XLVII (Mainz, 1867), 337-62. MICHAEL OTT. Pillar of Cloud (Pillar of Fire) Pillar of Cloud (Pillar of Fire). A cloud which accompanied the Israelites during their wandering. It was the same as the pillar of fire, as it was luminous at night (cf. Ex., xiv, 19, 20, 24; Num., ix, 21, 22). The name "pillar" is due to the columnar form which it commonly assumed. It first appeared while the Israelites were marching from Succoth to Etham, and vanished when they reached the borders of Chanaan (Ex., xiii, 20-22; xl, 36). It was a manifestation of God's presence among His people (Ex., xiv, 24 sqq.; xxxiii, 9; Num., xi, 25; xii, 5; Deut., xxxi, 15; Ps. xcviii, 7). During encampment it rested over the tabernacle of the covenant, after it was built, and before that time probably over the centre of the camp. It rose as a signal that camp was to be broken, and during the march it preceded the people, stopping when they were to pitch their tents (Ex., xl, 34, 35; Num., ix, 17 sqq.; Deut., i, 33). At the crossing of the Red Sea it rested between the Israelites and the Egyptians, being bright on the side of the former and dark on the other (Ex., xiv, 19, 20). During the marches it lit the way at night, and by day protected the people from the heat of the sun (Num., x, 34; Deut., i, 33; II Esd., ix, 12; Wis., x, 17; xviii, 3; Ps. civ, 39). It may be doubted whether it covered the camp by day, as many commentators maintain. Num., x, 34, speaks only of the march, and Wis., xix, 7, does not necessarily refer to the whole camp. St. Paul (I Cor., x, 1, 2, 6) considers it as a type of baptism, and the Fathers regard it as the figure of the Holy Ghost leading the faithful to the true Promised Land. The rationalistic explanation which sees in the pillar only a torch carried on a pole, such as is used even now by caravans in Arabia, fails to take the data of the Bible into consideration. Palis, in Vigouroux, Dict. de la Bib., s. v. Colonne de Nuée; and commentaries on the texts cited. F. BECHTEL Pima Indians Pima Indians An important tribe of Southern Arizona, centering along the middle Gila and its affluent, the Salt River. Linguistically they belong to the Piman branch of the widely extended Shoshonean stock, and their language, with dialectic variation, is the same as that spoken also by the Pápago and extinct Sobaipuri of southern Arizona, and by the Navome of Sonora, Mexico. In Spanish times the tribes of the Arizona group were known collectively as Pimas Altos (Upper Pima), while those of Senora were distinguished as Pimas Bajos (Lower Pima), the whole territory being known as the Pimería. The tribal name Pima is a corruption of their own word for "no", mistaken by the early missionaries for a proper name. They call themselves simply 'Aàtam, "people", or sometimes for distinction 'Aàtam-akimûlt, "river people". Notwithstanding their importance as a tribe, the Pima have not been prominent in history, owing to their remoteness from military and missionary activity during the Spanish period, and to their almost unbroken peaceable attitude towards the whites. It was at one time claimed that they were the authors of the ruined pueblos in their country, notably the celebrated Casa Grande, but later investigation confirms the statement recorded by Father Garcés as early as 1780 that they were built by a previous people connected with the Hopi. The real history of the Pima may be said to begin with the German Jesuit missionary explorer, Father Eusebio Keno (Kühn), who in 1687 established a missionary headquarters at Dolores, near the present Cucurpe, northern Senora, Mexico, from which point until his death in 1711 he covered the whole Pimería in his missionary labours. In 1694, led by Indian reports of massive ruins in the far north, he penetrated along along the Gila, and said Mass in the Casa Grande. In 1697 he accompanied a military exploration of the Pima country, under Lieutenant Bernal, and Captain Mange, baptizing nearly a hundred Indians. In 1701 he made the earliest map of the Gila region. He found the Pima and their cousins the Pápago most anxious for teachers. "They were,. above all, desirous of being formed into regular mission communities, with resident padres of their own; and at many rancherías they built rude but neatly cared-for churches, planted fields, and tended herds of livestock in patient waiting for the missionaries, who, in most cases, never came " (Bancroft). From 1736 to 1750 Fathers Keller and Sedelmair several times visited the Pima, but no missions were established in their country, although a number of the tribe attached themselves to the Pápago missions. The revolt of the southern tribes in 1750 caused a suspension of the work, but the missions were resumed some years later and continued under increasing difficulties until the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1767, at which time the whole number of neophytes in Arizona, chiefly Pápago, was about 1200. In the next year the Arizona missions were turned over to Franciscans of the College of Queretaro, who continued the work with some success in spite of constant inroads of the Apache. Although details are wanting, it is probable that the number of neophytes increased. The most noted of these latter workers was Father Francisco Garcés, in charge of the Pápago at San Xavier del Bac (1768-76). In 1828, by decree of the revolutionary government of Mexico, all the missions were confiscated, the Spanish priests expelled, and all Christianizing effort came to an end. About 1840 the Pima were strengthened by the Maricopa from the lower Gila, who moved up to escape the attacks of the Yuma, the common enemy of both. Both tribes continue to live in close alliance, although of entirely different language and origin. Their relations with the United States Government began in 1846, when General Kearney's expedition entered their territory, and met with a friendly reception. Other expeditions stopped at their villages within the next few years, all meeting with kind treatment. With the influx of the California gold hunters about 1850, there set in a long period of demoralization, with frequent outrages by the whites which several times almost provoked an outbreak. In 1850 and 1857 the hostile Yuma were defeated. The Apache raids were constant and destructive until the final subjugation of that tribe by the Government. In all the Apache campaigns since 1864 the Pima have served as willing and efficient scouts. In 1857 a non-resident agent was appointed, and in 1859 a reservation was surveyed for the two tribes, and $10,000 in goods distributed among them as a recognition of past services. In 1870 the agency was established at Sacaton on the reservation, since which time they have been regularly under government supervision. The important problem of irrigation, upon which the future prosperity of the tribes depends, is now in process of satisfactory solution by the Government. As a body the Indians are now civilized, industrious as farmers and labourers, and largely Christian, divided between Presbyterian and Catholic. Presbyterian work was begun in 1870. The Catholics re-entered the field shortly afterwards, and have now a flourishing mission school, St. John the Baptist, at Gila Crossing, built in 1899, in charge of Franciscan Fathers, with several small chapels, and total Catholic population of 600 in the two tribes, including fifty Maricopa. The 5000 or more Pápago attached to the same agency have been practically all Catholic from the Jesuit period. In their primitive condition the Pima were agricultural and sedentary, living in villages of lightly-built dome-shaped houses, occupied usually by a single family each, and cultivating by the help of irrigation large crops of corn, beans, pumpkins and native cotton, from which the women spun the simple clothing, consisting of a breech-cloth and head-band for the man, and a short skirt for the women, with sandals or moccasin for special occasion and a buckskin shirt in extreme cold weather. They also prepared clothing fabrics from the inner bark of the willow. The heavier labour of cultivation was assumed by the men. Besides their cultivated foods, they made use of the fruits of the saguaro cactus, from which they prepared the intoxicating tizwin, and mesquite bean, besides the ordinary game of the country. They painted and tattooed their faces and wore their hair at full length. Their women were not good potters, but they excelled as basket makers. Their arms were the bow, the club, and the shield, fighting always on foot. Their allies were the Pápago and Maricopa, their enemies the Apache and Yuma. The killing of an enemy was followed by an elaborate purification ceremony, closing with a victory dance. There was a head tribunal chief, with subordinate village chiefs. Polygamy was allowed, but not frequent. Descent was in the male line. Unlike Indians generally, they had large families and welcomed twins. And unlike their neighbours, they buried in the ground instead of cremating their dead. Deformed infants were killed at birth, as were at later times the infants born of white or Mexican fathers. They had, and still retain, many songs of ceremony, war, hunting, gaming, love, medicine, and of childhood. According to their elaborate genesis myth, the earth was formed by "Earth Doctor", who himself evolved from a dense cloud of darkness. He made the plants and animals, and a race of never-dying humans, who by their increase so crowded the earth that he destroyed his whole creation and made a new world with a new race subject to thinning out by death. Another hero god is "Elder Brother", and prominent place is assigned to Sun, Moon, Night, and Coyote. The myth also includes a deluge story. Although the linguistic relations of the Oima are well known, all that is recorded in the language is comprised chiefly in a few vocabularies, none exceeding two hundred words, several of which in manuscript are in the keeping of the Bureau of American Ethnology (See KINO; PÁPAGO INDIANS.) BANCROFT, Hist. Arizona and New Mexico (San Francisco, 1889); Idem, Hist. Mexican States and Texas (2 vols., San Francisco, 1886); BARTLETT, Personal Narrative XX of Boundary Commission (2 vols., New York, 1854); BROWN, Adventures in the Apache Country (New York, 1869); Catholic Indian Missions, Bureau of, annual reports of Director of (Washington); Diary and Itinerary of Francisco Garcés, ed. CONES (2 vols., New York, 1900); Documentos para Historia de México (20 vols., Mexico, 1853-57); includes BERNAL, Relación de la Pimería, MANGE, Hist. Pimería, etc; EMERY, Notes of a Military Reconnaissance (Washington, 1848); RUSSELL, The Pima Indians in Twenty-sixth Rept. Bur. Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1908); WHIPPLE, Rept. of Expedition from San Diego to the Colorado (one of official Pacific Railroad Repts., Ex. Doc. 19, 31st Cong., 2nd sess., Washington, 1891). JAMES MOONEY Pinara Pinara A titular see in Lycia, suffragan of Myra. Pinara was one of the chief cities of the Lycian confederation. The Lycian hero, Pandarus, was held there in great honour. It was supposed to have been founded by Pinarus, who embarked with the first Cretans. According to another tradition, it was a colony of Kanthus and was first called Artymnessus. As in Lycian Pinara signifies "round hill", the city being built on a hill of this nature would have derived its new name from this fact. It is now the village of Minara or Minareh in the vilayet of Koniah. It contains magnificent ruins: walls, a theatre, an acropolis, sarcophagi and tombs, rare inscriptions (often Lycian), and the remains of a church. Five bishops of Pinara are known: Eustathius, who signed the formula of Acacius of Cæsarea at the Council of Selencia in 359; Heliodorus, who signed the letter from the bishops of Lycia to the Emperor Leo (458); Zenas, present at the Trullan Council (692); Theodore, at the Council of Nicæa (787); Athanasius, at the Photian Council of Constantinople (879). LE QUIEN, Oriens christ., I, 975; SMITH, Dict, of Greek and Roman geog., s. v.; FELLOWS, Lycia, 139; SPRATT AND FORBES, Travels in Lycia, I, 1 sqq. S. PÉTRIDÈS. Pinar Del Rio, Diocese of Diocese of Pinar del Rio (Pinetensis ad Flumen) Located in Cuba, erected by the Brief "Actum præclare" of Leo XIII, 20 Feb., 1903. The boundaries of the diocese are those of the civil province; it occupies the western part of the island and has an area of 2867 square miles. Its first bishop was Braulio de Orne y Vivanco, consecrated at Havana, 28 October, 1903, died the following year. The present bishop is Manuel Ruiz y Rodriguez, consecrated at Cienfuegos, 11 June, 1907. The diocese contains 27 parishes with 19 secular priests. There is a boys' school conducted by the Piarist Fathers, and a girls' school under the care of religious women. FERMIN FRAGA BARRO. Ippolito Pindemonte Ippolito Pindemonte An Italian poet of noble birth, born at Verona, 13 Nov., 1753; died there, 18 Nov., 1828. He received his training at the Collegio di San Carlo in Modena. As a result of much travelling in Italy and foreign lands he acquired a wide acquaintance, and formed close relations with many men of letters, He witnessed the beginnings of the Revolution in Paris, and poetized thereupon in his "Francia". Thence he went to London, Berlin, and Vienna. In 1791 he returned to Verona, with health impaired and saddened at the failure of his hopes for the regeneration and aggrandizement of Italy, and devoted his last years to study and religious practices. The chief poetical works of Pindemonte are the "Poesie" and "Prose campestri", the "Sepolcri" and his version of the Odyssey. The "Poesie" and "Prose campestri" were published between 1788 and 1794; the most admired portions are those entitled "Alla Luna", "Alla Salute", "La Melanconia", and "La Giovinezza". They evince his reading of the English descriptive poets. The "Sepolcri" is in the form of a letter and is largely a response to the similarly named poem of Foscolo, with whose views, respecting the patriotic and other emotions evoked by the aspect of the tombs of the well-deserving, he sympathizes; he rebukes Foscolo, however, for having neglected to recount, among the other emotions, that of the comfort brought to us by religious considerations. The influence of the English poet Gray is noticeable in this work. Upon his version of the Odyssey he seems to have laboured fifteen years, and is quite faithful to the letter and spirit of the original. It appeared in print in 1822. His lesser works include among others several tragedies, the "Ulisse", the "Geta e Caracalla" the "Eteocle e Polinice", and especially the "Arminio", composed in 1804 and revealing the influence exerted upon him by the Ossianic matter. In prose he produced the "Clementina", and a short story, "Abaritte", which imitates Johnson's "Rasselas". He left a large correspondence exchanged with noted persons of his time and a few minor documents. Poesie originali di I. Pindemonte (Florence, 1858-9); Odissea, ed. LONZOGUS, SANSONI; TORRACA, I. Sepolcri di I. Pindemonte in Discussioni (Leghorn, 1888); MONTANARI, Storia della vita de opere di I. P. (Venice, 1855); ZANELLA, I. Pindemonte e gli Inglesi in Paralleli letterari (Verona, 1885). J. D. M. FORD. John de Pineda John de Pineda Born in Seville, 1558; died there, 27 Jan., 1637. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1572, taught philosophy and theology five years in Seville and Cordova, and specialized in Scripture, which he taught for eighteen years in Cordova, Seville, and Madrid. He held the posts of Provost of the professed house and rector of the college of Seville. He was consultor to the Spanish Inquisition, and, in this capacity, visited the chief libraries of Spain. The results of his visits was the "Index Prohibitorum Librorum" (1612), which won the appreciation of the Inquisition and of the chief inquisitor, Cardinal Sandoval, Archbishop of Toledo; it was re-edited (1632) for Cardinal Zapata. His learning is evidenced by the nineteen printed works and six manuscripts, chiefly of exegetical subjects, which remain to us of his writings: (1) "Commentariorum in Job libri tredecim" (Madrid, 1597-1601). Each chapter is paraphrased and fully commented upon. These two folios were often re-issued in Madrid, Cologne, Seville, Venice, and Paris. Seven indices served as guides to the student. Both Catholic and Protestant exegetes still praise this colossal storehouse of erudition. The archeology, textual criticism, comparison of various interpretations, use of historical data from profane writers, all show Pineda to have been far ahead of his time in scientific criticism of the Bible; (2) "Prælectio sacra in Cantico Canticorum" (Seville, 1602), issued as a greeting to Cardinal de Guevara, archbishop of Seville, on the occasion of his visit to the Jesuit college there; (3) "Salomon prævius, sive de rebus Salomonis regis libri octo" (fol, pp. 587; Lyons 1609; Mainz, 1613). The life, kingdom, wisdom, wealth, royal buildings, character, and death of Solomon are treated in a scholarly fashion; five indices are added as helps to the student. (4) De C. Plinii loco inter eruditos controverso ex lib. VII. Atque etiam morbus est aliquis per sapientiam mori". Considerable controversy resulted from his interpretation of Pliny (see Sommervogel, infra). (5). "Commentarii in Ecclesiasten, liber unus" (folio, pp. 1224; Seville, 1619), appeared in various editions, as did the commentary on Solomon. The fame he won by his erudition and sanctity is attested in many ways. On a visit to the University of Evora, he was greeted by a Latin speech, and a memorial tablet was set up with the legend, Hic Pineda fuit. What astounds one most in the writings of this exegete of the old school is his vast knowledge, not merely of Latin, but of Greek and Hebrew. NIEREMBERG, Varones Ilustres de la C. de J. VII (Bilbao, 1891), 195; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliothèque de la C. de J., (Paris, 1895), VI, 796; IX, 772; GILHERME, Menologé de la C. de J. Assistance d'Espagne, I (Paris, 1902, 172. WALTER DRUM Diocese of Pinerolo Diocese of Pinerolo (PINEROLIENSIS) Located in the province of Turin, in Piedmont, Northern Italy, suffragan of Turin. In the Middle Ages the city of Pinerolo was one of the keys of Italy, and was therefore one of the principal fortresses of the dukes of Savoy. It is now the seat of a military school. Those of its churches deserving mention are the cathedral (which dates from the ninth century, and has a beautiful campanile) and San Maurizio, a beautiful Gothic church, from the belfry of which there is a superb view of the Alps and of the sub-Alpine plain. The earliest mention of Pinerolo is in the tenth century; it belonged to the Marca di Torino (March of Turin) and was governed by the abbots of Pinerolo, even after the city had established itself as a commune (1200). From 1235, however, Amadeus IV of Savoy exercised over the town a kind of protectorate which, in 1243, became absolute, and was exercised thereafter either by the house of Savoy, or of Savoy-Acaia. When the French invaded Piedmont (1536), Pinerolo fell into their hands and they remained in possession until 1574. However, by the treaty of Cherasco it again fell to France (1630), and it remained under French rule until restored by the treaty of Turin to Savoy. The latter state, at the same time, withdrew from the league against Louis XIV. Pinerolo was originally an abbey nullius. It was founded in 1064 by Adelaide, Princess of Susa, and was made a diocese, in 1748, at the request of Charles Emmanuel, its first prelate being G. B. d'Orlié. In 1805, conformably with the wish of Napoleon, the diocese was united with that of Saluzzo, but, in 1817, was re-established as an independent see. Within its territory is the famous fortress of Fenestrelle. It has 58 parishes, 16,200 inhabitants, 3 religious houses of women, and 3 educational institutes for girls. CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia (Venice, 1857); CARUTTI, Storia di Pinerolo (Pinerolo, 1893). U. BENIGNI. Alexandre Guy Pingre Alexandre Guy Pingré Born in Paris 11 September, 1711; died 1 May, 1796. He was educated in Senlis at the college of the Genovefan fathers, Regulars of the Order of St. Augustine, which he entered at sixteen. In 1735 he was made professor of theology there. About 1749 he accepted the professorship of astronomy in the newly-founded academy at Rouen. Already famous for detecting an error of four minutes in Lacaille's calculation of the lunar eclipse of 23 December, 1749, in 1753 he further distinguished himself by the observation of the transit of Mercury and was consequently appointed corresponding member of the Académie des Sciences. Later he was made librarian of Ste-Geneviève and chancellor of the university. He built an observatory in the Abbey of Ste-Geneviève and there spent forty years of strenuous labour. He compiled in 1753 the first nautical almanac for the year 1754, and subsequently for 1755-57, when Lalande was charged with the publication. Lacaille had calculated for his treatise, "L'art de vérifier les dates", the eclipses of the first nineteen centuries of the Christian era; Pingré in a second edition took up his calculations and extended them over ten centuries before Christ. In 1760 he joined an unsuccessful expedition to the Island Rodriguez in the Pacific to observe the transit of Venus on 6 June, 1761. More satisfactory results were obtained from an expedition to the French Cape on Haiti where the next transit was observed on 3 June, 1769. About 1757 he became engrossed in the history of comets, and in his "Cométographie ou Traité historique et théorique des comètes" (2 vols., Paris, 1783-4), the material contained in all the ancient annals and more recent publications is methodically arranged and critically sifted. In 1756 he published a "Projet d'une histoire d'astronomie du dix-septième siècle", completed in 1786. Through Lalande's influence the National Assembly granted three thousand francs to defray the expenses of publication, but it proceeded slowly and at Pingé's death was discontinued. In 1901 the whole work was re-edited by Bigourdan under the title: "Annales célestes du dix-septième siècle". Pingré also published "Manuale Astronomicon libri quinque et Arati Phænomena, cum interpretatione Gallica et notis" (2 vols., 1786), and numerous astronomical observations in the "Mémoires de l'Institut" (1753-87), in the "Journal de Trévoux", in the "Phil. Trans." etc. In encyclopedic works it is commonly asserted that Pingré took an active part in Jansenistic quarrels, and hence was relegated to provincial towns and colleges. Consequently he is often said to have fallen a victim to Roman intolerance. The fact is that during his earlier career Pingré seems to have been imbued with Jansenistic views, as is borne out by the "Nouvelles Ecclésiastiques", the great Jansenist organ. In 1737 Mgr de Salignac, Bishop of Pamiers, active against Jansenism, summoned Pingré, who was severely rebuked and finally had to submit to an examen by some Jesuit fathers. He expressed himself willing to condemn the five propositions, de cæur et d'esprit, at the same time maintaining that he could not condemn them as propositions of Jansenius, as they were not to be found in his works. (It should be remembered that in 1653 and 1656 the popes had declared repeatedly that the propositions were de facto contained in the "Augustinus".) In 1745 a general chapter of the fathers of Ste-Geneviève was convened; by order of the king Father Chambroy was elected superior general. Strict orders had been issued to the superiors of the conventual establishments that only such members should be deputed as were willing to subscribe to the papal Bulls and especially "Unigenitus". This measure excited opposition. Father Pingré, then living at Senlis, and some of his fellow religious entered a vehement protest against the proceedings of the chapter. Father Scoffier, one of the most determined opponents of the election, was removed from Senlis. A similar disciplinary punishment was inflicted on Pingré, then professor of theology. According to an introductory notice prefaced to the memoirs of the Jansenist Abbé Arnauld d'Andilly, in the collection "Mémoires sur l'histoire de France de Michaud et Poujoulat" (2nd series, IX), Pingré is their editor (Leyden, 1756). He was therefore an active Jansenist, at least until 1747; his influence, however, never became serious nor lasting. In the ecclesiastical history of the eighteenth century, especially in the "Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiatique pendant le 18e siècle" of Picot, his name is not mentioned. PRONY, Notice sur la vie et les ouvrages d'Alexandre Gui Pingré in Mémoires de l'Institut, I; LALANDE, Hist. de l'Astronomie 1796, pp. 773-8; DELAMBRE, Hist. de l'Astronomie au XVIIIe. siècle, pp. 664-87; VENTENAT, Notice sur la vie du citoyen Pingré, lue à la séance publique du Lycée des Arts in Magasin Encyclopédique, I, 342; Table raisonnée et alphabétique des nouvelles Ecclésiastiques depuis 1728 jusqu'en 1760 inclusivement (1767), s. vv. Pingré; Salignac; Chanoines Réguliers de Ste-Geneviève. J. STEIN Pinna Da Encarnacao, Mattheus Mattheus Pinna da Encarnaçao A writer and theologian, born at Rio de Janeiro, 23 Aug., 1687; died there, 18 Dec., 1764. On 3 March, 1703, he became a Benedictine at the Abbey of Nossa Senhora do Montserrate at Rio de Janeiro, where he also studied the humanities and philosophy under the learned José da Natividade. After studying theology at the monastery of Bahia he was ordained priest 24 March, 1708, and appointed professor of philosophy and theology. Along with Gaspar da Madre de Deus (died about 1780), Antonio de São Bernardo (died 1774) and a few others, he was the most learned Benedictine of his province and his contemporaries considered him the greatest theologian in Brazil. He was likewise highly esteemed for his piety and charity towards the poor, the sick, and the neglected. In 1726 he was elected abbot of the monastery at Rio de Janeiro, but Soon after his election incurred the displeasure of Luiz Vahia Monteiro, the Governor of Brazil, who banished him from his monastery in 1727. Soon afterwards he escaped to Portugal, became very influential at Court and was restored to his monastery by Cardinal Motta in 1729. He held the office of abbot repeatedly thereafter; both at Rio de Janeiro (1729-31 and 1739) and at Bahia in 1746. In 1732 he was elected provincial abbot, in which capacity he visited even the most distant monasteries of Brazil, despite the great difficulty of travel. He was again elected provincial abbot in 1752, but this time he declined the honour, preferring to spend his old age in prayer and retirement. His works are: "Defensio S. Matris Ecclesiæ" (Lisbon, 1729), an extensive treatise on grace and free will against Quesnel, Baius, Jansenius, etc.; "Viridario Evangelico" (Lisbon, 1730-37), four volumes of sermons on the Gospels; "Theologia Scholastica Dogmatica", in six volumes, which he did not complete entirely nor was it published. Dietario do Mosteiro de N. S. do Montserrate do Rio de Janeiro, preserved in Manuscript at the Monastery Library of Rio de Janeiro, 69-74, 312-18; RAMIZ GALVÃO, Apontamentos historicos sobre a Ordem Benedictino em general, e em particular sobre o Mosteiro de N. S. do Monserrate do Rio de Janeiro in Revista Trimensal do Instituto historico, geographico e ethnographico do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro, 1872), 249 sq. MICHAEL OTT. Pinto, Fernao Mendes Fernão Mendes Pinto A Portuguese traveller, born at Montemor-o-Velho near Coimbra, c. 1509; died at Almada near Lisbon, 8 July, 1583. After serving as page to the Duke of Coimbra, he went to the East Indies in 1537, and, for twenty-one years, travelled, chiefly in the Far East. In the course of his adventurous career at sea, he was, as he tells on the title page of his book, several times shipwrecked, taken prisoner many times and sold as a slave. He was the first to make known the natural riches of Japan, and founded the first settlement near Yokohama, in 1548. In 1558, tired of wandering, he returned to Portugal where he married, settling in the town of Almada. The first account of his travels is to be found in a collection of Jesuit letters published in Venice in 1565, but the best is his own "Peregrinaçäo", the first edition of which appeared in Lisbon in 1614. The work is regarded as a classic in Portugal, where Pinto is considered one of their best prose writers. In other countries, it has been enthusiastically read by some, by others characterized as a highly coloured romance. But it has an element of sincerity which is convincing, and its substantial honesty is now generally admitted. It is probable that, having written it from memory, he put down his impressions, rather than events as they actually occurred. The Spanish edition by Francisco de Herrara appeared in 1620, reprinted in 1627, 1645, 1664. The French translation is by Figuier (Paris, 1628, and 1630). There are three English editions by Cogan (London, 1663, 1692, and 1891), the last abridged and illustrated. COGAN, Travels of Fernando Mendes Pinto, tr. (London, 1891). V. FUENTES. Pinturicchio Pinturicchio (BERNARDINO DI BETTO, surnamed PINTURICCHIO) Born at Verona, about 1454; died at Siena, 11 December, 1513. He studied under Fiorenzo di Lorenzo; and his fellow students, perhaps because of his great facility, surnamed him Pinturicchio (the dauber). Pinturicchio did an immense amount of work. His principal easel pictures are : "St. Catherine" (National Gallery, London); a "Madonna" (Cathedral of Sanseverino), with the prothonotary, Liberato Bartello, kneeling; "Portrait of a Child" (Dresden Gallery); "Apollo and Marsyas" (the Louvre), attributed to Perugino, Francia, and even Raphael; the "Madonna enthroned between saints", an altar-piece (Pinacotheca of Perugia); the "Madonna of Monteoliveto" (communal palace of San Gimignano); a "Coronation of the Virgin" (Pinacotheca of the Vatican); the "Return of Ulysses" (National Gallery, London); the "Ascent of Calvary", a splendid miniature (Borromeo Palace, Milan). He was Chiefly a frescoist, following principally the process of distemper (tempera). There are frescoes of his in the Sistine Chapel, in the decoration of which he assisted Perugino in 1480, Ara Coeli, the Appartamento Borgia, Spello, Siena, and Sta Maria del Popolo. Modern critics agree in recognizing as his two frescoes in the Sistine Chapel, the "Baptism of Jesus" and "Moses journeying to Egypt". The Bufalini commissioned him to paint the life of St. Bernardine for the chapel at the Ara Coeli; but his chief work was the decoration of the Borgia apartment entrusted to him by Alexander VI. In the Hall of Saints, the most beautiful of all, he has outlined with much grace and brilliancy the histories of various martyrs: St. Susanna, St. Barbara, Disputation of St. Catherine, Visit of St. Anthony to St. Paul the Hermit, and the Martyrdom of St. Sebastian. The next hall is devoted to the representation of the Liberal Arts. Critics generally deny that the decoration of the last two rooms is the work of Pinturicchio, but the three large rooms which he certainly decorated form an exquisite museum. Following the Sienese school Pinturicchio enlivened his paintings by making use of sculptured reliefs glistening with gold which he mixed with his frescoes. In 1501 he decorated the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament in St. Mary Major at Spello. On the ceiling he painted four Sibyls and on the walls the Annunciation, the Adoration of the Shepherds and the Arrival of the Magi, and Jesus in the midst of the Doctors. He had a special love for these pictures for in them he placed his own portrait. In 1502 Cardinal Francisco Piccolomini commissioned him to depict the life of his uncle, Pius II, in ten large compositions on the side walls of the Piccolomini library at Siena. These frescoes are fifteenth-century tableaux vivants in which people of all conditions are represented. Above the altar erected at the entrance to the Library is seen the Coronation of Pius III. Pinturicchio, again summoned to Rome by Julius II, painted on the ceiling of the choir of Sta Maria del Popolo splendid Sibyls and Doctors of the Church, in stucco frames separated by graceful arabesques. CROWE AND CAVALCASELLE, A new history of painting in Italy, III, (London, 1866), 256; BURCKHARDT AND BODE, Le Cicerone, tr. GÉRARD, II (Paris, 1892), 588-91; EHRLE AND STEVENSON, Gli affreschi del Pinturicchio nell'appartamento Borgia (Rome, 1897); STEIMANN, Pinturicchio (Bielefeld, 1898); BOYER D'AGEN, Pinturicchio in Siena (Berlin, 1903); RICCI, Pinturicchio, tr. into French (Paris, 1903); SORTAIS, Pinturicchio et l'Ecole ombrienne in Excursions artistiques et littéraires (Paris, 1903); 2nd series, 1-89; GOFFIN, Pinturicchio (Paris, 1906); PÉRATÉ, Pinturicchio in Hist. de l'Art d'André Michel, IV, (Paris, 1909), 317-29. GASTON SORTAIS Martin Alonso Pinzon Martín Alonso Pinzón Spanish navigator and companion of Columbus on his first voyage to the New World, b. at Palos de Moguer, 1441; d. there at the convent of La Rábida, 1493. Sprung from a family of seamen, he became a hardy sailor and skilful pilot. According to Parkman and other historians, he sailed under Cousin, a navigator from Dieppe, to the eastern coast of Africa, whence they were carried far to the south-west. They there discovered an unknown land and a mighty river. Pinzón's conduct on this voyage was so mutinous that Cousin entered a complaint to the admiralty on their return home, and had him dismissed from the maritime service of Dieppe. Returning to Spain Pinzón became acquainted with Columbus through Fray Juan Perez de Marchina, prior of the convent of La Rábida, and became an enthusiastic promoter of the scheme of the great navigator. Other historians account differently for the origin of Pinzón's interest in Columbus's project. According to these, he heard of the scheme several years after he had retired from active life as a sailor, and established with his brothers a shipbuilding firm in his native town. During a visit to Rome he learned from the Holy Office of the tithes which had been paid from the beginning of the fifteenth century from a country named Vinland, and examined the charts of the Norman explorers. On his return home he supported the claims of Columbus, when his opinion was sought by Queen Isabella's advisers concerning the proposed voyage. It was he who paid the one-eighth of the expense demanded from Columbus as his share, and built the three vessels for the voyage. Through his influence also Columbus secured the crews for the transatlantic journey. Pinzón commanded the "Pinta", and his brother Vicente Yañez the "Niña". On 21 November, 1492, he deserted Columbus off Cuba, hoping to be the first to discover the imaginary island of Osabeque. He was the first to discover Haiti (Hispaniola), and the river where he landed (now the Porto Caballo) was long called after him the River of Martin Alonso. He carried off thence four men and two girls, intending to steal them as slaves, but he was compelled to restore them to their homes by Columbus, whom he rejoined on the coast of Haiti on 6 January, 1493. It was during this absence that the flagship was driven ashore, and Columbus compelled to take to the "Niña". In excuse for his conduct, Pinzón afterwards alleged stress of weather. Off the coast of the Azores he again deserted, and set sail with all speed for Spain, hoping to be the first to communicate the news of the discovery. Driven by a hurricane into the port of Bayonne in Galicia, he sent a letter to the king asking for an audience. The monarch refusing to receive anyone but the admiral, Pinzón sailed for Palos, which he reached on the same day as Columbus (15 March, 1493). Setting out immediately for Madrid to make a fresh attempt to see the king, he was met by a messenger who forbade him to appear at court. Anger and jealousy, added to the privations of the voyage, undermined his health, and led to his death a few months later. In addition to the various biographies of Columbus, consult especially Ascensio, Martin Alonso Pinzón, estudio historico (Madrid, 1892); Fernandez Duro, Colón, Pinzón (Madrid, 1883). THOMAS KENNEDY Sebastiano Del Piombo Sebastiano del Piombo More correctly known as Sebastiano Luciani. Venetian portrait painter, b. at Venice, 1485; d. in Rome, 1547. He was known as del Piombo, from the office, conferred upon him by Clement VII, of keeper of the leaden seals. He was a pupil of Giovanni Bellini, and later on of Giorgione. His first idea was to become a religious or an ecclesiastic, and it is probable that he took minor orders and had every intention of proceeding to the priesthood, but he was strongly interested in music, devoted considerable time to studying that art, and in so doing became acquainted with Giorgione, a clever musician, who it appears induced him to delay his procedure towards the priesthood and give some attention to painting. It was on Giorgione's recommendation that he entered the studio of Bellini and, later, worked with Giorgione in his own studio. From the time of his acquaintance with him, we hear no more of his intention to embrace an ecclesiastical career. His earlier paintings were executed in Venice, but he was invited to Rome by Agostino Chigi, who was then building the Farnesina Palace, and some of the decoration of the rooms was put in the hands of Luciani. His work attracted the attention of Michelangelo, and the two men became warm friends. A little later Raphael saw his work and praised it highly, but they were never friends because of the jealousy existing between Michelangelo and Raphael and the friendship between Luciani and Michelangelo. The works which Luciani executed in Rome and at Viterbo betrayed the strong influence of Michelangelo. Their grandeur of composition could have come from no other artist of the time, but their magnificence of colour has nothing to do with the great sculptor, and is the result of Luciani's genius. A special event in Luciani's career is connected with the commission given to Raphael to paint the picture of the Transfiguration. Cardinal de' Medici, who commissioned the picture, desired at the same time to give an altar-piece to his titular cathedral at Narbonne, and commissioned a painting to be called the "Raising of Lazarus", and to be of the same size as Raphael's "Transfiguration". The two works were finished at about the same time, and were exhibited. It was perfectly evident that Luciani owed a great deal to the influence and the assistance of Michelangelo, but the colouring was so magnificent, and the effect so superb, that it created great excitement in Rome; notwithstanding that the "Transfiguration" by Raphael was regarded as the greater picture, Luciani's work was universally admired. The picture is now in the English National Gallery. Luciani painted a great many portraits, one of Cardinal de' Medici, another of Aretino, more than one portrait of members of the Doria family, of the Farnese, and of the Gonzaga families, and a clever one of Baccio Bandinelli the painter. His painting was marked by vigour of colouring, sweetness, and grace; his portraits are exceedingly true and lifelike, the draperies well painted, and well drawn, but the feature of his work is the extraordinary quality of his colour and the atmosphere with all the delicate subtleties of colour value which it gives. In many of his pictures the colouring is as clear and fresh to-day as it was when it was first painted, and this more especially applies to the carnations, in other men's work the first to fade. After the death of Raphael, he was regarded as the chief painter in Rome, and it was then that he acquired his position as keeper of the lead seals, an office which was lucrative and important, and which enabled him to have more leisure than hitherto had been at his disposal. His death took place at the time that he was painting the chapel of the Chigi family, a work which was to be finished by Salviati. His pictures can be studied in Florence, Madrid, Naples, Parma, St. Petersburg, and Travesio, three of his most notable portraits being those at Naples and Parma, and the fine portrait of Cardinal Pole, now at St. Petersburg. See VASARI's Lives of the Painters, various editions; and a work by CLAUDIO TOLOMEI, cited by LANZI, and known as Pitturi di Lendinara. GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON St. Pionius St. Pionius Martyred at Smyrna, 12 March, 250. Pionius, with Sabina and Asclepiades, was arrested on 23 February, the anniversary of St. Polycarp's martyrdom. They had passed the previous night in prayer and fasting. Knowing of his impending arrest, Pionius had fastened fetters round the necks of himself and his companions to signify that they were already condemned. People seeing them led off unbound might suppose that they were prepared, like so many other Christians in Smyrna, the bishop included, to sacrifice. Early in the morning, after they had partaken of the Holy Bread and of water, they were conducted to the forum. The place was thronged with Greeks and Jews, for it was a great Sabbath and therefore a general holiday in the city == an indication of the importance of the Jews in Smyrna. Pionius harangued the multitude. He begged the Greeks to remember what Homer had said about not mocking the corpse of an enemy. Let them refrain therefore from mocking those Christians who had apostatized. He then turned to the Jews and quoted Moses and Solomon to the same effect. He ended with a vehement refusal to offer sacrifice. Then followed the usual interrogatories and threats, after which Pionius and his companions were relegated to prison, to await the arrival of the proconsul. Here they found other confessors, among them a Montanist. Many pagans visited them, and Christians who had sacrificed, lamenting their fall. The latter Pionius exhorted to repentance. A further attempt before the arrival of the proconsul was made to force Pionius and his companions into an act of apostasy. They were carried off to a temple where every effort was made to compel them to participate in a sacrifice. On 12 March, Pionius was brought before the proconsul who first tried persuasion and then torture. Both having failed, Pionius was condemned to be burnt alive. He suffered in company with Metrodorus, a Marcionite priest. His feast is kept by the Latins ion 1 Feb.; by the Greeks on 11 March. The true day of his martyrdom, according to the Acts, was 12 March. Eusebius ("H.E.", IV, xv; "Chron.", p. 17, ed. Schoene) places the martyrdom in the reign of Antoninus. His mistake was probably due to the fact that he found the martyrdom of Pionius in a volume containing the Acts of Martyrs of an earlier date. Possibly his MS. lacked the chronological note in our present ones. For the life of Polycarp by Pionius, see Polycarp, Saint. Did Pionius before his martyrdom celebrate with bread and water? We know from St. Cyprian (Ep. 63) that this abuse existed in his time. But note (1) the bread is spoken of as Holy, but not the water; (2) it is unlikely that Pionius would celebrate with only two persons present. It is more likely therefore that we have an account, not of a celebration, but of a private Communion (see Funk, "Abhandlungen", I, 287). J.F. BACCHUS The Pious Fund of the Californias The Pious Fund of the Californias (Fondo Piadoso de las Californias) The Pious Fund of the Californias had its origin, in 1697, in voluntary donations made by individuals and religious bodies in Mexico to members of the Society of Jesus, to enable them to propagate the Catholic Faith in the area then known as California. The early contributions to the fund were placed in the hands of the missionaries, the most active of whom were Juan Maria Salvatierre and Francisco Eusebio Kino. The later and larger donations took the form of agreements by the donors to hold the property donated for the use of the missions, and to devote the income therefrom to that purpose. In 1717 the capital sums of practically all the donations were turned over to the Jesuits, and from that year until the expulsion of the Society of Jesus from Mexico the Pious Fund was administered by them. In 1768, with the expulsion of all the members of the Society from Spanish territory by the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles III of Spain, the crown of Spain assumed the administration of the fund and retained it until Mexican independence was achieved in 1821. During this period (1768-1821) missionary labours in California were divided, the territory of Upper California being confided to the Franciscans, and that of lower California to the Dominicans. Prior to the expulsion of the Jesuits, thirteen missions had been founded in Lower California, and by the year 1823 the Franciscans had established twenty-one missions in Upper California. In 1821 the newly established Government of Mexico assumed the administration of the fund and continued to administer it until 1840. In 1836 Mexico passed an Act authorizing a petition to the Holy See for the creation of a bishopric in California, and declaring that upon its creation "the property belonging to the Pious Fund of the Californias shall be placed at the disposal of the new bishop and his successors, to be by them managed and employed for its objects, or others similar ones, always respecting the wishes of the founders". In response to this petition, Gregory XVI, in 1840, created the Californias into a diocese and appointed Francisco Garcia Diego (then president of the missions of the Californias) as the first bishop of the diocese. Shortly after his consecration, Mexico delivered the properties of the Pious Fund to Bishop Diego, and they were held and administered by him until 1842, when General Santa Ana, President of Mexico, promulgated a decree repealing the above-mentioned provision of the Act of 1836, and directing that the Government should again receive charge of the fund. The properties of the fund were surrendered under compulsion to the Mexican Government in April, 1842, and on 24 October of that year a decree was promulgated by General Santa Ana directing that the properties of the fund be sold, and the proceeds incorporated into the national treasury, and further provided that the sale should be for a sum representing the annual income of the properties capitalized at six per cent per annum. The decree provided that "the public treasuries will acknowledge a debt of six percent per annum on the total proceeds of the sale", and specially pledged the revenue from tobacco for the payment of that amount "to carry on the objects to which said fund is destined". By the treaty of Guadalupe Hildago, 2 Feb., 1848, Upper Mexico was ceded to the United States by Mexico, and all claims of citizens of the United States against the Republic of Mexico which had theretofore accrued were discharged by the terms of the treaty. After the treaty of Guadalupe Hildago (and indeed for some years before) Mexico made no payments for the benefit of the missions. The archbishop and bishops of California claimed that, as citizens of the United States, they were entitled to demand and receive from Mexico for the benefit of the missions within their diocese a proper proportion of the sums which Mexico had assumed to pay in its legislative decree of 24 October, 1842. By a convention between the United States and Mexico, concluded 4 July, 1868, and proclaimed 1 Feb., 1869, a Mexican and American Mixed Claims Commission was created to consider and adjudge the validity of claims held by citizens of either country against the Government of the other which had arisen between the date of the treaty of Guadalupe Hildago and the date of the convention creating the commission. To this commission the prelates of Upper California, in 1869, presented their claims against Mexico for such part of twenty-one years' interest on the Pious Fund (accrued between 1848 and 1869) payable under the terms of the Santa Ana decree of 1842, as was properly apportionable to the missions of Upper California (Lower California having remained Mexican territory). Upon the submission of this claim for decision the Mexican and American commissioners disagreed as to its proper disposition, and it was referred to the umpire of the commission, Sir Edward Thornton, then British Ambassador at Washington. On 11 Nov., 1875, the umpire rendered an award in favour of the archbishop and bishops of California. By that award the value of the funds at the time of its sale in 1842 was finally fixed at $1,435,033. The annual interest on this sum at six per cent (the rate being fixed by the decree of 1842) amounted to $86,101.98 and for the twenty-one years between 1848 and 1869 totalled $1,808,141.58. The umpire held that of this amount, one-half should equitably be held apportionable to the missions of Upper California, located in American territory, and therefore awarded to the United States for the account of the archbishop and bishops of California $904,070.79. This judgment was paid in gold by Mexico in accordance with the terms of the convention of 1868, in thirteen annual installments. Mexico, however, then disputed its obligation to pay any interest accruing after the period covered by the award of the Mixed Claims Commission (that is, after 1869), and diplomatic negotiations were opened by the Government of the United States with the Government of Mexico, which resulted, after some years, in the signing of a protocol between the two Governments on 22 May, 1902, by which the question of Mexico's liability was submitted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. This was the first International controversy submitted to the tribunal. By the terms of the protocol, the Arbitral court was to decide first whether the liability of Mexico to make annual payments to the United States for the account of the Roman Catholic bishops of California had been rendered res judicata by the award of the Mixed Claim Commission, and second, if not, whether the claim of the United States, that Mexico was bound to continue such payments, was just. On 14 October, 1902, the tribunal at The Hague mad an award judging that the liability of Mexico was established by the principal of res judicata, and by virtue of the arbitral sentence of Sir Edward Thornton, as umpire of the Mixed Claim Commission; that in consequence the Mexican Government was bound to pay the United States, for the use of the Roman Catholic archbishop and bishops of California the sum of $1,402,682.67, in extinguishment of the annuities which had accrued from 1869 to 1902, and was under the further obligation to pay "perpetually" an annuity of $43,050.99, in money having legal currency in Mexico. The Government of Mexico has since the date of The Hague award complied with its provisions, and annually pays to the Government of the United States, in Mexican silver, for the use of the Catholic prelates of California, the sum adjudged to be due from it as a "perpetual" annuity. Transcript of Record of Proceedings before the Mexican and American Mixed Claims Commission with Relation to. . . .. . . . . .Claim No. 439, American Docket (Washington, 1902); Diplomatic Correspondence Relative to the Pious Fund of the Californias (Washington, 1902); United States vs. Mexico. . . .. . . . . .Senate Document No, 28, 57th Congress, Second Session (Washington, 1902). GARRET W. McENERNY The Pious Society of Missions The Pious Society of Missions Founded by Ven. Vincent Mary Pallotti in 1835. The members of the society are generally called Pallottini Fathers. Its object is to preserve the Faith among Catholics, especially among emigrants, who are exposed to many grave dangers, and to propagate the Faith among non-Catholics and infidels. The Society of Missions embraces three classes: (1) priests, clerics, and lay-brothers; (2) sisters, who help the priests in their missionary works as teachers and catechists, and who care for the temporal necessities of their churches and houses; (3) affiliated ecclesiastics and lay people. The sisters live a community life, and follow the Rule of St. Francis. They dedicate themselves to the spiritual and temporal welfare of their sex. They are especially engaged in missionary work among the emigrants in America, and the infidels in Africa and Australia. The third class consists of both the secular and regular clergy and the laity who are affiliated with the Society of Missions and help by their prayers, works, and financial aid the propagation of the Faith. The founder prescribed that his society should be a medium between the secular and the regular clergy. He desired to foster the work of the Catholic Apostolate. This desire of his was strikingly symbolized by the annual celebration of the octave (which he inaugurated in 1836) and the feast of Epiphany in Rome (see PALLOTTI, VINCENT MARY, VENERABLE). He gave to his society the name of "Catholic Apostolate", afterwards changed by Pius IX to the "Pious Society of Missions". The word Pious is to be taken in the sense of the Latin pia, i.e., devoted or dedicated to God. On 9 Jan., 1835, Pallotti conceived the plan of his institute and submitted it to the Apostolic See, and received the required approbation through the cardinal vicar, Odescalchi, on 4 April, 1835, as again by another rescript on 29 May, and finally by Pope Gregory XVI on 14 July of the same year. Nearly all religious orders and communities favoured the newly-created institute with a share in all their spiritual works and indulgences. In the first years of its existence the Pious Society of Missions had among its affiliated members, twenty-five cardinals, many bishops, Roman princes, and religious communities and societies, as also men known in that time as great apostles, Blessed Caspar del Buffalo, the founder of the Congregation of the Most Precious Blood and Maria Clausi of the Order of St. Francis of Paula. For a time the Society of the Propagation of Faith in Lyons feared that the new society would interfere with its special work. Pallotti satisfied the Holy See that the purpose of his society was different from that of the Propagation. As the name, "Catholic Apostolate", occasioned objections in some quarters, it was changed to the "Pious Society of Missions". At the Camaldolese convent near Frascati, he wrote the constitution and rules for the society, which Pius IX approved ad tempus, 1846. According to them, the members of the society should, after two years' novitiate, promise four things, poverty, chastity, obedience, and refusal of any ecclesiastical dignity, except by obedience to the Holy See. Pope Pius X approved ad experiendum the newly-revised rules and constitutions, December, 1903, for six years, and gave the final approbation on 5 Nov., 1909. The mother-house is in the Via Pettinari 57, Rome, attached to the church of San Salvatore. Pallotti sent his first missionary fathers to London in 1844, to take care of Italian emigrants in the Sardinian Oratory. Rev. D. Marquese Joseph Fa? di Bruno built the church of St. Peter in Hatton Garden which is the principal church of the Italians in London. He was one of the generals of the society, and wrote "Catholic Belief", a clear and concise exposition of Catholic doctrine, especially intended for non-Catholics. Over one million copies of this book were sold, and it was translated into Italian by the author. Under his generalate, the society extended its activities beyond Rome, Rocca Priora, and London to other countries. He received from Leo XIII the church of S. Silvestre in Capite in Rome for the use of the English-speaking colony there. In Masio in northern Italy, he established an international college, a mission at Hastings, England, and in London (St. Boniface's) for the German colony; in Limburg, Ehrenbreitstein, and Vallemdar there are flourishing colleges for the missions in Kamerun, West Africa. These missions have now a vicar Apostolic and 12 houses, with 70 schools belonging to it. In South America there are establishments at Montevideo, Mercedes, Saladas, and Suipacha; 14 missions of the society in Brazil embrace a territory three times the size of the State of New York. Rev. Dr. E. Kirner started the first Italian Mission in New York City in 1883, afterwards one in Brooklyn, N.Y., Newark, N.J., Hammondton, N.J., and Baltimore, Md. In North America the Pallottini Fathers have at present over 100,000 Italian emigrants under their spiritual care. The society, in the year 1909, was divided into four provinces, the Italian, American, English, and German. JOHN VOGEL Giambattista Piranesi Giambattista Piranesi An Italian etcher and engraver, b. at Venice, 1720; d. in Rome, 9 Nov., 1778. His uncle Lucchesi gave him lessons in drawing, until in 1738 his father, a mason, sent him to Rome to study architecture under Valeriani and engraving under Vasi. He did not return except for a brief visit to his family. In 1741 he brought out a work on arches, bridges, and other remains of antiquity, a notable monument of black and white art; thereafter he opened a gallery for the sale of prints, chiefly his own. He was a rapid and facile worker and etched more than 2000 large plates, full of detail, vigour, and brilliancy. As a rule he drew directly on copper, and hence his work is bold, free, and spirited to a marked degree; his shadows are luminous, but at times there is too much chiaroscuro. The result is a dramatic alternation of black and white, and of light and shade, which deservedly won for him the name of "the Rembrandt of architecture". Skilful and artistic printing lent an added charm to his proofs, and the poor impressions that exist in western Europe come from plates that were captured by British warships during the Napoleonic wars. Some of the etchings in his twenty-nine folio volumes are on double-elephant paper, ten feet in length. While he achieved a work of magnitude in pictorial records of Roman monuments of antiquity and of the Renaissance, and gave immense archæological, antiquarian, and topographical value to this work, the artistic quality always predominates. He was fond of peopling his ruins with Callot-like figures, and "like Callot makes great use of the swelling line" (Hind). His plates ultimately came into the possession of the pope. Although not eminent as an architect he repaired among other edifices the church of S. Maria del Popolo, and the Priory of Malta, in which is a life-size statue to his memory. Piranesi married a peasant, and his children, Francesco and Laura, were of great assistance to him towards the end of his laborious life. Laura's touch strongly resembles that of her father. He was decorated with the Order of Christ and was made a member of the London Society of Antiquaries. His works are: "Roman Antiquities" (220 plates); Views of Rome (130 plates); Antique Statues, Vases and Busts (350 plates); Magnificence of the Romans (47 plates). DELABORDE, La Gravure (tr. London, 1886); HIND, A Short History of Engraving and Etching (London, 1908); HUNEKER, Promenades of an Impressionist (New York, 1910). LEIGH HUNT Pirhing, Ernricus Ernricus Pirhing Born at Sigarthin, near Passau, 1606; died between 1678 and 1681. At the age of twenty-two he entered the Society of Jesus, where he gave instruction in the Sacred Sciences. He taught canon law and Scripture for twelve years at Dillingen, where he was still living in 1675. His "Jus canonicum in V libros Decretalium distributum" (5 vols., Dillingen, 1674-77; 4 vols., Dillingen, 1722; 5 vols., Venice, 1759) marks a progress in canonical science in Germany, for although he maintains the classical divisions of the "Corpus Juris", he gives a complete and synthetic explanation of the canonical legislation of the matters which he treats. He published also, under the form of theses, seven pamphlets on the titles of the first book of the Decretals, which were resumed in his "Jus Canonicum"; and an "Apologia" against two sermons of the Protestant Balduinus (Ingolstadt, 1652; Munich, 1653). After his death one of his colleagues published a "Synopsis Pirhingana", or résumé of his "Jus Canonicum" (Dillingen, 1695; Venice, 1711). DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliothèque des écrivains de la C. de J. (Liège, 1872), II, 1999; SCHULTE, Die Gesch. der Quellen u. Literatur des kanonischen Rechts (Stuttgart, 1880), III, 143. A. VAN HOVE. Pirkheimer Pirkheimer Charitas Pirkheimer Abbess of the Convent of St. Clara, of the Poor Clares, in Nuremberg, and sister of the celebrated Humanist Willibald Pirkheimer, b. in Nuremberg, 21 March, 1466; d. there 19 August, 1532. At the age of twelve she obtained a remarkable spiritual formation in the cloister of St. Clara. It is not known when she entered the religious life. She found a friend in Apollonia Tucher, whom her nephew, Christoph Scheurl, entitles "The crown of her convent, a mirror of virtue, a model of the sisterhood," and who became prioress in 1494. She also, toward the end of the century, became a friend of the cousin of Apollonia, the provost, Sixtus Tucher. This friendship finds expression in thirty-four letters of Tucher addressed to the two nuns, treating principally of spiritual subjects and of the contemplative life. Charitas, who in 1500 was a teacher and perhaps also mistress of novices, was chosen on 20 December, 1503, as abbess. The first twenty years of her tenure of office she passed in the peace of contemplative life. She was able to read the Latin authors, and thereby acquired a classic style. The works of the Fathers of the Church, especailly of St. Jerome, were her favourite reading. In her studies her brother Willibald was her guide and teacher. He dedicated to her in 1513 his Latin translation of Plutarch's Treatise "On the Delayed Vengeance of the Deity" and praises in the preface her education and love for study, against which Charitas, "more disturbed than astonished", protested, claiming that she was not a scholar, but only the friend of learned men. In 1519 he dedicated to his sisters, Charitas and Clara, who since 1494 had also been a Poor Clare, the work of St. Fulgentius, and in 1521 he translated for them the sermons of St. Gregory of Nazianzus. Several of Pirkheimer's humanist friends became acquainted with the highly cultivated abbess. Conrad Celtes presented her with his edition of the works of the nun Hrosvit (Roswitha) of Gandersheim, and his own poems, and, in a eulogy, praises her as a rare adornment of the German Fatherland. Charitas thanked him, but advised him frankly to rise from the study of pagan writings to that of the Sacred Books, from earthly to heavenly pursuits. Christoph Scheurl dedicated to her in 1506 his "Utilitates missæ" (Uses of the Mass); in 1515 he published the letters of Tucher to Charitas and Apollonia. She was highly esteemed by Georg Spalatin, Kiliam Leib, Johannes Butzbach, and the celebrated painter, Dürer. But all the praise she received excited no pride in Charitas; she remained simple, affable, modest and independent, uniting in perfect harmony high education and deep piety. It was thus she resisted the severe temptations which hung over the last ten years of her life. When the Lutheran doctrines were brought into Nuremberg, the peace of the convent ceased. Charitas had already made herself unpopular by a letter to Emser (1522) in which she thanked him for his valiant actions as "The Powerful Defender of the Christian Faith". Since 1524 the governor had sought to reform the cloister and to acquire possession of its property. He assigned to the convent of the Poor Clares Lutheran preachers to whom the nuns were forced to listen. The acute and bigoted inspector, Nützel, tirelessly renewed his attempts at perversion, while outside the people rioted, threw stones into the church and sang scandalous songs. Three nuns, at the request of their parents and in spite of their resistance, were taken out of the convent by violence. On the other hand Melanchthon, during his residence in Nuremberg in 1525, was very friendly to them, and the diminution of the persecution is attributable to him. Nevertheless, the convent was deprived of the care of souls, was highly taxed and, in fine, doomed to a slow death. With constant courage and resourceful superiority, Charitas defended her rights against the attacks and wiles of the town-council, the abusive words of the preachers, and the shameful slanders of the people. Her memoirs illuminate this period of suffering as far as 1528. Her last experience of earthly happiness was the impressive celebration of her jubilee at Easter, 1529. At last a peaceful death freed her from bodily sufferings and attacks of the enemies of her convent. Her sister, Clara, and her niece, Katrina, daughter of Willibald, succeeded her as abbess. The last abbess was Ursula Muffel. Towards the end of the century the convent was closed. Willibald Pirkheimer German Humanist, b. at Eichstätt, 5 December, 1470; d. at Nuremberg, 22 December, 1530. He was the son of the episcopal councillor and distinguished lawyer, Johannes Pirkheimer, whose family came from Nuremberg, which Willibald regarded as his active place. He studied jurisprudence, the classics, and music at the Universities of Padua and Pavia (1489-95). In 1495 he married Crescentia Rieter (d. 1504), by whom he had five daughters. >From 1498 to 1523, when he voluntarily retired, he was one of the town councillors of Nuremberg, where he was the centre of the Humanistic movement, and was considered one of the most distinguished representatives of Germany. His house stood open to everyone who sought intellectual improvement, and was celebrated by Celtis as the gathering place of scholars and artists. His large correspondence shows the extent of his literary connexions. In 1499, with the aid of a capable soldier, he led the Nuremberg contingent in the Swiss war, his classical history of which appeared in 1610 and won for him the name of the German Xenophon. Maximilian appointed him imperial councillor. He owes his fame to his many-sided learning, and few were as widely read as he in the Greek and Latin literatures. He translated Greek classics, e. g., Euclid, Xenophon, Plato, Ptolemy, Plutarch, Lucian, and the Church Fathers into Latin. Like Erasmus, he paid less attention to a literal rendering than to the sense of his translations, and thus produced works which can be compared with the best of the translated literature of that period. He also wrote a work on the earliest history of Germany, and was interested in astronomy, mathematics, the natural sciences, numismatics, and art. Albert Dürer was one of his friends and has painted his characteristic portrait. He defended Reuchlin in the latter's dispute with the theologians of Cologne. At the beginning of the Reformation he took sides with Luther, whose able opponent, Johann Eck, he attacked in the coarse satire "Eckius dedolatus" (Eck planed down). On behalf of Luther he also wrote a second bitter satire, in an unprinted comedy, called "Schutzschrift". Consequently his name was included in the Bull of excommunication of 1520, and in 1521 he was absolved "not without painful personal humiliation", was requred to acknowledge Luther's doctrine to be heresy, and denounce it formally by oath. Nevertheless, up to 1525 his sympathies were with the Reformation, but as the struggtle went on, like many other Humanists, he turned aside from the movement and drew towards the Church, with which he did not wish to break. In Luther, whom he had at first regarded as a reformer, he saw finally a teacher of false doctrines, "completely a prey to delusion and led by the evil fiend". Luther's theological ideas had never been matters of conscience to him, hence the results of the changes, the decay of the fine arts, the spread of the movement socially and economically, the religious quarrels, and the excesses of zealots repelled him as it did his friend Erasmus who was in intellectual sympathy with him. His sister, Charitas, was the Abbess of the Convent of St. Clara at Nuremberg, where another sister, Clara, and his daughters, Katharina and Crescentia, were also nuns. From 1524 they were troubled by the petty annoyances and "efforts at conversion" of the city council that had become Lutheran. This affected him deeply and aided in extinguishing his enthusiasm for the Reformation. His last literary labour, which he addressed to the council in 1530, was on behalf of the convent; this was the "Oratio apologetica monialium nomine", a master-piece of its kind. CHARITAS -- Charitas Pirkheimer, Denkwürdigkeiten, ed. HÖfler (Bamberg, 1852); Loose, Aus dem Leben der Charitas Pirkheimer (Dresden, 1870); Binder, Charitas Pirkheimer (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1878). WILLIBALD -- Pirkheimer, Opera (Frankfort, 1619); Roth, Willibald Pirkheimer (Halle, 1887); Hagen, Pirkheimer in seinem Verhältnis zum Humanismus und zur Reformation (Nuremberg, 1882); Drews, Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation (Leipzig, 1887); Reimann, Pirkheimerstudien (Berlin, 1900). KLEMENS LÖFFLER. Piro Indians Piro Indians A tribe of considerable importance, ranging by water for a distance of three hundred miles along the upper Ucayali (Tambo) River, and its affluents, the Apurimac and Urubamba, Department of Loretto, in northeastern Peru. Their chief center in the last century was the mission town of Santa Rosa de los Piros, at the confluence of the Tambo and Urubamba (Santa Ana). To the Quicha-speaking tribes of Peru they are known as Chantaquiro, nearly equivalent to "Black Teeth", from their former custom of staining their teeth and gums with a black dye from the chonta or black-wood palm (peperonia tinctorioides). They are also known as Simiriches. They belong to the great Arawakan linguistic stock, to which along belong the warlike Campa of the extreme upper Ucayali and the celebrated Moxos (q. v.) of Bolivia, whose main territory was about the lower Orinoco, and in the West Indies. The Piro excel all tribes of the Ucayali both in its strength and vitality, a fact which may be due to the more moderate temperature and superior healthfulness of their country. As contrasted with their neighbours they are notably jovial and versatile, but aggressively talkative, inclined to bullying, and not always dependable. They are of quick intelligence and have the Indian gift for languages, many of them speaking Quicha, Spanish, and sometimes Portuguese, in addition to their own. Like most of the tribes of the region they are semi-agricultural, depending chiefly upon the plantain or banana, and the maguey (manhiot), which produce abundantly almost without care. The preparation from these of the intoxicating masato or chicha, to which they are given to excess, forms the principal occupation of the women in all of the tribes of the Ucayali. They also make use of fish and the oil from turtle eggs. Their houses are light, open structures, thatched with palm leaves, with sleeping hammocks, hand-made earthen pots, and the wooden masato trough for furniture. Their dress is a short of shirt for the men, and a short skirt for the women, both of their own weaving from native cotton and died black. They wear silver nose pendants and paint their faces black. The men are splendid and daring boatmen, in which capacity their services are in constant requisition. In their primitive condition the Piro used the bow, lance, and blowgun with poisoned arrows. They were polygamous and made constant raids upon the weaker tribes for the purpose of carrying off women. They buried their dead, without personal belongings, in canoes in the earthen floor of the house. Their principal divinities were a benevolent creative spirit or hero-god called Huyacali, and an evil spirit, Saminchi, whom they greatly feared. They had few dances or other ceremonies. The first missions on the upper Ucayali were undertaken in 1673 under Father Biedma, of the Franciscan Convent of the Twelve Apostles in Peru, who had already been at work in the Huallaga since 1631. In 1674 the warlike Campa attacked and destroyed the mission established among them and massacred four missionaries together with an Indian neophyte. In 1687 Father Biedma himself was killed by the Piro. Others were murdered or sank under the climate, until in 1694, when Frs. Valero, Huerta, and Zavala were killed, the Ucayali mission was abandoned. They were renewed after some years with a fair degree of success, but in 1742 were again wiped out and all the missionaries brutally butchered in a terrible rising headed by the Campa, under the leadership of an apostate Indian, Juan Santos, who took the name of Atahualpa, claiming to be a descendant of the last of the Incas. In 1747 Fr. Manuel Albaran, descending the Apurimac, was killed by the Piro. In 1767 another general rising resulted in the death of all but one of the sixteen missionaries of the Franciscan College of Ocopa, Peru, which had taken over the work in 1754. In 1790 the Franciscans again had eighteen missions in operation on the upper Ucayali and Huallaga region, with a total population of 3494 souls. In 1794 an attempt to gather the Piro into a mission was defeated by an epidemic, which caused them to scatter into the forests. In 1799 (or 1803 -- Raimond) the attempt was successfully carried out by Father Pedro Garcia at the mission of Nuestra Señora del Pilar de Bepuano. In 1815 the principal and last mission for the tribe was established by Father Manuel Plaza under the name Santa Rosa de Lima de los Piros. After the revolution, which made Peru a separate government, the missions were neglected, most of the missionaries were withdrawn, the neophytes sought employment at the river ports or in the rubber forests, or rejoined their wild kindred, and in 1835, only one mission station, Sarayuca, remained upon the Ucayali. The Piro, however, still rank among the important tribes, although, on account of their wandering habit, their true number is unknown. Hervas gives the Piro language three dialects, and states that Fr. Enrique Richter (c. 1685) prepared a vocabulary and catechism in it and in several other languages. Castelnau and Marcoy also give vocabularies. BRINTON, The American Race (New York, 1891); CASTELNAU, Expédition, dans les parties centrales l'Amérique du Sud, IV (6 vols., Paris, 1850-1); GALT, Indians of Peru in Smithsonian Rept. for 1877 (Washington, 1878); HERNDON, Exploration of the Valley of the Amazon (Washington, 1853); HERVAS, Catalogo de las Lenguas, I (Madrid, 1800); Labre report in Scottish Geog. Mag. VI (Edinburgh, 1890); MARKHAM, Tribes in the Valley of the Amazon in Jour. Anth. Inst., XXIV (London, 1895); MARCOY, Voyage à travers l'Amérique du Sud (2 vols, Paris, 1869); ORDINAIRE, Les Sauvages du Pérou in Revue d'Ethnographie, VI (Paris, 1887); ORTON, The Andes and the Amazon (3rd ed., New York, 1876); RAIMONDI, Apuntes sobre la Provincia litoral de Loreto (Lima, 1862), in part tr. by BOLLEART in Anthropological Review I (London, 1863); RECLUS, South America, I (New York, 1894); SMYTH and LOWE, Journey from Lima to Pará (London, 1836). JAMES MOONEY Pisa Pisa ARCHDIOCESE OF PISA (PISÆ) Archdiocese in Tuscany, central Italy. The city is situated on the Arno, six miles from the sea, on a fertile plain, while the neighbouring mountains yield marble, alabaster, copper, and other mineral products; mineral waters abound in the province. The famous duomo, or cathedral, begun (1063) by Buschetto and consecrated by Gelasius II (1118), is a basilica in the shape of a Latin cross, with five naves, the columns of which are of oriental granite. The upper portion of the façade is formed by five rows of columns, one above the other; the bas-reliefs of the four bronze doors were executed by Domenico Partegiani and Augusto Serrano, after the designs of Giambologna and others. The cupola was painted by Orazio Riminaldi and Michele Cinganelli; the altars are all of Luna marble. Among the notable objects in this cathedral are the octagonal pulpit, the urn of St. Ranieri, and the lamp of Possenti da Pietrasanta, under which Galileo studied the isochronism of the pendulum. In front of the duomo is the baptistery, a round structure, with a cupola surmounted by a statue of St. John the Baptist; it was erected in 1152. Beside the duomo is the celebrated leaning campanile. The camposanto (begun in 1278, completed in 1464) is a real museum of painting and of medieval sculpture; its architect was Giovanni Pisano, by whom also are six statues placed over one of the entrances. The frescoes are by Giotto, Orcagna, Benozzo Gozzoli, Spinello Aretino, Simone Memmi, and Pietro Laurati. It contains the tomb of the Emperor Henry VII. Other churches are Santa Maria della Spina (1230; 1323); San Nicola, dating from about 1000; the church of the Knights of S. Stefano (1555), a work of Vasari; S. Francesco (thirteenth century); S. Caterina (1253), which belongs to the seminary and contains the mausoleums of Bishop Saltarelli and of Gherardo Compagni; S. Anna has two canvasses by Ghirlandajo; S. Michele (1018); S. Frediano (ninth century); S. Sepolcro (1150); S. Paolo (805?) called the old duomo; S. Pietro in Grado, which dates from the fifth century, and was restored in the ninth. The episcopal residence, of the twelfth century, has important archives. Other buildings of interest are the Loggia dei mercanti, by Bountalenti, and the university (1105-1343), with which were united several colleges, as the Puteano, Ferdinando, Vittoriano, and Ricci. Outside the city are the Certosa di Calci, the Bagni di Pisa, ancient baths which were restored by Countess Matilda, and the Villa Reale di S. Rossore. Pisa is the ancient Pisæ, in antiquity held to be a colony of Pisæ in Elis. Later, it probably belonged to the Etruscans, though often troubled by the Ligurians. The people devoted themselves to commerce and to piracy. From 225 B.C., they were in amicable relations with the Romans, who used the port of Pisæ in the Punic War, and against the Ligurians, in 193. By the Julian law, if not earlier, the town obtained Roman citizenship. Little mention is made of it in the Gothic War. In 553 it submitted to Narses, of its own accord; after the Lombard invasion, it seems to have enjoyed a certain independence, and it was not until the eighth century that Pisa had a Lombard dux, while, in the ninth century, it alternated with Lucca as the seat of the Marquis of Tuscany. The war between Pisa and Lucca (1003) was the first war between two Italian cities. In 1005, the town was sacked by the Saracens, under the famous Musetto (Mugheid al Ameri), who, in turn, was vanquished by the Pisans and Genoese, in Sardinia. In 1029, the Pisans blockaded Carthage; and in 1050, Musetto having again come to Sardinia, they defeated him with the assistance of Genoa and of the Marquis of Lunigiana; but the division of the conquered island became a source of dissension between the allied cities, and the discord was increased when Urban II invested the Pisans with the suzerainty of Corsica, whose petty lords (1077) had declared their wish to be fiefs only of the Holy See. In 1126, Genoa opened hostilities by an assault on Porto Pisano, and only through the intervention of Innocent II (1133) was peace re-established. Meanwhile, the Pisans, who for centuries had had stations in Calabria and in Sicily, had extended their commerce to Africa and to Spain, and also to the Levant. The Pisans obtained great concessions in Palestine and in the principality of Antioch by lending their ships for the transportation of crusaders in 1099, and thereafter people of all nations were to be found in their city. In 1063 they had made an attempt against Palermo, and in 1114 led by the consul, Azzo Marignani, conquered the Balearic Islands. Pisa supported the emperors at an early date, and Henry IV, in 1084, confirmed its statutes and its maritime rights. With its fleet, it supported the expedition of Lothair II to Calabria, destroying in 1137 the maritime cities of Ravello, La Scala, la Fratta, and above all, Amalfi, which then lost its commercial standing. The Pisans also gave their assistance to Henry IV in the conquest of Sicily, and as reward lost the advantages that they had then enjoyed. The reprisals of Innocent III in Sardinia led the Pisans to espouse the cause of Otto IV and that of Frederick II, and Pisa became the head and refuge of the Ghibellines of Tuscany, and, accordingly, a fierce enemy of Florence. The victory of Montaperti (1260) marks the culmination of Pisan power. Commercial jealousy, political hatred, and the fact that Pisa accorded protection to certain petty lords of Corsica, who were in rebellion against Genoa, brought about another war, in which one hundred and seven Genoese ships defeated one hundred and three ships of the Pisans, at La Meloria, the former taking ten thousand prisoners. All would have been lost, if Ugolino della Gherardesca, capitano del popolo and podestà, had not providently taken charge of the Government. But as he had protected the Guelphs, Archbishop Ruggieri degli Ubaldini took up arms against him, and shut him up (1288) in the tower of the Gualdini, where with his sons he starved to death (Inferno, XXXIII, 13). At the peace of 1290, Pisa was compelled to resign its rights over Corsica and the possession of Sassari in Sardinia. The Pisans hoped to retrieve themselves by inviting Henry VII to establish himself in their city, offering him two million florins for his war against Florence, and their fleet for the conquest of Naples; but his death in 1313 put an end to these hopes. Thereupon they elected (1314) Uguccione della Fagiuola of Lucca as their lord; but they rid themselves of him in the same year. At the approach of Louis the Bavarian, they besought that prince not to enter Pisa; but Castruccio degli Antelminelli incited Louis to besiege the city, with the result that Pisa surrendered in 1327, and paid a large sum of money to the victor. In 1329 Louis resided there again, with the antipope, Pietro di Corvara. Internal dissensions and the competition of Genoa and Barcelona brought about the decay of Pisan commerce. To remedy financial evils, the duties on merchandise were increased, which, however, produced a greater loss, for Florence abandoned the port of Pisa. In 1400 Galeazzo Visconti bought Pisa from Gherardo Appiani, lord of the city. In 1405, Gabriele M. Visconti having stipulated the sale of Pisa to the Florentines, the Pisans made a supreme effort to oppose that humiliation; the town, however, was taken and its principal citizens exiled. The expedition of Charles VIII restored its independence (1494-1509); but the city was unable to rise again to its former prosperity. Under Cosimo de' Medici, there were better times, especially for the university. Among the natives of Pisa were: B. Pellegrino (seventh century); B. Chiara (d. in 1419), and B. Pietro, founder of the Hermits of St. Jerome (d. in 1435); B. Giordano da Pisa, O. P., (d. in 1311); and Gregory X. Connected with the church of San Pietro in Grado there is a legend according to which St. Peter landed at Pisa, and left there his disciple St. Pierinus. The first known bishop was Gaudentius, present at the Council of Rome (313). Other bishops were St. Senior (410), who consecrated St. Patrick; Joannes (493); one, name unknown, who took part in the schism of the Three Chapters (556); Alexander (648); Maurianus (680); one, name unknown, taken prisoner by Charlemagne at the siege of Pavia (774); Oppizo (1039), the founder of the Camaldolite convent of S. Michele; Landulfus (1077), sent by Gregory VII as legate to Corsica; Gerardus (1080), an able controversialist against the Greeks; Diabertus (1085), the first archbishop, to whom Urban II gave the sees of Corsica as suffragans in 1099, the first Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem; Pietro Moriconi (1105). In 1121, on account of the jealousy of Genoa, the bishops of Corsica were made immediately dependent upon the Holy See, but Honorius II (1126) restored the former status of Pisa as their metropolitan; in 1133, however, Innocent II divided them between Pisa and Genoa, which was then made an archdiocese. Thereafter, Pisa received for suffragans also Populonia and two sees in Sardinia. Other bishops were: Cardinal Uberto Lanfranchi (1132), who often served as pontifical legate; Cardinal Villano Gaetani (1145), compelled to flee from the city on account of his fidelity to Alexander III (1167); Lotario Rosari (1208), also Patriarch of Jerusalem (1216); Federico Visconti (1254), who held provincial synods in 1258, 1260, and 1262; Oddone della Sala (1312) had litigations with the republic, and later became Patriarch of Alexandria; Simone Saltorelli; Giovanni Scarlatti (1348), who had been legate to Armenia and to the emperor at Constantinople; Lotto Gambacorta (1381), compelled to flee after the death of his brother Pietro, tyrant of Pisa (1392); Alamanno Adinari (1406), a cardinal who had an important part in the conciliabulum of Pisa and in the Council of Constance; Cardinal Francesco Salviati Riario (1475), hung at Florence in connexion with the conspiracy of the Pazzi; in 1479 he was succeeded by his nephew, Rafaele Riario, who narrowly escaped being a victim of the same conspiracy; Cesare Riario (1499); Cardinal Scipione Rebita (1556); Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici (1560), a son of Cosimo; Cardinal Angelo Niccolini (1564); Cardinal Antonio Pozzi (1582), founder of the Puteano college, and author of works on canon and on civil law: Giulio de' Medici (1620), served on missions for the duke, founded the seminary, introduced wise reforms, and evinced great charity during the pest of 1629; Cardinal Scipione Pannocchieschi (1636); Cardinal Cosimo Corsi (1853-70). Important councils have been in 1135, against Anacletus II and the heretic Enrico, leader of the Petrobrusiani in 1409, which increased the schism by the deposition of Gregory XII and of Benedict XIII, and by the election of Alexander V; in 1511, brought about by a few schismatic cardinals and French bishops at the instigation of Louis XII against Julius II. Leghorn, Pescia, Pontremoli, and Volterra are the suffragans of Pisa; the archdiocese has 136 parishes; 190,000 inhabitants; 10 religious houses of men, and 29 of women; 6 educational establishments for boys, and 13 for girls; 1 Catholic daily paper. CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XVI; TRONCI, Annuali Pisani (Pisa, 1868-71); DAL BORGO, Dissertazioni sulla storia pisana (Pisa, 1761-68); CHIRONE EPIDAURICO, Navigazione e commercio pisano (Pisa, 1797); FEDELI, I documenti pontificii riguardanti l'Università di Pisa (Pisa, 1908); SUPINO, Pisa in Italia Artistica, XVI (Bergamo, 1905). U. BENIGNI University of Pisa University of Pisa In the eleventh century there were many jurisconsults at Pisa who lectured on law; prominent among them were Opitone and Sigerdo. There also was preserved a codex of the Pandects, dated, it was said, from Justinian. Four professors of the Law School of Bologna, Bulgarus, Burgundius, Uguccione, and Bandino, successors of Irnerius, were trained here; Burgundius acquired renown by his translation of the Pandects and of Greek works on medicine. Gerardo de Fasiano, Lambertuccio Arminzochi, Zacchia da Volterra, Giovanni Fagioli, Ugo Benci, Baldo da Forli, and Giovanni d'Andrea taught at Pisa in the thirteenth century. In the same century medicine also was taught; the most famous professor was Guido of Pisa, who afterwards went to Bologna (1278). In 1338, as Benedict XII had placed Bologna under interdict, Ranieri da Forli and Bartolo removed to Pisa with a large following. The Studium of Pisa is mentioned in the communal documents of 1340. In 1343 Clement VI erected a studium generale, with all the faculties, including theology; and Charles IV confirmed it in 1355. The university, however, did not flourish. From 1359 to 1364 it was closed, and was only reopened by Urban VI. Meantime, however, the teaching of law was not discontinued. In 1406 Pisa fell into the power of the Florentines who suppressed the university. In 1473 Lorenzo de' Medici with Sixtus IV's approval closed the University of Florence and reopened Pisa. For its endowment the goods of the Church and clergy were put under contribution to such an extent that Paul III in 1534 recalled the concessions of his predecessors. The most celebrated teachers of this first epoch were the jurisconsults Francesco Tigrini, Baldo degli Ubaldi, Lancellotto Decio, Francesco Alcolti, Baldo Bartolini, Giasone del Maino, Bartolommeo and Mariano Socini; the physicians, Guido da Prato, Ammanati, Ugolino da Montecatini, Alessandro Sermoneta, Albertino da Cremona, Pietro Leoni, and Cristoforo Prati; the Humanists, Bartolommeo da Pratorecchi, Lorenzo Lippi, Andrea Dati, Mariano Tucci; the theologians, Bernardino Cherichini (1478) and Giorgio Benigni Salviati. In 1543 Cosimo de' Medici undertook to restore the university, and to this end Paul III made large concessions out of the revenues of the Church and monasteries. Several colleges were founded, such as the Ducal College, the Ferdinando, and the Puteano (Pozzi for the Piedmontese). The university at this time became famous especially by its cultivation of the natural sciences. Among its noted scientists were: Cesalpino (botany, medicine, philosophy); Galileo Galilei (mathematics and astronomy); Borelli (mechanics and medicine); Luca Ghini, first director of the botanical gardens (1544); Andrea Vesalio, Realdo Colombo, Gabriele Falloppo; Giovanni Risischi, and Lambeccari in anatomy; Baccio Baldini, Vidio Vidi, Girolamo Mercuriale, Rodrigo Fonseca (seventeenth century), Fil. Cavriami, Marcello Malpighi in medicine. In view of its progressive spirit, Pisa may be called the cradle of modern science. The professors of jurisprudence were rather conservative, but there were not wanting able thinkers, such as the two Torellis, Francesco Vegio, Asinio, Giacomo Mandelli, the two Facchinis, and the Scotsman Dempster; Nicola Bonaparte, who introduced into Pisa the critical-historical study of Roman Law inaugurated by Cujas, Giuseppe Averani, Stefano Fabrucci, historian of the university, Bernardo Tanucci, afterwards minister of Charles III of Naples. At the beginning of the eighteenth century the university was again in a precarious condition; but the new Lorenzian dynasty sought to strengthen it by increasing the scientific institutes, and revising the statutes; thus after 1744 the rector was no longer elected by the scholars or from their ranks, but had to be one of the professors. In the eighteenth century Valsecchi and Berti won distinction in theology; Andrea Guadegni, Bart. Franc. Pellegrini, Migliorotto Maccioni, Flaminio Dal Borgo, Gian Maria Lampredi, Sandonnini (canonist), the criminalists della Pura and Ranuccia in jurisprudence; Politi, Corsini, Antonioli, Sarti in letters; Guido Grandi, Claudio Fromond, Anton Nicola Branchi, Lorenzo Pignotti, Lorenzo Tilli, and Giorgio Santi in natural science; Angelo Gatti, Antonio Matani, Franc. Torrigiani in medicine; Brogiani and Berlinghieri in anatomy. In 1808 the regulations of the French universities were introduced, but were superseded by others in 1814. The professors were then divided into the faculties of theology, law (comprising philosophy and literature), and medicine. But the number of the chairs increased; in 1840 there were six faculties. In 1847 the "Annali delle Università toscane" were published. In 1851, for political reasons, the Universities of Pisa and Siena were united, the faculties of jurisprudence and theology located at Siena, and those of philosophy and medicine at Pisa. The former regime was re-established in 1859 with such modifications as the Law of Casati required. In 1873 all chairs of theology were suppressed throughout Italy. Noted professors in law were Lorenzo Quartieri, Federico del Rosso, Valeri, Poggi, Salvagnoli, Franc. Ferrara, P. Emilio Imbriani, and Franc. Carrara (criminalist). Science and letters were represented by the physicist Gerbi; the chemist Piria; the mathematician Betti; the physicians Puccinotti, Pacini, Marcacci, Ranzi (pathology); the criminalist Rosellini, the Latinist Ferrucci; and Francesco de Sanctis, literary critic. Besides the usual faculties, Pisa has schools of engineering, agriculture, veterinary medicine and pharmacy, and a normal high school. In 1910-11 there were 159 instructors and 1160 students. FABRONI, Historia Acad. Pisanæ (Pisa, 1791); DAL BORGO, Dissertazione epistolare sull' origine dell' univ. di Pisa (Pisa, 1765); CALISSE, Cenni storici sull' Università di Pisa in Annuario della Università di Pisa (1899-1900); BUONAMICI, Della scuola Pisana del diritto romano ecc. (Pisa, 1874); IDEM, I giureconsulti di Pisa al tempo della scuola Bolognese (Rome, 1888); FEDELI, I documenti pontificii riguardanti l'Università di Pisa (Pisa, 1908). U. BENIGNI Council of Pisa Council of Pisa Preliminaries. The great Schism of the West had lasted thirty years (since 1378), and none of the means employed to bring it to an end had been successful. Compromise or arbitral agreement between the two parties had never been seriously attempted; surrender had failed lamentably owing to the obstinacy of the rival popes, all equally convinced of their rights; action, that is the interference of princes and armies, had been without result. During these deplorable divisions Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII had in turn replaced Urban VI (Bartholomew Prignano) in the See of Rome, while Benedict XIII had succeeded Clement VII (Robert of Geneva) in that of Avignon. The cardinals of the reigning pontiffs being greatly dissatisfied, both with the pusillanimity and nepotism of Gregory XII and the obstinacy and bad will of Benedict XIII, resolved to make use of a more efficacious means, namely a general council. The French king, Charles V, had recommended this, at the beginning of the schism, to the cardinals assembled at Anagni and Fondi in revolt against Urban VI, and on his deathbed he had expressed the same wish (1380). It had been upheld by several councils, by the cities of Ghent and Florence, by the Universities of Oxford and Paris, and by the most renowned doctors of the time, for example: Henry of Langenstein ("Epistola pacis", 1379, "Epistola concilii pacis", 1381); Conrad of Gelnhausen ("Epistola Concordiæ", 1380); Gerson (Sermo coram Anglicis); and especially the latter's master, Pierre d'Ailly, the eminent Bishop of Cambrai, who wrote of himself: "A principio schismatis materiam concilii generalis primus ... instanter prosequi non timui" (Apologia Concilii Pisani, apud Tschackert). Encouraged by such men, by the known dispositions of King Charles VI and of the University of Paris, four members of the Sacred College of Avignon went to Leghorn where they arranged an interview with those of Rome, and where they were soon joined by others. The two bodies thus united were resolved to seek the union of the Church in spite of everything, and thenceforth to adhere to neither of the competitors. On 2 and 5 July, 1408, they addressed to the princes and prelates an encyclical letter summoning them to a general council at Pisa on 25 March, 1409. To oppose this project Benedict convoked a council at Perpignan while Gregory assembled another at Aquilea, but those assemblies met with little success, hence to the Council of Pisa were directed all the attention, unrest, and hopes of the Catholic world. The Universities of Paris, Oxford, and Cologne, many prelates, and the most distinguished doctors, like d'Ailly and Gerson, openly approved the action of the revolted cardinals. The princes on the other hand were divided, but most of them no longer relied on the good will of the rival popes and were determined to act without them, despite them, and, if needs were, against them. Meeting of the Council On the feast of the Annunciation, 4 patriarchs, 22 cardinals, and 80 bishops asembled in the cathedral of Pisa under the presidency of Cardinal de Malesset, Bishop of Palestrina. Among the clergy were the representatives of 100 absent bishops, 87 abbots with the proxies of those who could not come to Pisa, 41 priors and generals of religious orders, 300 doctors of theology or canon law. The ambassadors of all the Christian kingdoms completed this august assembly. Judicial procedure began at once. Two cardinal deacons, two bishops, and two notaries gravely approached the church doors, opened them, and in a loud voice, in the Latin tongue, called upon the rival pontiffs to appear. No one replied. "Has anyone been appointed to represent them?" they added. Again there was silence. The delegates returned to their places and requested that Gregory and Benedict be declared guilty of contumacy. On three consecutive days this ceremony was repeated without success, and throughout the month of May testimonies were heard against the claimants, but the formal declaration of contumacy did not take place until the fourth session. In defence of Gregory, a German embassy unfavourable to the project of the assembled cardinals went to Pisa (15 April) at the instance of Robert of Bavaria, King of the Romans. John, Archbishop of Riga, brought before the council several excellent objections, but in general the German delegates spoke so blunderingly that they aroused hostile manifestations and were compelled to leave the city as fugitives. The line of conduct adopted by Carlo Malatesta, Prince of Rimini, was more clever. Robert by his awkward friendliness injured Gregory's otherwise most defendable cause; but Malatesta defended it as a man of letters, an orator, a politician, and a knight, though he did not attain the desired success. Benedict refused to attend the council in person, but his delegates arrived very late (14 June), and their claims aroused the protests and laughter of the assembly. The people of Pisa overwhelmed them with threats and insults. The Chancellor of Aragon was listened to with little favour, while the Archbishop of Tarragona made a declaration of war more daring than wise. Intimidated by rough demonstrations, the ambassadors, among them Boniface Ferrer, Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, secretly left the city and returned to their master. The pretended preponderance of the French delegates has been often attacked, but the French element did not prevail either in numbers, influence, or boldness of ideas. The most remarkable characteristic of the assembly was the unanimity which reigned among the 500 members during the month of June, especially noticeable at the fifteenth general session (5 June, 1409). When the usual formality was completed with the request for a definite condemnation of Peter de Luna and Angelo Corrario, the Fathers of Pisa returned a sentence until then unexampled in the history of the Church. All were stirred when the Patriarch of Alexandria, Simon de Cramaud, addressed the august meeting: "Benedict XIII and Gregory XII", said he, "are recognised as schismatics, the approvers and makers of schism, notorious heretics, guilty of perjury and violation of solemn promises, and openly scandalising the universal Church. In consequence, they are declared unworthy of the Sovereign Pontificate, and are ipso facto deposed from their functions and dignities, and even driven out of the Church. It is forbidded to them henceforward to consider themselves to be Sovereign Pontiffs, and all proceedings and promotions made by them are annulled. The Holy See is declared vacant and the faithful are set free from their promise of obedience." This grave sentence was greeted with joyful applause, the Te Deum was sung, and a solemn procession was ordered next day, the feast of Corpus Christi. All the members appended their signatures to the decree of the council, and every one thought that the schism was ended forever. On 15 June the cardinals met in the archiepiscopal palace of Pisa to proceed with the election of a new pope. The conclave lasted eleven days. Few obstacles intervened from outside to cause delay. Within the council, it is said, there were intrigues for the election of a French pope, but, through the influence of the energetic and ingenious Cardinal Cossa, on 26 June, 1409, the votes were unanimously cast in the favour of Cardinal Peter Philarghi, who took the name of Alexander V. His election was expected and desired, as testified by universal joy. The new pope announced his election to all the sovereigns of Christendom, from whom he received expressions of lively sympathy for himself and for the position of the Church. He presided over the last four sessions of the council, confirmed all the ordinances made by the cardinals after their refusal of obedience to the antipopes, united the two sacred colleges, and subsequently declared that he would work energetically for reform. Judgment of the Council of Pisa The right of the cardinals to convene a general council to put an end to the schism seemed to themselves indisputable. This was a consequence of the natural principle of discovering within itself a means of safety: Salus populi suprema lex esto, i.e., the chief interest is the safety of the Church and the preservation of her indispensable unity. The tergiversations and perjuries of the two pretenders seemed to justify the united sacred colleges. "Never", said they, "shall we succeed in ending the schism while these two obstinate persons are at the head of the opposing parties. There is no undisputed pope who can summon a general council. As the pope is doubtful, the Holy See must be considered vacant. We have therefore a lawful mandate to elect a pope who will be undisputed, and to convoke the universal Church that her adhesion may strengthen our decision". Famous universities urged and upheld the cardinals in this conclusion. And yet, from the theological and judicial point of view, their reasoning might seem false, dangerous, and revolutionary. For if Gregory and Benedict were doubtful, so were the cardinals whom they had created. If the fountain of their authority was uncertain, so was their competence to convoke the universal Church and to elect a pope. Plainly, this is arguing in a circle. How then could Alexander V, elected by them, have indisputable rights to the recognition of the whole of Christendom? Further, it was to be feared that certain spirits would make use of this temporary expedient to transform it into a general rule, to proclaim the superiority of the sacred college and of the council to the pope, and to legalize henceforth the appeals to a future council, which had already commenced under King Philip the Fair. The means used by the cardinals could not succeed even temporarily. The position of the Church became still more precarious; instead of two heads there were three wandering popes, persecuted and exiled from their capitals. Yet, inasmuch as Alexander was not elected in opposition to a generally recognized pontiff, nor by schismatic methods, his position was better than that of Clement VII and Benedict XIII, the popes of Avignon. An almost general opinion asserts that both he and his successor, John XXIII, were true popes. If the pontiffs of Avignon had a colourable title in their own obedience, such a title can be made out still more clearly for Alexander V in the eyes of the universal Church. In fact the Pisan pope was acknowledged by the majority of the Church, i.e. by France, England, Portugal, Bohemia, Prussia, a few countries of Germany, Italy, and the County Venaissin, while Naples, Poland, Bavaria, and part of Germany continued to obey Gregory, and Spain and Scotland remained subject to Benedict. Theologians and canonists are severe on the Council of Pisa. On the one hand, a violent partisan of Benedict's, Boniface Ferrer, calls it "a conventicle of demons". Theodore Urie, a supporter of Gregory, seems to doubt whether they gathered at Pisa with the sentiments of Dathan and Abiron or those of Moses. St. Antoninus, Cajetan, Turrecremata, and Raynald openly call it a conventicle, or at any rate cast doubt on its authority. On the other hand, the Gallican school either approves of it or pleads extenuating circumstances. Noël Alexander asserts that the council destroyed the schism as far as it could. Bossuet says in his turn: "If the schism that devastated the Church of God was not exterminated at Pisa, at any rate it received there a mortal blow and the Council of Constance consummated it." Protestants, faithful to the consequences of their principles, applaud this council unreservedly, for they see in it "the first step to the deliverance of the world", and greet it as the dawn of the Reformation (Gregorovius). Perhaps it is wise to say with Bellarmine that this assembly is a general council which is neither approved nor disapproved. On account of its illegalities and inconsistencies it cannot be quoted as an ecumenical council. And yet it would be unfair to brand it as a conventicle, to compare it with the "robber council" of Ephesus, the pseudo-council of Basle, or the Jansenist council of Pistoia. This synod is not a pretentious, rebellious, and sacrilegious coterie. The number of the fathers, their quality, authority, intelligence and their zealous and generous intentions, the almost unanimous accord with which they came to their decisions, the royal support they met with, remove every suspicion of intrigue or cabal. It resembles no other council, and has a place by itself in the history of the Church, as unlawful in the manner in which it was convoked, unpractical in its choice of means, not indisputable in its results, and having no claim to represent the Universal Church. It is the original source of all the ecclesiastico-historical events that took place from 1409 to 1414, and opens the way for the Council of Constance. D'Achery, Spicilegium, I (Paris, 1723), 853, see names of the members of the Council, I, 844; D'Ailly in Operibus Gersonii, ed. Ellies Dupin (1706); St. Antoninus, Summa Historialis, III, xxii, c. v. ?2; Bellarmine, De concil., I (Paris, 1608), vii, 13; Bess, Johannes Gerson und die kirchenpolitischen Parteien Frankenreichs vor dem Konzil zu Pisa (Marburg, 1890); Bleimetzrieder, Das general Konzil im grossen abendländischen Schisma (Paderborn, 1904); Bouix, De Papa, I, 497; Chronicon S. Dionysii, IV, 32, 216-38; Gerson, Opera Omnia, ed Ellies Dupin, II (1706), 123 sqq.,Hardouin, Concilia, VIII, 85; Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, Leclercq, X, 255; Mansi, Collectio Conciliarum, XXVI, 1090-1240, XXVII, 114-308; MartÈne and Durand, Amplissima Collectio, VII;, 894; Idem, Thesaurus, II, 1374-1476; Muzzarelli, De auctor. Rom. pontifis, II, 414; Niem, De Schismate, ed. Erler, III (Leipzig, 1890), 26-40, 262 sqq.; Pastor, Histoire des Papes, I, 200-3; Salembier, Le grand schisme d'Occident (Paris, 1900), 251-74, tr. Mitchell (London, 1907); Idem, Petrus ab Alliaco (Lille, 1886), 76 sqq.; Tiraboschi, Storia litt. ital., II, 370; Tschackert, Peter von Ailii (Gotha, 1877), see especially Appendix, p. 29; Valois, La France et le grand Schisme d'Occident, IV, 75 sqq.; WeizsÄcker, Deutsche Reichstagsakten, VI, 496 sqq.; Bleimetzrieder, Literarische Polemik zu Beginn des grossen abendlandischen Schismas; Ungedruckte texte und Untersuchungen (Vienna and Leipzig, 1909); Die kirchenrechtlichen Schriften Peters von Luna, tr. Erhle in Archiv für Literatur und Kirchengeschichte, VII (1900), 387, 514; Schmitz, Zur Geschichte des Conzils von Pisa in Röm.Quartalschr. (1895). L. SALEMBIER Piscataway Indians Piscataway Indians A tribe of Algonquian linguistic stock formerly occupying the peninsula of lower Maryland between the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay and northward to the Patapsco, including the present District of Columbia, and notable as being the first tribe whose Christianization was attempted under English auspices. The name by which they were commonly known to the Maryland colonists == Pascatæ in the Latin form == was properly that of their principal village, on Piscataway Creek near its mouth, within the present Prince Georges county. After their removal to the north they were known as Conoy, a corruption of their Iriquois name. There seems to be no good ground for the assertion of Smith (1608) that they were subject to the Powhatan tribes of Virginia. Besides Piscataway, which was a palisaded village or "fort", they had about thirty other settlements, among which may be named Yaocomoco, Potopaco (Port Tobacco), Patuxent, Mattapanient (Mattapony), Mattawoman, and Nacochtank (Lat. Anacostan, now Anacostia, D.C.). The original relation of these towns to one another is not very clear, but under the Maryland Government their chiefs or "kings" all recognized the chief of Piscataway as their "emperor", and held the succession subject to the ratification of the colonial "assembly". Their original population was probably nearly 2500. The recorded history of the Piscataway begins in 1608, when Captain John Smith of Virginia sailed up the Potomac and touched at several of their villages, including Nacochtank, where "the people did their best to content us". In 1622 the same town was destroyed by a band of plunderers from Virginia, but afterward rebuilt. On 25 March, 1634, the Catholic English colony of Lord Baltimore, including the Jesuit fathers Andrew White and John Altham, and two lay brothers, landed on St. Clement's (Blackstone"s) Island and established friendly relations with the people of Yaocomoco, as well as with the great chief of Piscataway, as also the chief of Potomac town on the Virginia side. The first altar was set up in an Indian wigwam. Owing to the attacks of the powerful Susquehanna at the head of the bay the people of Yaocomoco were about to remove, apparently to combine with those of Piscataway, and the English settlers bargained with them for the abandoned site. The Jesuits at once set to work to study the language and customs of the Indians in order to reach them with Christianity. Father White, superior of the mission, whose valuable "Relatio" is almost our only monument to the Maryland tribes, composed a grammar, dictionary, and catechism in the Piscataway dialect, of which the last, if not the others, was still in existence in Rome in 1832. Another catechism was compiled later by Father Roger Rigbie at Patuxent. The Indians generally were well-disposed to the new teaching, and, other Jesuits having arrived, missions were established at St. Mary's (Yaocomoco), Mattapony, Kent Island, and, in 1639, by Father White, at the tribal capital Piscataway, which, from the name of the tapac or great chief, Kittamaquund, "Big Beaver", was sometimes known as Kittamaquindi. Here on 5 July, 1640, in presence of the governor and several of the colonial officers who attended for the purpose, Father White, with public ceremony, baptized and gave Christian names to the great chief, his wife, and daughter, and to the chief councillor and his son, afterward uniting the chief and his wife in Christian marriage. A year later the missionaries were invited to Nacochtank, and in 1642 Father White baptized the chief and several others of the Potomac tribe. About this time the renewed inroads of the Susquehanna compelled the removal of the mission from Piscataway to Potopaco, where the woman chief and over 130 others were Christians. The work prospered until 1644, when Claiborne with the help of the Puritan refugees who had been accorded a safe shelter in the Catholic colony, seized the government, deposed the governor, and sent the missionaries as prisoners to England. They returned in 1648 and again took up the work, which was again interrupted by the confusion of the civil war in England until the establishment of the Cromwellian government in 1652 outlawed Catholicism in its own colony and brought the Piscataway mission to an end. Under the new Government the Piscataway rapidly declined. Driven from their best lands by legal and illegal means, demoralized by liquor dealers, hunted by slave-catchers, wasted by smallpox, constantly raided by the powerful Susquehanna while forbidded the possession of guns for their own defence, their plantations destroyed by the cattle and hogs of the settlers and their pride broken by oppressive restrictions, they sank to the condition of helpless dependents whose numbers constantly diminished. In 1666 they addressed a pathetic petition to the assembly: "We can flee no further. Let us know where to live, and how to be secured for the future from the hogs and cattle". As a result reservations were soon afterward established for each of twelve villages then occupied by them. Encroachments still continued, however, and the conquest of the Susquehanna by the Iroquois in 1675 only brought down upon the Piscataway a more cruel and persistent enemy. In 1680 nearly all the people of one town were massacred by the Iroquois, who sent word to the assembly that they intended to exterminate the whole tribe. Peace was finally arranged in 1685. In 1692 each principal town was put under a nominal yearly tribute of a bow and two arrows, their chiefs to be chosen and to hold at the pleasure of the assembly. At last, in 1697, the "emperor" and principal chiefs, with nearly the entire tribe excepting apparently those on the Chaptico river reservation, abandoned their homes and fled into the backwoods of Virginia. At this time they seemed to have numbered under four hundred and this small remnant was in 1704 still further reduced by a wasting epidemic. Refusing all offers to return, they opened negotiations with the Iroquois for a settlement under their protection, and, permission being given, they began a slow migration northward, stopping for long periods at various points along the Susquehanna until in 1765 we find them living with other remnant tribes at or near Chenango (now Binghamton, New York) and numbering only about 120 souls. Thence they drifted west with the Delawares and made their last appearance in history at a council at Detroit in 1793. Those who remained in Maryland are represented to-day by a few negro mongrels who claim the name. In habit and ceremony the Piscataway probably closely resembled the kindred Powhatan Indians of Virginia as described by Smith and Strachey, but except for Father White's valuable, though brief, "Relatio" we have almost no record on the subject. Their houses, probably communal, were oval wigwams of poles covered with mats or bark, and with the fire-hole in the centre and the smoke-hole in the roof above. The principal men had bed platforms, but the common people slept upon skins upon the ground. Their women made pottery and baskets, while the men made dug-out canoes and carried the bows and arrows. They cultivated corn, pumpkins, and a species of tobacco. The ordinary dress consisted simply of a breech-cloth for the men and a short deerskin apron for the women, while children went entirely naked. They painted their faces with bright colours in various patterns. They had descent in the female line, believed in good and bad spirits, and paid special reverence to corn and fire. Father White gives a meagre account of a ceremony which he witnessed at Patuxent. They seem to have been of kindly and rather unwarlike disposition, and physically were dark, very tall, muscular, and well proportioned. Archives of Maryland (29 vols., Baltimore, 1883-1900); Bozman, History of Maryland (2 vols., Baltimore, 1837); Brinton, The Lenape and their Legends (Walam Olum) (Philadelphia, 1884); Hughes History of the Society of Jesus in North America I, 1580-1615 (Cleveland, 1907); Mooney and Others, Aborigines of the District of Columbia and the Lower Potomac in American Anthropologist, II (Washington, 1889); New York Colonial Documents (15 vols., Albany, 1843-87), s. v. Conoy; Piscataway, etc.; Shea, Catholic Indian Missions (New York, 1854); Smith, General History of Virginia (London, 1629; Richmond, 1819), ed. Arber (Birmingham, 1884); White, Relatio Itineris in Marylandiam, Maryland Historical Society Fund pub. no 7 (Baltimore, 1874). JAMES MOONEY Piscina Piscina (Lat. from piscis, a fish, fish-pond, pool or basin, called also sacrarium, thalassicon, or fenestella) The name was used to denote a baptismal font or the cistern into which the water flowed from the head of the person baptized; or an excavation, some two or three feet deep and about one foot wide, covered with a stone slab, to receive the water from the washing of the priest's hands, the water used for washing the palls, purifiers, and corporals, the bread crumbs, cotton, etc. used after sacred unctions, and for the ashes of sacred things no longer fit for use. It was constructed near the altar, at the south wall of the sanctuary, in the sacristy, or some other suitable place. It is found also in the form of a small column or niche of stone or metal. ROCK, Church of Our Fathers, IV (London, 1904), 194; BINTERIM, Denkwürdigkeiten, IV, 1, 112: Theol. prakt. Quartalschrift (1876), 33. FRANCIS MERSHMAN. Charles Constantine Pise Charles Constantine Pise Priest, poet, and prose writer, b. at Annapolis, Maryland, 22 Nov., 1801; d. at Brooklyn, New York, 26 May, 1866. He was educated at Georgetown College, and was for some time a member of the Society of Jesus. He taught rhetoric at Mount St. Mary's College, Emmitsburg, Md., where John Hughes, afterwards Archbishop of New York, was among his pupils. In 1825 he was ordained to the priesthood and officiated for some time at the cathedral in Baltimore. He afterwards served at St. Patrick's Church, Washington, as assistant pastor, and while there was elected (11 Dec., 1832) chaplain to the United States Senate -- the only Catholic priest hitherto appointed to that office. He was a personal friend of President Tyler. In 1848 he became a pastor of St. Peter's church, New York; he had previously been assistant pastor in the same church under the vicar-general, Dr. Powers. In 1849 he was appointed pastor of St. Charles Borromeo's, Brooklyn where he officiated until his death. Dr. Pise wrote several works in prose and verse, among them being: "A History of the Catholic Church (5 vols., 1829); "Father Rowland" (1829); "Alethia, or Letters on the Truth of Catholic Doctrines" (1845); "St. Ignatius and His First Companions" (1845); "Christianity and the Church" (1850). His "Clara", a poem of the fifteenth century, and "Montezuma", a drama, were never published. He contributed to the magazine literature of the day, was a distinguished lecturer and preacher, and a writer of Latin verse. SHEA, History of the Catholic Church in the United States, IV (New York, 1892). HENRY A. BRANN Pisidia Pisidia A country in the southwestern part of Asia Minor, between the high Phrygian tableland and the maritime plain of Pamphilia. This district, formed by the lofty ridges of the western Taurus range, was in pre-Christian times the abode of stalwart, half-civilized, and unruly tribes, never entirely subdued. Ancient writers describe them as a restless, plunder-loving population. St. Paul, no doubt, had in mind Pisidia, which he had traversed twice (Acts, xiii, 13-14: note here that, according to the more probable text, in the latter verse we should read "Pisidian Antioch"; xiv, 20-23), perhaps three times (Acts, xvi, 6), when in II Cor., xi, 26, he mentions the "perils of waters" and "perils of robbers" he had confronted. Independent until 36 b.c., the Pisidians were then conquered by the Galatian king, Amyntas, and soon after, together with their conquerors, forced to acknowledge Roman suzerainty. Joined first to one province, then to another, it received a governor of its own in 297 a.d. The principal cities were Cremna, Adada (the modern name of which, Kara Bavlo, preserves the memory of St. Paul), Serge, Termessos, Pednalissos, Sagalassos. Heaps of imposing ruins are all that is now left. CONYBEARE AND HOWSON, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul (London, 1875); FOUARD, Saint Paul and His Missions, tr. GRIFFITH (New York, 1894); RAMSAY, Historical Geography of Asia Minor (London, 1890); IDEM, The Church in the Roman Empire (London, 1894); IDEM, Inscriptions en langue Pisidienne in Revue des Universités du Midi (1895), 353-60; KIEPERT, Manuel de géographic ancienne (French tr., Paris, 1887); LANCKORONSKI, Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens (Vienna, 1892). CHARLES L. SOUVAY. Synod of Pistoia Synod of Pistoia Held 18 to 28 September, 1786, by Scipio de' Ricci, Bishop of Pistoia and Prato. It marks the most daring effort ever made to secure for Jansenism and allied errors a foothold in Italy. Peter Leopold, created Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1763, emulated the example of his brother, Emperor Joseph II, in assuming to control religious affairs in the domain. Imbued with Regalism and Jansenism he extended a misguided zeal for reform to minutest details of discipline and worship. In two instructions of 2 August, 1785, and 26 January, 1786, he sent to each of the bishops of Tuscany a series of fifty-seven "points of view of His Royal Highness" on doctrinal, disciplinary, and liturgical matters, directing that diocesan synods be held every two years to enforce reform in the Church and "to restore to the bishops their native rights abusively usurped by the Roman Court". Of the eighteen Tuscan bishops but three convoked the synod; and of these his only partisan was Scipio de' Ricci in whom he found a kindred spirit. Born in 1714 of an eminent family, de' Ricci gave early promise of worth and eminence. Made Bishop of Pistoia and Prato, the most populous of the Tuscan dioceses, 19 June, 1780, he planned and energetically pursued, with the encouragement of Pius VI, the work of much-needed reform, but influenced by the times, his zeal came to be marked by reckless audacity. He condemned devotion to the Sacred Heart, discouraged the use of relics and images, undervalued indulgences, improvised liturgy, and founded a press for Jansenistic propaganda. On 31 July, 1786, de' Ricci, in convoking the synod, invoked the authority of Pius VI who had previously recommended a synod as the normal means of diocesan reform. With characteristic energy and prevision he prepared for the council by inviting from without his diocese, theologians and canonists notorious for Gallican and Jansenistic tendencies, and issued to his clergy pronouncements which reflected the dominant errors of the times. On 18 September, 1786, the synod was opened in the church of St. Leopold in Pistoia and continued through seven sessions until 28 September. De' Ricci presided, and at his right sat the royal commissioner, Guiseppe Paribeni, professor at the University of Pisa, and a regalist. The promoter was Pietro Tamburini, professor at the University of Pavia, conspicuous for his learning and for Jansenistic sympathies. At the opening session 234 members were present; but at the fifth session 246 attended, of whom 180 were pastors, 13 canons, 12 chaplains, 28 simple priests of the secular clergy, and 13 regulars. Of these many, including even the promoter, were extra-diocesans irregularly intruded by de' Ricci because of their sympathy with his designs. Several Pistorian priests were not invited while the clergy of Prato, where feeling against the bishop was particularly strong, was all but ignored. The points proposed by the grand duke and the innovations of the bishop were discussed with warmth and no little acerbity. The Regalists pressed their audacity to heretical extremes, and evoked protests from the papal adherents. Though these objections led to some modifications, the propositions of Leopold were substantially accepted, the four Gallican Articles of the Assembly of the French Clergy of 1682 were adopted, and the reform programme of de' Ricci carried out virtually in its entirety. The theological opinions were strongly Jansenistic. Among the vagaries proposed were: the right of civil authority to create matrimonial impediments; the reduction of all religious ourders to one body with a common habit and no perpetual vows; a vernacular liturgy with but one altar in a church etc. Two hundred and thirty-three members signed the acts in the final session of 28 September, when the synod adjourned intending to reconvene in the following April and September. In February, 1787, the first edition (thirty-five hundred copies) of the Acts and Decrees appeared, bearing the royal imprimatur. De' Ricci, wishing the Holy See to believe that the work was approved by his clergy, summoned his priests to pastoral retreat in April with a view to obtaining their signatures to an acceptance of the synod. Only twenty- seven attended, and of these twenty refused to sign. Leopold meantime summoned all the Tuscan bishops to meet at Florence, 22 April, 1787, to pave the way for acceptance of the Pistorian decrees at a provincial council; but the assembled bishops vigorously opposed his project and after nineteen stormy sessions he dismissed the assembly and abandoned hope of the council. De' Ricci became discredited, and, after Leopold's accession to the imperial throne in 1790, was compelled to resign his see. Pius VI commissioned four bishops, assisted by theologians of the secular clergy, to examine the Pistorian enactments, and deputed a congregation of cardinals and bishops to pass judgment on them. They condemned the synod and stigmatized eighty-five of its propositions as erroneous and dangerous. Pius VI on 28 August, 1794, dealt the death-blow to the influence of the synod and of Jansenism in Italy in his Bull "Auctorem Fidei". Atti e Decreti del Concilio Diocesano di Pistoja (2nd ed., Florence, 1788); tr. Schwarzel, Acta Congregationis Archiepiscoporum et Episcoporum Etruriae, Florentiae anno 1l787 celebratus (7 vols., Bamberg, 1790-94); Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion (Freiburg, 1908), 397-422; Ballerini, Opus Morale, I (Prato, 1898), li-lxxxii; Gerodulo, Lettera critologica sopra il sinodo di Pistoia (Barletta, 1789); La voce della greggia di Pistoja e Prato al suo pastore Mgr Vescovo Scipione de' Ricci (Sondrio, 1789); Lettera ad un Prelato Romano dove con gran vivezza e con profunda dottrina vengono confutati gli errori de' quali abbonda il Sinodo di Mgr de' Ricci, Vescovo di Pistoja (Halle, 1789); Seconda lettera ad un Prelato Romano sull' idea falsa, scismatica, erronea, contradittoria, ridicola della chiesa formata del Sinado di Pistoja (Halle, 1790); Considerazioni sul nuovo Sinodo di Pistoja e Prato fatte da un paroco della stessa diocesi (Pistoia, 1790); Picot, Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire du 18 ^e siecle (Paris, 1855), V, 251 sq.; VI, 407 sq.; Gendry, Pie VI, sa vie-son pontificat, II (Paris, 1907), 451-83, documented from Vatican archives; Scaduto, Stato e Chiesa sotto Leopold I (Florence, 1885); de Potter, Vie et Mémoires de Scipion de' Ricci (Paris, 1827), 1 sq.; Parsons, Studies in Church History, IV (New York, 1897), 592-600; Scipio de' Ricci in Dublin Review (March, 1852), XXXII, 48- 69. JOHN B. PETERSON Pistoia and Prato Diocese of Pistoia and Prato (PISTORIENSIS ET PRATENSIS) Located in the Province of Florence. The city of Pistoia is situated at the foot of the Apennines in the valley of the Ombrone. The chief industries of the town are the manufacture of paper and objects in straw. The cathedral dates from the fifth century, but was damaged by fire several times prior to the thirteenth century, when Nicolò Pisano designed its present form; the outer walls are inlaid with bands of black and white marble; the tribune was painted by Passignano and by Sorri; the paintings by Alessio d'Andrea and by Buonaccorso di Cino (1347), which were in the centre aisle, have disappeared. Other things to be admired, are the ancient pulpit, the cenotaphs of Cino da Pistoia and Cardinal Forteguerri, by Verrocchio, the altar of S. Atto, with its silver work, the baptismal font by Ferrucci, and the equipments of the sacristy. Opposite the cathedral is S. Giovanni Rotondo, the former baptistery; it is an octagonal structure, the work of Andrea Pisano (1333-59), with decorations by Cellino di Nese; the font itself is a square base with four wells, surmounted by a statue of St. John the Baptist by Andrea Vaccà. The church of S. Giovanni Fuoricivitas is surrounded, on the upper part, by two rows of arches; it is a work of the twelfth century; within, there is the pulpit, with its sculptures by Fra Gulielmo d'Agnello, and the holy-water font, representing the theological virtues, by Giovanni Pisano. The name of Pistoia appears for the first time in history in connexion with the conspiracy of Catiline (62 b.c.), but it was only after the sixth century that it became important; it was governed, first, by its bishops, later by stewards of the Marquis of Tuscany. It was the first to establish its independence, after the death of Countess Matilda, and its municipal statutes are the most ancient of their kind in Italy. It was a Ghibelline town, and had subjugated several cities and castles; but, after the death of Frederick II, the Florentines compelled it to become Guelph. About 1300, the Houses of the Cancellieri (Guelphs), and Panciatichi (Ghibellines), struggled with each other for supremacy. The former having triumphed it soon divided into Bianchi and Neri, which made it easy for Castruccio Castracane to subject the town to his domination, in 1328. Florence assisted the Pistoians to drive Castruccio from their town, but that aid soon weighed upon them, and they revolted (1343), taking part with Pisa. In 1351 Pistoia became definitively subject to Florence. Clement IX was a Pistoian. PRATO is also a city in the Province of Florence, situated in the fertile valley of the Bisenzio, which supports many industries, among them flour mills, woolen and silk manufactories, quarries, iron, and copper works. The Cicognani college of Prato is famous. The cathedral, which was erected before the tenth century, was restored in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, according to plans of Giovanni Pisano; it contains paintings by Fra Filippo Lippi and by Gaddi, a pulpit that is a masterpiece of Donatello, and the mausoleums of Carlo de'Medici and of Vincenzo Danti. In the chapel of la Cintola there is preserved a girdle that, according to the legend, was given by Our Lady to St. Thomas. Pinto is first mentioned in history, in 1007, as being in rebellion against Florence; after that it had several wars with Florence and Pistoia. In 1350, it was bought by the Florentines, to prevent it from falling into the hands of the Visconti. In 1512, it was sacked by the Spaniards. Fra Arlotto, author of the first Biblical concordance, was a native of Prato, as were also Fra Bartolommeo della Porta and several personages of the Inghirami family. Pistoin claims to have received the Gospel from St. Romulus, the first Bishop of Fiesole. The first mention of a Bishop of Pistoia is in 492, though the name of this prelate, like that of another Bishop of Pistoia, referred to in 516, is unknown. The first historically known bishop is Joannes (700); Leo (1067), important in the schism of Henry IV; Jacobus (1118-41); the Blessed Atto (1135-53); Bonus (1189), author of "De cohabitatione clericorum et mulierum"; the Ven. Giovanni Vivenzi (1370); Matteo Diamanti (1400); Donato de'Medici (1436) Nicolò Pandolfini (1475), who later became a cardinal; three Pucci, Cardinal Lorenzo (1516), Cardinal Antonio (1519) and Roberto (1541); Alessandro de'Medici (1573) became Leo XI. In 1653, Prato was made a diocese, and united, oeque principaliter, with Pistoia; as early as 1409, Florence asked for the creation of a diocese at Pinto, on account of the dissensions of the collegiate church of Pinto with the Bishops of Pistoia; and in 1460, it had been made a prelatura nullius, and given, as a rule, to some cardinal, in commendam. Other bishops of these sees were the Ven. Gerardo Gerardi (1679-90), under whom Prato founded its seminary; Leone Strozza (1690), Abbot of Vallombrosa, founded the seminary of Pistoia, enlarged by Michele C. Visdomini (1702); Scipione Ricci (1780), famous on account of the Synod of Pistoia which he convened in 1786, and which Pius VI afterwards condemned. The diocese is a suffragan of Florence; has 194 parishes, with 200,100 inhabitants, 5 religious houses of men, and 19 of women, and 7 educational establishments for girls. CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiesa d'Italia, XVII; ROSATI, Memorie per servire alla storia des vescovi di Pistoia. U. BENIGNI. Johann Pistorius Johann Pistorius A controversialist and historian, born at Nidda in Hesse, 14 February, 1546; died at Freiburg, 18 July, 1608. He is sometimes called Niddanus from the name of his birthplace. His father was a well-known Protestant minister, Johann Pistorius the Elder (died 1583 at Nidda), who from 1541 was superintendent or chief minister of Nidda, and took part in several religious disputations between Catholics and Protestants. Pistorius the Younger studied theology, law, and medicine at Marburg and Wittenberg 1559-67. He received the degree of Doctor of Medicine, and in 1575 was appointed court physician to the Margrave Karl II of Baden-Durlach, who frequently sought his advice in political and theological matters. In search of more consistent beliefs, Pistorius turned from Lutheranism to Calvinism; through his influence the Margrave Ernst Friedrich of Baden-Durlach made the same change. As time went on, however, Pistorius became dissatisfied with Calvinism also. In 1584 he became a privy councillor of Margrave James III of Baden-Hochberg at Emmendingen; after further investigation he entered the Catholic Church in 1588. At his request the Margrave James brought about the religious disputations of Baden, 1589, and Emmendingen, 1590. After the second disputation the court preacher Zehender and the margrave himself became Catholics. James III, however, died on 17 August, 1590, and being succeeded by his Protestant brother Ernst Friedrich, Pistorius was obliged to leave. He went to Freiburg, became a priest in 1591, then vicar-general of Constance until 1594; after this he was an imperial councillor, cathedral provost of Breslau, Apostolic prothonotary, and in 1601 confessor to the Emperor Rudolph II. After his death his library came into the possession of the Jesuits of Molsheim and later was transferred to the theological seminary at Strasburg. Pistorius published a detailed account of the conversion of Margrave James III: "Jakobs Marggrafen zu Baden . . . christliche, erhebliche und wolfundirte Motifen" (Cologne, 1591). His numerous writings against Protestantism, while evincing clearness, skill, and thorough knowledge of his opponents, especially of Luther, are marked by controversial sharpness and coarseness. The most important are: "Anatomia Lutheri" (Cologne, 1595-8);"Hochwichtige Merkzeichen des alten und neuen Glaubens" (Münster, 1599); "Wegweiser vor alle verführte Christen" (Münster, 1599). Pistorius was attacked violently by the Protestants; e. g., by Huber, Spangenbert, Mentzer, Horstius, and Christoph Agricola. Replies to the "Anatomia Lutheri" were written by the Protestant theologians of Wittenberg and Hesse. Pistorius also busied himself with cabalistic studies, and published "Artis cabbalisticæ, h. e. reconditæ theologiæ et philosophiæ scriptorum tomus unus" (Basle, 1587). As court historiographer to the Margrave of Baden, he investigated the genealogy of the princely house of Zahringen; he also issued two works on historical sources: "Polonicæ historiæ corpus, i. e. Polonicarum rerum latini veteres et recentiores scriptores quotquot exstant" (Basle, 1582), and "Rerum Germanicarum veteres jam primum publicati scriptores aliquot insignes medii ævi ad Carolum V" (Frankfort, 1583-1607). RÄSS, Die Convertiten seit der Reformation (Freiburg, 1866), II, 488-507; III, 91 sqq.; GASS in Allgem. deut. Biog., XXVI, 199-201; HURTER, Nomenclator, III (Innsbruck, 1907); JANSSEN, Hist. of the German People at the close of the Middle Ages, X (tr. CHRISTIE, London, 1906), 116-48; SCHMIDLIN, Johann Pistorius als Propst im Elsass in Hist. Jahrbuch, XXIX (1908), 790-804; [ZELL], Markgraf Jakob III. von Baden in Hist-pol. Blätter, XXXVIII (1856); VON WEECH, Zur Gesch. des Markgrafen Jacob III. von Baden und Hachberg in Zeitsch. für Gesch. des Oberrheins, new series, VII (1892), 656-700; VIII (1893), 710; XII (1897), 266-72. FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT. Pithou, Pierre Pierre Pithou A writer, born at Troyes, 1 Nov. 1539; died at Nogent-sur-Seine, 1 Nov., 1596. His father, a distinguished lawyer, had secretly embraced Calvinism. Pierre studied the classics in Paris under Turnèbe, and afterwards with his brother, François Pithou, attended lectures in law at Bourges and Valence under Cujas, who often said: Pithoei fratres, clarissima lumina. In 1560 he was admitted to practise at the Paris bar; but on the outbreak of the second war of religion, he withdrew to Troyes. Not being admitted to the bar at Troyes on account of his Calvinist belief, he withdrew to Sedan which was a Protestant district, and, at the request of the Duc de Bouillon, he codified the legal customs into the form of laws. He then proceeded to Basle, where he published Otto de Freisingen's "Vie de Frédéric Barberousse" and Warnfrid's" Historia Miscellanea". After the Edict of Pacification of 1570 he returned to France, escaped during the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, and, in 1573, joined the Catholic Church. In the struggles between the future Henry IV and the League. he was an ardent adherent of Henry; he collaborated in the production of the "Satire Ménippée", and being skilled in canon law, made a study, in an anonymous letter published in 1593, of the right of the French bishops to absolve Henry IV without consulting the pope. In 1594 he published an epoch-making work "Les libertés de l'église gallicane". For the first time the maxims of Gallicanism were really codified, in eighty-three articles, The first edition was dedicated to Henry IV. The permission to publish the edition of 1651 under Louis XIV contains these words: "We wish to show our favour to a work of so great importance for the rights of our crown". Pithou's book was the basis of the Four Articles of 1682. D'Aguesseau declared that the book was "the palladium of France", President Hénault, that "the maxims of Pithou have in a sense the force of laws". An edict of 1719, and a decree of the Parliament of Dauphiné on 21 April, 1768, ordered the enforcement of certain articles in Pithou's book, as if these eighty-three articles were legal enactments. They were reprinted by Dupin in 1824. Henry IV appointed Pithou procurator general of the Parliament of Paris; but he soon resigned the post, preferring to return to his juristic and literary studies. He edited Salvian, Quintilian, Petronius, Phædrus, the Capitularies of Charlemagne, and the "Corpus juris canonici". His brother François (1541-1621), who became a Catholic in 1578, wrote in 1587 a treatise on "The greatness of the rights, and of the preeminence of the kings and the kingdom of France", and was distinguished for his fanatical hostility to the Jesuits. Pierre Pithou, more equitable, saved the Jesuits from some of the dangers that threatened them for a short time after the attempted assassination of Henry IV by Châtel. GROSLEY, Vie de Pierre Pithou (Paris, 1756); DUPIN, Libertés de l'Eglise gallicane (Paris, 1824), preface. GEORGES GOYAU. Joseph Pitoni Joseph Pitoni A musician, born at Rieti, Perugia, Italy, 18 March, 1657; died at Rome, 1 Feb., 1743, and buried in the church of San Marco, where he had been choirmaster, in the Pitoni family vault. His biography, by his pupil Girolamo Chiti, is in the library of the Corsini palace. At five years he began to study music at Rome. Not yet sixteen, he composed pieces which were sung in the church of the Holy Apostles. At that age he was in charge of the choir at Monte Rotondo; at seventeen at the Cathedral of Assisi. At twenty (1677) he returned to Rome, and was maestro di cappella in many churches; in 1708 he was appointed director of St. John Lateran. In 1719 he became choirmaster of St. Peter's, and remained in that office for twenty-four years. In the Accademia di S. Cecilia he was one of the four esaminatori dei maestri. Pitoni acquired such a marvellous facility, that for his compositions, which were of great musical value, he could write every part separately, without making a score. The number of his compositions, says Chiti, is infinite. Many of them are written for three and four choirs. He also began a Mass for twelve choirs; but his advanced age did not allow him to finish it. He left a work "Notizie dei maestri di Cappella si di Roma che oltramontani". Dictionary of Music from 1450-1880 (London, 1880); EITNER, Quellenlexicon, VII (1902), 462-64; BAINI, Memorie . . . di G. P. da Palestrina, II (Rome, 1828), 55, nota 502, Ger. tr. KANDLER (Vienna, 1834). A. WALTER. Jean-Baptiste-Francois Pitra Jean-Baptiste-François Pitra Cardinal, famous archæologist and theologian, b. 1 August, 1812, at Champforgeuil in the Department of Saône-et-Loire, France; d. 9 Feb., 1889, in Rome. He was educated at Autun, ordained priest on 13 December, 1836, and occupied the chair of rhetoric at the petit séminaire of Autun from 1836 to 1841. >From his early youth he manifested indefatigable diligence which, combined with brilliant talents and a remarkable memory, made him one of the most learned men of his time. The first fruit of his scholarship was his decipherment, in 1839, of the fragments of a sepulchral monument, discovered in the cemetery of Saint-Pierre at Autun and known as the "Inscription of Autun". It probably dates back to the third century, was composed by a certain Pectorius and placed over the grave of his parents. The initials of the first five verses of the eleven-line inscription form the symbolical word ichthús (fish), and the whole inscription is a splendid testimony of the early belief in baptism, the Holy Eucharist, prayer for the dead, communion of saints, and life everlasting. He published the inscription in "Spicilegium Solesmense" (III, 554-64). In 1840 Pitra applied to Abbot Guéranger of Solesmes for admission into the Benedictine order but, to accommodate the Bishop of Autun, he remained another year as professor at the petit séminaire of Autun. He finally began his novitiate at Solesmes on 15 January, 1842, and made his profession on 10 February, 1843. A month later, he was appointed prior of St-Germain in Paris. During his sojourn there he was one of the chief collaborators of Abbé Migne in the latter's colossal "Cursus patrologiæ". Pitra drew up the list of the authors whose writings were to find a place in the work, and collaborated in the edition of the Greek writers up to Photius, and of the Latin up to Innocent III. At the same time he contributed extensively to the newly founded periodical "Auxiliare catholique". In 1845 he had to break his connexion with the great work of Migne, owing to the financial difficulties of the priory of St-Germain, which finally had to be sold to satisfy the creditors. Pitra undertook a journey through Champagne, Burgundy, Lorraine, Alsace, Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, and England in the interests of his priory. At the same time he visited numerous libraries in these countries in search of unpublished manuscripts bearing on the history of the early Christian Church. The fruits of his researches he gave to the world in his famous "Spicilegium Solesmense" (see below). His many great archæological discoveries and his unusual acquaintances with whatever bore any relation to the Byzantine Church, induced Pius IX to send him on a scientific mission to the libraries of Russia in 1858. Before setting out on his journey he studied the manuscripts relative to Greek canon law, in the libraries of Rome and other Italian cities. In Russia, where he spent over seven months (July, 1859- March, 1860), he had free access to all the libraries of St. Petersburg and Moscow. On his return he made an official visit of the twenty Basilian monasteries of Galicia at the instance of the papal nuncio at Vienna. After arranging his writings at the monasteries of Solesmes and Ligugé, he was called to Rome in August, 1861, to consult with the pope on the advisability of erecting at the Propaganda a special department for Oriental affairs and to make a personal report on his findings in the libraries of Russia. Pitra was also chosen to supervise the new edition of the liturgical books of the Greek Rite, which was being prepared by the Propaganda. He was created cardinal on 16 March, 1863, with the titular church of St. Thomas in Parione. As his residence he chose the palace of San Callisto where he continued to live the simple life of a monk as far as his new duties permitted. On 23 Jan., 1869, he was appointed librarian of the Vatican. He drew up new and more liberal regulations for the use of the library and facilitated in every way access of scholars to the Vatican manuscripts. Above all, however, he himself made diligent researches among the manuscripts and published many rare and valuable specimens in his "Analecta" (see below). At the Vatican Council in 1870, he ably maintained against the inopportunists that the Catholics of the Greek and Oriental Churches upheld the papal infallibility. After the accession of Leo XIII (20 Feb., 1878) he supervised the edition of a catalogue of the Vatican manuscripts, of which the first volume, "Codices Palatini Græci", appeared in 1885 and was prefaced by Cardinal Pitra with a laudatory epistle addressed to Leo XIII. On 21 May, 1879, he was appointed Cardinal-Bishop of Frascati and for five years laboured incessantly for the welfare of his diocese, which had been greatly neglected. On 24 Merch, 1884, he was transferred to the episcopal See of Porto and Santa Rufina to which was annexed the dignity of subdean of the Sacred College. On 19 May, 1885, Abbé Brouwers published in the "Amstelbode", a Catholic journal of Belgium, a letter of Pitra, which the hostile press construed into an attack upon the policy of Leo XIII; but Pitra soon satisfied the Holy See of his filial devotion. Cardinal Pitra was one of the most learned and pious members of the Sacred College. Besides being Librarian of the Holy Roman Church and member of various Roman congregations and cardinalitial commissions, he was cardinal protector of the Cistercians, the Benedictine congregation of France, the Benedictine nuns of St. Cecilia at Solesmes and of Stanbrook in England, the Eudists, the Brothers of Christian Schools, the Sisters of Mercy of St. Charles in Nancy, and the Sisters of the Atonement in Paris. The following are his literary productions:-(1) "Histoire de Saint Léger, évêque d'Autun et martyr, et de l'église des Francs au VII ^e siècle" (Paris, 1846), one of the most complete monographs on the Church of the Franks during the seventh century; (2) "La Hollande catholique" (Paris, 1850), consisting mostly of letters concerning Holland and its people, which he wrote while travelling in that country in 1849; (3) "Etudes sur la collection des Actes des Saints par les RR. PP. Jésuites Bollandistes" (Paris, 1850), a complete history of the "Acta Sanctorum" of the Bollandists, preceded by a treatise on the hagiological collections up to the time of Rosweyde (d. 1629); (4) "Spicilegium Solesmense" (4 vols., Paris, 1852-1858), a collection of hitherto unpublished works of Greek and Latin Fathers of Church and other early ecclesiastical writers; (5) "Vie du P. Libermann" (Paris, 1855; 2nd ed., 1872; 3rd ed., 1882), a very reliable life of the Venerable Paul Libermann, founder of the Congregation of the Sacred Heart of Mary. Libermann had been a personal acquaintance of Pitra; (6) "Juris ecclesiastici Græcorum historia et monumenta" (2 vols., Rome, 1864-8), containing the canonical writings of the Greeks from the so-called "Apostolic Constitutions" to the "Nomocanon", generally ascribed to Photius. With its learned introduction and its many notes and comments, the work forms a complete history of Byzantine law; (7) "Hymnographie de l'église grecque" (Rome, 1867), a dissertation on Greek hymnography, accompanied by numerous Greek hymns in honour of Sts. Peter and Paul; (8) "Analecta sacra Spicilegio Solesmense". The first volume (Paris, 1876) contains Greek hymns; the second (Frascati, 1883), the third (Venice, 1883), and the fourth (Paris, 1883) contain writings of ante-Nicene Fathers; the fifth (Paris, 1888) is composed of writings of the Fathers and of a few pagan philosophers; the seventh (Paris, 1891) contains writings bearing on the canon law of the Greeks and was published posthumously by Battandier, who had been Pitra's secretary; the eighth (Monte Cassino, 1881) contains the writings of St. Hildegard; the sixth, which was to contain Greek melodies, has not been published; (9) "Analecta novissima" (2 vols., Frascati, 1885-8), a second supplement to "Spicilegium Solesmense". The first volume contains a French treatise on papal letters, bullaria, catalogues of popes etc., and a hitherto unpublished treatise on Pope Vigilius by Dom Constant. The second volume is devoted to writings of Odon d'Ourscamp, Odon de Châteauroux, Jacques de Vitry, and Bertrand de la Tour, four medieval French bishops of Frascati; (10) "Sancti Romani cantica sacra" (Rome, 1888), a collection of hymns written by Romanos, the greatest Byzantine hymnodist. Pitra presented this work to Leo XIII on the occasion of his sacerdotal jubilee. In addition to these works Pitra contributed numerous archælogical, theological, historical, and other articles to various scientific periodicals of France. Cabrol, Histoire du Cardinal Pitra, bénédictin de la Congrégation de France (Paris, 1893), tr. into German by BÜhler in Studien und Mitteilungen aus dem Benediktiner- und Cistercienser-Orden, XXVII-XXX (Brünn, 1907-9); Battandier, Le cardinal Jean-Baptiste Pitra, évêque de Porto, bibliothécaire de la Sainte Eglise romaine (Paris, 1896); Cabrol, Le Cardinal Pitra. Ses travaux et ses découvertes in Science catholique (1889), tr. in The Lamp (1899); Bibliographie des Bénédictines de la Congrégation de France (Paris, 1906), 120-31. MICHAEL OTT Pitts, John John Pitts Born at Alton, Hampshire, 1560; died at Liverdun, Lorraine, 17 Oct., 1616. He was educated at Winchester and New College, Oxford, where he remained, 20 March, 1578-1580. He was admitted to the English College, Rome, 18 Oct., 1581, ordained priest 2 March, 1588, became professor of rhetoric and Greek at the English College, Reims, proceeded M.A. and B.D. at Pont-à-Musson, Lic.D. at Trèves (1592), and D.D. at Ingolstadt (1595). After holding a canonry at Verdun for two years he was appointed confessor and almoner to the Duchess of Cleves, and held this position for twelve years. After her death his former pupil, the Bishop of Toul, appointed him dean of Liverdun. His chief work is the "Relationum Historicarum de rebus Angliæ", of which only one part, "De Illustribus Angliæ Scriptoribus", was published (Paris, 1619). The other sections, "De Regibus Angliæ", "De Episcopis Angliæ", and "De Viris Apostolicis Angliæ", remained in Manuscript at Liverdun. The "De Scriptoribus" is chiefly valuable for the notices of contemporary writers. On other points it must be used with caution, being largely compiled from the uncritical work of Bale. Pitts also published "Tractatus de legibus" (Trier, 1592); "Tractatus de beatitudine' (Ingolstadt, 1595); and "Libri septem de peregrinatione" (Dusseldorf, 1604). KIRBY, Annals of Winchester College (London, 1892); FOSTER, Alumni Oxonienses (Oxford, 1891); WOOD, Athenoe Oxonienses (London, 1813-20); DODD, Church History, II (Brussels, 1739); KNOX, Douay Diaries (London, 1878); FOLEY, Records Eng. Prov. S. J., III, VI; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v. EDWIN BURTON. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh DIOCESE OF PITTSBURG/PITTSBURGH (PITTSBURGENSIS). Suffragan of Philadelphia, in the United States of America. It comprises the counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Greene, Indiana, Lawrence, Washington, and Westmoreland in the State of Pennsylvania, an area of 7238 square miles, the total population of which is 1,944,942 (U.S. Census, 1910). About 24.42 per cent of these are Catholics. It is probable that the first religious services held by white men within the limits of what is now the Diocese of Pittsburg were conducted by a Jesuit, Father Bonnecamp, who accompanied Celeron in his exploration along the Allegheny and Ohio Rivers in 1749. The strategic character of the ground where the Monongahela and Allegheny Rivers meet to form the Ohio pointed this place out to George Washington as a spot of future importance. He first saw "the Forks", as the place was called by the Indians, on 24 November, 1753, when engaged in bearing a letter from Robert Dinwiddie, Lieutenant-Governor of Virginia, to the commander of the French forces, asserting the British claims to the territory of Western Pennsylvania. Both England and France regarded the Forks as a valuable military position, opening a way for exploration to the west and south, and each was determined to occupy it. At the time the adjacent country was occupied by various Indian tribes -- the Shawnees, Delawares, Senecas -- dwelling along the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers. The first place of public worship within this territory was a chapel erected by the French in the stockade of Fort Duquesne, after Captain Contrecoeur and his forces had driven Ensigns Ward and Frazier from the Fort they were constructing at the fork of the Ohio. This chapel was built at some time later than 16 April, 1754, and dedicated under the title of "Assumption of the Blessed Virgin of the Beautiful River". In those days and for long afterwards, the Ohio -- on account of its clear water and rugged scenery -- was known as the "beautiful river". There is preserved in the archives of the city of Montreal a register of baptisms and deaths kept by the army chaplain at Fort Duquesne, from which we learn that the first interment in the cemetery of the fort was that of Toussaint Boyer, who died 20 June, 1754. The first white child born on the site of the city of Pittsburg was John Daniel Norment. His godfather was the chief officer of Fort Duquesne, John Daniel Sieur Dumas. These entries are signed by "Friar Denys Baron, Recollect Priest, Chaplain". If written evidence alone were to be considered, Father Baron, and not Father Bonnecamp (mentioned above), must be regarded as the first priest to offer the Holy Sacrifice, and the first white man to perform any public act of religious worship in the territory of the diocese. The register of baptisms and interments which took place at Fort Duquesne begins 11 July, 1753, and ends 10 October, 1756. The records before June, 1754, are from posts occupied by the French in the north-western part of Pennsylvania, now in the Diocese of Erie, before they took possession of the spot on which Fort Duquesne stood. In the register we find entries made by Friar Gabriel Amheuser and Friar Luke Collet, but they were chaplains from other French forts. Friar Denys Baron alone signs himself "Chaplain" of Fort Duquesne. These records testify to the baptism and burial of a number of Indians, showing that the French chaplains did not neglect their missionary duties. The French evacuated the fort, the British army under General Forbes took possession in 1758, and the place was named Pittsburg, or Fort Pitt, after William Pitt, Prime Minister of England. For thirty or forty years the Catholic religion was almost, if not entirely, without adherents in Western Pennsylvania. Gradually, as the western part of the state was settled, the Catholics gained a foothold, but met with much opposition in this strongly Calvinistic section. In 1784 their number had increased sufficiently about Pittsburg to warrant them in sending Felix Hughes to the Very Rev. John Carroll, at Baltimore, who was then superior of the clergy in the United States, asking that a priest be sent to minister to them at least once or twice a year. By this time there were seventy-five or eighty families along the Chartiers Creek, up the Monongahela Valley, and about Pittsburg. Priests were few in the country then, and the request could not be complied with. Under such conditions some of the Catholics in Western Pennsylvania had become indifferent, abandoned their religion altogether, or neglected their religious duties, even when the priests came. It is probable that the first priest to pass through Western Pennsylvania and minister to the Catholics there was a Carmelite, Father Paul, who came in 1785. Another was the Rev. Charles Whalen, a Capuchin, who remained a short time in 1787. In 1792 the Rev. Benedict Joseph Flaget, afterwards Bishop of Bardstown, remained here for some weeks. In 1793 the Revs. Baden and Barrieres came to Pittsburg and remained from September until November. The Rev. Michael Fournier was here fourteen weeks in the winter of 1796-7. The site on which St. Vincent's Archabbey now stands, in Unity township, Westmoreland county, was the first place where a permanent Catholic settlement was made in Western Pennsylvania. This was about 1787. The Rev. Theodore Bowers purchased the tract of land then known as "Sportsman's Hall" in 1790, and became the first priest of the little colony. When the Rev. Peter Heilbron came to take charge of the parish, in November, 1799, he found seventy-five communicants. In March, 1789, ground was purchased at Greensburg, where the Rev. John B. Causse said Mass for the first time in June, 1789. A log chapel was begun in 1790, but was never completed. The Rev. Patrick Lonergan went with a colony of Catholics from Sportsman's Hall in 1798 and, after a short stay at West Alexander, began a church at Waynesburg, Greene County, in 1799, or 1800, "which", says Archbishop Kenrick of Baltimore, writing in 1862, "was completed by me thirty years later". In the summer of 1799, the Rev. Demetrius A. Gallitzin came to reside with a colony of Catholics at Maguire's Settlement, now known as Loretto, in Cambria County, in the present Diocese of Altoona, and his mission-field included much of what is now the Diocese of Pittsburg. These, with the churches at Sugar Creek, Armstrong County, where the Rev. Lawrence F. Phelan took up his residence in 1805, and at Pittsburg, where the Rev. William F. X. O'Brien settled in 1808, were the first centres of the Faith in Western Pennsylvania. The Franciscans, who had reared the first altar at Fort Duquesne, furnished the first missionaries to attempt permanent centres of Catholic life, and establish places of worship in Western Pennsylvania. The Revs. Theodore Browers, John B. Causse, Patrick Lonergan, Peter Heilbron, Charles B. Maguire, all belonged to one or another branch of the Order of St. Francis. The Rev. William F. X. O'Brien, the first resident pastor of Pittsburg, was ordained at Baltimore 11 June, 1808, came to Pittsburg in November of the same year, and took up the erection of the church which is known in history as "Old St. Patrick's". It stood at the corner of Liberty and Epiphany streets, at the head of Eleventh Street, in front of the present Union Station. The Right Rev. Michael Egan dedicated this church in August, 1811, and its dedication and the administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation mark the first visit of a bishop to this part of the state. After twelve years of labour and exposure on the missions of his extensive territory, in which there were perhaps not more than 1800 souls, Father O'Brien's health declined, and in March, 1820, he retired to Maryland, where he died 1 November, 1832. He was succeeded in May, 1820, by the Rev. Charles B. Maguire, who had been pastor of the church at Sportsman's Hall since 1817. "Priest Maguire", as he was called by the Protestant people of Pittsburg, was a man of great ability and extensive learning, and in his day one of the best known and most respected and influential citizens of the community. He gave to the parish of St. Patrick, and to the Church in Western Pennsylvania something of his own strong personality and splendid qualities of order, progress, industry, love, and fidelity to Jesus Christ -- influences that are still felt. He began in 1827 the erection of St. Paul's church, which, when finished and dedicated 4 May, 1834, was the largest and most imposing church edifice in the United States. The Poor Clare Nuns opened a convent and academy in 1828 on Nunnery Hill in what was then Allegheny (now the North Side of Pittsburg). The community left Nunnery Hill in 1835 and, after remaining in another part of Allegheny until 1837, the sisters either returned to Europe, or entered other religious communities in the United States. Father Maguire died of cholera 17 July, 1833, and was succeeded as pastor by his assistant, the Rev. John O'Reilly, who completed St. Paul's church, introduced the Sisters of Charity from Emmitsburg, Maryland, in 1835, and established in the same year a Catholic school, and in 1838 an orphan asylum which the Sisters of Charity conducted until they were withdrawn from the diocese by their superiors in 1845. In April, 1837, Father O'Reilly was transferred to Philadelphia, and the Rev. Thomas Heyden, of Bedford, took his place. In November of the same year, Father Heyden returned to Bedford, and the Rev. P. R. Kenrick, the late Archbishop of St. Louis, became pastor of St. Paul's, Pittsburg. In the summer of 1838, Father O'Reilly exchanged places with Father Kenrick, and returned to Pittsburg. He remained at St. Paul's until succeeded by the Rev. Michael O'Connor, 17 June, 1841. He then went to Rome, entered the Congregation of the Mission, and died at St. Louis, Missouri, 4 March, 1862. The first religious community of men was established in Pittsburg, 8 April, 1839, which date marks the advent of the Fathers of the Congregation of Our Most Holy Redeemer, in the person of the Rev. Father Prost, who came to take charge of St. Patrick's parish, and established St. Philomena's. Bishop Flaget appears to have been the first to regard Pittsburg as the future see of a bishop, having entertained this idea in 1825. As early as 1835 Bishop Kenrick proposed to the cardinal prefect of Propaganda a division of the Diocese of Philadelphia by the erection at Pittsburg of an episcopal see, and he recommended the appointment of the Rev. John Hughes as Bishop either of Philadelphia or of Pittsburg. The suggestion of Bishop Kenrick was officially approved in Rome, and in January, 1836, the Rev. John Hughes was named Bishop of Philadelphia, and Bishop Kenrick was transferred to Pittsburg. Some obstacle intervened, and the appointments were recalled. The matter was again discussed in the Third Provincial Council of Baltimore, 16 April, 1837, but no definite action was taken. In the Fifth Provincial Council, which assembled at Baltimore, 14 May, 1843, the division of the State of Pennsylvania into two dioceses was recommended to the Holy See, and the Rev. Dr. Michael O'Connor was named as the most suitable person to govern the new see. Both actions of the council were confirmed at Rome. The new Diocese of Pittsburg, according to the Bull of erection, issued 11 August, 1843, was "Western Pennsylvania". This designation being rather vague, Bishop Kenrick, of Philadelphia, and Bishop O'Connor agreed to consider the Diocese of Pittsburg as comprising the Counties of Bedford, Huntingdon, Clearfield, McKean, and Potter, and all west of them in the state of Pennsylvania. This agreement was afterwards confirmed by a rescript of the Holy See. The new diocese contained an area of 21,300 sq. miles, or a little less than one-half of the state, and not more than one-third either of the entire, or of the Catholic population. Dr. Michael O'Connor was in Rome at the time of the division of the Diocese of Philadelphia, and his appointment to the new see was announced to him by Gregory XVI, while the future bishop knelt at his feet to ask permission to enter the Society of Jesus. "You shall be bishop first, and a Jesuit afterwards", said the venerable pontiff. These prophetic words were literally fulfilled. The Bull of his appointment was dated 11 August, 1843, and he was consecrated four days later by Cardinal Franzoni in the church of S. Agata, at Rome, on the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, the titular feast of the first chapel at Fort Duquesne. Michael O'Connor was born near the city of Cork, Ireland, 27 September, 1810. His early education was received at Queenstown, in his native country. At the age of fourteen he went to France, where he studied for several years. Then he was sent by the Bishop of Cloyne and Ross to the College of the Propaganda, at Rome where he won the title of Doctor of Divinity. Cardinal Wiseman, then Rector of the English College at Rome, in his "Recollections of the Last Four Popes", speaks in terms of high commendation of the ability of the youthful O'Connor, and of the manner in which he won his doctor's cap and ring. On 1 June, 1833, he was ordained, and immediately afterwards was appointed professor of Sacred Scripture at the Propaganda. The post of vice-rector of the Irish College was next assigned to him, and, returning to his native land, he was stationed for a time in the parish of Fermoy. At the invitation of Bishop Kenrick he came to the United States in 1839, and was at once appointed to a professorship in St. Charles Borromeo's Seminary, Philadelphia, afterwards becoming its president. During his connexion with the seminary, he attended the mission at Morristown, and built the church of St. Francis Xavier at Fairmount. In June, 1841, he was appointed vicar-general of the western part of the State of Pennsylvania, and came to Pittsburg to succeed the Rev. John O'Reilly, as pastor of St. Paul's. The event is chronicled in his notebook as follows: "June 17, 1841, arrived at Pittsburg on this day (Thursday); lodging at Mrs. Timmons, at $4.00 per week". One month after his arrival, Father O'Connor undertook the erection of a parochial school, organized a literary society for young men of the city, and opened a reading-room. He was consecrated Bishop of Pittsburg 15 August, 1843, at Rome. Soon after his consecration he left Rome and passed through Ireland on his way to America, with a view of providing priests and religious for his diocese. He called at Maynooth in October, 1843, and made an appeal to the students, asking some of them to volunteer their services for the new Diocese of Pittsburg. Five students whose course of studies was almost completed and three others also far advanced resolved to accompany the bishop. Coming to Dublin, he obtained a colony of seven Sisters of the recently-founded Order of Our Lady of Mercy to take charge of the parochial schools and of the higher education of young ladies. These were the first Sisters of the Order of Mercy, founded by Mother Catherine McCauley, to establish a convent in the United States. He sailed for America 12 November, and arrived at Pittsburg in December, 1843. At that time the bishop had in his vast diocese 33 churches, a few of which were unfinished, 16 priests, and a Catholic population of less than 25,000 souls. The following were the churches and priests of Western Pennsylvania at the time of the erection of the Diocese of Pittsburg. In Allegheny County: Pittsburg, St. Paul's Cathedral, the Very Rev. M. O'Connor and his assistant, the Rev. Joseph F. Deane; St. Patrick's, the Rev. E. F. Garland; St. Philomena's (German), the Revs. John N. Neuman, Julius P. Saenderl, F. X. Tschenheus, Peter Czackert, C.SS.R. The Rev. A. P. Gibbs resided in Pittsburg and attended a number of small congregations and missions in Allegheny and other counties: St. Philip's, Broadhead (now Crafton); St. Mary's, Pine Creek; St. Alphonsus, Wexford; St. Peter's, McKeesport. Westmoreland County: St. Vincent's; Mt. Carmel (near Derry), the Rev. Jas. A. Stillinger. Indiana County: Blairsville, Sts. Simon and Jude, and St. Patrick's, Cameron's Bottom; the Rev. Jas. A. Stillinger, from St. Vincent's. Butler County: Butler, St. Peter's, the Rev. H. P. Gallagher; Donegal, St. Joseph's (now North Oakland); Murrinsville, St. Alphonsus; St. Mary's (now Herman), the Rev. H. P. Gallagher (residing at Butler). Armstrong County: St. Patrick's, Sugar Creek; St. Mary's, Freeport; the Rev. Joseph Cody, residing at Sugar Creek. Washington County: St. James, West Alexander. Fayette County: St. Peter's, Brownsville (in course of erection), the Rev. M. Gallagher. Greene County: Waynesburg, St. Ann's; other stations in Greene County, Washington County, and Fayette County, attended by the Rev. M. Gallagher, from Brownsville. Beaver County: Beaver, Sts. Peter and Paul. Bedford County: Bedford, St. Thomas, the Rev. Thomas Heyden. Somerset County: Harman Bottom, St. John's, the Rev. Thomas Heyden (residing at Bedford). Huntingdon County: Huntingdon, Holy Trinity, attended from Newry by the Rev. James Bradley. Blair County: Newry, St. Patrick's; St. Luke's, Sinking Valley and St. Mary's, Hollidaysburg, attended from Newry by the Rev. James Bradley. Cambria County: Loretto, St. Michael's; Jefferson (now Wilmore), St. Bartholomew's; Johnstown, St. John Gaulbert; Ebensburg, St. Patrick's (now Holy Name of Jesus); Hart's Sleeping Place, St. Joseph's; Summit, St. Aloysius's (these places attended in 1843 by the Rev. Peter H. Lemke, pastor of Loretto, and his assistant, the Rev. Matthew W. Gibson). Mercer County: Mercer, St. Raphael's, attended from Butler by the Rev. H. P. Gallagher. Clearfield County: Clearfield, St. Francis; French Settlement, St. Mary's; Grampian Hills, St. Bonaventure. Crawford County: Cupewago (dedication unknown); French Settlement, St. Hippolyte's; Oil Creek, St. Stephen's. Erie County: Erie, St. Patrick's; Erie, St. Mary's. Elk County: Elk Creek (dedication unknown); Marysville (dedication unknown). Clarion County: Erismans, St. Michael's; Red Bank, St. Nicholas's. The Rev. J. A. Berti seems to have attended the missions of Clearfield, Crawford, Erie, Elk, and Clarion Counties in 1843. As yet there were but two religious communities in the diocese, the Redemptorist Fathers at St. Philomena's church, and the Sisters of Charity, who had charge of St. Paul's Orphan Asylum, and two schools in Pittsburg. The first parochial school building at St. Paul's, which has already been mentioned, was opened 14 April, 1844. On 16 June of the same year the first diocesan synod was held, and statutes were enacted for the government of the Church. On the 30th of the same month a chapel was opened for the use of the coloured Catholics of the city. In the same year the publication of "The Catholic" was begun, and the paper has been regularly issued every week down to the present time. St. Michael's ecclesiastical seminary, for the education of candidates for the priesthood, was established also in 1844. Thus in the brief space of a single year Bishop O'Connor had succeeded in thoroughly organizing all the departments of his vast diocese. The Presentation Brothers came in 1845 to take charge of St. Paul's Boys' School. They withdrew from the diocese, however, in 1848. In 1846 Bishop O'Connor received the Benedictine Order into the diocese. Their abbey was founded at St. Vincent's, Beatty, Pa., by the late Archabbot Boniface Wimmer (then the Rev. Boniface Wimmer, O.S.B.) from the Benedictine monastery of Melten, in Bavaria, and in its college and seminary many young men have received their higher education and completed their studies for the priesthood. The little seed sown at Sportsman's Hall has developed into the great Archabbey of St. Vincent's, which is, at this date (1911), the largest Benedictine institution in the world. In 1847 a community of the members of the Third Order of St. Francis came from Ireland and settled at Loretto, Cambria County, Pa. In 1848 the Sisters of Notre Dame opened a convent and school at St. Philomena's, Pittsburg. The Passionists, then an Italian order, were introduced into the diocese in 1852, and from their first monastery of St. Paul's, Pittsburg, the order has since spread into many States of the Union. By 1852 the diocese had increased to such an extent that the bishop began to consider the propriety of having it divided, and a new one formed from the northern counties. He laid the matter before the Fathers of the First Plenary Council of Baltimore, which assembled 9 May, 1852, and the division was recommended by the Holy See. The Bulls dividing the Diocese of Pittsburg and erecting the new Diocese of Erie were dated 29 July, 1853. The dividing line ran east and west along the northern boundaries of Cambria, Indiana, Armstrong, Butler, and Lawrence, taking from Pittsburg all the counties lying north thereof, and giving thirteen counties to the new and fifteen to the old diocese. The area of the Diocese of Pittsburg was reduced from 21,300 sq. miles to 11,314 sq. miles. Bishop O'Connor chose the new and poorer diocese as his portion, and the Holy See approved his choice. The Rev. Joshua M. Young, of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, was named Bishop of Pittsburg. The reluctance of Father Young to be the successor of Bishop O'Connor in the See of Pittsburg and the urgent petition of the clergy and the people of the diocese moved the Holy See to restore Bishop O'Connor after five months (20 December, 1853) to his former bishopric, and appoint Bishop Young to the new Diocese of Erie. A comparison of the condition of the diocese at the date of its division to form the Diocese of Erie with what it was at the time of its erection ten years before will furnish the most convincing evidence of the zeal, prudence, and energy which characterized the administration of Bishop O'Connor. At the time of the division, the 43 churches had increased to 78, and 4 more were in course of erection. The 16 priests had increased to 64, and the Catholic population from less than 25,000 to at least 50,000. On 23 May, 1860, Bishop O'Connor resigned his see to carry out his cherished purpose of entering the Society of Jesus. He made his novitiate in Germany and then returned to this country, where he laboured with characteristic energy and zeal as a professor, also preaching and lecturing all over the United States and Canada. With his other acquirements, Bishop O'Connor was a linguist of considerable note, being familiar with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and speaking English, Irish, French, German, Italian, and Spanish. He was called to his reward 18 October, 1872, in his sixty-third year. His remains were deposited by the side of his Jesuit brethren at Woodstock, Maryland, and there still lies all that is mortal of one of the most brilliant lights that has ever shed its lustre on the Church in the United States. When Bishop O'Connor resigned, the statistics of the diocese were as follows: 77 churches, 86 priests, 30 clerical students, 4 male and 2 female religious orders, 1 seminary, 3 male and 2 female institutions of higher education, 2 orphan asylums, 1 hospital, and a Catholic population of 50,000. Any one who understands the resources of the diocese in 1843 would find it difficult to comprehend how the bishop could have accomplished so much for the good of religion. A stranger, after examining all that had been done -- the charitable and educational establishments founded, churches built -- would at once conclude that the person who accomplished so much must have had control of vast means, or must have been at the head of a numerous and influential, wealthy, and munificent Catholic body. Yet Bishop O'Connor in fact enjoyed none of these advantages. The Catholics of the Diocese of Pittsburg at that time, though generous to support religion, cannot be said to have been influential in the community, or possessed of great means. Indeed they were, almost without exception, the poorer people of the community. But during sixteen years they had enjoyed the advantages of an episcopal administration, all things considered, the most brilliant and most successful in the history of the American Church. The Very Revs. James A. Stillinger and Edward McMahon were Bishop O'Connor's vicars-general. The Right Rev. Michael Domenec, who succeeded Bishop O'Connor, 28 September, 1860, was, at the time of his appointment, pastor of the church of St. Vincent de Paul, Germantown. He was born at Ruez, near Tarragona, Spain, in 1816. His early education was received at Madrid. The outbreak of the Carlist War interrupted his studies, and at the age of fifteen he went to France to complete his education. Having spent some years in the Lazarist seminary in Paris, he entered that order. In the company of the Very Rev. John Timon, then visitor-general of the Lazarists, he came to the United States in 1838, and was ordained at the seminary at Barrens, Missouri, 29 June, 1839. Having acted as professor in that seminary, at the same time labouring as a missionary in various parts of Missouri, he was sent in 1845 with some other Lazarist Fathers to take charge of the diocesan seminary at Philadelphia, a position formerly occupied by the first Bishop of Pittsburg. In conjunction with his work at the seminary he was pastor, first at Nicetown, and afterwards at Germantown. He was consecrated in St. Paul's Cathedral, Pittsburg, on 9 December, 1860, by Archbishop F. P. Kenrick of Baltimore, and entered upon his new duties with a zeal and activity, the effects of which were soon evident all over the diocese in new churches, schools, hospitals, and asylums for the sick and poor. While Bishop Domenec was recognized as a man of great learning, an eloquent preacher, and a zealous and indefatigable chief pastor of the diocese, it is to be regretted that the closing chapter in the life and history of this amiable and saintly prelate was darkened by the gloom of one of the severest trials that any bishop in the United States has ever passed through. When the panic of 1873 had destroyed the prosperity of the country and disheartened the people of the Diocese of Pittsburg, the bishop, probably overcome by financial and other difficulties which beset him, set out on a visit to Rome, 5 Nov., 1875, to petition for the division of the Diocese of Pittsburg, and the formation of a new diocese with Allegheny City as its see. Priests and people were taken by surprise when the division was announced from Rome, and found difficulty in crediting the report. But further intelligence confirmed it. The Diocese of Pittsburg was divided, and Bishop Domenec was transferred to the new See of Allegheny. The Bulls for both the division and the transfer were dated 11 January, 1876. Many persons had expected that the division of the diocese with Altoona as the new see would take place in time, but felt that the panic which the people were passing through must necessarily defer it for a few years to come. By Bulls dated 16 January, 1876, the Very Rev. John Tuigg of Altoona was elevated to the vacant See of Pittsburg. The new diocese of Allegheny had 8 counties, with an area of 6530 sq. miles, leaving the parent diocese 6 counties, and an area of 4784 sq. miles. Broken in health and saddened by the trials which he had passed through, Bishop Domenec resigned the See of Allegheny 27 July, 1877, and retired to his native land, where he died at Tarragona, 7 January, 1878. Bishop Domenec had for his vicars-general the Very Revs. Tobias Mullen, afterwards Bishop of Erie, and John Hickey. The Fathers of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost entered the diocese 15 April, 1874, and, on 1 October, 1878, opened the Pittsburg College of the Holy Ghost, which is now (1911) attended by over 400 students. The Right Rev. John Tuigg was born in County Cork, Ireland, 19 February, 1821. He began his studies for the priesthood at All Hallows College, Dublin, and completed his theological course at St. Michael's Seminary, Pittsburg. He was ordained by Bishop O'Connor on 14 May, 1850, and was assigned to the cathedral as an assistant priest, and secretary to the bishop. He organized the parish of St. Bridget, Pittsburg, in 1853. He was then entrusted with the charge of the important mission of Altoona, where monuments of his pastoral zeal and energy exist in the shape of a church, convent, and schools. In 1869 he was appointed vicar-forane for the eastern portion of the diocese. On 11 January, 1876, he was appointed to fill the vacant See of Pittsburg, and was consecrated bishop in the Cathedral of St. Paul on 19 March, 1876, by the Most Rev. James Frederic Wood, Archbishop of Philadelphia. At that time, owing mainly to the effects of the panic of three years previous, and the discontent arising from the division of the former Diocese of Pittsburg, he found great financial and other cares to encounter. The division of the diocese was the beginning of the darkest period in the history of the Church in Western Pennsylvania. It was followed by disputes, mistrust, and litigations, which sundered many friendships, created clerical and lay factions, and did violence to the peace and charity which had hitherto blessed the diocese. In the manner in which it was brought about, in the lines which designated the limits of each diocese, in the apportionment of debt, in fact from every point of view, the division proved unsatisfactory and resulted in bitter contention and disorder which ended only with the suppression of the See of Allegheny and the reunion of the two dioceses as though no division had taken place. With foresight, energy, determination, and perseverance the new bishop faced the difficulties with which he was surrounded, and entered upon the task of restoring order and confidence, and placing the embarrassed properties of the diocese upon a safe and sound footing. He sacrificed his personal comfort, his own private means, and reduced the expense of the diocese by the strictest economy, in order that the creditors of the Church might not suffer loss, and although his once vigorous constitution was shattered by the labours and trials through which he passed, confidence was restored, and the diocese started on one of the most prosperous periods of its history. Although these heavy burdens rested on his shoulders, as Bishop of Pittsburg, yet the Holy See, on 3 August, 1877, after Bishop Domenec resigned, entrusted to him the administration of the vacant See of Allegheny. In the year 1833 Bishop Tuigg was warned of his approaching end by a stroke of paralysis, and, although he lingered for some years longer, suffering and pain were his constant companions. By slow but sure degrees he continued to grow worse, until on 7 December, 1889, the soul of the venerable prelate passed away to its heavenly home. His last moments were singularly peaceful, and his death was a fitting close to his long and saintly career. It may be said of him that he combined the qualities of firmness and gentleness to a degree rarely found in the same individual; strong and unyielding when confident of the justice and propriety of any position he took, he was at the same time kind and courteous to those from whom he differed. Proofs of his executive ability, his piety, and his self-sacrificing zeal abound throughout the diocese over which God called him to rule, and which he left in better condition than it had known for some years. The Right Rev. Richard Phelan, the fourth occupant of the See of Pittsburg, was born 1 January, 1828, at Sralee, County Kilkenny, Ireland. He was one of a family of nine children, four of whom embraced the religious life. He entered St. Kieran's College, Kilkenny, in 1844, to study for the priesthood. When Bishop O'Connor visited Ireland, in 1850, in search of students to labour in the Diocese of Pittsburg, Richard Phelan volunteered his services. He came to the United States, completed his theological studies at St. Mary's, Baltimore, and was ordained at Pittsburg by Bishop O'Connor, 4 May, 1854. He served as vicar-general to Bishop Tuigg. By a Bull dated 12 May, 1885, he was appointed titular Bishop of Cybara, and by a Bull dated 15 May, 1885, he was appointed coadjutor to Bishop Tuigg with right of succession, and was consecrated by Archbishop Ryan in St. Paul's Cathedral, Pittsburg, on 2 August, 1885. He succeeded as bishop to the united Dioceses of Pittsburg and Allegheny, 7 December, 1889. By a Bull dated 1 July, 1889, the See of Allegheny was totally suppressed, and the Diocese of Pittsburg was declared to embrace the territory of what had been the two dioceses, as though no division had ever taken place. The administration of Bishop Phelan was a remarkably successful one. He was a man of prudent zeal and extraordinary business ability. The people of many nationalities who were coming in large numbers to find work in the mines and mills of Western Pennsylvania were formed into regular congregations, supplied with pastors who could speak their own languages, and the material and spiritual development of the diocese kept pace with the growth of the population. In May, 1901, the counties of Cambria, Blair, Bedford, Huntingdon, and Somerset were taken from the Diocese of Pittsburg to form, with several counties taken from the Diocese of Harrisburg, the new Diocese of Altoona, leaving the Diocese of Pittsburg its present territory (see beginning of this article). When Bishop Phelan, as a priest, began his work in the Diocese of Pittsburg, religious prejudice ran high, and misguided men said and did things against Catholics which have passed into history. Placed in the most trying positions, he always disarmed bigotry by his straightforward adherence to the principles of justice and charity towards all men, and by his considerate treatment of those who in belief and worship were separated from him. His life as a priest and bishop was coincident with a remarkable transitional period in Western Pennsylvania. No region has experienced so great changes within the last fifty years as has Western Pennsylvania. During the administration of Bishop Phelan these changes were most marked. He saw the wonderful growth and development of the iron, steel, coal, and coke industries, to which the western portion of the state owes its distinction and prosperity. The sudden advent of immense Catholic populations with strange tongues and strange customs, and all of them impoverished, gave rise to problems that would have taxed the ablest men. Here was a field in which Bishop Phelan showed his splendid administrative ability. By his wise and prudent counsel, by the exercise of judgment and foresight which in the light of events to-day are seen to have been of the first excellence, either the difficulties that arose were solved or the way for their solution was prepared. At his death, which occurred 20 December, 1904, at St. Paul's Orphan Asylum, Idlewood, Pennsylvania, he was the head of a diocese which in organization, in the personnel of its clergy and its adequate equipment for the needs of its people, was second to none in the United States. His vicars-general were Very Rev. Stephen Wall, Very Rev. F. L. Tobin, and Very Rev. E. A. Bush. The Right Rev. Regis Canevin, present (1911) Bishop of Pittsburg, was born in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, 5 June, 1853, educated at St. Vincent's College and the seminary at Beatty, and ordained priest in St. Paul's Cathedral, Pittsburg, 4 June, 1879. He became coadjutor to Bishop Phelan, with right of succession, being consecrated in the same cathedral by Archbishop Ryan, of Philadelphia, 24 February, 1903. His vicars-general are Rt. Rev. F. L. Tobin and Rt. Rev. Joseph Suhr. The present Catholic population is about 475,000, and is composed of so many nationalities that the Gospel is preached in at least fourteen languages: English, German, French, Italian, Slovak, Polish, Bohemian, Magyar, Slovenian, Lithuanian, Croatian, Rumanian, Ruthenian, and Syrian. The religious communities of men in the diocese number as follows: Redemptorists, 6 members; Benedictine Fathers, 134; Passionist Fathers, 32; Brothers of Mary (Dayton, Ohio), 11; Capuchin Fathers, 50; Holy Ghost Fathers, 42; Carmelite Fathers, 7; Italian Franciscan Fathers, 10. Total, 292 members. The religious communities of women number: Sisters of Mercy, 353 members; Sisters of Notre Dame (Motherhouse, Baltimore), 50; Franciscan Sisters, 239; Sisters of St. Joseph, 189; Benedictine Nuns, 78; Ursuline Nuns, 26; Sisters of Charity, 331; Little Sisters of the Poor, 32; Sisters of the Good Shepherd, 61; Sisters of Divine Providence, 180; Sisters of Mercy (Motherhouse, Cresson), 13; Sisters of Nazareth (Motherhouse, Chicago), 64; Slovak Sisters of Charity, 27; Third Order of St. Francis Nuns (Motherhouse, Allegheny, New York), 7; Sisters of St. Joseph (Motherhouse, Watertown, New York), 16; Sisters of the Incarnate Word, 3; Missionary Franciscan Sisters (Motherhouse, Rome), 5; Sisters of St. Joseph (Motherhouse, Rutland, Vermont), 7; Felician Sisters (Motherhouse, Detroit), 40; Sisters of St. Agnes (Motherhouse, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin), 5; Passionist Nuns, 8; Immaculate Heart Nuns (Motherhouse, Scranton), 15; Bernardine Sisters (Motherhouse, Reading, Pennsylvania), 5. Total, 1754 members. General statistics of the diocese (1911): bishop, 1; archabbot, 1; diocesan priests, 353; regular, 145; churches with resident priests, 275; missions, 29; parochial schools, 145; pupils, 45,593; diocesan seminarians, 70; seminaries of religious orders, 3; boys' colleges, 3, with 700 students; girls' academies, 4, with 490 pupils; preparatory schools for boy, 2, with 129 pupils; deaf-mute school, 1, with 37 pupils; orphan asylums, 4, with 1586 orphans; foundling asylum, 1; industrial school for boys, 2, for girls, 1. Total number of pupils in schools and asylums, 48, 555; hospitals, 7; home for aged poor, 2; homes of the Good Shepherd, 2; homes for working girls, 2. Catholic population, about 475,000. BARON, Register of Baptisms and Burials in Fort Duquesne, 1753-1756; CRAIG, History of Pittsburg (Pittsburg, 1851--); The Catholic (Pittsburg, 1844-1911), files; St. Vincent's in Pennsylvania (New York, 1873); O'CONNOR, Diocesan Register (Pittsburg, 1843); LAMBING, History of the Diocese of Pittsburg (New York, 1880); BECK, The Redemptorists in Pittsburg (Pittsburg, 1889); LAMBING, Catholic Historical Researches (Pittsburg, 1884-86); GRIFFIN, American Catholic Historical Researches (Philadelphia, 1886-1911); IDEM, History of Bishop Egan (Philadelphia, 1893); History of Pittsburg (Pittsburg, 1908); Cathedral Record. Pittsburg (Pittsburg, 1895-1911); SHEA, History of the Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1892). REGIS CANEVIN Pityus Pityus A titular see in Pontus Polemoniacus, suffragan of Neocaesarea. Pityus was a large and wealthy Greek city on the northeast of the Black Sea (Artemidorus, in Strabo, XI, 496), which was destroyed before the time of Pliny (Hist. nat., VI, v, 16). Arrianus mentions its anchorage in "Periplus Ponti Euxini", 27. The city was rebuilt and fortified by the Romans, captured by the Scythians under Gallienus, and destroyed by the Byzantines to prevent Chosroes from entering it (Zosimus, I, 32; Procopius, "De bello gothico", IV, 4; "De aedificiis", IV, 7). In 535 it was "a fortress rather than a city" (Justinian, "Novella", 28). Stratophilus, Bishop of Pityus, assisted at the Council of Nicaea in 325; since then there is no mention of the see, which does not figure in any of the Greek "Notitiae episcopatuum" (Le Quien, "Oriens christ.", I, 519). It was towards Pityus that St. John Chrysostom (q.v.) was being led by the imperial soldiers, in execution of the decree of exile, when he died on the way (Theodoret, "Hist. eccl.", V, 34). Pityus was located at the end of the gulf, east of Cape Pitsunda, near the River Chypesta and the village of Abchasik, in the vilayet of Trebizond. NORDMANN, Reise durch die westlichen Provinzen des Caucasus in Annalen der Erd- und Volkerkunde (Berlin, 1839), 257; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., s.v. S. PÉTRIDÈS Pope St. Pius I Pope St. Pius I Date of birth unknown; pope from about 140 to about 154. According to the earliest list of the popes, given by Irenaeus ("Adv. haer.", II, xxxi; cf. Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", V, vi), Pius was the ninth successor of St. Peter. The dates given in the Liberian Catalogue for his pontificate (146-61) rest on a false calculation of earlier chroniclers, and cannot be accepted. The only chronological datum we possess is supplied by the year of St. Polycarp of Smyrna's death, which may be referred with great certainty to 155-6. On his visit to Rome in the year before his death Polycarp found Anicetus, the successor of Pius, bishop there; consequently, the death of Pius must have occurred about 154. The "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 132) says the father of Pius was Rufinus, and makes him a native of Aquileia; this is, however, probably a conjecture of the author, who had heard of Rufinus of Aquileia (end of fourth century). From a notice in the "Liberian Catalogue" (in Duchesne, "Liber Pontificalis", I, 5), which is confirmed by the Muratorian Fragment (ed. Preuschen, "Analecta", I, Tubingen, 1910), we learn that a brother of this pope, Hermas by name, published "The Shepherd" (see HERMAS). If the information which the author gives concerning his personal conditions and station (first a slave, then a freedman) were historical, we should know more about the origin of the pope, his brother. It is very possible that the story which Hermas relates of himself is a fiction. During the pontificate of Pius the Roman Church was visited by various heretics, who sought to propagate their false doctrine among the faithful of the capital. The Gnostic Valentinus, who had made his appearance under Pope Hyginus, continued to sow his heresy, apparently not without success. The Gnostic Cerdon was also active in Rome at this period, during which Marcion arrived in the capital (see MARCIONITES). Excluded from communion by Pius, the latter founded his heretical body (Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", III, iii). But Catholic teachers also visited the Roman Church, the most important being St. Justin, who expounded the Christian teachings during the pontificate of Pius and that of his successor. A great activity thus marks the Christian community in Rome, which stands clearly conspicuous as the centre of the Church. The "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. cit.) speaks of a decision of this pope to the effect that Jewish converts to Christianity should be admitted and baptized. What this means we do not know; doubtless the author of the "Liber Pontificalis", here as frequently, refers to the pope a decree valid in the Church of his own time. A later legend refers the foundation of the two churches, the titulus Pudentis (ecclesia Pudentiana) and the titulus Praxedis, to the time of this pope, who is also supposed to have built a baptistry near the former and to have exercised episcopal functions there (Acta SS., IV May, 299 sqq.; cf. de Rossi, "Musaici delle chiese di Roma: S. Pudenziana, S. Prassede"). The story, however, can lay no claim to historical credibility. These two churches came into existence in the fourth century, although it is not impossible that they replaced Christian houses, in which the faithful of Rome assembled for Divine service before the time of Constantine; the legend, however, should not be alleged as proof of this fact. In many later writings (e.g. the "Liber Pontificalis") the "Pastor" or "Shepherd" in the work of Hermas is erroneously accepted as the name of the author, and, since a Roman priest Pastor is assigned an important role in the foundation of these churches, it is quite possible that the writer of the legend was similarly misled, and consequently interwove Pope Pius into his legendary narrative (see PRAXEDES AND PUDENTIANA). Two letters written to Bishop Justus of Vienne (P.L., V, 1125 sq.; Jaffé, "Regesta", I, 2nd ed., pp. 7 sq.), ascribed to Pius, are not authentic. The feast of St. Pius I is celebrated on 11 July. Liber Pontif., I, ed. DUCHESNE, 132 sq.; LANGEN, Gesch. der rom. Kirche, I (Bonn, 1881), 111 sq.; DUCHESNE, Hist. ancienne de l'eglise, I (Paris, 1906), 236 sqq. On chronological questions cf. LIGHTFOOT, The Apostolic Fathers, I, i (2nd ed., London, 1890), 201 sqq.; HARNACK, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., II (Leipzig, 1897), i, 133 sqq.; MEYRICK, Lives of the Early Popes (London, 1880). J.P. KIRSCH Pope Pius II Pope Pius II (Enea Silvio de' Piccolomini). Born at Corsignano, near Siena, 18 Oct., 1405; elected 19 Aug., 1458; died at Ancona, 14 Aug., 1464. He was the eldest of eighteen children of Silvio de' Piccolomini and Vittoria Forteguerra. Although of noble birth, straitened circumstances forced him to help his father in the cultivation of the estate which the family owned at Corsignano. This village he later ranked as a town and made an episcopal residence with the name of Pienza (Pius). Having received some elementary instruction from a priest, he entered, at the age of eighteen, the University of Siena. Here he gave himself up to diligent study and the free enjoyment of sensual pleasures. In 1425 the preaching of St. Bernardine of Siena kindled in him the desire of embracing a monastic life, but he was dissuaded from his purpose by his friends. Attracted by the fame of the celebrated Filelfo, he shortly after spent two years in the study of the classics and poetry at Florence. He returned to Siena at the urgent request of his relatives, to devote his time to the study of jurisprudence. Passing through Siena on his way to the Council of Basle (q.v.), Capranica, Bishop of Fermo, invited Enea to accompany him as his secretary. Bishop and secretary arrived there in 1432, and joined the opposition to Pope Eugene IV. Piccolomini, however, soon left the service of the impecunious Capranica for more remunerative employment with Nicodemo della Scala, Bishop of Freising, with Bartolomeo, Bishop of Novara, and with Cardinal Albergati. He accompanied the latter on several journeys, particularly to the Congress of Arras, which in 1435 discussed peace between Burgundy and France. In the same year his master sent him on a secret mission to Scotland. The voyage was very tempestuous and Piccolomini vowed to walk, if spared, barefoot from the port of arrival to the nearest shrine of Our Lady. He landed at Dunbar and, from the pilgrimage of ten miles through ice and snow to the sanctuary of Whitekirk, he contracted the gout from which he suffered for the rest of his life. Although on his return from Scotland Cardinal Albergati was no longer at Basle, he determined to remain in the city, and to his humanistic culture and oratorical talent owed his appointment to different important functions by the council. He continued to side with the opposition to Eugene IV, and associated particularly with a small circle of friends who worshipped classical antiquity and led dissolute lives. That he freely indulged his passions is evidenced not only by the birth of two illegitimate children to him (the one in Scotland, the other at Strasburg), but by the frivolous manner in which he glories in his own disorders. The low moral standard of the epoch may partly explain, but cannot excuse his dissolute conduct. He had not yet received Holy orders, however, and shrank from the ecclesiastical state because of the obligation of continence which it imposed. Even the inducement to become one of the electors of a successor to Eugene IV, unlawfully deposed, could not overcome this reluctance; rather than receive the diaconate he refused the proffered honour. He was then appointed master of ceremonies to the conclave which elected Amadeus of Savoy to the papacy. He likewise belonged to the delegation which was to escort to Basle in 1439 the newly- elected antipope, who assumed the name of Felix V and chose Piccolomini as his secretary. The latter's clearsightedness, however, soon enabled him to realize that the position of the schismatic party could not fail to become untenable, and he profited by his presence as envoy of the council at the Diet of Frankfort in 1442 again to change masters. His literary attainments were brought to the attention of Frederick III, who crowned him imperial poet, and offered him a position in his service which was gladly accepted. On 11 Nov., 1442, Enea left Basle for Vienna, where he assumed in January of the following year the duties of secretary in the imperial chancery. Receding gradually from his attitude of supporter of Felix V, he ultimately became, with the imperial chancellor Schlick, whose favour he enjoyed, a partisan of Eugene IV. The formal reconciliation between him and this pope took place in 1445, when he came on an official mission to Rome. He was first absolved of the censures which he had incurred as partisan of the Council of Basle and official of the antipope. Hand in hand with this change in personal allegiance went a transformation in his moral character and in March, 1446, he was ordained subdeacon at Vienna. The same year he succeeded in breaking up the Electors' League, equally dangerous to Eugene IV and Frederick III, and shortly afterwards a delegation, of which he was a member, laid before the pope the conditional submission of almost all Germany. In 1447 he was appointed Bishop of Trieste; the following year he played a prominent part in the conclusion of the Concordat of Vienna; and in 1450 he received the Bishopric of Siena. He continued, however, until 1455 in the service of Frederick III, who had frequent recourse to his diplomatic ability. In 1451 he appeared in Bohemia at the head of a royal embassy, and in 1452 accompanied Frederick to Rome for the imperial coronation. He was created cardinal 18 Dec., 1456, by Calixtus III, whose successor he became. The central idea of his pontificate was the liberation of Europe from Turkish domination. To this end he summoned at the beginning of his reign all the Christian princes to meet in congress on 1 June, 1459. Shortly before his departure for Mantua, where he was personally to direct the deliberations of this assembly, he issued a Bull instituting a new religious order of knights. They were to bear the name of Our Lady of Bethlehem and to have their headquarters in the Island of Lemnos. History is silent concerning the actual existence of this foundation, and the order was probably never organized. At Mantua scant attendance necessitated a delay in the opening of the sessions until 26 Sept., 1459. Even then but few delegates were present, and the deliberations soon revealed the fact that the Christian states could not be relied on for mutual co-operation against the Turks. Venice pursued dilatory and insincere tactics; France would promise nothing, because the pope had preferred Ferrante of Aragon for the throne of Naples to the pretender of the House of Anjou. Among the German delegates, Gregory of Heimburg assumed an ostentatiously disrespectful attitude toward Pius II; the country, however, ultimately agreed to raise 32,000 footmen and 10,000 cavalry. But the promise was never redeemed, and although a three years' war was decreed against the Turks, the congress failed of its object, as no practical results of any importance were attained. It was apparent that the papacy no longer commanded the assent and respect of any of the Powers. This was further demonstrated by the fact that Pius, on the eve of his departure from Mantua, issued the Bull "Execrabilis", in which he condemned all appeals from the decisions of the pope to an oecumenical council (18 Jan., 1460). During the congress war had broken out in southern Italy about the possession of the Kingdom of Naples. The pope continued to support Ferrante against the Angevin claimant. This attitude was adverse to ecclesiastical interests in France, where he aimed at the repeal of the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges. At his accession to the throne in 1461, Louis XI suppressed indeed that instrument; but this papal success was more apparent than real. For Louis's expectation of support in southern Italy was not realized; and opposition to the suppression manifesting itself in France, his dealings with the Church underwent a corresponding change, and royal ordinances were even issued aiming at the revival of the former Gallican liberties. In Germany Frederick III showed readiness to comply with the obligations assumed at Mantua, but foreign and domestic difficulties rendered him powerless. Between Pius II and Duke Sigismund of Tyrol, however, an acute conflict developed concerning the Bishopric of Brixen (q.v.). Likewise the refusal of the Archbishop of Mainz, Diether of Isenburg (q.v.) to abide by the pope's decree of deposition led to civil strife. Diether was ultimately defeated and supplanted by Adolf of Nassau, who had been appointed in his stead. More difficult to adjust were the troubles in Bohemia. Hussitism was rampant in the kingdom, which was governed by the wily George Podiebrad, a king seemingly devoid of religious convictions. He had promised in a secret coronation oath personally to profess the Catholic faith and to restore, in his realm, union with Rome in ritual and worship. This was tantamount to a renunciation of the "Compact of Basle", which, under certain conditions subsequently not observed by the Bohemians, had granted them communion under both kinds and other privileges. The pope, deceived for a time by the protestations of royal fidelity, used his influence to bring back the Catholic city of Breslau to the king's allegiance. But in 1461 Podiebrad, to further his fanciful schemes of political aggrandizement, promised his subjects to maintain the Compact. When in 1462 his long- promised embassy appeared in Rome, its purpose was not only to do homage to the pope, but also to obtain the confirmation of that agreement. Pius II, instead of acceding to the latter request, withdrew the misused concessions made by Basle. He continued negotiations with the king, but died before any settlement was reached. The prevalence of such discord in Christendom left but little hope for armed opposition to the Turks. As rumours had been circulated that the sultan doubted the faith of Islam, the pope attempted to convert him to the Christian faith. But in vain did he address to him in 1461 a letter, in which were set forth the claims of Christianity on his belief. Possibly the transfer with extraordinary pomp of the head of St. Andrew to Rome was also a fruitless attempt to rekindle zeal for the Crusades. As a last resort, Pius II endeavoured to stir up the enthusiasm of the apathetic Christian princes by placing himself at the head of the crusaders. Although seriously ill he left Rome for the East, but died at Ancona, the mustering-place of the Christian troops. There have been widely divergent appreciations of the life of Pius II. While his varied talents and superior culture cannot be doubted, the motives of his frequent transfer of allegiance, the causes of the radical transformations which his opinions underwent, the influences exercised over him by the environment in which his lot was cast, are so many factors, the bearing of which can be justly and precisely estimated only with the greatest difficulty. In the early period of his life he was, like many humanists, frivolous and immoral in conduct and writing. More earnest were his conceptions and manner of life after his entrance into the ecclesiastical state. As pope he was indeed not sufficiently free from nepotism, but otherwise served the best interests of the Church. Not only was he constantly solicitous for the peace of Christendom against Islam, but he also instituted a commission for the reform of the Roman court, seriously endeavoured to restore monastic discipline, and defended the doctrine of the Church against the writings of Reginald Peacock, the former Bishop of Chichester. He retracted the errors contained in his earlier writings in a Bull, the gist of which was "Reject Eneas, hold fast to Pius". St. Catherine of Siena was canonized during his pontificate. Even among the many cares of his pontificate he found time for continued literary activity. Two important works of his were either entirely or partly written during this period: his geographical and ethnographical description of Asia and Europe; and his "Memoirs", which are the only autobiography left us by a pope. They are entitled "Pii II Commentarii rerum memorabilium, quae temporibus suis contigerunt". Earlier in his life he had written, besides "Eurialus and Lucretia" and the recently discovered comedy "Chrysis", the following historical works: "Libellus dialogorum de generalis concilii auctoritate et gestis Basileensium"; "Commentarius de rebus Basileae gestis"; "Historia rerum Frederici III imperatoris"; "Historia Bohemica". Imcomplete collections of his works were published in 1551 and 1571 at Basle. A critical edition of his letters by Wolkan is in course of publication. CAMPANUS, Vita Pii II in MURATORI, Rer. Ital. script., III, ii, 967-92; PLATINA, Lives of the Popes, tr. RYCAUT, ed. BENHAM (3 vols., London, 1888); WOLKAN, Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Silvius Piccolomini in Fontes rerum Austriacarum (Vienna, 1909-); VOIGT, Enea Silvio de' Piccolomini als Papst Pius II und sein Zeitalter (Berlin, 1856-63); CREIGHTON, History of the Papacy, III (new ed., New York, 1903), 202-358; WEISS, Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini als Papst Pius II (Graz, 1897); PASTOR, History of the Popes (London, 1891-94); BOULTING, Aeneas Silvius (Pius II), Orator, Man of Letters, Statesman, and Pope (London, 1908); The Cambridge Modern History, I; The Renaissance (New York, 1909), passim. N.A. WEBER Pope Pius III Pope Pius III (Francesco Todeschini Piccolomini). B. at Siena, 29 May, 1439; elected 22 Sept., 1503; d. in Rome, 18 Oct., 1503, after a pontificate of four weeks. Piccolomini was the son of a sister of Pius II. He had passed his boyhood in destitute circumstances when his uncle took him into his household, bestowed upon him his family name and arms, and superintended his training and education. He studied law in Perugia and immediately after receiving the doctorate as canonist was appointed by his uncle Archbishop of Siena, and on 5 March, 1460, cardinal-deacon with the title of S. Eustachio. The following month he was sent as legate to the March of Ancona, with the experienced Bishop of Marsico as his counsellor. "The only thing objectionable about him", says Voigt (Enea Silvio, III, 531), "was his youth; for in the administration of his legation and in his later conduct at the curia he proved to be a man of spotless character and many-sided capacity." He was sent by Paul II as legate to Germany, where he acquitted himself with eminent success, the knowledge of German that he had acquired in his uncle's house being of great advantage to him. During the worldly reigns of Sixtus IV and Alexander VI he kept away from Rome as much as possible. Sigismondo de Conti, who knew him well tells us that "he left no moment unoccupied; his time for study was before daybreak; he spent his mornings in prayer and his midday hours in giving audiences, to which the humblest had easy access. He was so temperate in food and drink that he only allowed himself an evening meal every other day." Yet this is the excellent man to whom Gregorovius in his "Lucrezia Borgia", without a shadow of authority, gives a dozen children--the calumny being repeated by Brosch and Creighton. After the death of Alexander VI, the conclave could not unite on the principal candidates, d'Amboise, Rovere, and Sforza; hence the great majority cast their votes for Piccolomini, who though only sixty-four was, like his uncle, tortured with gout and was prematurely old. He took the name of Pius III in honour of his uncle, was crowned on 8 Oct., after receiving priestly and episcopal orders. The strain of the long ceremony was so great that the pope sank under it. He was buried in St. Peter's, but his remains were later transferred to S. Andrea della Valle where he rests by the side of Pius II. PASTOR, History of the Popes, VI, 185 sqq.; PANVINIO, Continuation of Platina; VON REUMONT, Gesch. der Stadt Rom; ARTAND DE MONTOR, History of the Popes (New York, 1867). JAMES F. LAUGHLIN Pope Pius IV Pope Pius IV (Giovanni Angelo Medici). B. 31 March, 1499, at Milan; elected 26 December, 1559; d. in Rome 9 Dec., 1565. The Medici of Milan lived in humble circumstances and the proud Florentine house of the same name claimed no kindred with them until Cardinal Medici was seated on the papal throne. His father Bernardino had settled in Milan and gained his livelihood by farming the taxes. Bernardino had two enterprising sons, both able to rise in the world by different roads. The oldest, Giangiacomo, became a soldier of fortune and after an adventurous career received from the emperor the title of Marchese di Marignano. He commanded the imperial troops who conquered Siena. Giovanni Angelo was as successful with his books as his brother with his sword. He made his studies first at Pavia, then at Bologna, devoting himself to philosophy, medicine, and law, in the last mentioned branch taking the degree of doctor. He gained some reputation as a jurist. In his twenty-eighth year he determined to embrace the ecclesiastical state and seek his fortune in Rome. He arrived in the Eternal City, 26 Dec., 1527, just thirty-two years to a day before his election to the papacy. From Clement VII he obtained the office of prothonotary, and by his intelligence, industry, and trustworthiness commended himself to Paul III who entertained the greatest confidence in his integrity and ability and employed him in the governorship of many cities of the papal states. In the last year of Paul III's reign, Medici, whose brother had married an Orsini, sister to the pope's daughter- in-law, was created cardinal-priest with the title of S. Pudenziana. Julius III made him legate in Romagna and commander of the papal troops. The antipathy of Paul IV was rather to his advantage than otherwise; for in the reaction which followed the death of that morose pontiff all eyes finally settled on the man who in every respect was Paul's opposite. The conclave dragged along for over three months, when it was obvious that neither the French nor the Spanish-Austrian faction could win the election. Then, mainly through the exertions of Cardinal Farnese, the conclave by acclamation pronounced in favour of Medici. He was crowned 6 Jan., 1560, and took the name of Pius IV. His first official act was to grant an amnesty to those who had outraged the memory of his predecessor, Paul IV; but he refused clemency to Pompeio Colonna, who had murdered his mother-in-law. "God forbid", he said, "that I should begin my pontificate with condoning a parricide." The enmity of Spain and the popular detestation of the Caraffas caused him to open a process against the relatives of Paul IV, as a result of which Cardinal Carlo Caraffa and his brother, to whom Paul had given the Duchy of Paliano, were condemned and executed. The sentence was afterwards declared unjust by St. Pius V and the memory of the victims vindicated and their estates restored. Cardinal Morone and other dignitaries whom Paul had imprisoned for suspicion of heresy were released. Pius IV now devoted his undivided attention to the completion of the labours of the Council of Trent. He was luckier than his predecessors in the youth whom he created cardinal-nephew. This was St. Charles Borromeo, the glory of Milan and of the Universal Church in the sixteenth century. Pius had the satisfaction of seeing the close of the long-continued council and the triumph of the papacy over the antipapal tendencies which at times asserted themselves. His name is immortally connected with the "Profession of Faith", which must be sworn to by everyone holding an ecclesiastical office. The few years which remained to him after the close of the council were devoted to much needed improvements in Rome and the papal states. Unfortunately for his popularity, these works could not be perfected without the imposition of additional taxes. Amid the numerous embellishments with which his name is connected, one of the most useful was the founding of the pontifical printing-office for the issuing of books in all languages. He procured the necessary type and placed the institution under the able superintendence of Paul Minutius. In addition to the heavy expenses incurred in the fortification and embellishment of Rome, Pius was under obligation to contribute many hundred thousands of scudi to the support of the war against the Turks in Hungary. The mildness of Pius IV in dealing with suspects of heresy, so different from the rigour of his predecessor, made many suspect his own orthodoxy. A fanatic named Benedetto Ascolti, "inspired by his guardian angel", made an attempt upon his life. A more formidable foe, the Roman fever, carried him off 9 Dec., 1565, with St. Philip Neri and St. Charles Borromeo at his pillow. He was buried first in St. Peter's, but 4 June, 1583, his remains were transferred to Michelangelo's great church of S. Maria degli Angeli, one of Pius's most magnificent structures. "Pius IV", says the fearless Muratori, "had faults (who is without them?); but they are as nothing compared with his many virtues. His memory shall ever remain in benediction for having brought to a glorious termination the Council of Trent; for having reformed all the Roman tribunals; for having maintained order and plenty in his dominion; for having promoted to the cardinalate men of great merit and rare literary ability; finally, for having avoided excess of love for his kindred, and enriched Rome by the building of so many fine edifices." RANKE, History of the Popes in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries; MURATORI, Annali d'Italia; VON REUMONT, Geschichte der Stadt Rom; ARTAND DE MONTOR, History of the Popes (New York, 1867). JAMES F. LOUGHLIN Pope St. Pius V Pope St. Pius V (MICHELE GHISLERI). Born at Bosco, near Alexandria, Lombardy, 17 Jan., 1504 elected 7 Jan., 1566; died 1 May, 1572. Being of a poor though noble family his lot would have been to follow a trade, but he was taken in by the Dominicans of Voghera, where he received a good education and was trained in the way of solid and austere piety. He entered the order, was ordained in 1528, and taught theology and philosophy for sixteen years. In the meantime he was master of novices and was on several occasions elected prior of different houses of his order in which he strove to develop the practice of the monastic virtues and spread the spirit of the holy founder. He himself was an example to all. He fasted, did penance, passed long hours of the night in meditation and prayer, traveled on foot without a cloak in deep silence, or only speaking to his companions of the things of God. In 1556 he was made Bishop of Sutri by Paul IV. His zeal against heresy caused him to be selected as inquisitor of the faith in Milan and Lombardy, and in 1557 Paul II made him a cardinal and named him inquisitor general for all Christendom. In 1559 he was transferred to Mondovi, where he restored the purity of faith and discipline, gravely impaired by the wars of Piedmont. Frequently called to Rome, he displayed his unflinching zeal in all the affairs on which he was consulted. Thus he offered an insurmountable opposition to Pius IV when the latter wished to admit Ferdinand de' Medici, then only thirteen years old, into the Sacred College. Again it was he who defeated the project of Maximilian II, Emperor of Germany, to abolish ecclesiastical celibacy. On the death of Pius IV, he was, despite his tears and entreaties, elected pope, to the great joy of the whole Church. He began his pontificate by giving large alms to the poor, instead of distributing his bounty at haphazard like his predecessors. As pontiff he practiced the virtues he had displayed as a monk and a bishop. His piety was not diminished, and, in spite of the heavy labours and anxieties of his office, he made at least two meditations a day on bended knees in presence of the Blessed Sacrament. In his charity he visited the hospitals, and sat by the bedside of the sick, consoling them and preparing them to die. He washed the feet of the poor, and embraced the lepers. It is related that an English nobleman was converted on seeing him kiss the feet of a beggar covered with ulcers. He was very austere and banished luxury from his court, raised the standard of morality, laboured with his intimate friend, St. Charles Borromeo, to reform the clergy, obliged his bishops to reside in their dioceses, and the cardinals to lead lives of simplicity and piety. He diminished public scandals by relegating prostitutes to distant quarters, and he forbade bull fights. He enforced the observance of the discipline of the Council of Trent, reformed the Cistercians, and supported the missions of the New World. In the Bull "In Coena Domini" he proclaimed the traditional principles of the Roman Church and the supremacy of the Holy See over the civil power. But the great thought and the constant preoccupation of his pontificate seems to have been the struggle against the Protestants and the Turks. In Germany he supported the Catholics oppressed by the heretical princes. In France he encouraged the League by his counsels and with pecuniary aid. In the Low Countries he supported Spain. In England, finally, he excommunicated Elizabeth, embraced the cause of Mary Stuart, and wrote to console her in prison. In the ardour of his faith he did not hesitate to display severity against the dissidents when necessary, and to give a new impulse to the activity of the Inquisition, for which he has been blamed by certain historians who have exaggerated his conduct. Despite all representations on his behalf he condemned the writings of Baius (q.v.), who ended by submitting. He worked incessantly to unite the Christian princes against the hereditary enemy, the Turks. In the first year of his pontificate he had ordered a solemn jubilee, exhorting the faithful to penance and almsgiving to obtain the victory from God. He supported the Knights of Malta, sent money for the fortification of the free towns of Italy, furnished monthly contributions to the Christians of Hungary, and endeavoured especially to bring Maximilian, Philip II, and Charles I together for the defence of Christendom. In 1567 for the same purpose he collected from all convents one-tenth of their revenues. In 1570 when Solyman II attacked Cyprus, threatening all Christianity in the West, he never rested till he united the forces of Venice, Spain, and the Holy See. He sent his blessing to Don John of Austria, the commander-in-chief of the expedition, recommending him to leave behind all soldiers of evil life, and promising him the victory if he did so. He ordered public prayers, and increased his own supplications to heaven. On the day of the Battle of Lepanto, 7 Oct., 1571, he was working with the cardinals, when, suddenly, interrupting his work opening the window and looking at the sky, he cried out, "A truce to business; our great task at present is to thank God for the victory which He has just given the Christian army". He burst into tears when he heard of the victory, which dealt the Turkish power a blow from which it never recovered. In memory of this triumph he instituted for the first Sunday of October the feast of the Rosary, and added to the Litany of Loreto the supplication "Help of Christians". He was hoping to put an end to the power of Islam by forming a general alliance of the Italian cities Poland, France, and all Christian Europe, and had begun negotiations for this purpose when he died of gravel, repeating "O Lord, increase my sufferings and my patience!" He left the memory of a rare virtue and an unfailing and inflexible integrity. He was beatified by Clement X in 1672, and canonized by Clement XI in 1712. MENDHAM, Life and Pontificate of St. Pius V (London, 1832 and 1835); Acta SS., I May; TOURON, Hommes illustres de l'ordre de St.-Dominique, IV; FALLOUX, Histoire de S. Pie V (Paris, 1853); PASTOR, Gesch. der Papste, ARTAUD DE MONTOR, History of the Popes (New York, 1867); Pope Pius V, the Father of Christendom in Dublin Review, LIX (London, 1866), 273. T. LATASTE Pope Pius VI Pope Pius VI (Giovanni Angelico Braschi). Born at Cesena, 27 December, 1717; elected 15 February, 1775; died at Valence, France, 29 Aug., 1799. He was of a noble but impoverished family, and was educated at the Jesuit College of Cesena and studied law at Ferrara. After a diplomatic mission to Naples, he was appointed papal secretary and canon of St. Peter's in 1755. Clement XIII appointed him treasurer of the Roman Church in 1766, and Clement XIV made him a cardinal in 1775. He then retired to the Abbey of Subiaco, of which he was commendatory abbot, until his election as Pius VI. Spain, Portugal, and France had at first combined to prevent his election, because he was believed to be a friend of the Jesuits; he was well disposed towards the order, but he dared not revoke the Bull of their suppression. Still he ordered the liberation of their general, Ricci, a prisoner in the Castle of Sant' Angelo in Rome, but the general died before the decree of liberation arrived. Upon the request of Frederick II of Prussia he permitted the Jesuits to retain their schools in Prussia; while in Russia, he permitted an uninterrupted continuation of the order. Soon after his accession he took steps to root out the Gallican idea of papal supremacy which had been spread in Germany by Hontheim (see Febronianism. Joseph II forbade the Austrian bishops to apply to Rome for faculties of any kind, and suppressed innumerable monasteries. Pius VI resolved to go to Vienna; he left Rome on 27 Feb., 1782, and arrived in Vienna on 22 March. The emperor received him respectfully, though the minister, Kaunitz, neglected even the ordinary rules of etiquette. The pope remained at Vienna until 22 April, 1782. All that he obtained from the emperor was the promise that his ecclesiastical reforms would not contain any violation of Catholic dogmas, or compromise the dignity of the pope. The emperor accompanied the pope on his return as far as the Monastery of Mariabrunn, and suppressed this monastery a few hours after the pope had left it. Scarcely had the pope reached Rome when he again saw himself compelled to protest against the emperor's unjustifiable confiscation of ecclesiastical property. But when Joseph II filled the vacant See of Milan of his own authority, Pius solemnly protested, and it was probably at this occasion that he threatened the emperor with excommunication. On 23 Dec., 1783, the emperor unexpectedly came to Rome to return the papal visit. He was determined to continue his ecclesiastical reforms, and made known to the Spanish diplomat, Azara, his project of separating the German Church entirely from Rome. The latter, however, dissuaded him from taking this fatal step. To avoid worse things, the pope granted him the right of nominating the bishops in the Duchies of Milan and Mantua, in a concordat dated 20 Jan., 1784 (see Nussi, "Conventiones de rebus ecclesiasticis et civilibus inter S. Sedem et civilem potestatem", Mainz, 1870, 138-9). Joseph's example was followed in Tuscany by his brother, the Grand Duke Leopold II and Bishop Scipio Ricci of Pistoia. Here the antipapal reforms culminated in the Synod of Pistoia in 1786, where the doctrines of Jansenius and Quesnel were sanctioned, and the papal supremacy was eliminated. In his Bull "Auctorem fidei" of 28 Aug., 1794, the pope condemned the acts, and in particular eighty-five propositions of this synod. In Germany the three ecclesiastical Electors of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne, and the Archbishop of Salzburg attempted to curtail the papal authority by convening a congress at Ems (q.v.). With Portugal the papal relations became very friendly after the accession of Maria I in 1777, and a satisfactory concordat was concluded in 1778 (Nussi, loc. cit., 138-39). In Spain, Sardinia, and Venice the Governments to a great extent followed in the footsteps of Joseph II. But the most sweeping anti-ecclesiastical reforms were carried out in the Two Sicilies. Ferdinand IV refused the exequatur to all papal briefs that were obtained without the royal permission, and claimed the right to nominate all ecclesiastical beneficiaries. Pius VI refused to accept the bishops that were nominated by the king and, as a result, there were in 1784 thirty vacant sees in the Kingdom of Naples alone, which number had increased to sixty in 1798. The king, moreover, refused to acknowledge the papal suzerainty which had existed for eight hundred years. The pope repeatedly made overtures, but the king persisted in nominating to all the vacant sees. In April, 1791, when more than half the sees in the Kingdom of Naples were vacant, a temporary compromise was reached and in that year sixty-two vacant sees were filled (Rinieri, loc. cit., infra). In response to the application of the clergy of the United States, the Bull of April, 1788, erected the See of Baltimore. Pius VI put the papal finances on a firmer basis; drained the marshy lands near Città della Pieve, Perugia, Spoleto, and Trevi; deepened the harbours of Porto d'Anzio and Terracina; added a new sacristy to the Basilica of St. Peter; completed the Musee Pio-Clementino, and enriched it with many costly pieces of art; restored the Via Appia; and drained the greater part of the Pontine Marshes. After the French Revolution, Pius rejected the "Constitution civile du clergé" on 13 March, 1791, suspended the priests that accepted it, provided as well as he could for the banished clergy and protested against the execution of Louis XVI. France retaliated by annexing the small papal territories of Avignon and Venaissin. The pope's co-operation with the Allies against the French Republic, and the murder of the French attaché, Basseville, at Rome, brought on by his own fault, led to Napoleon's attack on the Papal States. At the Truce of Bologna (25 June, 1796) Napoleon dictated the terms: twenty-one million francs, the release of all political criminals, free access of French ships into the papal harbours, the occupation of the Romagna by French troops etc. At the Peace of Tolentino (19 Feb., 1797) Pius VI was compelled to surrender Avignon, Venaissin, Ferrara, Bologna, and the Romagna; and to pay fifteen million francs and give up numerous costly works of art and manuscripts. In an attempt to revolutionize Rome the French General Duphot was shot and killed, whereupon the French took Rome on 10 Feb., 1798, and proclaimed the Roman Republic on 15 Feb. Because the pope refused to submit, he was forcibly taken from Rome on the night of 20 Feb., and brought first to Siena and then to Florence. At the end of March, 1799, though seriously ill, he was hurried to Parma, Piacenza, Turin, then over the Alps to Briançon and Grenoble, and finally to Valence, where he succumbed to his sufferings before he could be brought further. He was first buried at Valence, but the remains were transferred to St. Peter's in Rome on 17 Feb., 1802 (see Napoleon I). His statue in a kneeling position by Canova was placed in the Basilica of St. Peter before the crypt of the Prince of the Apostles. Bullarii Romani Continuatio, ed. Barberi (Rome, 1842 sq.), V-X; Collectio Brevium atque Instructionem Pii Papæ VI quæ ad præsentes Gallicanarum ecclesiarum calamitates pertinent (2 vols., Augsburg, 1796); Acta Pii VI quibus ecclesia catholica calamitatibus in Gallia consultum est (2 vols., Rome, 1871); Bourgoing, Mémoires historiques et philosophiques sur Pie VI et son pontificat (2 vols., Paris, 1900); Gendry, Pie VI. Sa vie, son pontificat 1777-99, d'après des archives vaticanes et de nombreux documents inédits (2 vols., Paris, 1907); Wolf, Gesch. der Kath. Kirche unter der Regierung Pius VI (Zürich, 1793- 1802), 7 vols. (Josephinistic); Beccatini, Storia di Pio VI (4 vols., Venice, 1801-02); Ferrari, Vita Pii VI (Padua, 1802); Bertrand, Le Pontificat de Pie VI et l'Athéisme Révolutionnaire (2 vols., BarleDuc, 1879); Sampson, Pius VI and the French Revolution in Amer. Cath. Quarterly Review (New York, 1907), 220-40, 413-40, 601-31; Pius VI in Catholic World, XIX (New York, 1874), 755-64; Tiepoli, Relazioni sul conclave per la elezioni di papa Pio VI (Venice, 1896); KÖnig, Pius VI und die Säkularisation, Program (Kalksburg, 1900); Schlitter, Pius VI und Joseph II von der Rückkehr des Papstes nach Rom bis zum Abschluss des Konkordats, ibid. II (Vienna, 1894); Cordara, De profectu Pii VI ad aulam Viennensem ejusque causis et exitu commentarii, ed. BoËro (Rome, 1855); Rinieri, Della rovina di una Monarchia, Relazioni storiche tra inediti dell' Archivo Vaticano (Turin, 1910); Baldassari, Histoire de l'enlèvement et de la captivité de Pie VI (Paris, 1839), Ger. tr. Steck (Tübingen, 1844); Madelin, Pie VI et la première coalition in Revue des quest. hist., LXXXI (Paris, 1903), 1-32. MICHAEL OTT Pope Pius VII Pope Pius VII (Barnaba Chiaramonti). Born at Cesena in the Pontifical States, 14 August, 1740; elected at Venice 14 March, 1800; died 20 August, 1823. His father was Count Scipione Chiaramonti, and his mother, of the noble house of Ghini, was a lady of rare piety who in 1763 entered a convent of Carmelites at Fano. Here she foretold, in her son's hearing, as Pius VII himself later related, his elevation to the papacy and his protracted sufferings. Barnaba received his early education in the college for nobles at Ravenna. At the age of sixteen he entered the Benedictine monastery of Santa Maria del Monte, near Cesena, where he was called Brother Gregory. After the completion of his philosophical and theological studies, he was appointed professor at Parma and at Rome in colleges of his order. He was teaching at the monastery of San Callisto in the latter city at the accession of Pius VI, who was a friend of the Chiaramonti family and subsequently appointed Barnaba abbot of his monastery. The appointment did not meet with the universal approbation of the inmates, and complaints were soon lodged with the papal authority against the new abbot. Investigation, however, proved the charges to be unfounded, and Pius VI soon raised him to further dignities. After conferring upon him successively the Bishoprics of Tivoli and Imola he created him cardinal 14 Feb., 1785. When in 1797 the French invaded northern Italy, Chiaramonti as Bishop of Imola addressed to his flock the wise and practical instruction to refrain from useless resistance to the overwhelming and threatening forces of the enemy. The town of Lugo refused to submit to the invaders and was delivered up to a pillage which had an end only when the prelate, who had counselled subjection, suppliantly cast himself on his knees before General Augereau. That Chiaramonti could adapt himself to new situations clearly appears from a Christmas homily delivered in 1797, in which he advocates submission to the Cisalpine Republic, as there is no opposition between a democratic form of government and the constitution of the Catholic Church. In spite of this attitude he was repeatedly accused of treasonable proceedings towards the republic, but always successfully vindicated his conduct. According to an ordinance issued by Pius VI, 13 Nov., 1798, the city where the largest number of cardinals was to be found at the time of his death was to be the scene of the subsequent election. In conformity with these instructions the cardinals met in conclave, after his death (29 Aug., 1799), in the Benedictine monastery of San Giorgio at Venice. The place was agreeable to the emperor, who bore the expense of the election. Thirty-four cardinals were in attendance on the opening day, 30 Nov., 1799; to these was added a few days later Cardinal Herzan, who acted simultaneously as imperial commissioner. It was not long before the election of Cardinal Bellisomi seemed assured. He was, however, unacceptable to the Austrian party, who favoured Cardinal Mattei. As neither candidate could secure a sufficient number of votes, a third name, that of Cardinal Gerdil, was proposed, but his election was vetoed by Austria. At last, after the conclave had lasted three months, some of the neutral cardinals, including Maury, suggested Chiaramonti as a suitable candidate and, with the tactful support of the secretary of the conclave, Ercole Consalvi, he was elected. The new pope was crowned as Pius VII on 21 March, 1800, at Venice. He then left this city in an Austrian vessel for Rome, where he made his solemn entry on 3 July, amid the universal joy of the populace. Of all-important consequence for his reign was the elevation on 11 Aug., 1800, of Ercole Consalvi, one of the greatest statesmen of the nineteenth century, to the college of cardinals and to the office of secretary of state. Consalvi retained to the end the confidence of the pope, although the conflict with Napoleon forced him out of office for several years. With no country was Pius VII more concerned during his reign than with France, where the revolution had destroyed the old order in religion no less than in politics. Bonaparte, as first consul, signified his readiness to enter into negotiations tending to the settlement of the religious question. These advances led to the conclusion of the historic Concordat of 1801, which for over a hundred years governed the relations of the French Church with Rome (on this compact; the journey of Pius VII to Paris for the imperial coronation; his captivity and restoration, see CONCORDAT OF 1801, CONSALVI; and NAPOLEON I). After the fall of Napoleon a new concordat was negotiated between Pius VII and Louis XVIII. It provided for an additional number of French bishoprics and abrogated the Organic Articles. But liberal and Gallican opposition to it was so strong that it could never be carried out. One of its objects was later realized when in 1822 the circumscription Bull "Paternæ Caritatis" erected thirty new episcopal sees. At the Peace of Lunéville in 1801, some German princes lost their hereditary rights and dominions through the cession of the left bank of the Rhine to France. When it became known that they contemplated compensating their loss by the secularization of ecclesiastical lands, Pius VII instructed Dalberg, Elector of Mainz, on 2 Oct., 1802, to use all his influence for the protection of the rights of the Church. Dalberg, however, displayed more ardour for his own advancement than zeal in the defence of religious interests, and the seizure of ecclesiastical property was permitted in 1803 by the Imperial Deputation at Ratisbon. The measure resulted in enormous loss for the Church, but the pope was powerless to resist its execution. The ecclesiastical reorganization of Germany now became a pressing need. Bavaria soon opened negotiations in view of a concordat and was shortly after followed by Würtemburg. But Rome would rather treat with the central imperial government than with individual states, and after the suppression of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, Napoleon's aim was to obtain a uniform concordat for the whole Confederation of the Rhine. Subsequent events prevented any agreement before Napoleon's downfall. At the Congress of Vienna (1814-15) Consalvi in vain advocated the restoration of the former ecclesiastical organization. Soon after this event the individual German States separately entered into negotiations with Rome and the first concordat was concluded with Bavaria in 1817. In 1821 Pius VII promulgated in the Bull "De salute animarum" the agreement concluded with Prussia, and the same year another Bull, "Provida Solersque", made a fresh distribution of dioceses in the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine. An arrangement with Rome based on mutual concessions was likewise contemplated in England in regard to Irish ecclesiastical affairs, notably episcopal nominations (the veto). The papal administration favoured the project the more readily seeing that common resistance to Napoleon had brought the Holy See and the British Government more closely together, and that it still stood in need of the assistance of English might and diplomacy. But Irish opposition to the scheme was so determined that nothing could be done, and the Irish clergy remained free from all state control. Similar freedom prevailed in the growing Church of the United States, in which country Pius VII erected in 1808 the Dioceses of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Bardstown, with Baltimore as the metropolitan see. To these dioceses were added those of Charleston and Richmond in 1820, and that of Cincinnati in 1821. One of the most remarkable successes of his pontificate was the restoration of the Pontifical States, secured at the Congress of Vienna by the papal representative Consalvi. Only a small strip of land remained in the power of Austria, and this usurpation was protested. In the temporal administration of these states some of the features making for uniformity and efficiency introduced by the French were judiciously retained, the feudal rights of the nobility were abolished, and the ancient privileges of the municipalities suppressed. Considerable opposition developed against these measures, and the Carbonari even threatened rebellion; but Consalvi had their leaders prosecuted and on 13 Sept., 1821, Pius VII condemned their principles. Of a more serious nature was the revolution which in 1820 broke out in Spain and which, owing to its anticlerical character, gave great concern to the papacy. It restricted the authority of ecclesiastical courts (26 Sept., 1830); decreed (23 Oct.) the suppression of a large number of monasteries, and prohibited (14 April, 1821) the forwarding of financial contributions to Rome. It also secured the appointment of Canon Villaneuva, a public advocate of the abolition of the papacy, as Spanish ambassador to Rome, and, upon the refusal of Pius VII to accept him, broke off diplomatic relations with the Holy See in 1823. This same year, however, the armed intervention of France suppressed the revolution and King Ferdinand VII repealed the anti-Catholic laws. During the latter part of the reign of Pius VII, the prestige of the papacy was enhanced by the presence in Rome of several European rulers. The Emperor and Empress of Austria, accompanied by their daughter, made an official visit to the pope in 1819. The King of Naples visited Rome in 1821 and was followed in 1822 by the King of Prussia. The blind Charles Emmanuel IV of Savoy, and King Charles IV of Spain and his queen, permanently resided in the Eternal City. Far more glorious to Pius VII personally is the fact that, after the downfall of his persecutor Napoleon, he gladly offered a refuge in his capital to the members of the Bonaparte family. Princess Letitia, the deposed emperor's mother, lived there; likewise did his brothers Lucien and Louis and his uncle, Cardinal Fesch. So forgiving was Pius that upon hearing of the severe captivity in which the imperial prisoner was held at St. Helena, he requested Cardinal Consalvi to plead for leniency with the Prince-Regent of England. When he was informed of Napoleon's desire for the ministrations of a Catholic priest, he sent him the Abbé Vignali as chaplain. Under Pius's reign Rome was also the favourite abode of artists. Among these it suffices to cite the illustrious names of the Venetian Canova, the Dane Thorwaldsen, the Austrian Führich, and the Germans Overbeck, Pforr, Schadow, and Cornelius. Pius VII added numerous manuscripts and printed volumes to the Vatican Library; reopened the English, Scottish, and German Colleges at Rome, and established new chairs in the Roman College. He reorganized the Congregation of the Propaganda, and condemned the Bible Societies (q.v.). In 1805 he received at Florence the unconditional submission of Scipione Ricci, the former Bishop of Pistoia-Prato, who had refused obedience to Pius VI in his condemnation of the Synod of Pistoia. The suppressed Society of Jesus he re-established for Russia in 1801, for the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in 1804; for America, England, and Ireland in 1813, and for the Universal Church on 7 August, 1814. On 6 July, 1823, Pius VII fell in his apartment and fractured his thigh. He was obliged to take to his bed, never to rise again. During his illness the magnificent basilica of St. Paul Without the Walls was destroyed by fire, a calamity which was never revealed to him. The gentle but courageous pontiff breathed his last in the presence of his devoted Consalvi, who was soon to follow him to the grave. The Bulls of Pius VII are partly in Bullarii Romani continuatio, ed. Barberi, XI-XV (Rome, 1846-53); Drochon, Mémoires de cardinal Consalvi (Paris, 1896); Pacca, tr. Head, Historical Memoirs of Cardinal Pacca (London, 1850); Artaud de Montor, Histoire du Pape Pie VII (3rd ed., Paris, 1839); Wiseman, Recollections of the Last Four Popes (Boston, 1858); Allies, The Life of Pope Pius VII (2nd ed., London, 1897); MacCaffrey, History of the Catholic Church in the Nineteenth Century (2nd ed., Dublin and St. Louis, 1910); Acton, The Cambridge Modern History: vol. X, The Restoration (New York, 1907); Sampson, Pius VII and the French Revolution, in Amer. Cath. Quarterly Rev. (Philadelphia, Apr., 1908-). See also bibliographies to Concordat of 1801; Consalvi, Ercole; Napoleon I (B ONAPARTE). N.A. WEBER Pope Pius VIII Pope Pius VIII (Francesco Xaverio Castiglione). B. at Cingoli, 20 Nov., 1761; elected 31 March, 1829; d. 1 Dec., 1830. He came of a noble family and attended the Jesuit school at Osimo, later taking courses of canon law at Bologna and Rome. In Rome he associated himself with his teacher Devoti, assisted him in the compilation of his "Institutiones" (1792), and, when Devoti was appointed Bishop of Anagni, became his vicar-general. He subsequently filled the same position under Bishop Severoli at Cingoli, and, after some time, became provost of the cathedral in his native city. In 1800 Pius VII named him Bishop of Montalto, which see he shortly afterwards exchanged for that of Cesena. Under the French domination he was arrested, having refused to take the oath of allegiance to the King of Italy, and brought to Macerata, then to Mantua, and finally to France. In 1816 the pope conferred upon him the cardinal's hat, and in 1822 appointed him Bishop of Frascati and Grand Penitentiary. As early as the conclave of 1823, Castiglione was among the candidates for the papacy. At the election of 1829, France and Austria were desirous of electing a pope of mild and temperate disposition, and Castiglione, whose character corresponded with the requirements, was chosen after a five weeks' session. His reign, which lasted but twenty months, was not wanting in notable occurrences. In April, 1829, the Catholic Emancipation Bill, which made it possible for Catholics to sit in Parliament and to hold public offices, was passed in England. Leo XII had taken a great interest in Catholic Emancipation, but had not lived to see it become law. On 25 March, 1830, Pius published the Brief "Litteris altero abhinc", in which he declared that marriage could be blessed by the Church only when the proper promises were made regarding the Catholic education of the children; otherwise, the parish priest should only assist passively at the ceremony. Under his successor this matter became a cause of conflict in Prussia between the bishops and the Government (see DROSTE-VISCHERING, CLEMENS AUGUST VON). The pope's last months were troubled. In France, the Revolution of July broke out and the king was obliged to flee, being succeeded on the throne by the younger Orleans branch. The pope recognized the new regime with hesitation. The movement, which also affected Belgium and Poland, even extended to Rome, where a lodge of Carbonari with twenty-six members was discovered. In the midst of anxiety and care, Pius VIII, whose constitution had always been delicate, passed away. Before the coronation of his successor, revolution broke out in the Papal States. The character of Pius VIII was mild and amiable, and he enjoyed a reputation for learning, being especially versed in canon law, numismatics, and Biblical literature. In addition, he was extremely conscientious. Thus, he ordered all his relatives, upon his accession to the pontifical throne, to resign the positions which they held. ARTAUD, Histoire du Pape Pie VIII (Paris, 1844); WISEMAN, Recollections of the Last Four Popes (London and Boston, 1858). KLEMENS LOEFFLER Pope Pius IX Pope Pius IX (Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti). Pope from 1846-78; born at Sinigaglia, 13 May, 1792; died in Rome, 7 February, 1878. BEFORE HIS PAPACY His early years. After receiving his classical education at the Piarist College in Volterra from 1802-09 he went to Rome to study philosophy and theology, but left there in 1810 on account of political disturbances. He returned in 1814 and, in deference to his father's wish, asked to be admitted to the pope's Noble Guard. Being subject to epileptic fits, he was refused admission and, following the desire of his mother and his own inclination, he studied theology at the Roman Seminary, 1814-18. Meanwhile his malady had ceased and he was ordained priest, 10 April, 1819. Pius VII appointed him spiritual director of the orphan asylum popularly known as "Tata Giovanni", in Rome, and in 1823 sent him, as auditor of the Apostolic delegate, Mgr Muzi, to Chile in South America. Upon his return in 1825 he was made canon of Santa Maria in Via Lata and director of the large hospital of San Michele by Leo XII. The same pope created him Archbishop of Spoleto, 21 May, 1827. In 1831 when 4000 Italian revolutionists fled before the Austrian army and threatened to throw themselves upon Spoleto, the archbishop persuaded them to lay down their arms and disband, induced the Austrian commander to pardon them for their treason, and gave them sufficient money to reach their homes. On 17 February, 1832, Gregory XVI transferred him to the more important Diocese of Imola and, 14 December, 1840, created him cardinal priest with the titular church of Santi Pietro e Marcellino, after having reserved him in petto since 23 December, 1839. He retained the Diocese of Imola until his elevation to the papacy. His great charity and amiability had made him beloved by the people, while his friendship with some of the revolutionists had gained for him the name of liberal. His election. On 14 June, 1846, two weeks after the death of Gregory XVI, fifty cardinals assembled in the Quirinal for the conclave. They were divided into two factions, the conservatives, who favoured a continuance of absolutism in the temporal government of the Church, and the liberals, who were desirous of moderate political reforms. At the fourth scrutiny, 16 June, Cardinal Mastai-Ferretti, the liberal candidate, received three votes beyond the required majority. Cardinal Archbishop Gaysruck of Milan had arrived too late to make use of the right of exclusion against his election, given him by the Austrian Government. The new pope accepted the tiara with reluctance and in memory of Pius VII, his former benefactor, took the name of Pius IX. His coronation took place in the Basilica of St. Peter on 21 June. His election was greeted with joy, for his charity towards the poor. his kindheartedness, and his wit had made him very popular. TEMPORAL ASPECT OF HIS PAPACY Within the Papal States. Conciliatory policies (1846-1848).== "Young Italy" was clamouring for greater political freedom. The unyielding attitude of Gregory XVI and his secretary of state, Cardinal Lambruschini, had brought the papal states to the verge of a revolution. The new pope was in favour of a political reform. His first great political act was the granting of a general amnesty to political exiles and prisoners on 16 July, 1846. This act was hailed with enthusiasm by the people, but many prudent men had reasonable fears of the results. Some extreme reactionaries denounced the pope as in league with the Freemasons and the Carbonari. It did not occur to the kindly nature of Pius IX that many of the pardoned political offenders would use their liberty to further their revolutionary ideas. That he was not in accord with the radical ideas of the times he clearly demonstrated by his Encyclical of 9 November, 1846, in which he laments the oppression of Catholic interests, intrigues against the Holy See, machinations of secret societies, sectarian bitterness, the Bible associations, indifferentism, false philosophy, communism, and the licentious press. He was, however, willing to grant such political reforms as he deemed expedient to the welfare of the people and compatible with the papal sovereignty. On 19 April, 1847, he announced his intention to establish an advisory council (Consulta di Stato), composed of laymen from the various provinces of the papal territory. This was followed by the establishment of a civic guard (Guardia Civica), 5 July, and a cabinet council, 29 December. Failure of appeasement (1848-1850).== But the more concessions the pope made, the greater and more insistent became the demands. Secret clubs of Rome, especially the "Circolo Romano", under the direction of Ciceruacchio, fanaticized the mob with their radicalism and were the real rulers of Rome. They spurred the people on to be satisfied with nothing but a constitutional government, an entire laicization of the ministry, and a declaration of war against hated and reactionary Austria. On 8 February, 1848, a street riot extorted the promise of a lay ministry from the pope and on 14 March he saw himself obliged to grant a constitution, but in his allocution of 29 April he solemnly proclaimed that, as the Father of Christendom, he could never declare war against Catholic Austria. Riot followed riot, the pope was denounced as a traitor to his country, his prime minister Rossi was stabbed to death while ascending the steps of the Cancelleria, whither he had gone to open the parliament, and on the following day the pope himself was besieged in the Quirinal. Palma, a papal prelate, who was standing at a window, was shot, and the pope was forced to promise a democratic ministry. With the assistance of the Bavarian ambassador, Count Spaur, and the French ambassador, Duc d'Harcourt, Pius IX escaped from the Quirinal in disguise, 24 November, and fled to Gaëta where he was joined by many of the cardinals. Meanwhile Rome was ruled by traitors and adventurers who abolished the temporal power of the pope, 9 February, 1849, and under the name of a democratic republic terrorized the people and committed untold outrages. The pope appealed to France, Austria, Spain, and Naples. On 29 June French troops under General Oudinot restored order in his terrotory. On 12 April, 1850, Pius IX returned to Rome, no longer a political liberalist. His subsequent rule (1850-1858).== Cardinal Antonelli, his secretary of state, exerted a paramount political influence until his death on 6 November, 1876. The temporal reign of Pius IX, up to the seizure of the last of his temporal possessions in 1870, was one continuous struggle, on the one hand against the intrigues of the revolutionaries, on the other against the Piedmontese ruler Victor Emmanuel, his crafty premier Cavour, and other antipapal statesmen who aimed at a united Italy, with Rome as its capital, and the Piedmontese ruler as its king. The political difficulties of the pope were still further increased by the double dealing of Napoleon III, and the necessity of relying on French and Austrian troops for the maintenance of order in Rome and the papal legations in the north. Intrigues against the Papal States (1858-1878).== When Pius IX visited his provinces in the summer of 1857 he received everywhere a warm and loyal reception. But the doom of his temporal power was sealed, when a year later Cavour and Napoleon III met at Plombières, concerting plans for a combined war against Austria and the subsequent territorial extension of the Sardinian Kingdom. They sent their agents into various cities of the Papal States to propogate the idea of a politically united Italy. The defeat of Austria at Magenta on 4 July, 1859, and the subsequent withdrawal of the Austrian troops from the papal legations, inaugurated the dissolution of the Papal States. The insurrection in some of the cities of the Romagna was put forth as a plea for annexing this province to Piedmont in September, 1859. On 6 February, 1860, Victor Emmanuel demanded the annexation of Umbria and the Marches and, when Pius IX resisted this unjust demand, made ready to annex them by force. After defeating the papal army at Castelfidardo on 18 September, and at Ancona on 30 September, he deprived the pope of all his possessions with the exception of Rome and the immediate vicinity. Finally on 20 September, 1870, he completed the spoliation of the papal possessions by seizing Rome and making it the capital of United Italy. The so-called Law of Guarantees, of 15 May, 1871, which accorded the pope the rights of a sovereign, an annual remuneration of 3¼ million lire ($650,000), and extraterritoriality to a few papal palaces in Rome, was never accepted by Pius IX or his successors. (See States of the Church; Rome; LAW OF GUARANTEES). Outside of the Papal States. The loss of his temporal power was only one of the many trials that filled the long pontificate of Pius IX. There was scarcely a country, Catholic or Protestant, where the rights of the Church were not infringed upon. In Piedmont the Concordat of 1841 was set aside, the tithes were abolished, education was laicized, monasteries were suppressed, church property was confiscated, religious orders were expelled, and the bishops who opposed this anti-ecclesiastical legislation were imprisoned or banished. In vain did Pius IX protest against such outrages in his allocutions of 1850, 1852, 1853, and finally in 1855 by publishing to the world the numerous injustices which the Piedmontese government had committed against the Church and her representatives. In Würtemberg he succeeded in concluding a concordat with the Government, but, owing to the opposition of the Protestant estates, it never became a law and was revoked by a royal rescript on 13 June, 1861. The same occurred in the Grand Duchy of Baden where the Concordat of 1859 was abolished on 7 April, 1860. Equally hostile to the Church was the policy of Prussia and other German states, where the anti-ecclesiastical legislations reached their height during the notorious Kulturkampf, inaugurated in 1873. The violent outrages committed in Switzerland against the bishops and the remaining clergy were solemnly denounced by Pius IX in his encyclical letter of 21 November, 1873, and, as a result, the papal internuncio was expelled from Switzerland in January, 1874. The concordat which Pius IX had concluded with Russia in 1847 remained a dead letter, horrible cruelties were committed against the Catholic clergy and laity after the Polish insurrection of 1863, and all relations with Rome were broken in 1866. The anti-ecclesiastical legislation in Colombia was denounced in his allocution of 27 September, 1852, and again, together with that of Mexico, on 30 September, 1861. With Austria, a concordat, very favourable to the Church, was concluded on 18 August, 1855 ("Conventiones de rebus eccl. inter s. sedem et civilem potestatem", Mainz, 1870, 310-318). But the Protestant agitation aginst the concordat was so strong, that in contravention to it the emperor reluctantly ratified marriage and school laws, 25 March, 1868. In 1870 the concordat was abolished by the Austrian Government, and in 1874 laws were enacted, which placed all but the inner management of ecclesiastical affairs in the hands of the Government. With Spain, Pius IX concluded a satisfactory concordat on 16 March, 1851 (Nussi, 281-297; "Acta Pii IX", I, 293-341). It was supplemented by various articles on 25 November, 1859 (Nussi, 341-5). Other satisfactory concordats concluded by Pius IX were those with: + Portugal in 1857 (Nussi, 318-21); + Costa Rica, and Guatemala, 7 Oct., 1852 (Ib., 297-310); + Nicaragua, 2 Nov., 1861 (Ib., 361-7); + San Salvador, and Honduras, 22 April, 1862 (Ib., 367-72; 349); + Haiti, 28 March, 1860 (Ib., 346-8); + Venezuela, 26 July, 1862 (Ib., 356-61); + Ecuador, 26 Sept., 1862 (Ib., 349-56). (See Concordat: Summary of Principal Concordats.) RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF HIS PAPACY His greatest achievements are of a purely ecclesiastical and religious character. Battle against false liberalism. It is astounding how fearlessly he fought, in the midst of many and severe trials, against the false liberalism which threatened to destroy the very essence of faith and religion. In his Encyclical "Quanta Cura" of 8 December, 1864, he condemned sixteen propositions touching on errors of the age. This Encyclical was accompanied by the famous "Syllabus errorum", a table of eighty previously censured propositions bearing on pantheism, naturalism, rationalism, indifferentism, socialism, communism, freemasonry, and the various kinds of religious liberalism. Though misunderstandings and malice combined in representing the Syllabus as a veritable embodiment of religious narrow-mindedness and cringing servility to papal authority, it has done an inestimable service to the Church and to society at large by unmasking the false liberalism which had begun to insinuate its subtle poison into the very marrow of Catholicism. Previously, on 8 January, 1857, he had condemned the philosophico-theological writings of Günther, and on many occasions advocated a return to the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas. His promotion of the inner life of the Church. Through his whole life he was very devout to the Blessed Virgin. As early as 1849, when he was an exile at Gaëta, he issued letters to the bishops of the Church, asking their views on the subject of the Immaculate Conception, and on 8 Dec., 1854, in the presence of more than 200 bishops, he proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin as a dogma of the Church. He also fostered the devotion to the Sacred Heart, and on 23 Sept., 1856, extended this feast to the whole world with the rite of a double major. At his instance the Catholic world was consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus on 16 June, 1875. He also promoted the inner life of the Church by many important liturgical regulations, by various monastic reforms, and especially by an unprecedented number of beatifications and canonizations. Convocation of the Vatican Council. On 29 June, 1869, he issued the Bull "Æterni Patris", convoking the Vatican Council which he opened in the presence of 700 bishops on 8 Dec., 1879. During its fourth solemn session, on 18 July, 1870, the papal infallibility was made a dogma of the Church. (See Vatican Council..) Appointments and foundations. The healthy and extensive growth of the Church during his pontificate was chiefly due to his unselfishness. He appointed to important ecclesiastical positions only such men as were famous both for piety and learning. Among the great cardinals created by him were: Wiseman and Manning for England; Cullen for Ireland; McCloskey for the United States; Diepenbrock, Geissel, Reisach, and Ledochowski for Germany; Rauscher and Franzelin for Austria; Mathieu, Donnet, Gousset, and Pitra for France. On 29 Sept., 1850, he re-established the Catholic hierarchy in England by erecting the Archdiocese of Westminster with the twelve suffragan Sees of Beverley, Birmingham, Clifton, Hexham, Liverpool, Newport and Menevia, Northampton, Nottingham, Plymouth, Salford, Shrewsbury, and Southwark. The widespread commotion which this act caused among English fanatics, and which was fomented by Prime Minister Russell and the London "Times", temporarily threatened to result in an open persecution of Catholics (see England). On 4 March, 1853, he restored the Catholic hierarchy in Holland by erecting the Archdiocese of Utrecht and the four suffragan Sees of Haarlem, Bois-le-Duc, Roermond, and Breda (see Holland). In the United States of America he erected the Dioceses of: Albany, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Galveston in 1847; Monterey, Savannah, St. Paul, Wheeling, Santa Fe, and Nesqually (Seattle) in 1850; Burlington, Covington, Erie, Natchitoches, Brooklyn, Newark, and Quincy (Alton) in 1853; Portland (Maine) in 1855; Fort Wayne, Sault Sainte Marie (Marquette) in 1857; Columbus, Grass Valley (Sacramento) Green Bay, Harrisburg, La Crosse, Rochester, Scranton, St. Joseph, Wilmington in 1868; Springfield and St. Augustine in 1870; Providence and Ogdensburg in 1872; San Antonio in 1874; Peoria in 1875; Leavenworth in 1877; the Vicariates Apostolic of the Indian Territory and Nebraska in 1851; Northern Michigan in 1853; Florida in 1857; North Carolina, Idaho, and Colorado in 1868; Arizona in 1869; Brownsville in Texas and Northern Minnesota in 1874. He encouraged the convening of provincial and diocesan synods in various countries, and established at Rome the Latin American College in 1853, and the College of the United States of America, at his own private expense, in 1859. Conclusion. His was the longest pontificate in the history of the papacy. In 1871 he celebrated his twenty-fifth, in 1876 his thirtieth, anniversary as pope, and in 1877 his golden episcopal jubilee. His tomb is in the church of San Lorenzo fuori le mura. The so-called diocesan process of his beatification was begun on 11 February, 1907. [Note: Pope Pius IX was beatified on September 3, 2000.] Acta Pii IX (Rome, 1854-78); Acta Sancta Sedis (Rome, 1865 sq.); Riancey, Recueil des allocutions consistoriales (Paris, 1853 sq.); Discorsi del Sommo Pont. Pio IX (Rome, 1872-8); Maguire, Pius IX and his Times (Dublin, 1885); Trollope, Life of Pius IX (London, 1877); Shea, Life and Pontificate of Pius IX (New York, 1877); Brennan, A Popular Life of Our Holy Father Pope Pius IX (New York, 1877); O'Reilly, Life of Pius IX (New York, 1878); McCaffrey, Hist. of the Cath. Church in the Nineteenth Century, I (Dublin, 1909); Lyons, Dispatches resp. the condition of the Papal States (London, 1860); Ballerini, Les Premiéres pages du pontificat de Pie IX (Rome, 1909); Pougeois, Histoire de Pie IX, son pontificat et son siècle (Paris, 1877-86);Villegranche, Pie IX, sa vie, son histoire, son siècle (Paris, 1878); Sagès, SS. Pie IX, sa vie, ses écrits, sa doctrine (Paris, 1896); Rocfer, Souvenirs d'un prélat romain sur Rome et la cour pontificale au temps de Pie IX d(Paris, 1896); Van Duerm, Rome et la Franc-Maçconnerie (Brussels, 1896); Gillet, Pie IX, sa vie, et les actes de son pontificat (Paris, 1877); RÜtjes, Leben, wirken und leiden Sr. Heiligkeit Pius IX (Oberhausen, 1870); HÜlskamp, Papst Pius IX in seinem Leben und Wirken (Münster, 1875); Steppischnegg, Papst Pius IX und seine Zeit (Vienna, 1879); Wappmannsperger, Leben und Wirken des Papst Pius IX (Ratisbon, 1879); NÜrnberger, Papsttum und Kirchenstaat, II, III (Mainz, 1898-1900); Marocco, Pio IX (Turin, 1861-4); Morosi, Vita di SS. Pio papa IX (Florence, 1885-6); Bonetti, Pio IX ad Imola e Roma-Memorie inedite di un suo famgiliare segreto (Rome, 1892); Cesare, Roma e lo stato del Papa dal ritorno di Pio IX al 20 Settembre (Rome, 1906). MICHAEL OTT Pope Pius X Pope Pius X (Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto). Born 2 June, 1835, at Riese, Province of Treviso, in Venice. His parents were Giovanni Battista Sarto and Margarita (née Sanson); the former, a postman, died in 1852, but Margarita lived to see her son a cardinal. After finishing his elements, Giuseppe at first received private lessons in Latin from the arch-priest of his town, Don Tito Fusaroni, after which he studied for four years at the gymnasium of Castelfranco Veneto, walking to and fro every day. In 1850 he received the tonsure from the Bishop of Treviso, and was given a scholarship of the Diocese of Treviso in the seminary of Padua, where he finished his classical, philosophical, and theological studies with distinction. He was ordained in 1858, and for nine years was chaplain at Tombolo, having to assume most of the functions of parish priest, as the pastor was old and an invalid. He sought to prefect his knowledge of theology by assiduously studying Saint Thomas and canon law; at the same time he established a night school for adult students, and devoted himself of the ministry of preaching in other towns to which he was called. In 1867 he was named arch-priest of Salzano, a large borough of the Diocese of Treviso, where he restored the church, and provided for the enlargement and maintenance of the hospital by his own means, consistently with his habitual generosity to the poor; he especially distinguished himself by his abnegation during the cholera. He showed great solicitude for the religious instruction of adults. In 1875 he was made a canon of the cathedral of Treviso, and filled several offices, among them those of spiritual director and rector of the seminary, examiner of the clergy, and vicar-general; moreover, he made it possible for the students of the public schools to receive religious instruction. In 1878, on the death of Bishop Zanelli, he was elected vicar-capitular. On 10 November, 1884, he was named Bishop of Mantua, then a very troublesome see, and consecrated on 20 November. His chief care in his new position was for the formation of the clergy at the seminary, where, for several years, he himself taught dogmatic theology, and for another year moral theology. He wished the doctrine and method of St. Thomas to be followed, and to many of the poorer students he gave copies of the "Summa theologica"; at the same time he cultivated the Gregorian Chant in company with the seminarians. The temporal administration of his see imposed great sacrifices upon him. In 1887 he held a diocesan synod. By his attendance at the confessional, he gave the example of pastoral zeal. The Catholic organization of Italy, then known as the "Opera dei Congressi", found in him a zealous propagandist from the time of his ministry at Salzano. At the secret consistory of June, 1893, Leo XIII created him a cardinal under the title of San Bernardo alle Terme; and in the public consistory, three days later, he was preconized Patriarch of Venice, retaining meanwhile the title of Apostolic Administrator of Mantua. Cardinal Sarto was obliged to wait eighteen months before he was able to take possession of his new diocese, because the Italian government refused its exequatur, claiming the right of nomination as it had been exercised by the Emperor of Austria. This matter was discussed with bitterness in the newspapers and in pamphlets; the Government, by way of reprisal, refused its exequatur to the other bishops who were appointed in the meantime, so that the number of vacant sees grew to thirty. Finally, the minister Crispi having returned to power, and the Holy See having raised the mission of Eritrea to the rank of an Apostolic Prefecture in favour of the Italian Capuchins, the Government withdrew from its position. Its opposition had not been caused by any objection to Sarto personally. At Venice the cardinal found a much better condition of things than he had found at Mantua. There, also, he paid great attention to the seminary, where he obtained the establishment of the faculty of canon law. In 1898 he held the diocesan synod. He promoted the use of the Gregorian Chant, and was a great patron of Lorenzo Perosi; he favoured social works, especially the rural parochial banks; he discerned and energetically opposed the dangers of certain doctrines and the conduct of certain Christian-Democrats. The international Eucharistic Congress of 1897, the centenary of St.Gerard Sagredo (1900), and the blessing of the corner-stone of the new belfry of St. Mark's, also of the commemorative chapel of Mt. Grappa (1901), were events that left a deep impression on him and his people. Meanwhile, Leo XIII having died, the cardinals entered into conclave and after several ballots Giuseppe Sarto was elected on 4 August by a vote of 55 out of a possible 60 votes. His coronation took place on the following Sunday, 9 August, 1903. In his first Encyclical, wishing to develop his programme to some extent, he said that the motto of his pontificate would be "instaurare omnia in Christo" (Ephes., i, 10). Accordingly, his greatest care always turned to the direct interests of the Church. Before all else his efforts were directed to the promotion of piety among the faithful, and he advised all (Decr. S. Congr. Concil., 20 Dec., 1905) to receive Holy Communion frequently and, if possible, daily, dispensing the sick from the obligation of fasting to the extent of enabling them to receive Holy Communion twice each month, and even oftener (Decr. S. Congr. Rit., 7 Dec., 1906). Finally, by the Decree "Quam Singulari" (15 Aug., 1910), he recommended that the first Communion of children should not be deferred too long after they had reached the age of discretion. It was by his desire that the Eucharistic Congress of 1905 was held at Rome, while he enhanced the solemnity of subsequent Eucharistic congresses by sending to them cardinal legates. The fiftieth anniversary of the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was an occasion of which he took advantage to enjoin devotion to Mary (Encyclical "Ad illum diem", 2 February, 1904); and the Marian Congress, together with the coronation of the image of the Immaculate Conception in the choir of St. Peter's, was a worthy culmination of the solemnity. As a simple chaplain, a bishop, and a patriarch, Giuseppe Sarto was a promoter of sacred music; as pope, he published, 22 November, 1903, a Motu Proprio on sacred music in churches, and at the same time ordered the authentic Gregorian Chant to be used everywhere, while he caused the choir books to be printed with the Vatican font of type under the supervision of a special commission. In the Encyclical "Acerbo nimis" (15 April, 1905) he treated of the necessity of catechismal instruction, not only for children, but also for adults, giving detailed rules, especially in relation to suitable schools for the religious instruction of students of the public schools, and even of the universities. He caused a new catechism to be published for the Diocese of Rome. As bishop, his chief care had been for the formation of the clergy, and in harmony with this purpose, an Encyclical to the Italian episcopate (28 July, 1906) enjoined the greatest caution in the ordination of priests, calling the attention of the bishops to the fact that there was frequently manifested among the younger clergy a spirit of independence that was a menace to ecclesiastical discipline. In the interest of Italian seminaries, he order them to be visited by the bishops, and promulgated a new order of studies, which had been in use for several years at the Roman Seminary. On the other hand, as the dioceses of Central and of Southern Italy were so small that their respective seminaries could not prosper, Pius X established the regional seminary which is common to the sees of a given region; and, as a consequence, many small, deficient seminaries were closed. For the more efficient guidance of souls, by a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Consistory (20 August, 1910), instructions were given concerning the removal of parish priests, as administrative acts, when such procedure was required by grave circumstances that might not constitute a canonical cause for the removal. At the time of the jubilee in honour of his ordination as a priest, he addressed a letter full of affection and wise council to all the clergy. By a recent Decree (18 Nov., 1910), the clergy have been barred from the temporal administration of social organizations, which was often a cause of grave difficulties. The pope has at heart above all things the purity of the faith. On various occasions, as in the Encyclical regarding the centenary of Saint Gregory the Great, Pius X had pointed out the dangers of certain new theological methods, which, based upon Agnosticism and upon Immanentism, necessarily divest the doctrine of the faith of its teachings of objective, absolute, and immutable truth, and all the more, when those methods are associated with subversive criticism of the Holy Scriptures and of the origins of Christianity. Wherefore, in 1907, he caused the publication of the Decree "Lamentabili" (called also the Syllabus of Pius X), in which sixty-five propositions are condemned. The greater number of these propositions concern the Holy Scriptures, their inspiration, and the doctrine of Jesus and of the Apostles, while others relate to dogma, the sacraments, and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Soon after that, on 8 Sept., 1907, there appeared the famous Encyclical "Pascendi", which expounds and condemns the system of Modernism. It points out the danger of Modernism in relation to philosophy, apologetics, exegesis, history, liturgy, and discipline, and shows the contradiction between that innovation and the ancient faith; and, finally, it establishes rules by which to combat efficiently the pernicious doctrines in question. Among the means suggested mention should be made of the establishment of an official body of "censors" of books and the creation of a "Committee of Vigilance". Subsequently, by the Motu Proprio "Sacrorum Antistitum", Pius X called attention to the injunctions of the Encyclical and also to the provisions that had already been established under Leo XIII on preaching, and proscribed that all those who exercised the holy ministry or who taught in ecclesiastical institutions, as well as canons, the superiors of the regular clergy, and those serving in ecclesiastical bureaux should take an oath, binding themselves to reject the errors that are denounced in the Encyclical or in the Decree "Lamentabili". Pius X reverted to this vital subject on other occasions, especially in those Encyclicals that were written in commemoration of St. Anselm (21 April, 1909) and of St. Charles Borromeo (23 June, 1910), in the latter of which Reformist Modernism was especially condemned. As the study of the Bible is both the most important and the most dangerous study in theology, Pius X wished to found at Rome a centre for these studies, to give assurance at once of unquestioned orthodoxy and scientific worth; and so, with the assistance of the whole Catholic world, there was established at Rome the Biblical Institute, under the direction of the Jesuits. A need that had been felt for a long time was that of the codification of the Canon Law, and with a view to effecting it, Pius X, on 19 March, 1904, created a special congregation of cardinals, of which Mgr Gasparri, now a cardinal, became the secretary. The most eminent authorities on canon law, throughout the world, are collaborating in the formation of the new code, some of the provisions of which have already been published, as, for example, that modifying the law of the Council of Trent on secret marriages, the new rules for diocesan relations and for episcopal visits ad limina, and the new organization of the Roman Curia (Constitution "Sapienti Consilio", 29 June, 1908). Prior to that time, the Congregations for Relics and Indulgences and of Discipline had been suppressed, while the Secretariate of Briefs had been united to the Secretariate of State. The characteristic of the new rule is the complete separation of the judicial from the administrative; while the functions of the various bureaux have been more precisely determined, and their work more equalized. The offices of the Curia are divided into Tribunals (3), Congregations (11), and Offices (5). With regard to the first, the Tribunal of the Signature (consisting of cardinals only) and that of the Rota were revived; to the Tribunal of the Penitentiary were left only the cases of the internal forum (conscience). The Congregations remained almost as they were at first, with the exceptions that a special section was added to that of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, for indulgences; the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars received the name of Congregation of the Religious, and has to deal only with the affairs of religious congregations, while the affairs of the secular clergy are to be referred to the Congregation of the Consistory or of that of the Council; from the latter were taken the matrimonial cases, which are now sent to the tribunals or to the newly-created Congregation of the Sacraments. The Congregation of the Consistory has increased greatly in importance, since it has to decide questions of competence between the various other Congregations. The Congregation of Propaganda lost much of its territory in Europe and in America, where religious conditions have become regular. At the same time were published the rules and regulations for employees and those for the various bureaux. Another recent Constitution relates to the suburbicarian sees. The Catholic hierarchy has greatly increased in numbers during these first years of the pontificate of Pius X, in which twenty-eight new dioceses have been created, mostly in the United States, Brazil, and the Philippine Islands; also one abbey nullius, 16 vicariates Apostolic, and 15 prefectures Apostolic. Leo XIII brought the social question within the range of ecclesiastical activity, Pius X, also, wishes the Church to co-operate, or rather to play a leading part in the solution of the social question; his views on this subject were formulated in a syllabus of nineteen propositions, taken from different Encyclicals and other Acts of Leo XIII, and published in a Motu Proprio (18 Dec., 1903), especially for the guidance of Italy, where the social question was a thorny one at the beginning of his pontificate. He sought especially to repress certain tendencies leaning towards Socialism and promoting a spirit of insubordination to ecclesiastical authority. As a result of ever increasing divergences, the "Opera die Congressi", the great association of the Catholics of Italy, was dissolved. At once, however, the Encyclical "Il fermo proposito" (11 June, 1905) brought about the formation of a new organization consisting of three great unions, the Popolare, the Economica, and the Elettorale. The firmness of Pius X obtained the elimination of, at least, the most quarrelsome elements, making it possible now for Catholic social action to prosper, although some friction still remains. The desire of Pius X is for the economical work to be avowedly Catholic, as he expressed it in a memorable letter to Count Medolago-Albani. In France, also, the Sillon, after promising well, had taken a turn that was little reassuring to orthodoxy; and dangers in this connection were made manifest in the Encyclical "Notre charge apostolique" (15 Aug., 1910), in which the Sillonists were ordered to place their organizations under the authority of the bishops. In its relations with Governments, the pontificate of Pius X has had to carry on painful struggles. In France the pope had inherited quarrels and menaces. The "Nobis nominavit" question was settled through the condescension of the pope; but the matter of the appointment of bishops proposed by the Government, the visit of the president to the King of Italy, with the subsequent note of protestation, and the resignation of two French bishops, which was desired by the Holy See, became pretexts for the Government at Paris to break off diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome. Meanwhile the law of Separation had been already prepared, despoiling the Church of France, and also prescribing for the Church a constitution which, if not openly contrary to her nature, was at least full of danger to her. Pius X, paying no attention to the counsels of short-sighted opportunism, firmly refused his consent to the formation of the associations cultuelles. The separation brought some freedom to the French Church, especially in the matter of the selection of its pastors. Pius X, not looking for reprisals, still recognizes the French right of protectorate over Catholics in the East. Some phrases of the Encyclical "Editæ Sæpe", written on the occasion of the centenary of St. Charles, were misinterpreted by Protestants, especially in Germany, and Pius X made a declaration in refutation of them, without belittling the authority of his high office. At present (Dec., 1910) complications are feared in Spain, as, also, separation and persecution in Portugal; Pius X has already taken opportune measures. The new Government of Turkey has sent an ambassador to the Pope. The relations of the Holy See with the republics of Latin America are good. The delegations to Chile and to the Argentine Republic were raised to the rank of internuntiatures, and an Apostolic Delegate was sent to Central America. Naturally, the solicitude of Pius X extends to his own habitation, and he has done a great deal of work of restoration in the Vatican, for example, in the quarters of the cardinal-secretary of State, the new palace for employees, the new picture-gallery, the Specola, etc. Finally, we must not forget his generous charity in public misfortunes: during the great earthquakes of Calabria, he asked for the assistance of Catholics throughout the world, with the result that they contributed, at the time of the last earthquake, nearly 7,000,000 francs, which served to supply the wants of those in need, and to build churches, schools, etc. His charity was proportionately no less on the occasion of the eruption of Vesuvius, and of other disasters outside of Italy (Portugal and Ireland). In few years Pius X has secured great, practical, and lasting results in the interest of Catholic doctrine and discipline, and that in the face of great difficulties of all kinds. Even non-Catholics recognize his apostolic spirit, his strength of character, the precision of his decisions, and his pursuit of a clear and explicit programme. U. BENIGNI Piusverein Piusverein The name given to Catholic associations in various countries of Europe. I. THE PIUS ASSOCIATION OF GERMANY Named after Pius IX, it was founded at Mainz in 1848 by the cathedral canon, Adam Franz Lennig (died 1866), and Professor Caspar Riffel (died 1856), to organize the Catholics of Germany in defence of their religious freedom and civil rights. The platform and by-laws were published in the "Katholik" (Mainz, 1848). The organizers of the association called a congress of the Catholic societies of Germany which met at Mainz, 3-6 October, 1848. At this assembly 38 societies were represented, and all the Catholic associations of Germany founded to protect religious interests were united into the "Catholic Association of Germany". The annual congresses of this association led to other efficient organizations; in 1848 the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the Association of St. Elizabeth; in 1849 the Association of St. Boniface; in 1850 the Society for Christian Art; in 1851 the Catholic Journeymen's Union; these assemblies were the precursors of the "General Congress of the Catholics of Germany" that is held annually. II. THE PIUS ASSOCIATION OF SWITZERLAND This was founded in 1855 by Count Theodore Scherer-Boccard who remained at its head until his death (died 1885). Its aim is to develop and centralize Catholic associational life in Switzerland. It is directed by two central committees, and the general meetings are held nearly every year; in addition, there are also cantonal and district assemblies. Many of the local associations have branches for women. Since 1899 the society was called the "Swiss Catholic Association"; it then contained 225 groups with 35,000 members. On 22 November, 1904, it combined with the "United Societies of Catholic Men and Workingmen" and the "Fédération Romande" to form the "Swiss Catholic Peoples Union". (See the "Yearbook" of the Union, Stans, 1907.) III. THE PIUS ASSOCIATION FOR PROMOTING THE CATHOLIC PRESS OF AUSTRIA Named after Pius X, it was founded at the Fifth Catholic Congress held at Vienna in 1905 after the presentation of a convincing report by the Jesuit, Father Victor Kolb, in order to offset the demoralizing Liberal Daily Press with an equally able Christian Press. This end was to be gained largely by developing the Catholic daily newspapers of Vienna. The president of the association since its founding has been Count Franz Walterskirchen-Walfstal. In January, 1911, the Pius Association included 840 local groups with a membership of more than 63,000, and headquarters at Vienna. The annual fee is one krone (twenty cents). In 1910 the annual income was 126,000 Kr. ($25,200); of this amount 40,000 Kr. ($8000) went to two daily newspapers of Vienna, the "Reichspost" and the "Vaterland"; 25,000 Kr. ($5000) for campaign purposes and associational periodicals; 5000 Kr. ($1000) for the support of Catholic newspaper writers; 27,000 Kr. ($5400) for a press and correspondence bureau. The bureau sends daily, Sundays excepted, the "Piusvereinskorrespondenz", which is six to eight pages in size, to about fifty Christian newspapers. Since 1910 it has also issued a supplement for use in different papers and thus contributes largely to the intellectual and religious development of the Catholic provincial Press in Austria. There are 12 diocesan subsidiary councils, besides an Italian section at Triest, and a Czech section at Prague. The money collected outside of Vienna is partially used for the local Press. Since the founding of the Pius Association there has been a very noticeable development of the Catholic Press of Austria, due largely to writings in behalf of the cause and to the holding of meetings, of which there are about 700 yearly; but the desired aim is still far from being realized. IV. ACADEMIC PIUS ASSOCIATIONS Located in Germany, for promoting religious interests and attachment to the Church among Catholic students and training them both socially and scientifically, were greatly weakened by the Kulturkampf. In Southern Germany they have recently been organized as the "Unio Piana" or "Union of the Academic Pius Associations"; this union has 9 branch associations with about 1300 members, of whom 800 are regular members. Since 1909 the organ of the association has been "Der Akademiker". MAY, Gesch. der Katholikenversammlungen (Freiburg, 1903); PALATINUS, Entstehung der Generalversammlungen (2nd ed. Freiburg, 1894); Jahresberichte des Piusvereins (Vienna, 1910); KROSE, Kirchliches Handbuch, 1907-8, I (Freiburg, 1908), 290 sq.; BALLUT in Etudes religieuses, CXIX (1909), 526-47. KARL HILGENREINER Francisco Pizarro Francisco Pizarro Born in Trujillo, Estremadura, Spain, probably in 1471; died at Lima, Peru, 26 June, 1541. He was the illegitimate son of Gonzalo Pizarro and Francisca González, who paid little attention to his education and he grew up without learning how to read or write. His father was a captain of infantry and had fought in the Neopolitan wars with el Gran Capitán Gonzalo de Córdoba. Filled with enthusiasm at the accunts of the exploits of his countrymen in America, Pizarro set sail (10 November, 1509) with Alonzo de Ojeda from Spain, on the latter's expedition to Urabí, where Ojeda founded the city of San Sebastian, and left it in Pizarro's care when he returned to the ship for provisions. Hardships and the climate having thinned the ranks of his companions, Pizarro sailed to the port of Cartagena. There he joined the fleet of Martin Fernández de Encíso, and later attached himself to the expedition of Nuñez de Balboa, whom he accompanied on his journey across the Isthmus of Panama to discover the Pacific Ocean (29 September, 1513). When Balboa was beheaded by his successor, Pedrarias Dávila, Pizarro followed the fortunes of the latter until 1515 when Dávila sent him to trade with the natives along the Pacific coast. When the capital was transferred to Panama he helped Pedrarias to subjugate the warlike tribes of Veraguas, and in 1520 accompanied Espinosa on his expedition into the territory of the Cacique Urraca, situated in the present Republic of Costa Rica. In 1522 the accounts of the achievements of Hernán Cortés, and the return of Pascual de Andagoya from his expedition to the southern part of Panama, bringing news of the countries situated along the shore of the ocean to the south, fired him with enthusiasm. With the approbation of Pedrarias he formed together with Diego de Almagro, a soldier of fortune who was at that time in Panama, and Hernando de Luque, a Spanish cleric, a company to conquer the lands situated to the south of Panama. Their project seemed so utterly unattainable that the people of Panama called them the "company of lunatics". Having collected the necessary funds Pizarro placed himself at the head of the expedition; Almagro was entrusted with the equipping and provisioning of the ships; and Luque was to remain behind to look after their mutual interests and to keep in Pedrarias's favour so that he might continue to support the enterprise. In November, 1524, Pizarro set sail from Panama with a party of one hundred and fourteen volunteers and four horses, and Almagro was to follow him in a smaller ship just as soon as it could be made ready. The result of the first expedition was disheartening. Pizarro went no further than Punta Quemada, on the coast of what is now Colombia, and having lost many of his men he went to Chicamá, a short distance from Panama. From here he sent his treasurer, with the small quantity of gold which he had obtained, to the governor to give an account of the expedition. Meanwhile Almagro had followed him, going as far as the Rio de San Juan (Cauca, Colombia), and, not finding him, returned to rejoin him at Chicamá. A second request to obtain Pedrarias's permission to recruit volunteers for the expedition was met with hostility, because the governor himself was planning an expedition to Nicaragua. Luque, however, contrived to change his attitude, and the new governor, D. Pedro de los Rios, was from the beginning favourably disposed towards the expedition. On 10 March, 1528, the three partners signed a contract, whereby they agreed to divide equally all the territory that should be conquered and all the gold, silver, and precious stones that should be found. They purchased two ships, and Pizarro and Almagro directed their course to the mouth of the San Juan River, where they separated. Pizarro remained with a portion of the soldiers to explore the mainland; Almagro returned to Panama to get re-enlistments; and the other ship under the command of Ruiz set sail for the south. He went as far as Punta de Pasados, half a degree south of the equator, and after making observations and collecting an abundance of information, returned to Pizarro, who in the meantime, together with his companions, had suffered severely. Shortly afterwards Almagro arrived from Panama, bringing soldiers and abundant provisions. Once more re-enforced they started together taking a southerly route until they reached Tacamez, the extreme south of Columbia. They then decided that Almagro should return to Panama, and Pizarro should remain on the Island del Gallo to await further re-enforcements. The arrival of Almagro and the news of the sufferings of the explorers alarmed Pedro de los Rios, who sent two ships to the Island del Gallo with orders to bring back all the members of the expedition. Pizarro and thirteen of his companions refused to return, and the little party was abandoned on the island. Fearful of being molested by the inhabitants on account of their reduced number, they built a raft and sought refuge on the Island of Gorgona on the coasts of Columbia. Meanwhile Almagro and Luque endeavoured to pacify the governor who at last consented that a ship be sent, but only with a sufficient force to man it, and with positive orders to Pizarro to present himself at Panama within six months. When the ship arrived without reinforcements Pizarro determined, with the aid of a few men that he still had with him, to undertake an expedition southward. Skirting the coast of the present Republic of Ecuador, he directed his course towards the city of Tumbez in the north of what is now Peru. Seeing that the natives were friendly towards him, he continued his voyage as far as Payta, doubled the point of Aguja, and sailed along the coast as far as the point where the city of Trujillo was later founded. He was everywhere well received, for the Spaniards in obedience to his strict orders had refrained from any excesses that might have incurred the enmity of the Indians and endangered the ultimate result of the expedition. Finally after an absence of eighteen months Pizarro returned to Panama. Notwithstanding the gold he brought and the glowing accounts he gave, the governor withdrew his support and permission to continue the explorations. The three partners then determined that Pizarro should go to Spain and lay his plans before Charles V. He landed in Seville in 1528 and was well received by the emperor, then in Toledo, who was won by the account of the proposed expedition, and, 26 June, 1529, signed the memorable agreement (capitulacion), in which the privileges and powers of Pizarro and his associates were set forth. On the former, Charles conferred the order of Knight of St. James, the titles of Adelantado, Governor and Captain General, with absolute authority in all the territories he might discover and subjugate. A government independent of that of Panama was granted to him in perpetuity, extending two hundred leagues to the south of the River Santiago, the boundary betweeen Colombia and Ecuador. He had the privilege of choosing the officers who were to serve under him, of administering justice as chief constable (alguacil), and his orders were revocable only by the Consejo Real. Pizarro agreed to take 250 soldiers and provide the boats and ammunition indispensable for such an expedition. He sailed from Seville 18 January, 1530, taking with him his brothers, Hernando, who was the only legitimate son, Juan, and Gonzalo, all of whom were to play an important part in the history of Peru. Arrived in Panama he had the task of pacifying his two associates who were dissatisfied with the scant attention he had secured for them from the Court. Early in January, 1531, Pizarro set sail from the port of Panama with 3 ships, 180 men, and 27 cavaliers. Almagro and Luque remained behind to procure further assistance and send reinforcements. He landed in the Bay of San Mateo near the mouth of the Santiago River, and started to explore the coast on foot. The three boats were sent back to Panama for reinforcements. The explorers passed by Puerto Viejo and came as far as the city of Tumbez, where they embarked in some Indian rafts and passed over to the Island of Puna in the Gulf of Guayaquil. Here they were hard pressed by the attacks of the islanders, when relief came in the form of two vessels with a hundred men and some horses commanded by Hernando de Soto. Thus reinforced and knowing that the brothers Atahuallpa and Huascar were at war with each other, Pizarro determined to penetrate into the interior of the empire and left Tumbez early in May, 1532. On 15 November, after a long, distressing journey and without opposition from the Indians, he entered the city of Caxamalca (now Caxamarca). Treacherously invited into the camp of the Spaniards, the Indian prince Atahuallpa presented himself accompanied by his bodyguard but unarmed. At a given signal the Spaniards rushed upon the unsuspecting Indians, massacred them in the most horrible manner, and took possession of their chief. Deprived of its leader the great army that was encamped near Caxamalca, not knowing what to do, retreated into the interior. As the price of his release the Inca monarch offered his captives gold enough to fill the room (22 by 17 feet) in which he was held captive. In a few months the promise was fulfilled. Gold to the amount of 4,605,670 ducats (15,000,000 pesos), according to Garcilaso de la Vega, was accumulated and Atahuallpa claimed his freedom. At this juncture Almagro arrived with soldiers to strengthen their position, and naturally insisted that they too should share in the booty. This was agreed to and after the fifth part, the share of the king, had been set apart an adequate division was made of the remainder, a share of $52,000 falling to the lot of each soldier, even those who had come at the end. Notwithstanding Atahuallpa was accused and executed 24 June, 1534. From Caxamalca he passed to the capital of the Incas, while his lieutenants were obtaining possession of all the remaining territory. In order to keep the Indians together Pizarro had Manco Capac, an Inca, crowned king, and on 6 January, 1535, founded the city of Lima. He obliged Pedro de Alvarado, who had come from Guatemala in search of adventure, to return to his own territory, and sent his brother Hernando to Spain to give an account to the Court of the new empire he had united to the Crown. He was well received by the emperor, who conferrerd on Pizarro the title of marquess and extended the limits of his territory seventy leagues further along the southern coast. The title of Adelantado, besides that of Governor of Chile, which, however, had not yet been conquered, was conferred on Diego de Almagro. Luque was no longer living. Almagro at once set about the conquest of Chile, taking with him all those who were willing to follow. Manco Capac was meanwhile trying to foment an uprising in the whole of Peru, actually besieging the cities of Lima and Cuzco. The arrival of Alonso de Alvarado, brother of the companion of Cortés, saved Lima, but Cuzco, where the three brothers of Pizarro were, was only saved by the return of Almagro from his expedition to Chile and his claim that the city of Cuzco was situated in the territory which had been assigned to him in the royal decrees. The Indians were put to flight, Almagro took forcible possession of the city, April, 1537, and made Hernando and Gonzalo prisoners, Juan having died. Troops, however, were hurrying from Lima to the rescue; Almagro was defeated, taken prisoner, and executed, July, 1538. Hernando went to Spain but was not received well at the Court; he was imprisoned until 1560, and died at the age of one hundred almost in dire poverty. Gonzalo launched on his intrepid expedition to explore the Amazon, returning to find that his brother Francisco was no more. The followers of Almagro, offended by the arrogant conduct of Pizarro and his followers after the defeat and execution of Almagro, organized a conspiracy which ended in Pizarro's assassination of the conqueror of Peru in his palace at Lima. Pizarro had four children: a son whose name and the name of his mother are not known, and who died in 1544; Gonzalo by an Indian girl, Inés Huaillas Yupanqui, who was legitimized in 1537 and died when he was fourteen; by the same woman, a daughter, Francisca, who subsequently married after having been legitimized by imperial decree, together with her uncle Hernando Pizarro, 10 October, 1537; and a son, Francisco, by a relative of Atahuallpa, who was never legitimized, and died shortly after reaching Spain. Prescott, History of the Conquest of Peru (London, 1889), Spanish tr. by Icazbalceta (Mexico, 1850); Diccionario enciclopédico hispano-americano, XV (Barcelona, 1894); Icazbalceta, Biografía de Atahualpa, Atahuallpa, Atabaliva, ó Atabalipa (Mexico, 1899); Sancho, Relación de la Conquista del Perú, Italian ed. by Ramusio, Spanish tr. by Icazbalceta (Mexico, 1899). CAMILLUS CRIVELLI St. Placidus St. Placidus St. Placidus, disciple of St. Benedict, the son of the patrician Tertullus, was brought as a child to St. Benedict at Sublaqueum (Subiaco) and dedicated to God as provided for in chapter 69 of St. Benedict's Rule. Here too occurred the incident related by St. Gregory (Dialogues, II, vii) of his rescue from drowning when his fellow monk, Maurus, at St. Benedict's order ran across the surface of the lake below the monastery and drew Placidus safely to shore. It appears certain that he accompanied St. Benedict when, about 529, he removed to Monte Cassino, which was said to have been made over to him by the father of Placidus. Of his later life nothing is known, but in an ancient psalterium at Vallombrosa his name is found in the Litany of the Saints placed among the confessors immediately after those of St. Benedict and St. Maurus; the same occurs in Codex CLV at Subiaco, attributed to the ninth century (see Baumer, "Johannes Mabillon", p. 199, n. 2). There seems now to be no doubt that the "Passio S. Placidi", purporting to be written by one Gordianus, a servant of the saint, on the strength of which he is usually described as abbot and martyr, is really the work of Peter the Deacon, a monk of Monte Cassino in the twelfth century (see Delehaye, op. cit. infra). The writer seems to have begun by confusing St. Placidus with the earlier Placitus, who, with Euticius and thirty companions, was martyred in Sicily under Diocletian, their feast occurring in the earlier martyrologies on 5 October. Having thus made St. Placidus a martyr, he proceeds to account for this by attributing his martyrdom to Saracen invaders from Spain == an utter anachronism in the sixth century but quite a possible blunder if the "Acta" were composed after the Moslem invasions of Sicily. The whole question is discussed by the Bollandists (infra). Acta SS., III Oct. (Brussels, 1770), 65-147; MABILLON, Acta SS. O.S.B., I (Paris, 1668), 45; IDEM, Annales O.S.B., I (Paris, 1703); IDEM, Iter italicum (Paris, 1687), 125; GREGORY THE GREAT, Dial., II, iii, v, vii, in P. L., LXV, 140, 144, 146; PIRRI, Sicilia sacra (Palermo, 1733), 359, 379, 432, 1128; ABBATISSA, Vita di S. Placido (Messina, 1654); AVO, Vita S. Placidi (Venice, 1583); Compendio della vita di s. Placido (Monte Cassino, 1895); DELEHAYE, Legends of the Saints, tr. CRAWFORD (London, 1907), 72, 106. G. ROGER HUDLESTON Plagues of Egypt Plagues of Egypt Ten calamities inflicted on the Egyptians to overcome Pharao's obstinacy and force him to let the Israelites to leave Egypt (Ex., vii, 8-xii, 30; Ps. lxxvii, 42-51; civ, 26-36). Moses's notification of God's will to Pharao only produced an aggravation of the condition of the Israelites, and the wonder of changing Aaron's rod into a serpent, which was wrought in proof of Moses's Divine mission, made no impression, as it was imitated by the Egyptian magicians (Ex., v; vii, 8-13). A series of afflictions, culminating in the destruction of all the first-born of Egypt, was required before Pharao yielded. Of the ten plagues seven were produced through the agency of Moses an Aaron or of Moses alone, and three, namely the fourth, fifth, and tenth, by the direct action of God Himself. The interval of time within which they occurred cannot be stated with certainty. The last four must have followed in close succession between the beginning of March and the first days of April. For when the hail fell barley was in the ear and flax in bud, which in Lower Egypt happens about March, and the Israelites left on the 14th of Nisan, which falls in the latter part of March or the early part of April. The first six seem also to have succeeded one another at short intervals, but the interval, if any, between them and the last four is uncertain. The Scriptural account produces the impression that the ten plagues were a series of blows in quick succession, and this is what the case would seem to have required. The scene of the interviews of Moses and Aaron with Pharao was Tanis or Soan in Lower Egypt (Ps. lxxvii, 12, 43). In the first plague, the water of the river and of all the canals and pools of Egypt was turned to blood and became corrupted, so that the Egyptians could not drink it, and even the fishes died (Ex., vii, 14-25). Commentators are divided as to whether the water was really changed into blood, or whether only a phenomenon was produced similar to the red discoloration of the Nile during its annual rise, which gave the water the appearance of blood. The latter view is now commonly accepted. It should be noted, however, that the red discoloration is not usual in Lower Egypt, and that, when so discoloured, the water is not unfit to drink, though it is during the first, or green, stage of the rise. Besides, the change did not take place during the inundation (cf. Ex., vii, 15). The second plague came seven days later. Aaron stretched his hand upon the waters and there appeared an immense number of frogs, which covered the land and penetrated into the land to the great discomfort of the inhabitants. Pharao now promised to let the Israelites go to sacrifice in the desert if the frogs were removed, but broke his promise when this was done. The third plague consisted of swarms of gnats which tormented man and beast. The magicians who in some way had imitated the first two wonders could not imitate this, and were forced to exclaim "This is the finger of God". The fourth was a pest of flies. Pharao now agreed to allow the Israelites a three days' journey into the desert, but when at the prayer of Moses the flies were taken away, he failed to keep his promise. The fifth was a murrain or cattle-pest, which killed the beasts of the Egyptians, while sparing those of the Israelites. The sixth consisted in boils which broke out both on men and beasts. The seventh was a fearful hailstorm. "The hail destroyed through all the land of Egypt all things that were in the field, both man and beast: and the hail smote every herb of the field, and it broke every tree of the country. Only in the land of Gessen, where the children of Israel were, the hail fell not." The frightened king again promised and again became obstinate when the storm was stopped. At the threat of an unheard of plague of locusts (the eighth) the servants of Pharao interceded with him and he consented to let the men go, but refused to grant more. Moses therefore stretched forth his rod, and a south wind brought innumerable locusts which devoured what the hailstorm had left. The ninth plague was a horrible darkness which for three days covered all Egypt except the land of Gessen. The immediate cause of this plague was probably the hamsin, a south or south-west wind charged with sand and dust, which blows about the spring equinox and at times produces darkness rivalling that of the worst London fogs. As Pharao, though willing to allow the departure, insisted that the flocks should be left behind, the final and most painful blow (the tenth) was struck == the destruction in one night of all the first-born of Egypt. As the plagues of Egypt find parallels in natural phenomena of the country, many consider them as merely natural occurrences. The last evidently does not admit of a natural explanation, since a pestilence does not select its victims according to method. The others, howsoever natural they may be at times, must in this instance be considered miraculous by reason of the manner in which they were produced. They belong to the class of miracles which the theologians call preternatural. For not to mention that they were of extraordinary intensity, and that the first occurred at an unusual time and place and with unusual effects, they happened at the exact time and in the exact manner predicted. Most of them were produced at Moses's command, and ceased at his prayer, in one case at the time set by Pharao himself. Purely natural phenomena, it is clear, do not occur under such conditions. Moreover, the ordinary phenomena, which were well known to the Egyptians, would not have produced such a deep impression on Pharao and his court. VIGOUROUX, La Bible et les découv. mod., II (Paris, 1889), 285 sqq.; HUMMELAUER, Comment. in Exod. et Levit. (Paris, 1897), 83 sqq.; SELBST, Handbuch zur biblisch. Geschichte (Freiburg, 1910), 405 sqq. F. BECHTEL Plain Chant Plain Chant By plain chant we understand the church music of the early Middle Ages, before the advent of polyphony. Having grown up gradually in the service of Christian worship, it remained the exclusive music of the Church till the ninth century, when polyphony made its first modest appearance. For centuries again it held a place of honour, being, on the one hand, cultivated side by side with the new music, and serving, on the other hand, as the foundation on which its rival was built. By the time vocal polyphony reached its culminating point, in the sixteenth century, plain chant had lost greatly in the estimation of men, and it was more and more neglected during the following centuries. But all along the Church officially looked upon it as her own music, and as particularly suited for her services, and at last, in our own days, a revival has come which seems destined to restore plain chant to its ancient position of glory. The name, cantus planus, was first used by theorists of the twelfth or thirteenth century to distinguish the old music from the musica mensurata or mensurabilis, music using notes of different time value in strict mathematical proportion, which began to be developed about that time. The earliest name we meet is cantilena romana (the Roman chant), probably used to designate one form of the chant having its origin in Rome from others, such as the Ambrosian chant (see GREGORIAN CHANT). It is also commonly called Gregorian chant, being attributed in some way to St. Gregory I. HISTORY Although there is not much known about the church music of the first three centuries, and although it is clear that the time of the persecutions was not favourable to a development of solemn Liturgy, there are plenty of allusions in the writings of contemporary authors to show that the early Christians used to sing both in private and when assembled for public worship. We also know that they not only took their texts from the psalms and canticles of the Bible, but also composed new things. The latter were generally called hymns, whether they were in imitation of the Hebrew or of the classical Greek poetic forms. There seem to have been from the beginning, or at least very early, two forms of singing, the responsorial and the antiphonal. The responsorial was solo singing in which the congregation joined with a kind of refrain. The antiphonal consisted in the alternation of two choirs. It is probable that even in this early period the two methods caused that differentiation in the style of musical composition which we observe throughout the later history of plain chant, the choral compositions being of a simple kind, the solo compositions more elaborate, using a more extended compass of melodies and longer groups of notes on single syllables. One thing stands out very clearly in this period, namely, the exclusion of musical instruments from Christian worship. The main reason for this exclusion was perhaps the associations of musical instruments arising from their pagan use. A similar reason may have militated in the West, at least, against metrical hymns, for we learn that St. Ambrose was the first to introduce these into public worship in Western churches. In Rome they do not seem to have been admitted before the twelfth century. (See, however, an article by Max Springer in "Gregorianische Rundschau", Graz, 1910, nos. 5 and 6.) In the fourth century church music developed considerably, particularly in the monasteries of Syria and Egypt. Here there seems to have been introduced about this time what is now generally called antiphon, i. e., a short melodic composition sung in connexion with the antiphonal rendering of a psalm. This antiphon, it seems, was repeated after every verse of the psalm, the two choir sides uniting in it. In the Western Church where formerly the responsorial method seems to have been used alone, the antiphonal method was introduced by St. Ambrose. He first used it in Milan in 386, and it was adopted soon afterwards in nearly all the Western churches. Another importation from the Eastern to the Western Church in this century was the Alleluia chant. This was a peculiar kind of responsorial singing in which an Alleluia formed the responsorium or refrain. This Alleluia, which from the beginning appears to have been a long, melismatic composition, was heard by St. Jerome in Bethlehem, and at his instance was adopted in Rome by Pope Damasus (368-84). At first its use there appears to have been confined to Easter Sunday, but soon it was extended to the whole of Paschal time, and eventually, by St. Gregory, to all the year excepting the period of Septuagesima. In the fifth century antiphony was adopted for the Mass, some psalms being sung antiphonally at the beginning of the Mass, during the oblations, and during the distribution of Holy Communion. Thus all the types of the choral chants had been established and from that time forward there was a continuous development, which reached something like finality in the time of St. Gregory the Great. During this period of development some important changes took place. One of these was the shortening of the Gradual. This was originally a psalm sung responsorially. It had a place in the Mass from the very beginning. The alternation of readings from scripture with responsorial singing is one of the fundamental features of the Liturgy. As we have the responses after the lessons of Matins, so we find the Gradual responses after the lessons of Mass, during the singing of which all sat down and listened. They were thus distinguished from those Mass chants that merely accompanied other functions. As the refrain was originally sung by the people, it must have been of a simple kind. But it appears that in the second half of the fifth century, or, at latest, in the first half of the sixth century, the refrain was taken over by the schola, the body of trained singers. Hand in hand with this went a greater elaboration of the melody, both of the psalm verses and of the refrain itself, probably in imitation of the Alleluia. This elaboration then brought about a shortening of the text, until, by the middle of the sixth century, we have only one verse left. There remained, however, the repetition of the response proper after the verse. This repetition gradually ceased only from the twelfth century forward, until its omission was sanctioned generally for the Roman usage by the Missal of the Council of Trent. The repetition of the refrain is maintained in the Alleluia chant, except when a second Alleluia chant follows, from the Saturday after Easter to the end of Paschal time. The Tract, which takes the place of the Alleluia chant during the period of Septuagesima, has presented some difficulty to liturgists. Prof. Wagner (Introduction to the Gregorian Melodies, i, 78, 86) holds that the name is a translation of the Greek term eìrmós, which means a melodic type to be applied to several texts, and he thinks that the Tracts are really Graduals of the older form, before the melody was made more elaborate and the text shortened. The Tracts, then, would represent the form in which the Gradual verses were sung in the fourth and fifth centuries. Of the antiphonal Mass chants the Introit and Communion retained their form till the eighth century, when the psalm began to be shortened. Nowadays the Introit has only one verse, usually the first of the psalm, and the Doxology, after which the Antiphon is repeated. The Communion has lost psalm and repetition completely, only the requiem Mass preserving a trace of the original custom. But the Offertory underwent a considerable change before St. Gregory; the psalm verses, instead of being sung antiphonally by the choir, were given over to the soloist and accordingly received rich melodic treatment like the Gradual verses. The antiphon itself also participated to some extent in this melodic enrichment. The Offertory verses were united in the late Middle Ages, and now only the Offertory of the requiem Mass shows one verse with a partial repetition of the antiphon. After the time of St. Gregory musical composition suddenly began to flag. For the new feasts that were introduced, either existing chants were adopted or new texts were fitted with existing melodies. Only about twenty-four new melodies appear to have been composed in the seventh century; at least we cannot prove that they existed before the year 600. After the seventh century, composition of the class of chants we have discussed ceased completely, with the exception of some Alleluias which did not gain general acceptance till the fifteenth century, when a new Alleluia was composed for the Visitation and some new chants for the Mass of the Holy Name (see "The Sarum Gradual and the Gregorian Antiphonale Missarum" by W. H. Frere, London, 1895, pp. 20, 30). It was different, however, with another class of Mass chants comprised under the name of "Ordinarium Missæ". Of these the Kyrie, Gloria, and Sanctus were in the Gregorian Liturgy, and are of very ancient origin. The Agnus Dei appears to have been instituted by Sergius I (687- 701) and the Credo appears in the Roman Liturgy about the year 800, but only to diappear again, until it was finally adopted for special occasions by Benedict VIII (1012-24). All these chants, however, were originally assigned, not to the schola, but to the clergy and people. Accordingly their melodies were very simple, as those of the Credo are still. Later on they were assigned to the choir, and then the singers began to compose more elaborate melodies. The chants now found in our books assigned to Feria may be taken as the older forms. Two new forms of Mass music were added in the ninth century, the Sequences and the Tropes or Proses. Both had their origin in St. Gall. Notker gave rise to the Sequences, which were originally meant to supply words for the longissimæ melodiæ sung on the final syllable of the Alleluia. These "very long melodies" do not seem to have been the melismata which we find in the Gregorian Chant, and which in St. Gall were not longer than elsewhere, but special melodies probably imported about that time from Greece (Wagner, op. cit., I, 222). Later on new melodies were invented for the Sequences. What Notker did for the Alleluia, his contemporary Tuotilo did for other chants fo the Mass, especially the Kyrie, which by this time had got some elaborate melodies. The Kyrie melodies were, in the subsequent centuries, generally known by the initial words of the Tropes composed for them, and this practice has been adopted in the new Vatican edition of the "Kyriale". Sequences and Tropes became soon the favourite forms of expression of medieval piety, and innumerable compositions of ther kind are to be met with in the medieval service books, until the Missal of the Council of Trent reduced the Sequences to four (a fifth, the Stabat Mater, being added in 1727) and abolished the Tropes altogether. As regards the Office, Gevaert (La Mélopée Antique) holds that one whole class of antiphons, namely those taken from the "Gesta Martyrum", belong to the seventh century. But he points out also that no new melodic type is found amongst them. So here again we find the ceasing of melodic invention after St. Gregory. The responses of the Office received many changes and additions after St. Gregory, especially in Gaul about the ninth century, when the old Roman method of repeating the whole response proper after the verses was replaced by a repetition of merely the second half of the response. This Gallican method eventually found its way into the Roman use and is the common one now. But as the changes affected only the verses, which have fixed formulæ easily applied to different texts, the musical question was not much touched. St. Gregory compiled the Liturgy and the music for the local Roman use. He had no idea of extending it to the other Churches, but the authority of his name and of the Roman See, as well as the intrinsic value of the work itself, caused his Liturgy and chant to be adopted gradually by practically the whole Western Church. During his own lifetime they were introduced into England and from there, by the early missionaries, into Germany (Wagner, "Einführung", II, p. 88). They conquered Gaul mainly through the efforts of Pepin and Charlemagne, and about the same time they began to make their way into Northern Italy, where the Milanese, or Ambrosian, Liturgy had a firm hold, and into Spain, although it took centuries before they became universal in these regions. While the schola founded by St. Gregory kept the tradition pure in Rome, they also sent out singers to foreign parts from time to time to check the tradition there, and copies of the authentic choir books kept in Rome helped to secure uniformity of the melodies. Thus it came about that the MS. in neumatic notation (see Neum) from the ninth century forward, and those in staff notation from the eleventh to the fourteenth century, present a wonderful uniformity. Only a few slight changes seem to have been introduced. The most important of these was the change of the reciting note of the 3rd and 8th modes from b to c, which seems to have taken place in the ninth century. A few other slight changes are due to the notions of theorists during the ninth and following centuries. These notions included two things: (1) the tone system, which comprised a double octave of natural tones, from A to a' with G added below, and allowing only one chromatic note, namely b flat instead of the second b; and (2) eight modes theory. As some of the Gregorian melodies did not well fit in with this theoretic system, exhibiting, if ranged according to the mode theory, other chromatic notes, such as e flat, f sharp, and a lower B flat, some theorists declared them to be wrong, and advocated their emendation. Fortunately the singers, and the scribes who noted the traditional melodies in staff notation, did not all share this view. But the difficulties of expressing the melodies in the accepted tone system, with b flat as the only chromatic note, sometimes forced them to adopt curious expedients and slight changes. But as the scribes did not all resort to the same method, their differences enable us, as a rule, to restore the original version. Another slgiht change regards some melodic ornaments entailing tone steps smaller than a semi-tone. The older chant contained a good number of these, especially in the more elaborate melodies. In the staff notation, which was based essentially on a diatonic system, these ornamental notes could not be expressed, and, for the small step, either a semitone or a repetition of the same note had to be substituted. Simultaneously these non-diatonic intervals must have disappeared from the practical rendering, but the transition was so gradual that nobody seems to have been conscious of a change, for no writer alludes to it. Wagner (op. cit., II, passim), who holds that these ornaments are of Oriental origin though they formed a genuine part of the sixth-century melodies, sees in their disappearance the complete latinization of the plain chant. A rather serious, though fortunately a singular interference of theory with tradition is found in the form of the chant the Cistercians arranged for themselves in the twelfth century (Wagner, op. cit., II, p. 286). St. Bernard, who had been deputed to secure uniform books for the order, took as his adviser one Guido, Abbot of Cherlieu, a man of very strong theoretical views. One of the things to which he held firmly was the rule that the compass of a melody should not exceed the octave laid down for each mode by more than one note above and below. This rule is broken by many Gregorian melodies. But Guido had no scruple in applying the pruning knife, and sixty-three Graduals and a few other melodies had to undergo considerable alteration. Another systematic change affected the Alleluia verse. The long melisma regularly found on the final syllable of this verse was considered extravagant, and was shortened considerably. Similarly a few repetitions of melodic phrases in a melismatic group were cut out, and finally the idea that the fundamental note of the mode should begin and end every piece caused a few changes in some intonations and in the endings of the Introit psalmody. Less violent changes are found in the chant of the Dominicans, fixed in the thirteenth century (Wagner, op. cit., p. 305). The main variations from the general tradition are the shortening of the melisma on the final syllable of the Alleluia verse and the omission of the repetition of some melodic phrases. From the fourteenth century forward the tradition begins to go down. The growing interest taken in polyphony caused the plain chant to be neglected. The books were written carelessly; the forms of the neums, so important for the rhythm, began to be disregarded, and shortenings of melismata became more general. No radical changes, however, are found until we come to the end of the sixteenth century. The reform of Missal and Breviary, intiated by the Council of Trent, gave rise to renewed attention to the liturgical chant. But as the understanding of its peculiar language had disappeared, the results were disastrous. Palestrina was one of the men who tried their hands, but he did not carry his work through (see P. R. Molitor, "Die Nach-Tridentinische Choral Reform", 2 vols., Leipzig, 1901-2). Early in the seventeenth century, however, Raimondi, the head of the Medicean printing establishment, took up again the idea of publishing a new Gradual. He commissioned two musicians of name, Felice Anerio and Francesco Suriano, to revise the melodies. This they did in an incredibly short time, less than a year, and with a similarly incredible recklessness, and in 1614 and 1615 the Medicean Gradual appeared. This book has considerable importance, because in the second half of the nineteenth century, the Congregation of Rites, believing it to contain the true chant of St. Gregory, had it republished as the official chant book of the Church, which position it held from 1870 to 1904. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries various other attempts were made to reform the Gregorian chant. They were well intentioned, no doubt, but only emphasized the downward course things were taking. The practice of singing became worse and worse, and what had been the glory of centuries fell into general contempt (see P. R. Molitor, "Reform-Choral", Freiburg, 1901). From the beginning of the nineteenth century dates a revival of the interest taken in plain chant. Men began to study the question seriously, and while some saw salvation in further "reforms", others insisted on a return to the past. It took a whole century to bring about a complete restoration. France has the honour of having done the principal work in this great undertaking (see P. R. Molitor, "Restauration des Gregorianischen Chorales im 19. Jahrhundert" in "Historisch- politische Blätter", CXXXV, nos. 9-11). One of the bet attempts was a Gradual edited about 1851 by a commission for the Diocese of Reims and Cambrai, and published by Lecoffre. Being founded on limited critical material, it was not perfect; but the worst feature was that the editors had not the courage to go the whole way. The final solution of the difficult question was to come from the Benedictine monastery of Solesmes. Guéranger, the restorer of the Liturgy, also conceived the idea of restoring the liturgical chant. About 1860 he ordered two of his monks, Dom Jausions and Dom Pothier, to make a thorough examination of the codices and to compile a Gradual for the monastery. After twelve years of close work, the Gradual was in the main completed, but another eleven years elapsed before Dom Pothier, who on the death of Dom Jausions had become sole editor, published his "Liber Gradualis". It was the first attempt to return absolutely to the version of the MSS., and though capable of improvements in details solved the question substantially. This return to the version of the MSS. was illustrated happily by the adoption of the note forms of the thirteenth century, which show clearly the groupings of the neums so important for the rhythm. Since that date the work of investigating the MSS. was continued by the Solesmes monks, who formed a regular school of critical research under Dom Mocquereau, Dom Pothier's successor. A most valuable outcome of their studies is the "Paléographie Musicale", which has appeared, since 1889, in quarterly volumes, giving photographic reproductions of the principal MSS. of plain chant, together with scientific dissertations on the subject. In 1903 they published the "Liber Usualis", an extract from the Gradual and antiphonary, in which they embodied some melodic improvements and valuable rhythmical directions. A new epoch in the history of plain chant was inaugurated by Pius X. By his Motu Proprio on church music (22 Nov., 1903) he ordered the return to the traditional chant of the Church and accordingly the Congregation of Rites, by a decree of 8 Jan., 1904, withdrawing the former decrees in favour of the Ratisbon (Medicean) edition, commanded that the traditional form of plain chant be introduced into all churches as soon as possible. In order to facilitate this introduction, Pius X, by a Motu Proprio of 25 April, 1904, established a commission to prepare an edition of plain chant which was to be brought out by the Vatican printing press and which all publishers should get permission to reprint. Unfortunately differences of opinion arose between the majority of the members of the commission, including the Solesmes Benedictines, and its president, Dom Joseph Pothier, with the result that the pope gave the whole control of the work to Dom Pothier. The consequence was that magnificent MS. material which the Solesmes monks, expelled from France, had accumulated in their new home on the Isle of Wight, first at Appuldurcombe afterwards at Quarr Abbey, remained unused. The Vatican edition, however, though it is not all that modern scholarship could have made it, is a great improvement on Dom Pothier's earlier editions and represents fairly well the reading of the best MSS. TONE SYSTEM AND MODES The theory of the plain chant tone system and modes is as yet somewhat obscure. We have already remarked that the current medieval theory laid down for the tone system a heptatonic diatonic scale of about two octaves with the addition of b flat in the higher octave. In this system four notes, d, e, f, and g, were taken as fundamental notes (tonics) of modes. Each of these modes was subdivided according to the compass, one class, called authentic, having the normal compass, from the fundamental note to the octave, the other, called plagal, from a fourth below the fundamental note to a fifth above. Thus there result eight modes. These, of course, are to be understood as differing not in absolute pitch, as their theoretical demonstration and also the notation might suggest, but in their internal construction. The notation, therefore, refers merely to relative pitch, as does, e. g., the tonic sol-fa notation. Not being hampered by instrumental accompaniment, singers and scribes did not bother about a system of transposition, which in ancient Greek music, for instance, was felt necessary at an early period. The theoretical distinction between authentic and plagal modes is not borne out by an analysis of the existing melodies and thier traditional classification (see Fr. Krasuski, "Ueber den Ambitus der gregorianischen Messgesänge", Freiburg, 1903). Melodies of the fourth mode having a constant b flat fall in badly with the theoretic conception of a fourth mode having b natural as its normal note, and some antiphon melodies of that mode, although they use no b flat but have a as their highest note, e. g., the Easter Sunday Introit, are out of joint with the psalmody of that mode. It would, therefore, seem certain that the eight mode theory was, as a ready made system, imposed on the existing stock of plain chant melodies. Historically the first mention of the theory occurs in the writings of Alcuin (d. 804), but the "Paléographie Musicale" (IV, p. 204) points out that the existence of cadences in the Introit psalmody based on the literary cursus planus tends to show that an eight mode theory was current already in St. Gregory's time. From the tenth century forward the four modes are also known by the Greek terms, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, and Mixolydian, the plagals being indicated by the prefix Hypo. But in the ancient Greek theory these names were applied to the scales e-e, d-d, c-c, b-b respectively. The transformation of the theory seems to have come to pass, by a complicated and somewhat obscure process, in Byzantine music (see Riemann, "Handbuch der Musikgeschichte", I, §31). The growth of the melodies themselves may have taken place partly on the basis of Hebrew (Syrian) elements, partly under the influence of the varying Greek or Byzantine theories. RHYTHM Practically, the most important question of plain chant theory is that of the rhythm. Here again opinions are divided. The so-called equalists or oratorists hold that the rhythm of plain chant is the rhythm of ordinary prose Latin; that the time value of all the notes is the same except in as far as their connexion with the different syllables makes slight differences. They hold, however, the prolongation of final notes, mora ultimæ vocis, not only at the end of sentences and phrases but also at the minor divisions of neum groups on one syllable. In the Vatican edition the latter are indicated by vacant spaces after the notes. The measuralists, on the other hand, with Dechevrens as their principal representative, hold that the notes of plain chant are subject to strict measurement. They distinguish three values corresponding to the modern quavers, crotchets, and minims. They have in their favour numerous expressions of medieval theorists and the manifold rhythmical indications in the MSS., especially those of the St. Gall School (see Neum). But their rhythmical translations of the MS. readings do not give a satisfactory result, which they admit themselves by modifying them for practical purposes. Moreover, their interpretation of the MS. indications does not seem correct, as has been shown by Baralli in the "Rassegna Gregoriana", 1905-8. We may mention here also the theory of Riemann (Handbuch der Musikgeschichte, I, viii), who holds that plain chant has a regular rhythm based on the accents of the texts and forming two-bar phrases of four accents. He transcribes the antiphon "Apud Dominum" in this way: 12147ax.gif This looks quite plausible. But he has to admit that this antiphon suits his purposes particularly, and when he comes to more complicated pieces the result is altogether impossible, and for the long final neumata of Graduals he has even to suppose that they were sung on an added Alleluia, a supposition which has no historical foundation. Possibly the melodies of Office antiphons, as they came from Syria, had originally some such rhythm, as Riemann states. But in the process of adaptation to various Latin texts and under the influence of psalmodic singing they must have lost it at an early period. A kind of intermediate position, between the oratorists and the mensuralists is taken up by the school of Dom Mocquereau. With the mensuralists they state various time values ranging from the normal duration of the short note, which is that of a syllable in ordinary recitation, to the doubling of that duration. Their system is based on the agreement of the rhythmical indications in the MSS. of St. Gall and Metz, and recently Dom Beyssac has pointed out a third class of rhythmical notation, which he calls that of Chartres ("Revue Grégorienne", 1911, no. 1). Moreover, they find their theories supported by certain proceedings in a large number of other MSS., as has been shown in the case of the "Quilisma" by Dom Mocquereau in the "Rassegna Gregoriana", 1906, nos. 6-7. Their general theory of rhythm, according to which it consists in the succession of arsis and thesis, i. e., one part leading forward and a second part marking a point of arrival and of provisional or final rest, is substantially the same as Riemann's (see his "System der musikalischen Rhythmik und Metrik", Leipzig, 1903), and is becoming more and more accepted. But their special feature, which consists in placing the word accent by preference on the arsis, has not found much favour with musicians generally. FORMS Plain chant has a large variety of forms produced by the different purposes of the pieces and by the varying conditions of rendering. A main distinction is that between responsorial and antiphonal chants. The responsorial are primarily solo chants and hence elaborate and difficult; the antiphonal are choral or congregational chants and hence simple and easy. Responsorial are the Graduals, Alleluia verses, and Tracts of the Mass, and the rsponses of the Office antiphons and their psalmody. The Mass antiphons, especially the Introit and Communion, are a kind of idealized antiphon type, preserving the general simplicity of antiphons, but being slightly more elaborated in accordance with their being assigned from the beginning to a trained body of singers. The Offertories approach more closely to the responsorial style, which is accounted for by the fact that their verses were at an early period assigned to soloists, as explained above. Another distinction is that between psalmodic and what we may call hymnodic melodies. The psalmody is founded on the nature of the Hebrew poetry, the psalm form, and is characterized by recitation on a unison with the addition of melodic formulæ at the beginning and at the end of each member of a psalm verse. This type is most clearly recognized in the Office psalm tones, where only the melodic formula at the beginning of the second part of the verse is wanting. A slightly more ornamental form is found in the Introit psalmody, and a yet richer form in the verses of the Office responses. But the form can also still be recognized in the responsorial forms of the Mass and the body of the Office responses (see Pal. Mus., III). Of a psalmodic nature are various older chants, such as the tones for the prayers, the Preface, some of the earlier compositions of the Ordinary of the Mass, etc. The hymnodic chants, on the other hand, show a free development of melody; though there may be occasionally a little recitation on a monotone, it is not employed methodically. They are more like hymn tunes or folk songs. This style is used for the antiphons, both of the Office and of the Mass. Some of these show pretty regular melodic phrases, often four in number, corresponding like the lines of a hymn stanza, as, e. g. the "Apud Dominum" quoted above. But oftentimes the correspondence of the melodic phrases, which is always of great importance, is of a freer kind. A marked feature in plain chant is the use of the same melody for various texts. This is quite typical for the ordinary psalmody in which the same formula, the "psalm tone", is used for all the verses of a psalm, just as in a hymn or a folk song the same melody is used for the various stanzas. But it is also used for the more complicated psalmodic forms. Graduals, Tracts, etc., though oftentimes with considerable liberty. Again we find it in the case of the Office antiphons. In all these cases great art is shown in adapting the melodic type to the rhythmical structure of the new texts, and oftentimes it can be observed that care is taken to bring out the sentiments of the words. On the other hand it seems that for the Mass antiphons each text had originally its own melody. The present Gradual, indeed, shows some instances where a melody of one Mass antiphon has been adapted to another of the same kind, but they are all of comparatively late date (seventh century and after). Among the earliest examples are the Offertory, "Posuisti" (Common of a Martyr Non-Pontiff), taken from the Offertory of Easter Monday, "Angelus Domini", and the Introit, "Salve sancta Parens", modelled on "Ecce advenit" of the Epiphany. The adaptation of a melodic type to different texts seems to have been a characteristic feature of antique composition, which looked primarily for beauty of form and paid less attention to the distinctive representation of sentiment. In the Mass antiphons, therefore, we may, in a sense, see the birth of modern music, which aims at individual expression. AESTHETIC VALUE AND LITURGICAL FITNESS There is little need to insist on the æsthetic beauty of plain chant. Melodies, that have outlived a thousand years and are at the present day attracting the attention of so many artists and scholars, need no apology. It must be kept in mind, of course, that since the language of plain chant is somewhat remote from the musical language of today, some little familiarity with its idiom is required to appreciate its beauty. Its tonality, its rhythm, as it is generally understood, the artistic reserve of its utterance, all cause some difficulty and demand a willing ear. Again it must be insisted that an adequate performance is necessary to reveal the beauty of plain chant. Here, however, a great difference of standard is required for the various classes of melodies. While the simplest forms are quite fit for congregational use, and forms like the Introits and Communions are within the range of average choirs, the most elaborate forms, like the Graduals, require for their adequate performance highly trained choirs, and soloists that are artists. As to the liturgical fitness of plain chant it may be said without hesitation that no other kind of music can rival it. Having grown up with the Liturgy itself and having influenced its development to a large extent, it is most suitable for its requirements. The general expression of the Gregorian melodies is in an eminent degree that of liturgical prayer. Its very remoteness from modern musical language is perhaps an additional element to make the chant suitable for the purpose of religious music, which above all things should be separated from all mundane associations. Then the various forms of plain chant are all particularly appropriate to their several objects. For the singing of the psalms in the Office, for instance, no other art form yet invented can be compared with the Gregorian tones. The Falsi Bordoni of the sixteenth century are doubtless very fine, but their continuous use would soon become tedious, while the Anglican chants are but a poor substitute for the everlasting vigour of the plain chant formulæ. No attempt even has been made to supply a substitute for the antiphons that accompany this singing of the psalms. At the Mass, the Ordinary, even in the most elaborate forms of the later Middle Ages, reflects the character of congregational singing. The Introit, Offertory, and Communion are each wonderfully adapted to the particular ceremonies they accompany, and the Graduals display the splendour of their elaborate art at the time when all are expected to listen, and no ceremony interferes with the full effect of the music. The revival of religious life about the middle of the nineteenth century gave the impetus for a renewed cultivation of plain chant. The extended use and perfected rendering of plain chant, so ardently desired by Pope Pius X, will in its turn not only raise the level of religious music, and enhance the dignity of Divine worship, but also intensify the spiritual life of the Christian community. Wagner, Einführung in die gregorianischen Melodien (Leipzig, 1911), first vol. also in English: Introduction to the Gregorian Melodies (London); GastouÉ, Les origines du chant romain (Paris, 1907);Riemann, Handbguch der Musikgeschichte, I (Leipzig, 1905); Weinmann, History of Church Music (Ratisbon, 1910); MÖhler and Gates, Compendium der katholischen Kirchenmusik (Ravensburg, 1909); Jacobsthal, Die chromatische Alteration in liturgischen Gesang der abendländischen Kirche (Berlin, 1897); Nikel, Geschichte der katholischen Kirchenmusik, I (Breslau, 1908); Leitner, Der gottesdienstliche Volksgesang im jüdischen u. christlichen Altertum (Freiburg, 1906); Bewerunge, The Vatican Edition of Plain Chant in Irish Ecclesiastical Record (Jan., May, and Nov., 1907); Mocquerou, Le nombre musical grégorien, I (Tournai, 1908); Dechevrens, Etudes de science musicale 93 vols., 1898); Benedictines of Stanbrook, A Grammar of Plainsong (Worcester, 1905); Pothier, Les mélodies grégoriennes (Tournai, 1880); Johner, Neue Schule des gregorianischen Choralgesanges (Ratisbon, 1911); Kienle, Choralschule (Freiburg, 1890); Wagner, Elemente des gregorianischen Gesanges (Ratisbon, 1909); Abert, Die Musikanschauung des Mittelalters (Halle, 1905). H. BEWERUNGE Henry Beaufort Plantaganet Henry Beaufort Plantagenet Cardinal, Bishop of Winchester, born c. 1377; died at Westminster, 11 April, 1447. He was the second illegitimate son of John of Gaunt, and Katherine Swynford, later legitimized by Richard II (1397). After his ordination he received much preferment, becoming successively dean of Wells (1397), Bishop of Lincoln (1398), chancellor of Oxford University (1399), chancellor of England (1403-4), and Bishop of Winchester (1404). He was much in favour with Henry Prince of Wales, and on his accession as Henry V, Beaufort again became chancellor (1413). He attended the Council of Constance (1417), and it was due to him that the Emperor Sigismund in alliance with Henry V withdrew his opposition to the plan of electing a new pope before measures for Church reform had been taken. This election ended the unhappy Western Schism. The new pope, Martin V, created Beaufort a cardinal. On Henry's death he was left guardian of the infant Henry VI and again acted as chancellor (1424-26). He was created cardinal-priest of St. Eusebius in 1426, and was employed as papal legate in Germany, Hungary, and Bohemia, where he assisted the pope in the Hussite War. Employed in French affairs in 1430-31, he crowned Henry, as King of France, in Paris (1431). The following year he defeated the Duke of Gloucester's effort to deprive him of his see on the ground that a cardinal could not hold an English bishopric. When war broke out with France he assisted the war-party with large financial advances. He completed the building of Winchester cathedral. where he is buried. Radford, Henry Beaufort, bishop, chancellor, cardinal (London, 1908); Lingard, History of England, IV (London 1883); Gregorovius, History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, Hamilton's tr. (London, 1894-1900); Creighton, History of the Papacy during the Reformation (London, 1882-97); Caley in Archaeologia (1826), XXI, 34; (1852), XXXIV, 44; Beaurepaire in Prec. trav. acad. Rouen (Rouen, 1888-90); Hunt in Dict. Nat. Biog., with reference to contemporary sources; s. v. Beaufort. EDWIN BURTON Christophe Plantin Christophe Plantin Book-binder and publisher of Antwerp, b. 1514, at or near Tours (France); d. 1 July, 1589, at Antwerp. The son of a servant, he learned the art of book-binding and printing (1535-40) with the prototypographer, Robert Macé II at Caen. At an early age he had already learned Latin and shown a pronounced taste for scientific books. After a short residence in Paris, he went to Antwerp (1548-9), where he opened a book-bindery and soon became famous for his beautiful inlaid bindings and book covers. In 1555 he opened his publishing house which, notwithstanding keen competition, soon prospered. Within five years, he attained the highest rank among typographers of his time, surpassing his rivals in the Netherlands by the perfection, beauty, and number of his publications. In 1562, charged with holding intercourse with two religious reformers (Niclaes and Barrefelt), he was obliged to flee from Antwerp. He succeeded, however, in dissipating the suspicions against him, and it was only after two centuries that his relations with the Familists, or "Famille de la Charité" came to light, and also that he printed the works of Barrefelt and other heretics. In 1563, having returned to Antwerp, Plantin formed business associations with prominent citizens with whom he conducted a printing establishment for three years. In 1566 we first hear of Plantin's scheme to reprint the Polyglot Bible of Cardinal Ximenes. His beautiful proofs secured the support of King Philip II, and the eight volumes of the "Biblia Regia" were completed in 1573 (see POLYGLOT BIBLES). Immediately after the king appointed him Royal Architypographer, in charge of the printing of the newly-edited breviaries, missals, psalters, and other liturgical texts which were sent to Spain great numbers at the expense of the king. Plantin also published many new editions of the classics, works on jurisprudence, and the "Index Expurgatorius". Wars stopped the execution of the king's orders for the new Liturgical formularies; but Plantin had, long before, obtained privileges for this work from Rome. This exclusive privilege, possessed by Plantin's successors for two hundred years, became a source a great profit and balanced the extensive losses incurred by the "Biblia Regia". In 1583, leaving his business at Antwerp to his two nephews, Moretus and Raphelingen, Plantin settled in Leyden, where he conducted a second-hand book store and a small printing office with three presses, but sought principally for quiet and the restoration of his failing health. In 1585 Raphelingen took charge of the printing office at Leyden, and Plantin returned to Antwerp, where, until his death, he endeavoured by the sale of his Bible to indemnify himself for the loss of the twenty thousand florins which the king still owed him. These losses were finally made good after his death. The extensive character of Plantin's undertakings is shown by the fact that between 1555 and 1589 he published over sixteen hundred works, eighty-three in 1575 alone. His press room at this contained twenty-two presses. His editions, as a rule, consisted of from twelve to fifteen hundred copies, in some cases, considerably more; thus thirty-nine hundred copies of his Hebrew Bible were published. His emblem shows a hand reaching out of the clouds holding a pair of compasses; one point is fixed, the other marks a line. The motto is "Labore et Constantia". He was justly considered the first typographer of his time. Moreover, money was not his only object. He thoroughly appreciated the ethical side of his profession, as is proved by his publishing useful works, excelling in scientific value and artistic worth. The astonishing number of his publications, the extreme care which he devoted to the simplest as well as to the greatest of his publications, the monumental character of a whole series of his books, his good taste in their adornment, his correct judgment in the choice of subjects to be published, and his success in gaining the sympathy of his assistants prove that his fame was well deserved. There is but one blot on Plantin's reputation, his relations with the "Famille de la Charité", which can only be explained as due to the unsettled conditions of the times. His Antwerp business remained in the possession of his second daughter, Martina, wife of Johannes Moerentorf (Latinized Moretus), who was his assistant for many years. Their son, Balthasar, a friend of Rubens in his youth, was the most famous of the Moretus name, and a worthy successor to his grandfather. After the death of Balthasar in 1641, his heirs made a great fortune out of their monopoly of Liturgical books. Unfortunately they abandoned almost entirely the publication of scientific books. It was only at the beginning of 1800 that the privilege ceased in consequence of the decree of the King of Spain, forbidding the importation of foreign books and this practically put an end to the printing house of Plantin. In 1867, after three hundred and twelve years, the firm of Plantin ceased to exist. The City of Antwerp and the Government of Belgium in 1876 purchased from the last owner, Edward Moretus, all the buildings, as well as the printing house with its appurtenances and collections for 1,200,000 florins. The entire plant was converted into the Plantin-Moretus Museum. ROOSES, Christophe Plantin (Anvers, 1882, 2nd ed., 1897); IDEM, Corresp. de P. (Ghent, 1884 sq.); IDEM, Le Musée P.-Moretus (Brussels, 1894). HEINRICH WILH. WALLAU Plants in the Bible Plants in the Bible When Moses spoke to the people about the Land of Promise, he described it as a "land of hills and plains" (Deut, xi, 11), "a good land, of brooks and of waters, and of fountains: in the plains of which and the hills deep rivers break out: a land of wheat, and barley, and vineyards, wherein fig-trees and pomegranates, and oliveyards grow: a land of oil and honey" (Deut, viii, 7-8). This glowing description, sketched exclusively from an utilitarian point of view, was far from doing justice to the wonderful variety of the country's productions, to which severeal causes contributed. First the differences of elevation; for between Lebanon, 10,000 feet above sea level, and the shores of the Dead Sea, 1285 feet below the Mediterranean, every gradation of altitude is to be found, within less than 200 miles. Sinuous valleys furrow the highland, causing an incredible variation in topography; hence, cultivated land lies almost side by side with patches of desert. The soil is now of clay, now of clay mixed with lime, farther on of sand; the surface rock is soft limestone, and basalt. In addition to these factors, variations of climate consequent on change of altitude and geographical position cause forms of vegetation which elsewhere grow far apart to thrive side by side within the narrow limits of Palestine. The vegetation along the west coast, like that of Spain, southern Italy, Sicily, and Algeria, is composed of characteristic species of Mediterranean flora. Near the perennial snows of the northern peaks grow the familiar plants of Alpine and sub-Alpine regions; the highlands of Palestine and the eastern slopes of the northern ranges produce the Oriental vegetation of the steppes; whereas the peculiar climate conditions prevailing along the Ghôr and about the Dead Sea favour a sub-tropical flora, characterized by species resembling those which thrive in Nubia and Abyssinia. Over 3000 species of Palestinian flora are known to exist, but the Holy Land of our day can give only an imperfect idea of what it was in Biblical times. The hill-country of Juda and the Negeb are, as formerly, the grazing lands of the Judean herds, yet groves, woods, and forest flourished everywhere, few traces of which remain. The cedar-forests of Lebanon had a world-wide reputation; the slopes of Hermon and the mountains of Galaad were covered with luxuriant pine woods; oak forests were the distinctive feature of Basan, throughout Ephraim clumps of terebinths dotted the land, while extensive palm groves were both the ornament and wealth of the Jordan Valley. The arable land, much of which now lies fallow, was all cultivated and amply rewarded the tiller. The husbandman derived from his orchards and vineyards abundant crops of olives, figs, pomegranates, and grapes. Nearly every Jewish peasant had his "garden of herbs", furnishing in season vegetables and fruits for the table, flowers, and medicinal plants. Only some 130 plants are mentioned in Scripture, which is not surprising since ordinary people are interested only in a few, whether ornamental or useful. The first attempt to classify this flora is in Gen., i, 11-12, where it is divided into: (1) deshe, signifying all low plants, e. g., cryptogamia; (2) esebh, including herbaceous plants; (3) es peri, embracing all trees. In the course of time, the curiosity of men was attracted by the riches of Palestinian vegetation; Solomon, in particular, is said to have treated about the trees (i. e., plants) from the lofty cedar "unto the hyssop that cometh out of the wall" (III Kings, iv, 33). Of the plants mentioned in the Bible, the most common varieties may be identified either with certainty or probability; but a large proportion of the biblical plant-names are generic rather than specific, e. g., briers, grass, nettles, etc.; and just what plants are meant in some cases is impossible to determine, e. g., algum, cockle, gall, etc. A complete alphabetical list of the plant-names found in the English Versions is here given, with an attempt at identification. Acacia. See Setim. Acanth. See Brier. Algum (A. V., II Chron., ii, 8; D. V., ix, 10, 11, "thyme trees", "fir trees"; written "almug" in AV., I Kings, x, 11, 12). No doubt the same tree is signified, the double name being due to a mere accidental transposition of the letters; if linguistic analogy may be trusted in, almug is correct (cf. Tamil, valguka). The algum tree is spoken of as a valuable exotic product imported to Palestine by Hiram's and Solomon's fleets (III Kings, x, 11; II Par., ii, 8; ix, 10), suitable for fine joinery and making musical instruments (III Kings, x, 12; II Par., ix, 11). Josephus (Ant., VIII, vii, 1) says it was somewhat like the wood of the fig tree, but whiter and more glittering. According to most modern scholars and certain rabbis, the red sandal-wood, Pterocarpus santalina, is intended, though some of the uses made of it appear to require a stouter material. The identification proposed by Vulg. (see Thyine) is much more satisfactory. Almond tree, Heb. luz (Gen., xxx, 37; "hazel" in A. V. is a mistranslation; cf. Arab. laux), apparently an old word later supplanted by shaqed (Gen., xliii, 11; Num., xvii, 8; Eccles., xii, 5); which alludes to the early blossoming of the tree. Almonds are (Gen., xliii, 11) considered one of the best fruits in the Orient, and the tree, Amygdalus communis, has always been cultivated there. Several varieties, A. orientalis, Ait., or A. argentea, A. lycioides, Spach, A. spartioides, Spach, grow wild in districts such as Lebanon, Carmel, Moab. Almug. See Algum. Aloes (Prov., vii, 17; Cant., iv, 14; John, xix, 39; A. V., Ps. xlv, 8) is reckoned among "the chief perfumes". In A. V., Num. xxiv, 6 ("lign aloes"; D. V., "tabernacles" is an erroneous translation), a tree is clearly intended. The officinal aloes, Liliacea, is not alluded to; the aloes of the Bible is the product of a tree of the genus Aquilaria, perhaps A. agallocha, Roxb., a native of northern India; at a certain stage of decay, the wood develops a fragrance well known to the ancients (Dioscorides, i, 21), and from it a rare perfume was obtained. Amomum (Apoc., xviii, 13, neither in the Greek New Testament, Vulg., A. V., nor D. V., but found in critical editions, such as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Nestle), a perfume well known in antiquity (Dioscor., i, 14; Theophr., "Hist. plant.", ix, 7; "De odor.", 32; etc.). The Assyrian variety was particularly prized (Virg., Eclog., iv, 25; Josephus, "Ant.", XX, ii, 3; Martial., "Epigr.", vii, 77; Ovid, "Heroid.", xxi, 166; etc.), and probably obtained from Cissus vitignea, a climbing plant native of India but found also in Armenia, Media, and Pontus (Pliny, "Nat. hist.", xii, 13). Anise (Matt., xxiii, 23), not the anise, Pimpinella anisum, but rather the dill, Anethum graveolens, shabath of the Talmud, shibith of the Arabs, is meant. Dill has always been much cultivated in Palestine; its seeds, leaves, and stems were subject to tithe, according to Rabbi Eliezer (Maasaroth, i, I; cf. Matt., xxiii, 23), which opinion, however, others thought excessive (Schwab, "Talmud de Jerus.", III, 182). Apple tree, Heb., thappuakh (cf. Arab, tiffah; Egypt. dapih, "apple") and the description of the tree and its fruit indicate the common apple tree, Malus communis, which is beautiful, affording shade for a tent or a house (Cant., ii, 3; viii, 5), and bears a sweet fruit, the aroma (Cant., vii, 8) of which is used in the East to revive a fainting person (cf. Cant., ii, 5). Apple groves flourished at an early date (Ramses II) in Egypt (Loret, "Flore pharaonique", p. 83); place-names like Tappuah (Jos., xii, 17) or Beth-tappuah (A. V., Jos., xv, 53) indicate that they were a distinct feature of certain districts of Palestine. Arum. See Cockle. Ash Tree. Is., xliv, 14 (A. V. for Heb., 'oren; D. V. "pine") depicts a planted tree, watered only by rain, whose wood is suitable to be carved into images and useful as fuel (Is., xliv, 15). Probably the tree intended is Pinus pinea, the maritime or stone pine, rather than the ash, as the various species of Fraxinus grow only in the mountains of Syria, outside Palestine. Aspalathus (Ecclus., xxiv, 20; Greek, xxiv, 20; D. V. "aromatical balm") is quite frequently alluded to by ancient writers (Theognis Hippocrates, Theophrastes, Plutarch, Pliny etc.) as a thorny plant yielding a costly perfume. It is impossible to identify it with certainty, but most scholars believe it to be Convolvulus scoparius, also called Lignum rhodium (rose-scented wood). Aspen. See Mulberry. Astragalus a genus of Papilionaceous plants of the tribe Lotea, several species of which yield the gum tragacanth (Heb. nek'oth, Arab. neka'at) probably meant in Gen., xxxvii, 25; xliii, 11 (D. V. "spices"; "storax"). In IV Kings, xx, 13, and Is., xxxix, 2, Heb. nekothoth has been mistaken for the plural of nek'oth and mistranslated accordingly "aromatical spices"; A. V. and R. V. give, in margin, "spicery"; A. V. "precious things" is correct. The gum spoken of in Gen. was probably gathered from the species found in Palestine, A. gummifer, A. rousseaunus, A. kurdicus, A. stromatodes. Balm, Balsam, the regular translation of Heb. çori (Gen., xxxvii, 25; xliii, 11; Jer., viii, 22; xlvi, 11; li, 8), except in Ezech., xxvii, 17 (Heb. pannag) and Ecclus., xxiv, 20a (Greek 'aspalathos, see Aspalathus); xxiv, 20b (Greek smúrna). The çori is described as coming from Galaad (Jer., viii, 22; xlvi, 11) and having medicinal properties (Jer., li, 8). It is obtained from Balsamodendron opobalsamum, Kunth., which is extant in tropical regions of east Africa and Arabia and yields the "balm of Mecca"; and Amyris gileadensis, a variety of the former, which gave the more extravagantly prized "balm of Judea", and is now extinct; it was extensively cultivated around the Lake of Tiberias, in the Jordan Valley, and on the shores of the Dead Sea (Talm. Babyl. Shabbath, 26 ^a; Josephus, "Ant.", IX, i, 2; Jerome, "Quæst in Gen.", xiv, 7; Pliny, "Nat. hist.", xii, 25, etc.). The word çori is also applied to the gum from the mastic tree, or lentisk (Pistacia lentiscus, cf. Arab. daru), and that from Balanites ægyptica, Del., falsely styled "balm of Galaad". The meaning of pannag, mentioned in Ezech., xxvii, 17, is not known with certainty; modern commentators agree with R. V. (marginal gloss) that it is "a kind of confection". Balsam, Aromatical. See Aspalathus. Barley (Heb. se'orah, "hairy", an allusion to the length of the awns) was cultivated through the East as provender for horses and asses (III Kings, iv, 28), also as a staple food among the poor, working men, and the people at large in times of distress. The grain was either roasted (Lev., ii, 14; IV Kings, iv, 43) or milled, kneaded and cooked in ovens as bread or cake. Barley, being the commonest grain, was considered a type of worthless things, hence the contemptuous force of Ezech., xiii, 19; Judges, vii, 13; and Osee, iii, 2. Hordeum ithaburense, Boiss., grows wild in many districts of Palestine; cultivation has developed the two (H. distichum), four (H. tetrastichum), and six-rowed (H. hexastichum) barley. The harvest begins in April in the Ghôr, and continues later in higher altitudes; a sheaf of the new crop was offered in oblation on the "sabbath of the Passover". Bay tree, so A. V. in Ps. xxxvii, 35; D. V. (xxxvi) "Cedar of Libanus", which renderings are erroneus. The correct meaning of the Heb. text is: "as a green tree", any kind of evergreen tree, "in its native soil". Bdellium (Gen., ii, 12; Num., xi, 7), either a precious stone or the aromatic gum of Amyris agallochum, a small resinous tree of northern India, found also, according to Pliny, in Arabia, Media, and Babylonia. Beans (II Kings, xvii, 28; Ezech., iv, 9), the horse-bean (Faba vulgaris; cf. Heb. pol and Arab. ful), an ordinary article of food, extensively cultivated in the East. The string-bean, Vigna sinensis, kidney-bean, Phaseolus vulgaris, and Phaseolus molliflorus, also grow in Palestine. Blackthorn. See Bur. Blasting. See Mildew. Borith, a Heb. word transliterated in Jer., ii, 22, and translated in Mal., iii, 2 by "fuller's herb" (A. V. "scap"). St. Jerome in his Commentary on Jer., ii, 22, identifies borith with the "fuller's weed", which was not used, like the Dipsacus fullonum, Mill., to dress cloth, but to wash it; St. Jerome adds that the plant grew on rich, damp soil, which description applies to a species of Saponaria; yet many modern scholars think he refers to some vegetable alkali procured by burning plants like Salsola kali and the Salicornias (S. fructicosa; S. herbacea) abundant on the coast. Boxthorn. See Bramble. Box tree (Is., xli, 19; lx, 13; in D. V., Ezech., xxvii, 6, instead of "ivory and cabins", we should read: "ivory inlain in boxwood"), probably the Heb. the'ashshur. The box tree does not grow in Palestine, and indeed the Bible nowhere intimates this, but it mentions the box tree of Lebanon, Buxus longifolia, Boiss., and that imported from the islands of the Mediterranean. Bramble, translated from Heb. 'atad in Judges, ix, 14-15, also rendered "thorn", in Ps. lvii, 10. The Latin version has in both places rhamnus, "buckthorn"; of which several species grow in Palestine and Syria, but Arabic writers hold that the various kinds of Lycium or boxthorn are meant. Briers. (1) Heb. kharul rendered "burning" in D. V., Job, xxx, 7, "thorns" in Prov., xxiv, 31 and Sophon., ii, 9, according to which texts it must be large enough for people to sit under, and must develop rapidly in uncultivated lands. Its translation as "thistles" or "nettles" is unsuitable, for these plants do not reach the proportions required by Job, xxx, 7, hence it is generally believed to be either the acanth, Acanthus spinosus, or rest-harrow, two species of which, Onamis antiquarum, and particularly O. leiosperma, Boiss., are very common in the Holy Land. (2) Heb. barquanim (Judges, viii, 7, 16) probably corresponds to the numerous species of Rubus which abound in Palestine; according to Moore (Judges, ad loc.), Phaceopappus scoparius, Boiss., is intended. (3) Heb. khedeq (Mich., vii, 4). See Mad-apple. (4) Heb. shamir (Is., v, 6; ix, 18; x, 17; xxxii, 13), the flexible Paliurus aculeatus, Lam., Arab. samur, the supposed material of Christ's crown of thorns. (5) Heb. shqyth (Is., vii, 23-5), a word not found outside of Isaias, and possibly designating prickly bushes in general. Broom. See Juniper. Buckthorn. See Bramble. Bulrush represents three Heb. words: (1) gome Ex., ii, 3; Is., xviii, 2; xxxv, 7), Cyperus papyrus, is now extinct in Egypt (cf. Is., xix, 6-7), where it was formerly regarded as the distinctive plant of the country (Strab., xvii, 15) and the Nile was styled "the papyrus-bearer" (Ovid, "Metam.", xv, 753), but still grows around the Lake of Tiberias, Lake Huleh. (2) 'Agmon (A. V., Is., lviii, 5; D. V. "circle") is variously rendered (D. V. Is., xix, 15; Job, xl, 21). The plant whose flexibility is alluded to in Is., lviii, 5, A. V. appears to be either the common reed, Arundo donax, or some kind of rush; Juncus communis, J. maritimus, Lam., J. acutus are abundant in Palestine. (3) Suph (Is., xix, 6; A. V. "flag"; etc.), Egypt. tûf, probably designates the various kinds of rush and sea-weeds (Jon., ii, 6). Yam Suph is the Hebrew name for the Red Sea. Bur, so, D. V., Os., ix, 6; x, 8, translating Vulg. lappa, "burdock", for Heb. khoakh and qosh. Khoakh recurs in Prov., xxvi, 9; Cant., ii, 2 (D. V. "thorns"); IV Kings, xiv, 9; II Par., xxv, 18; Job, xxxi, 40 (D. V. "thistle"); "thorn" is the ordinary meaning of qosh. If burdock is the equivalent of khoakh, then Lappa major, D. C., growing in Lebanon is signified, as Lappa minor, D. C., is unknown in Palestine; however, the many kinds of thistles common in the East suit better the description. Yet, from the resemblance of Arab. khaukh with Heb. khoakh, some species of blackthorn or sloe tree Prunus ursina, and others, Arab. khaukh al-dib might be intended. Burnet. See Thistle (5). Bush, Burning, Heb. seneh, "thorny" (Ex., iii, 2-4; Deut., xxxiii, 16), probably a kind of whitethorn of goodly proportions (Cratægus sinaitica, Boiss.) common throughout the Sinaitic Peninsula. Arab. sanna is applied to all thorny shrubs. Calamus, Heb. qaneh (Ex., xxx, 23; Ezech., xxvii, 19; Cant., iv, 14, and Is., xliii, 24; D. V. "sweet cane"; Jer., vi, 20: "sweet- smelling cane"), a scented reed yielding a perfume entering into the composition of the spices burned in sacrifices (Is., xliii, 24; Jer., vi, 20) and of the oil of unction (Ex., xxx, 23-5). The qaneh is, according to some, Andropogon schoenanthus, which was used in Egypt for making the Kyphi or sacred perfume; according to others, Acorus aromaticus. Cane, Sweet (Cant., iv, 14; Is., xliii, 24). See Calamus. Cane, Sweet-smelling (Jer., vi, 20). See Calamus. Camphire (A. V., Song of Sol., i, 14; D. V. iv, 13; "cypress"). From Heb. kopher. The modern "camphor" was unknown to the ancients. Pliny identifies cyprus with the ligustrum of Italy, but the plant is no other than the henna tree (Lawsonia alba) the Orientals are so fond of. Its red sweet-scented spikes (D. V., Cant., i, 13; "clusters") yield the henna oil; from its powdered leaves is obtained the reddish-orange paste with which Eastern women stain their finger and toe nails and dye their hair. Ascalon and Engaddi were particularly renowned for their henna. Caper, Heb. abiyyonah (D. V., Eccl., xii, 5), the fruit of the caper tree, probably Capparis spinosa; C. herbacea, and C. ægyptiaca are also found in Palestine. Carob, Greek kerátion (Luke, xv, 16), translated "husks" (A. V.; D. V.), the coarse pods of the locust tree, Ceratonia siliqua, "St. John's bread-tree". Cassia, Heb. qiddah (Ex., xxx, 24; Ezech., xxvii, 19; D. V. "stacte"). Egypt. qad, the aromatic bark of Cinnamomum cassia, Bl., of India, an ingredient of the oil of unction (Ex., xxx, 24), and the Egyptian Kyphi. In Ps. xliv (A. V., xlv, 8), 9, qeçi'ah, the Aramaic equivalent of qiddah,is possibly an explanation of 'ahaloth. There is no Biblical reference to the cassia, from which the senna of medicine is obtained. Cedar, indiscriminately applied to Cedrus libani, C. bermudensis, Juniperus virginiana, and Cupressus thymoides, as Heb., 'erez was used for three different trees: (1) The cedar wood employed in certain ceremonies of purification (Lev., xiv, 4, 6; 49052; Num., xix, 6) was either Juniperus phoenicea, or J. oxycedrus, which pagans burned during sacrifices and at funeral piles (Hom., "Odyss.", v, 60; Ovid, "Fast.", ii, 538), and Pliny calls "little cedar" (Nat. Hist., XIII, i, 30). (2) The tree growing "by the waterside" (Num., xxiv, 6) appears from Ez., xxxi, 7, to be the Cedrus libani, which usually thrives on dry mountain slopes. (3) In most of the other passages of Holy Writ, Cedrus libani, Barr, is intended, which "prince of trees", by its height (Is., ii, 13; Ezech., xxxi, 3, 8; Am., ii, 9), appropriately figured the mighty Eastern empires (Ezech., xxxi, 3-18, etc.). From its trunk ship-masts (Ezech., xxvii, 5), pillars, beams, and boards for temples and palaces (III Kings, vi, 9; vii, 2) were made; its hard, close-grained wood, capable of receiving a high polish, was a suitable material for carved ornamentations (III Kings, vi, 18) and images (Is., xliv, 14-5). Cedar forests were a paradise of aromatic scent, owing to the fragrant resin exuding from every pore of the bark (Cant., iv, 11; Osee, xiv, 7); they were "the glory of Libanus" (Is., xxxv, 2; lx, 13), as well as a source of riches for their possessors (III Kings, v, 6 sqq.; I Par., xxii, 4) and an object of envy to the powerful monarchs of Nineveh (Is., xxxvii, 24; inscr. of several Assyrian kings). Cedrat, Citrus medica, or C. cedra is, according to the Syriac and Arabic Bibles, the "Targum" of Onkelos, Josephus (Ant. III, x, 4) and the Talmud (Sukka, iii, 5), the hadar (D. V. "the fairest tree") spoken of in Lev., xxiii, 40, in reference to the feast of Tabernacles. Centaurea. See Thistles. Charlock. See Mustard. Chestnut-tree. See Plane-tree. Cinnamon, Heb., qinnamon (Ex., xxx, 23; Prov., vii, 17; Cant., iv, 14; Ecclus., xxiv, 20; Apoc., xviii, 13), the inner aromatic bark of Cinnamomum zeylanicum, Nees, an ingredient of the oil of unction and of the Kyphi. Citron, Citrus limonum, supposed by some Rabbis to be intended in the text of Lev., xxiii, 40; "boughs of hadar", used regularly in the service of the synagogue and hardly distinguishable from cedrat. Cockle, A. V., Job, xxxi, 40, for Heb. be'osha: D. V. "thorns". The marginal renderings of A. V. and R. V. "stinking weeds", "noisome weeds", are much more correct. D. V., Matt., xiii, 24-30, translates the Greek zizánia by cockle. The two names used in the original text point to plants of quite different characters: (1) According to etymology, be'osha must refer to some plant of offensive smell; besides the stink-weed (Datura stramonium) and the ill-smelling goose-weeds (Solanum nigrum) there are several fetid arums, henbanes, and mandrakes in Palestine, hence be'osha appears to be a general term applicable to all noisome and harmful plants. In the English Bibles, Is., v, 2, 4, the plural form is translated by "wild grapes", a weak rendering in view of the terrible judgment pronounced against the vineyard in the context; be' may mean stinking fruits, as be'osha means stinking weeds. (2) zizánia, from Aram. zonin, stands for Lolium temulentum, or bearded darnel, the only grass with a poisonous seed, "entirely like wheat till the ear appears". The rendering of both versions is therefore inaccurate. Colocynth, Citrullus colocynthis, Schr., Cucumis c., probably the "wild gourd" of IV Kings, iv, 38-40, common throughout the Holy Land. In III Kings, vi, 18; vii, 24, we read about carvings around the inside of the Temple and the brazen sea, probably representing the ornamental leaves, stems, tendrils, and fruits of the colocynth. Coriander seed (Ex., xvi, 31; Num., xi, 7), the fruit of Coriandrum sativum, allied to aniseed and caraway. Corn, a general word for cereals in English Bibles, like dagan in Heb. Wheat, barley, spelt (fitches), vetch, millet, pulse; rye and oats are neither mentioned in Scripture nor cultivated in the Holy Land. Corn, Winter, Heb. kussemeth (D. V., Ex., ix, 32; A. V. "rye"), rendered "spelt" in Is., xxviii, 25, yet the close resemblance of Arab. kirsanah with Heb. suggests a leguminous plant, Vicia ervilia. Cotton, Heb. or Persian karpas, Gossypium herbaceum, translated "green". Probably the shesh of Egypt and the buç of Syria (Ezech., xxvii, 7, 16, "fine linen") were also cotton. Cucumber, Heb. qishshu'im (Num., xi, 5; Is., i, 8), evidently the species Cucumis chate (cf. Arab. qiththa), indigenous in Egypt; C. sativus is also extensively cultivated in Palestine. Cummin, Heb. kammon, Arab. kammun, the seed of Cuminum cyminum (Is., xxviii, 25, 27; Matt., xxiii, 23). Cypress, in D. V., Cant., i, 16 (A. V., 17) a poor translation of Heb. 'eç shemen (see Oil tree); elsewhere Heb. berosh is rendered "fir tree"; in Ecclus., xxiv, 17, the original word is not known. Among the identifications proposed for beroth are Pinus halapensis, Miel., and Cupressus sempervirens, the latter more probable. Cyprus (Cant., i, 13; iv, 13). See Camphire. Darnel, bearded. See Cockle (2). Dill (R. V., Matt., xxiii, 23). See Anise. Ear of corn translates three Heb. words: (1) shibboleth, the ripe ear ready for harvest; (2) melilah, the ears that one may pluck to rub in the hands, and eat the grains (Deut., xxiii, 25; Matt., xii, 1; Mark, ii, 23; Luke, vi, 1); (3) abib, the green and tender ear of corn. Ebony. Heb. hobnim, Arab. ebmus (Ezech., xxvii, 15), the black heart wood of Diospyros ebenum, and allied species of the same genus, imported from coasts of Indian Ocean by merchantmen of Tyre. Elecampane. See Thistle (6). Elm translates: (1) Heb. thidhar (D. V., Is., xli, 19; Is., lx, 13: "pine trees"), possibly Ulmus campestris, Sm. (Arab. derdar); (2) Heb. 'elah (A. V., Hos., iv, 13; D. V. "turpentine tree"). See Terebinth. Figs (Heb. te'ênim), the fruit of the fig tree (Heb. te'ênah), Ficus carica, growing spontaneously and cultivated throughout the Holy Land. The fruit buds, which appear at the time of the "latter rains" (spring), are called "green figs" (Cant., ii, 13; Heb. pag, cf. Beth-phage), which, "late in spring" (Matt., xxiv, 32), ripen under the overshadowing leaves, hence Mark, xi, 13, and the parable of the barren fig tree (Matt., xxi, 19, 21; Mark, xi, 20-6; Luke, xiii, 6-9). Precociously ripening figs (Heb. bikkurah) are particularly relished; the ordinary ripe fruit is eaten fresh or dried in compressed cakes (Heb. debelah: I Kings, xxv, 18, etc.). Orientals still regard figs as the best poultice (IV Kings, xx, 7; Is., xxxviii, 21; St. Jerome, "In Isaiam", xxxviii, 21, in P. L., XXIV, 396). Fir, applied to all coniferous trees except the cedar, but should be restricted to the genera Abies and Picea, meant by Heb. siakh (Gen., xxi, 15; D. V. "trees"; cf. Arab., shukh). Among these, Abies cilicia, Kotsch, and Picea orientalis are found in the Lebanon, Amanus and northward. Fitches. Heb., kussemeth (Ezech., iv, 9), possibly Vicia ervilia, rendered "gith" by D. V., "rye" and "spelt" by A. V. and R. V. in Is., xxviii, 25. Flag, Heb. akhu (A. V., Gen., xli, 2, 18: "meadow"; D. V. "marshy places", "green places in a marshy pasture"; Job, viii, 11; D. V. "sedge-bush"), a plant growing in marshes and good for cattle to feed upon, probably Cyperus esculentus. Flax, Heb. pistah (Ex., ix, 31; Deut., xxii, 11; "linen"; Prov., xxxi, 13), Linum usitatissimum, very early cultivated in Egypt and Palestine. Flower of the field, Heb. khabbaççeth (Is., xxv, 1), kh. sharon (Cant., ii, 1), like Arab. bûseil, by which Narcissus tazetta is designated by the Palestinians. Possibly N. serotinus, or fall Narcissus, was also meant by Heb., which some suppose to mean the meadow-saffron (Colchicum variegatum, C. steveni), abundant in the Holy Land. Forest translates five Heb. words: (1) Ya'ar, forest proper; (2) horesh, "wooded height"; (3) çebak, a clump of trees; (4) abhim, thicket; (5) pardeç, orchard. Among the numerous forests mentioned in the Bible are: Forest of Ephraim, which, in the Canaanite period, extended from Bethel to Bethsan; that between Bethel and the Jordan (IV Kings, ii, 24); Forest of Hareth, on the western slopes of the Judean hills; Forest of Aialon, west of Bethoron; Forests of Kiriath Yearim; the forest where Joatham built castles and towers (II Par., xxvii, 4) in the mountains of Juda; that at the edge of the Judean desert near Ziph (I Kings, xxiii, 15); Forest of the South (Ezech., xx, 46, 47); and those of Basan (Is., ii, 13) and Ephraim (II Kings, xviii, 6). Lebanon, Carmel, Hermon were also covered with luxuriant forests. Frankincense (Heb. lebonah) should not be confounded with incense (Heb. qetorah), which confusion has been made in several passages of the English Bibles, e. g., Is., xliii, 23; lx, 6 (A. V.); Jer., vi, 20. Incense was a mixture of frankincense and other spices (Ex., xxx, 34-5). Arabian frankincense, the frankincense par excellence, is the aromatical resin of Boswellia sacra, a tree which grows in southern Arabia (Arab. luban); B. papyrifera of Abyssinia yields African frankincense, which is also good. Fuller's herb (Mal., iii, 2). See Borith,. Galbanum, Heb. khelbenah (Ex., xxx, 34; Ecclus., xxiv, 21), a gum produced by Ferula galbaniflua, Boiss. and other umbelliferous plants of the same genus. Its odour is pungent, and it was probably used in the composition of incense to drive away insects from the sanctuary. Gall translates two Heb. words: (1) mererah, which stands for bile; (2) rosh, a bitter plant associated with wormwood, and growing "in the furrows of the field" (Osee, x, 4; D. V. "bitterness"), identified with: poison hemlock (A. V., Hos., x, 4), Conium maculatum, not grown in the fields; colocynth, Citrullus colocynthis, not found in ploughed ground; and darnel, Lolium temulentum, not bitter. Probably the poppy, Papaver rheas, or P. somniferum, Arab. ras elhishhash, is meant. Garlic, Allium sativum, Heb. shum (cf. Arab. thum), a favourite article of food in the East. The species most commonly cultivated is the shallot, Allium ascalonicum. Gith, Heb. queçath (Is., xxviii, 25, 27), Nigella sativa; A. V. "fitches" is wrong, nor does queçakh stand for the nutmeg flower, as G. E. Post suggests. Goose-weed. See Cockle. Gopher wood (Gen., vi, 14; D. V. "timber planks"), a tree suitable for shipbuilding: cypress, cedar, and other resinous trees have been proposed, but interpreters remain at variance. Gourd, Heb. qiqayou (Jon., iv, 6-10; D. V. "ivy"), the bottle-gourd, Cucurbita lagenaria, frequently used to overshadow booths or as a screen along trellises. Grape, wild. See Colocynth. Grape. See Vine. Grape, Wild. See Cockle. Grass translates four Heb. words: (1) deshe', pasture or tender grass, consisting mainly of forage plants; (2) yerek, verdure in general; (3) khaçir, a good equivalent for grass; (4) 'esebh, herbage, including vegetables suitable for human food. It occurs frequently in the Bible, as in Gen., xlvii, 4; Num., xxii, 4; Job, vi, 5; xxx, 4 (see Mallows); xl, 15; Matt., vi, 30; etc. Grove, English rendering of two Hebrew words: (1) asherah, a sacred pole or raised stone in a temple enclosure, which "groves" do not concern us here; (2) 'eshel, probably the tamarisk tree (q. v.; cf. Arab. 'athl), but translated "groves" in Gen., xxi, 33, and rendered elsewhere by "wood", as in I Kings, xxxi, 6; xxxi, 13. Hay, Heb. hasas (Prov., xxvii, 25), a dried herb for cattle. "Stubble" in Is., v, 24; xxxiii, 11, also translates hasas. Hazel. See Almond tree. Heath, Heb. 'ar' ar' aro'er (A. V., Jer., xvii, 6; xlviii, 6; D. V. "tamaric", "heath"), a green bush bearing red or pink blossoms, and native of the Cape of Good Hope. The only species in Palestine is the Erica verticillata, Forskal. The E. multiflora is abundant in the Mediterranean region. Hemlock, Heb. rosh (A. V., Hosea, x, 4; Amos, vi, 12; D. V. "bitterness"; 13, "wormwood"), an umbelliferous plant from which the poisonous alkaloid, conia, is derived. Conium maculatum and Æthusa cynapium are found in Syria. The water- hemlock is found only in colder zones. See Gall. Henna. See Camphire. Herb. See Grass. Herbs, Bitter, Heb. meorim (Exod., xii, 8; Num., ix, 11; D. V. "wild lettuce"), comprise diverse plants of the family of Compositæ, which were eaten with the paschal lamb. Five species are known: wild lettuce, Heb. hazeret; endive, ulsin; chicory, tamka; harhabina and maror, whose translation is variously rendered a kind of millet or beet, and the bitter coriander or horehound. Holm (Dan., xiii, 58; Is., xliv, 14; A. V. "cypress") probably Heb. tirzah, a kind of evergreen-oak. Husks. See Carob. Hyssop, Heb. 'ezob, Arab, zufa, an aromatic herb forming a dward bush. The Hysoppus officinalis, Linné (Exod., xii, 22; Lev., xiv, 4, 6, 49, 51-2; Num., xix, 6; Ps., 1, 9; Heb., ix, 19), was used in aspersion. In III Kings, iv, 33, hyssop is a species of moss (Orthotricum saxatile; Pottia trunculata) spoken of in contrast to the grandeur of the cedar. The "hyssop" mentioned in John, xiv, 29, is written "reed" in Matt., xxvii, 48, and Mark, xv, 36. Ivy (Jon., iv, 6-10; see Gourd), the Hedera helix, (II Mach., vi, 78), which grows wild in Palestine. Juniper (D. V., III Kings, xix, 4-5; Job, xxx, 4; A. V., Ps. cxx, 4; D. V., cxix, "That lay waste", a mistranslation), an equivalent of Heb. rothem, a sort of broom (Retama retem, cf. Arab. ratam). Knapweed. See Thistles. Ladanum, Heb. lot (D. V. "stacte", A. V. "myrrh," in Gen., xxxvii, 25; xliii, 11), a gum from several plants of the genus Cistus (rock-rose); C. villosus and C. salvifolius are very abundant. In Ecclus., xxiv, 21, "storax". Heb. libneh, is the equivalent of Greek stachté, used by Septuagint in the above passages of Gen.; whether ladanum was meant is not clear, as it is frequently the Greek rendering of Heb. nataf. Leeks, Heb. khaçir (Num., xi, 5), also rendered "grass", a vegetable, Allium porrum. Lentils, Heb. 'adashim (Gen., xxv, 34; II Kings, xvii, 28; Ezech., iv, 9), Arab. adas, Ervum lens, or Lens esculenta, Moench., an important article of diet. Lentisk. See Balm, Mastic tree. Lign aloes. See Aloes. Lily. (1) Heb. shushan, Arab. susan, a generical term applicable to many widely different flowers, not only of the order Liliaceæ, but of Iridaceæ, Amaryllidaceæ, and others. Lilium candidum is cultivated everywhere; Gladiolus illyricus, Koch, G. septum, Gawl, G. atroviolaceus, Boiss., are indigenous in the Holy Land; Iris sari, Schott, I. palestina, Baker, I. lorteti, Barb., I. helenæ, are likewise abundant in pastures and swampy places. (2) The "lilies of the field" surpassing Solomon in glory were lilylike plants; needless to suppose that any others, e. g. the windflower of Palestine, were intended. Lily of the valleys, Heb. khabbaççeleth. See Flower of the field. Locust tree. See Carob. Lotus. (1) A water plant of the order Nymphæaceæ, the white species of which, Nymphæa lotus, was called in Egyptian seshni, sushin, like the Heb. shushan, which may have been applied to water-lilies, but the lotus was probably intended in III Kings, vii, 19, 22, 26, 49. (2) A tree, Heb. çe 'elim (A. V. Job, xl, 21, 22; D. V., 16, 17: "shadow", "shades"), Zizyphus lotus, very common in Africa on the river banks. Mad-apple, Heb. khodeq (Prov., xxvi, 9; D. V. "thorn"; Mich., vii, 4: "briers"), Arab. khadaq, Solanum coagulans, Forskal, of the same genus as our mad apple, found near Jericho. Solanum cordatum, Forskal, may also be intended. Mallows, a mistranslation in A. V., Job, xxx, 4, for the orache or sea-purslain, Atriplex halimus, from Heb. malluakh, derived from melakh, "salt", as halimus from 'áls. According to Galen, the extremities are edible; the Talmud tells us that the Jews working in the re-construction of the Temple (520-15 b.c.) ate it (Kiddushim, iii, fol. 66 ^a). Mandrake, from Heb., dud, meaning "love plant", which Orientals believe ensures conception. All interpreters hold Mandragora officinarum to be the plant intended in Gen., xxx, 14, and Cant., vii, 13. Manna of commerce is a sugary secretion of various Oriental plants, Tamarix mannifera, Ehr., Alhaqi camelorum, Fish., Cotoneaster nummularia, Fraxinus ornus, and F. rotundifolia; it has none of the qualifications attributed to the manna of Ex., xvi. Mastic tree, an alliteration of the Greek schînos, schísei, Aram. pistheqa-pesag (Dan., xiii, 54), the lentisk, Pistacia lentiscus, common in the East, which exudes a fragrant resin extensively used to flavour sweetmeats, wine, etc. See Balm. Meadow, A. V., Gen., xli, 2, 18 (D. V. "marshy places"), for Heb. akhu. See Flag; Sedge-bush. Meadow saffron. See Flower of the field. Melon, Heb. 'abhattikhim (Num., xi, 5), like Arab. bottikh, old Egypt. buttuga, seems to have a generic connotation, yet it designated primarily the watermelon (Citrullus vulgaris, Shrad.), and secondarily other melons. The passage of Numbers refers only to the melons of Egypt, and there is no mention in the Bible of melons of Palestine, yet they were in old times cultivated as extensively as now. Mildew, Heb. yeraqon, occurs three times in D. V. and with it is mentioned shiddaphon, variously rendered (II Par., vi, 28: "blasting"; Amos, iv, 9: "burning wind"; Agg., ii, 18: "blasting wind"). In Deut., xxviii, 22, and III Kings, viii, 37, yeraqon is translated "blasting" (A. V. "mildew"), and shiddaphon, "corrupted air". Translators evidently had no definite idea of the nature and difference of these two plagues. Yeraqon, or mildew, is caused by parasitic fungi like Puccinia graminis and P. straminis which suck out of the grain, on which they develop on account of excessive moisture. Shiddaphon, or smut, manifests itself, in periods of excessive drought, and is caused by fungi of the genus Ustilago, which, when fully developed, with the aid of the khamsin wind, "blast" the grain. Millet, Heb. dokhan (Ezech., iv, 9), Arab. dokhn, is applied to Panicum miliaceum, and Setaria italica, Kth. The rendering "millet", in D. V., Is., xxviii, 25, is not justified, as Heb. nisman, found here, means "put in its place". Mint (Matt., xxiii, 23; Luke, xi, 42). Various species are found in Palestine: Mentha sylvestris, the horse-mint, with its variety M. viridis, the spear-mint, grow everywhere; M. sativa, the garden-mint, is cultivated in all gardens; M. piperita, the peppermint, M. aquatica, the water-mint, M. pulegium, the pennyroyal, are also found in abundance. Mint is not mentioned in the Law among tithable things, but the Pharisaic opinion subjecting to tithe all edibles acquired force of law. Mulberry, Heb. beka' im (A. V., II Kings, v, 23-4; I Par., xiv, 14-5; D. V. "pear tree"), a tree, two species of which are cultivated in Palestine: Morus alba, M. nigra. Neither this nor pear-tree is a likely translation; the context rather suggests a tree the leaves of which rustle like the aspen, Populus tremula. In D. V. Luke, xvii, 6, "mulberry tree" is probably a good translation. Mustard. Several kinds of mustard-plant grow in the Holy Land, either wild, as the charlock, Sinapis arvensis, and the white mustard, S. Alba, or cultivated, as S. nigra, which last seems the one intended in the Gospel. Our Lord compares the kingdom of God to a mustard seed (Matt., xiii, 31-2), a familiar term to mean the tiniest thing possible (cf. Talmud Jerus. Peah, 7; T. Babyl. Kethub., iii ^b), "which a man ... sowed in his field" and which "when it is grown up, it is greater than all herbs"; the mustard tree attains in Palestine a height of ten feet and is a favourite resort of linnets and finches. Myrrh translates two Heb. words: (1) mor (cf. Arab. morr), the aromatic resin produced by Balsamodendron myrrha, Nees, which grows in Arabia and subtropical east Africa, was extensively used among the ancients, not only as a perfume (Ex., xxx, 23; Ps. xliv, 9; Prov., vii, 17; Cant., i, 12; v, 5), but also for embalming (John, xix, 39) and as an anodyne (Mark, xv, 23; (2) lot, see Ladanum. Myrtle, Heb. hadas (Is., xli, 19; lv, 13; Zach., i, 8, 10, 11), Myrtus communis, Arab. hadas, an evergreen shrub especially prized for its fragrant leaves, and found in great abundance in certain districts of Palestine. Its height is usually three to four feet, attaining to eight feet in moist soil, and a variety cultivated in Damascus reaches up ten to twelve feet; hence an erroneous translation in almost all the above Scriptural passages. Nard, pistic (R. V. margin, Mark, xiv, 3). See Spikenard. Nettles translates two Heb. words: (1) kharul, plur. kharulim (A. V., Job, xxx, 7; D. V. "briers"; Soph., ii, 9; Prov., xxiv, 31; D. V. "thorns"), see Bramble; (2) qimmosh, qimmeshonim (Prov., xxiv, 31; A. V. "thorns"; Is., xxxiv, 13; Osee, ix, 6): correctly rendered "nettles" (Urtica urens, U. dioica, U. pilulifera, U. membranacea, Poir.), which are found everywhere on neglected patches, whilst the deserts abound with Forskahlea tenacissima, a plant akin to the Urtica. Nut, equivalent of two Heb. words: (1) 'egoz (Cant., vi, 10), Arab. jauz, the walnut tree, universally cultivated in the East; (2) botnim (A. V., Gen., xliii, 11), probably the pistachio nut, Arab. butm. See Pistachio. Oak, Heb. 'ayl, 'elah, 'elon, 'allah, 'alon are thus indiscriminately translated. From Osee iv, 13, and Is., vi, 13, it appears that the 'elah is different from the 'allon; in fact, 'ayl, 'elah, 'elon, are understood by some to be the terebinth 'allah and 'allon representing the oak. The genus Quercus is largely represented in Palestine and Syria, as to the number of individuals and species, seven of which have ben found: (1) Quercus robur is represented by two varieties: Q. cedrorum and Q. pinnatifida; (2) Q. infectoria; (3) Q. ilex; (4) Q. coccifera, or holm oak, of which there are three varieties: Q. calliprinos, Q. palestina, and Q. pseudo- coccifera, this latter, a prickly evergreen oak with leaves like very small holly, most common in the land, especially as brushwood; (5) Q. cerris; (6) Q. ægylops, the Valonia oak, also very common and of which two varieties are known: Q. ithaburensis and Q . look, Ky.; (7) Q. libani, Oliv. Oil tree, Heb. 'es shemen (Is., xli, 19; III Kings, vi, 23, 31-3; III Esd., viii, 15), the olive-tree in D. V., the oleaster in R. V., and variously rendered in A. V.: "oil tree", "olive tree" and "pine". To meet the requirements of the different passages where the 'es shemen is mentioned, it must be a fat tree, producing oil or resin, an emblem of fertility, capable of furnishing a block of wood out of which an image ten feet high may be carved, it must grow in mountains near Jerusalem, and have a dense foliage. Wild olive, oleaster, Elæagnus angustifolius (Arab., haleph), Balanites ægyptiaca, Del. (Arab. zaqqum), are therefore excluded; some kind of pine is probably meant. Olive tree, Olea europæa, one of the most characteristic trees of the Mediterranean region, and universally cultivated in the Holy Land. Scriptural allusions to it are very numerous, and the ruins of oil-presses manifest the extensive use of its enormous produce: olives, the husbandman's only relish; oil which serves as food, medicine, unguent, and fuel for lamps; finally candles and soap. The olive tree was considerred the symbol of fruitfulness, blessing, and happiness, the emblem of peace and prosperity. Olive, Wild (Rom., xi, 17, 24), not the oleaster, Elæagnus angustifolia, common throughout Palestine, but the seedling of the olive, on which the Olea europæa is grafted. Onion, Heb. beçalim (Num., xi, 5), Allium cepa, universally cultivated and forming an important and favourite article of diet in the East. Orache. See Mallows. Palm tree, Heb. thamar (Ex., xv, 27), tomer (Judges, iv, 5), Phoenix dactylifera, the date palm. The palm tree flourishes now only in the maritime plain, but the Jordan Valley, Engaddi, Mount Olivet, and many other localities were renowned in antiquity for their palm groves. In fact, the abundance of palm trees in certain places suggested their names: Phoenicia (from Greek phoîniks), Engaddi, formerly named Hazazon Thamar, i. e. "Palm grove", Jericho, surnamed "the City of Palm trees", Bethany, "the house of dates", are among the best known. Dates are a staple article of food among the Bedouins; unlike figs, they are not dried into compressed cakes, but separately; date wine was known throughout the East and is still made in a few places; date honey (Heb. debash; cf. Arab. dibs) has always been one of the favourite sweetmeats of the Orientals. There are many allusions in Scripture to palm trees, which are also prominent in architectural ornamentation (Heb. timmorah, III Kings, vi, 29). Paper reed, Heb. aroth (A. V., Is., xix, 7) prefereably rendered "the channel of the river" (D. V.), as the allusion seems to be to the meadows on the banks of the Nile. Pear tree. See Mulberry. Pen, in Ps. xliv, 2 (A. V., xlv, 1); Jer., viii, 8, is probably the stalk of Arundo donax, which the ancients used for writing, as do also the modern Orientals. Pennyroyal. See Mint. Peppermint. See Mint. Pine tree translates the Heb. words: (1) 'oren (Is., xliv, 14; A. V. "ash", possibly Pinus pinea; (2) thidhar (Is., lx, 13; Is., xli, 19; D. V. "elm"), the elm (q. v.) rather than pine. Pistachio, Heb. botnim (Gen., xliii, 11), probably refers to the nut-fruits of Pistacia vera, very common in Palestine; yet Arab. butm is applied to Pistacia terebinthus. Plane tree, Heb. armon (Gen., xxx, 37; Ezech., xxxi, 8; A. V. "chestnut tree"; Ecclus., xxiv, 19). Platanus orientalis, found throughout the East, fulfills well the condition implied in the Heb. name ("peeled"), as the outer layers of its bark peel off. A. V. translation is erroneous, for the chestnut tree does not flourish either in Mesopotamia or Palestine. Pomegranate, the fruit of Punica granatum, a great favourite in the Orient, and very plentiful in Palestine, hence the many allusions to it in the Bible. Pomegranates were frequently taken as a model of ornamentation; several places of the Holy Land were named after the tree (Heb., rimmon): Rimmon, Geth-Remmon, En-Rimmon, etc. Poplar, Heb. libneh (Gen., xxx, 37; Osee, iv, 13). Arab. lubna, Styrax officinalis, certainly identified with the tree from the inner layer of whose bark the officinal storax is obtained. Poppy. See Gall. Pulse renders two Heb. words: (1) qali occurs twice in II Kings, xvii, 28, and is translated by "parched corn" and "pulse"; the allusion is to cereals, the seeds of peas, beans, lentils, and the like, which, in the East, are roasted in the oven or toasted over the fire; (2) zeroim, zeronim (Dan., i, 12, 16) refer to no special plants, but possibly to all edible summer vegetables. Reed, a general word translating several Heb. names of plants: 'agmon, gome, sûph (see Bulrush) and qaneh (see Calamus). Rest-harrow. See Briers. Rock-rose. See Ladanum. Rose. (1) Heb. khabbaççeleth (A. V., Song of Sol. ii, 1; IS., xxxv, 1) is probably the narcissus (see Flower of the Field). (2) Wis., ii, 8, seems to indicate the ordinary rose, though roses were known in Egypt only at the epoch of the Ptolemies. (3) The rose plant mentioned in Ecclus., xxiv, 18; xxxix, 17, is rather the oleander, Nerium oleander, very abundant around Jericho, where it is doubtful whether roses ever flourished except in gardens, although seven different species of the genus Rosa grow in Palestine. Rue (Luke, xi, 42), probably Ruta chalepensis, slightly different from R. graveolens, the officinal one. St. Luke implies that Pharisees regarded the rue as subject to tithe, although it was not mentioned in the Law among tithable things (Lev., xxvii, 30; Num., xviii, 21; Deut., xiv, 22). This opinion of some overstrict Rabbis did not prevail in the course of time, and the Talmud (Shebiith, ix, 1) distinctly excepts the rue from tithe. Rush (Job, viii, 11). See Bulrush. Saffron, Heb. karkom (Cant., iv, 14), cf. Arab. kurkum, a fragrant plant, Crocus sativus, grown in the East and in Europe for seasoning dishes, bread, etc. Sandal-wood. See Algum. Sea-purslain. See Mallows. Sedge, Heb. suph (D. V., Ex., ii, 3), a generic name for rush. See Bulrush. Sedge-bush, Heb. 'akhu (D. V., Job, viii, 11; Gen., xli, 2, 18; "marshy places"; A. V., "meadow") probably designates all kinds of green plants living in marshes (cf. Egypt. akhah), in particular Cyperus esculentus. See Flag. Setim wood, the gum arabic tree, Acacia Seyal, Del., which abounds in the oasis of the Sinaitic Peninsula and in the sultry Wadys about the Dead Sea. The wood is light, though hard and close-grained, of a fine orange-brown hue darkening with age, and was reputed incorruptible. Shrub, Heb. na'açuç (D. V., Is., vii, 19; lv, 13), a particular kind of shrub, probably some jujube tree, either Zizyphus vulgaris, Lam., or Z. spina-christi, Willd. Sloe. See Bur. Smut. See Mildew. Soap. See Borith. Sodom, Vine of (Deut., xxxii, 32). See Vine. Spear-mint. See Mint. Spelt, A. V. and R. V. for kussemeth (Ezech., iv, 9). See Fitches. R. V. for qeçakh (Ex., ix, 32; Is., xxviii, 25). See Gith. Spices translates three Heb. words: (1) sammum, a generic word including galbanum onycha, the operculum of a strombus, and stacte; (2) basam, another generic term under which come myrrh, cinnamon, sweet cane, and cassia; (3) noko 'oth, possibly the same substance as Arab. noka'ath. See Astragalus. Spices, Aromatical (IV Kings, xx, 13; Is., xxxix, 2), a mistranslation for "precious things". See Astragalus. Spikenard (A. V. Song of Sol., i, 12; D. V., 11; iv, 14; Mark, xiv, 3; John, xii, 3), a fragrant essential oil obtained from the root of Nardostachys jatamansi, D. C., a small herbaceous plant of the Himalayas, which is exported all over the East, and was known even to the Romans; the perfume obtained from it was very expensive. Stacte translates four Heb. words: (1) nataph (Ex., xxx, 34), a fragrant gum identified with the storax (see Poplar), and with myrrh in drops or tears; (2) ahaloth (D. V., Ps. xliv, 9; A. V., xlv, 8: "aloes" (q. v.); (3) lot (Gen., xxxvii, 25; xliii, 11), see Ladanum; (4) qiddah (Ezech., xxvii, 19), see Cassia.. Storax. (1) Gen., xliii, 11: see Astragalus; (2) Ecclus., xxiv, 21: see Poplar; Stacte (1). Sweet cane. See Cane. Sycamine (A. V., Luke, xvii, 6; D. V. "mulberry tree"). As St. Luke distinguishes sukáminos (here) from sukomoréa (xix, 4), they probably differ; sukaminos is admitted by scholars to be the black mulberry, Morus nigra. Sycamore or Sycomore, Heb. shiqmim or shiqmoth (III Kings, x, 27; Ps. lxxviii, 47, D. V., lxxvii, 47, "mulberry"; Is., ix, 10; A. V. Amos, vii, 14), not the tree commonly called by that name, Acer pseudo-platanus, but Ficus sycomorus, formerly more plentiful in Palestine. Tamarisk, Heb. 'eshel (Gen., xxi, 33; "grove"; I Kings, xxii, 6; xxxi, 13; D. V. "wood", A. V. "tree"), Arab. 'athl, a tree of which eight or nine species grow in Palestine. Teil tree (A. V., Is., vi, 13), a mistranslation of Heb. 'elah, which is probably the terebinth. Terebinth (D. V., Is., vi, 13), Pistacia terebinthus, the turpentine tree, for Heb. 'ayl, 'elah, 'elon (see Oak); it grows in dry localities of south and eastern Palestine where the oak cannot thrive. The turpentine, different from that of the pine trees, is a kind of pleasant-smelling oil, obtained by making incisions in the bark, and is widely used in the East to flavour wine, sweet-meats, etc. Thistles, or numerous prickly plants, are one of the special featurees of the flora of the Holy Land; hence they are designated by various Hebrew words, inconsistently translated by the versions, where guess-work seems occasionally to have been employed although the general meaning is certain: (1) barqanim, see Briers; (2) dardar, Arab. shaukat ed-dardar, possibly Centaureas, star-thistles and knapweeds; (3) khedeq, see Mad-apple; (4) khoakh (see Bur), a plant, which grows amidst ruins (Is., xxiv, 13), in fallow-lands (Osee, ix, 6), with lilies (Cant., ii, 2), and in fallow fields where it is harmful to corn (Job, xxxi, 40), all which features suit well the various kinds of thistles (Carduus pycnocephalus, C. argentatus, Circium lanceolatum, C. arvense, Attractilis comosa, Carthamus oxyacantha, Scolymus maculatus), most abundant in Palestine; (5) sirim, the various star-thistles, or perhaps the thorny burnet, plentiful in ruins; (6) sirpal, from the Greek rendering, probably the elecampane, Inula viscosa, common on the hills of the Holy Land; (7) qimmeshonim, see Nettles; (8) shayith and (9) shamir, see Briers. Thorns, used in the English Bibles to designate plants like thistles, also includes thorny plants, such as (1) 'atal, see Bramble; (2) mesukah, the general name given to a hedge of any kind of thorny shrubs; (3) na'açuç, see Shrub; (4) sillôn (cf. Arab. sula), some kind of strong thorns; (5) sarabhim, tangled thorns forming thickets impossible to clear; (6) çinnim, an unidentified thorny plant; (7) qoç, a generic word for thorny bushes; (8) sikkim (cf. Arab. shauk), also a generic name. Thyine wood, probably Thuya articulata, Desf., especially in Apoc., xviii, 12. See Algum. Turpentine tree. See Terebinth. Vetches (D. V., Is., xxviii, 25). See Fitches. Vine, the ordinary grape-vine, Vitis vinifera, of which many varieties are cultivated and thrive in the Holy Land. In Old Testament times vine and wine were so important and popular that in it they are constantly mentioned and alluded to, and a relatively large vocabulary was devoted to expressing varieties of plants and produce. In Ezech., xv, 6, Heb. çafçafah is rendered "vine", see Willow. Vine of Sodom (Deut., xxxii, 32), possibly the well known shrub, "Apple of Sodom", Calotropis procera, Willd., which peculiar plant grows round the Dead Sea and produces a fruit of the size of an apple, and "fair to behold", which bursts when touched and contains only white silky tifts and small seeds, "dust and ashes" (Josephus). Walnut. See Nut. Water-mint. See Mint. Wheat, from Heb. bar and dagan, also translated "corn" and applicable to all cereals, is properly in Heb. khittah (cf. Arab. khintah), of which two varieties are especially cultivated in Palestine: Triticum æstivum, summer wheat, and T. hybernum, winter wheat; the harvest takes place from May (Ghôr) to June (highlands). Corn is threshed by cattle or pressed out with a sledge, and winnowed with a shovel, by throwing the grain against the wind on threshing floors upon breezy hills. Wheel (Ps. lxxxii, 14) probably refers to some kind of Centaurea, as does "whirlwind" (Is., xvii, 13). Willow. (1) Heb. çafçafah (A. V., Ezech., xvii, 5; D. V., "vine"), Arab. safsaf, probablly willow though some prefer Elægnus khortensis, Marsh., from Arab. zaizafun. (2) Heb. 'arabim (Lev., xxiii, 40; Job, xl, 17; Ps. cxxxvi, 2, A. V. cxxxvii; Is., xliv, 4), like Arab. gharab, hence the willow. 'Arabim, used only in the plur., probably designates all willows in general (Salix safsaf, S. alba, S. Fragilis, S. babylonica, or weeping willow, are frequent in the Palestinian Wadys), whereas çafçafah may point out some particular species possibly the weeping willow. Wormwood, Heb. la'anah (Apoc., viii, 11), plants of the genus Artemisia, several species of which (A. monosperma, Del., A. herba-alba, Asso., A. judaica, A. annua, A. arborescens) are common in Palestine, notably on tablelands and in deserts. The characteristic bitterness of the Artemisias, coupled with their usual dreariness of habitat, aptly typified for Eastern minds calamity, injustice, and the evil results of sin. Balfour, The Plants of the Bible (London, 1885); Bonavia, The Flora of the Assyrian Monuments and its Outcomes (Westminster, 1894); Duns, Biblical Natural Science, being the expl. of all references in Holy Scripture to geology, botany, etc. (London, 1863-5);Groser, The Trees and Plants mentioned in the Bible (London, 1895); Hooker and Tristram, Plants of the Bible, with the chief allusions collected and explained in Aids to the Student of the Holy Bible (London); Knight, Bible Plants and Animals (London, 1889); Post, Flora of Syria, Palestine and Sinai, from the Taurus to the Ras Muhammad, and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Syrian desert (Beirut, 1896); Smith, Bible Plants, their history, with a review of the opinions of various writers regarding their identification (London, 1878); Tristram, The Natural History of the Bible (London, 1889); Idem, The Fauna and Flora of Palestine (London, 1884); Zeller, Wild Flowers of the Holy Land (London, 1876); Boissier, Flora Orientalis (Bale and Geneva, 1867-88); Celsius, Hierobotanicon, sive de plantis Sacræ Scripturæ dissertationes breves (Upsala, 1745- 7); Forskal, Flora Ægyptico- Arabica (Copenhagen, 1776); Hiller, Hierophyticon, sive Commentarius in loca Scripturæ Sacræ quæ plantarum faciunt mentionem (Treves, 1725); Lemnius, Similitudinum ac parabolarum, quæ in Bibliis ex herbis desumuntur, dilucida explicatio (Frankfort, 1626); Linne, Flora Palestinæ (Upsala, 1756); Ursinus, Arboretum biblicum (Nuremberg, 1699); Idem, Arboreti biblici continuatio (Nuremberg, 1699); Cultrera, Botanique biblique (Geneva, 1861); Fillion, Atlas d'histoire naturelle de la Bible (Paris, 1884); Gandoger, Plantes de Judée in Bulletin de la Societé botanique de France, XXXIII, XXXV, XXXVI (Paris); Idem, articles on several plants in Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible (Paris, 1895-); Hamilton, La botanique de la Bible (Nice, 1871); Levesque, articles on various plants in Vig., Dict. Bibl.; Loret, La flore pharaonique, d'après les documents hiéroglyphiques et les spécimens découverts dans les tombes (Paris, 1892); Fonck, Strifzüge durch die Biblische Flora (Freiburg, 1900); Kinzler, Biblische Naturgesch. (Calw and Stuttgart, 1884); LÖw, Aramäische Pflanzennamen (Leipzig, 1881); Ordmann, Vermischte Sammlungen aus der Naturkunde zur Erklärung der Heiligen Schrift (Leipzig, 1786-95); RosenmÜller, Handbuch der Biblischlen Altertumskunde, IV, 1; Biblische Naturgesch. (Leipzig, 1830); Woenig, Die Pflanzen im alten Ægypten (Leipzig, 1886); Cultrera, Flora Biblica, ovvero spiegazione della plante menzionate nella Sacra Scrittura (Palermo, 1861). CHARLES L. SOUVAY. Diocese of Plasencia Diocese of Plasencia (PLACENTINA) Plasencia comprises the civil provinces of Cáceres, Salamanca, and Badajoz. Its capital has a population of 8044. The city of Plasencia was founded by Alfonso VIII on the site of Ambroz, which he had conquered from the Moors. He gave it the name of Placentia, "that it may be pleasing to God and man" (ut Deo placeat et hominibus), and sought to have it made a see by the pope, which Clement III did in 1189. In 1190, the see was occupied by Bricio and, at his death in 1211, by Domingo, a native of Beja, who was more warrior than shepherd, fighting at Las Navas de Tolosa at the head of the men of Plasencia, and subsequently directing his movements against Jaen, conquering Priego, Doja, Montejo, and other towns. He assisted at the Lateran Council of 1215, with Archbishop Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada, whom he served as vicar when the archbishop became legate in Spain. Dying in 1235, Domingo was succeeded by Adan, third Bishop of Plasencia, a no less warlike prelate, who with four other bishops accompanied St. Ferdinand to the conquest of Córdoba, where the five consecrated the mosque as a Christian cathedral. His successors, Ximeno Simon, and two Pedros, devoted themselves mainly to the government of their diocese; Juan Alonso assisted at the Cortes of 1288, where he obtained from Sancho confirmation of the privileges already granted to Plasencia. His successor Diego spent much time at Valladolid with the king. The cathedral was originally built on a lofty site, near the citadel, afterwards occupied by the Church of St. Vincent the Martyr, then by that of St. Anne and lastly by the Jesuit college, now an almshouse. Another cathedral was begun early in the fourteenth century; this edifice, in the Early Spanish Gothic style, is now the parish church of Santa Maria. At the end of its cloister are seen the arms of Bishop Gonzalo de Sta. Maria, in whose time the cloister was finished, and the first solemn procession was held there, 26 March, 1348. This cathedral had hardly been built when it began to seem too poor for the see -- one of the richest in Spain. In 1498, in the episcopate of Gutierre Alvarez de Toledo, the twenty-fourth bishop, another cathedral was begun in Late Gothic, and completed in Renaissance. The high altar is the work of Gregorio Hernández, a famous sculptor of Valladolid; the choir grille was made by Juan Bautista Celma in 1604; the stalls are noteworthy, rivalling those of the cathedral of Badajoz. In the sanctuary, on the Gospel side, is the tomb of Bishop Pedro Ponce de León, inquisitor general, who died at Jaraycedo, 18 January, 1573. In the winter chapter house are a "Nativity" by Velázquez and a "St. Augustine" by Españoleto. The adjoining college was founded in 1554 by Bishop Gutierre de Varagas de Carvajal, a native of Madrid, one of the most notable occupants of the see. The parish Church of St. Nicolas, also at Plasencia, contains the tombs of Hernan Pérez de Monroy, the champion of King Pedro I, and Pedro de Carvajal, Bishop of Coria. The Church of S. Juan Bautista, outside the walls, has been converted into a match factory. The noteworthy church of S. Vicente formerly belonged to the Dominicans; in its chapel of St. John is the magnificent tomb with kneeling effigy of Martin Nieto, knight commander of the nine towns, in the Order of St. John, and comendador of Yebenes. The episcopal palace was rebuilt at the expense of Bishop Francisco Laso de La Vega (1737), on the site of one that dated from the fifteenth century. Besides the almshouse already mentioned, there are the hospital of Sta. Maria, popularly known as Doña Engracia de Monroy, which was restored by Bishop Laso; and the hospital of La Merced, known as Las Llagas (The Wounds), intended for persons suffering from wounds or accidental injuries. The conciliar seminary of Purísima Concepción was founded in 1670 by Bishop Diego Sarmiento Valladares and, later on, reorganized by Bishops Antonio Carillo Mayoral and Cipriano Varela. In 1853 Bishop José Avila y Lamas installed it in the convent of S. Vicente. The Diocese of Plasencia was formerly suffragan of Santiago, but under the last concordat (1851) it became suffragan of Toledo. In this diocese is the famous Hieronymite monastery of Yuste, to which Charles V retired after his abdication. The ancient monastery itself has been destroyed, but the dwelling built for the emperor is preserved, as well as the church. In 1547 the Count and Countess of Oropesa caused this monastery to be rebuilt in Renaissance architecture. The vaultings of the church were reconstructed in 1860; above them are white-washed walls with the emperor's arms, on one side, and on the other, a black wooden casket which contained the body of Charles V, in a leaden case, until 1574, when it was removed to the Escorial. Plasencia has had many distinguished sons; among them Juan de Carvajal, created a cardinal by Eugene IV, filled many important posts under the Holy See and rendered important services at the Council of Basle and in the war against the Turks, while his cousin, Bernardino de Carvajal, presided in the conclaves which elected Adrian VI and Clement VII (see CARVAJAL). Among others were the jurists, Alfonso de Acevedo and Juan Guttiérrez; the chroniclers Lorenzo Galindez de Carvajal and Alonso Fernádez; and Diego de Chaves, confessor to Philip II. Within this diocese is the native home of the conquerors of America: Hernando Cortés, a native of the village of Medellín; and the Pizarros, natives of Trujillo. The bishops of Plasencia were lords of Jaraycejo, the town of Miajadas, and other domains. FERNÁNDEZ, Hist. y Anales de . . . Plasencia (Madrid, 1627); PONZ, Viaje de España, VII (2nd ed., Madrid, 1784); ALDERETE, Guia eclesiástica de España (Madrid, 1888); Crónica general de España (Madrid, 1870); DIAZ Y PEREZ, Extremadura in España, sus monumentos y artes (Barcelona, 1887). RAMÓN RUIS AMADO Platina Bartolomeo Platina Originally named Sacchi, b. at Piadena, near Mantua, in 1421; d. at Rome, 1481. He first enlisted as a soldier, and was then appointed tutor to the sons of the Marquis Ludovico Gonzaga. In 1457 he went to Florence, and studied under the Greek scholar Argyropulos. In 1402 he proceeded to Rome, probably in the suite of Cardinal Francesco Gonzaga. After Pius II had reorganized the College of Abbreviators (1463), and increased the number to seventy, Platina in May, 1464, was elected a member. When Paul II abolished the ordinances of Pius, Platina with the other new members was deprived of his office. Angered thereat, he wrote a pamphlet insolently demanding from the pope the recall of his restrictions. When called upon to justify himself he answered with insolence and was imprisoned in the Castle of Sant' Angelo, being released after four months on condition that he remain at Rome. In February, 1468, with about twenty other Humanists, he was again imprisoned on suspicion of heresy and of conspiring against the life of the pope, but the latter charge was dropped for lack of evidence, while they were acquitted on the former. But not even Platina denies that the members of the Roman Academy, imbued with half-pagan and materialistic doctrines, were found guilty of immorality. The story about his constancy under trial and torture is unfounded. After his release, 7 July, 1469, he expected to be again in the employ of Paul II, who, however, declined his services. Platina threatened vengeance and executed his threat, when at the suggestion of Sixtus IV he wrote his "Vitæ Pontificum Platinæ historici liber de vita Christi ac omnium pontificum qui hactenus ducenti fuere et XX" (Venice, 1479). In it he paints his enemy as cruel, and an archenemy of science. For centuries it influenced historical opinions until critical research proved otherwise. In other places party spirit is evident, especially when he treats of the condition of the Church. Notwithstanding, his "Lives of the Popes" is a work of no small merit, for it is the first systematic handbook of papal history. Platina felt the need of critical research, but shirked the examination of details. By the end of 1474 or the beginning of 1475 Platina offered his manuscript to Sixtus IV; it is still preserved in the Vatican Library. The pope's acceptance may cause surprise, but it is probable he was ignorant of its contents except in so far as it concerned his own pontificate up to November, 1474. After the death of Giandrea Bussi, Bishop of Aleria, the pope appointed Platina librarian with a yearly salary of 120 ducats and an official residence in the Vatican. He also instructed him to make a collection of the chief privileges of the Roman Church. This collection, whose value is acknowledged by all the annalists, is still preserved in the Vatican archives. In the preface Platina not only avoids any antagonism towards the Church but even refers with approbation to the punishing of heretics and schismatics by the popes, which is the best proof that Sixtus IV, by his marks of favour, had won Platina for the interests of the Church. Besides his principal work Platina wrote several others of smaller importance, notably: "Historia inclita urbis Mantuæ et serenissimæ familiæ Gonzagæ". The new Pinacotheca Vaticana contains the magnificent fresco by Melozzo da Forti. It represents Sixtus IV surrounded by his Court and appointing Platina prefect of the Vatican. As a paragraph from Platina's "Vitæ Pontificum" first gave rise to the legend of the excommunication of Halley's comet by Callistus III, we here give the legend briefly, after recalling some historical facts. After the fall of Constantinople (1453), Nicolas V appealed in vain to the Christian princes for a crusade. Callistus III (1455-58), immediately after his succession, sent legates to the various Courts for the same purpose; and, meeting with no response, promulgated a Bull 29 June, 1456, prescribing the following: (1) all priests were to say during Mass the "oratio contra paganos"; (2) daily, between noon and vespers, at the ringing of a bell, everybody had to say three Our Fathers and Hail Marys; (3) processions were to be held by the clergy and the faithful on the first Sunday of each month, and the priests were to preach on Faith, patience, and penance; to expose the cruelty of the Turks, and urge all to pray for their deliverance. The first Sunday of July (4 July), the first processions were held in Rome. On the same day the Turks began to besiege Belgrade. On 14 July the Christians gained a small advantage, and on the twenty-first and twenty-second the Turks were put to flight. In the same year Halley's comet appeared. In Italy it was first seen in June. Towards the end of the month it was still visible for three hours after sunset, causing great excitement everywhere by its extraordinary splendour. It naturally attracted the attention of astrologers as may appear from the long "judicium astrologicum" by Avogario, of Ferrara, dated 17 June, 1467; it was found again by Celoria among the manuscripts of Paolo Toscanelli, who had copied it himself. The comet was seen till 8 July. It is evident, from all the documents of that time, that it had disappeared from sight several days before the battle of Belgrade. These two simultaneous facts-the publication of the Bull and the appearance of the comet-were connected by Platina in the following manner: "Apparente deinde per aliquot dies cometa crinito et rubeo: cum mathematici ingentem pestem: charitatem annonæ: magnam aliquam cladem futuram dicerent: ad avertendam iram Dei Calistus aliquot dierum supplicationes decrevit: ut si quid hominibus immineret, totum id in Thurcos christiani nominis hostes converteret. Mandavit kprætera ut assiduo rogatu Deus flecteretur in meridie campanis signum dari fidelibus omnibus: ut orationibus eos juvarent: qui cxontra Thurcos continuo dimicabant" (A maned and fiery comet appearing for several days, while scientists were predicting a great plague, dearness of food, or some great disaster, Callistus decreed that supplicatory prayers be held for some days to avert the anger of God, so that, if any calamity threatened mankind, it might be entirely diverted against the Turks, the foes of the Christian name. He likewise ordered that the bells be rung at midday as a signal to all the faithful to move God with assiduous petitions and to assist with their prayers those engaged in constant warfare with the Turks). Platina has, generally speaking, recorded the facts truly; but is wrong at one point, viz., where he says that the astrologers' predictions of great calamities induced the pope to prescribe public prayers. The Bull does not contain a word on the comet, as the present writer can testify from personal examination of the authenticated document. A careful investigation of the authenticated "Regesta" of Callistus III (about one hundred folios), in the Vatican archives, shows that the comet is not mentioned in any other papal document. Nor do other writers of the time refer to any such prayers against the comet, though many speak both of the comet and of the prayers against the Turks. The silence of St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence (1446-59), is particularly significant. In his "Chronicorum libri tres" he enumerates accurately all the prayers prescribed by Callistus; he also mentions the comet of 1456 in a chapter entitled, "De cometis, unde causentur et quid significent"-but never refers to prayers and processions against the comet, although all papal decrees were sent to him. Aeneas Sylvius and St. John Capistrano, who preached the crusade in Hungary, considered the comet rather as a favourable omen in the war against the Turks. Hence it is clear that Platina has looked wrongly upon the Bull as the outcome of fear of comets. The historians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries contented themselves with quoting Platina more or less accurately (Calvisius 1605, Spondanus 1641, Lubienietski 1666). Fabre (1726) in his continuation of the "Histoire Ecclésiastique" by Fleury gave a somewhat free paraphrase. Bruys (1733), an apostate (who afterwards entered the Church again), copies Fleury-Fabre adding "que le Pape profita en habile homme de la superstition et de la crédulité des peuples". It is only when we come to Laplace's "Exposition du Système du monde", that we find the expression that the pope ordered the comet and the Turks to be exorcized (conjuré), which expression we find again in Daru's poem "L'Astronomie". Arago (Des Comètes en général etc. Annuaire du Bureau des Longitudes 1832, 244) converts it into an excommunication. Arago's treatise was soon translated into all the European languages after which time the appearance of the comet (1456) is hardly ever mentioned, but this historical lie must be repeated in various shapes. Smyth (Cycle of celestial objects) speaks of a special protest and excommunication exorcizing the Devil, the Turks, and the comet. Grant (History of physical astronomy) refers to the publication of a Bull, in which Callistus anathematized both the Turks and the Comet. Babinet (Revue des deux mondes, 23 ann., vol. 4, 1853, 831) has the pope "lancer un timide anathème sur la comète et sur les ennemis de la Chrétienté", whilst in the battle of Belgrade "les Frères Mineurs aux premiers rangs, invoquaient l'exorcisme du pape contre la comète". In different ways the legend is repeated by Chambers, Flammarion, Draper, Jamin, Dickson White, and others. However, the truth is gaining ground and it is hoped the story of the excommunicated comet will soon be relegated to the realm of fables. Pastor, Geschichte d. Päpste, I, II, passim; Muratori, Rev. italic. scriptores, XX (1731), 477, 611-14; Bissolati, Vite di due illustri cremonesi (Milan, 1856); Delsaulx, Calixte III et la comète de Halley; Collection de précis historiques (Brussels, 1859), 301-5; Gerard, Of a Bull and a comet in The Month (Feb., 1907); Thirion, La comète de Halley. Son histoire et la légende de son excommunication in Revue des quest. sc., 3rd series, XVI (Brussels), 670-95; Stein, Calixte III et la comète de Halley in Specola astronomica Vaticana, II (1909); Hagen, Die Fabel von d. Kometenbulle in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, LXVIII (1910), 413. J. STEIN Plato and Platonism Plato and Platonism I. LIFE OF PLATO Plato (Platon, "the broad shouldered") was born at Athens in 428 or 427 B.C. He came of an aristocratic and wealthy family, although some writers represented him as having felt the stress of poverty. Doubtless he profited by the educational facilities afforded young men of his class at Athens. When about twenty years old he met Socrates, and the intercourse, which lasted eight or ten years, between master and pupil was the decisive influence in Plato's philosophical career. Before meeting Socrates he had, very likely, developed an interest in the earlier philosophers, and in schemes for the betterment of political conditions at Athens. At an early age he devoted himself to poetry. All these interests, however, were absorbed in the pursuit of wisdom to which, under the guidance of Socrates, he ardently devoted himself. After the death of Socrates he joined a group of the Socratic disciples gathered at Megara under the leadership of Euclid. Later he travelled in Egypt, Magna Graecia, and Sicily. His profit from these journeys has been exagerrated by some biographers. There can, however, be no doubt that in Italy he studied the doctrines of the Pythagoreans. His three journeys to Sicily were, apparently, to influence the older and younger Dionysius in favor of his ideal system of government. But in this he failed, incurring the enmity of the two rulers, was cast into prison, and sold as a slave. Ransomed by a friend, he returned to his school of philosophy at Athens. This differed from the Socratic School in many respects. It had a definite location in the groves near the gymnasium of Academus, its tone was more refined, more attention was given to literary form, and there was less indulgence in the odd, and even vulgar method of illustration which characterized the Socratic manner of exposition. After his return from his third journey to Sicily, he devoted himself unremittingly to writing and teaching until his eightieth year, when, as Cicero tells us, he died in the midst of his intellectual labors ("scribens est mortuus") ("De Senect.", v, 13). II. WORKS It is practically certain that all Plato's genuine works have come down to us. The lost works ascribed to him, such as the "Divisions" and the "Unwritten Doctrines", are certainly not genuine. Of the thirty-six dialogues, some == the "Phaedrus", "Protagoras", "Phaedo", "The Republic", "The Banquet", etc. == are undoubtedly genuine; others == e.g. the "Minos", == may with equal certainty be considered spurious; while still a third group == the "Ion", "Greater Hippias", and "First Alcibiades" == is of doubtful authenticity. In all his writings, Plato uses the dialogue with a skill never since equalled. That form permitted him to develop the Socratic method of question and answer. For, while Plato elaborated to a high degree the faculty by which the abstract is understood and presented, he was Greek enough to follow the artistic instinct in teaching by means of a clear-cut concrete type of philosophical excellence. The use of the myth in the dialogues has occaisioned considerable difficulty to the commentators and critics. When we try to put a value on the content of a Platonic myth, we are often baffled by the suspicion that it is all meant to be subtly ironical, or that it is introduced to cover up the inherent contradictions of Plato's thought. In any case, the myth should never be taken too seriously or invoked as an evidence of what Plato really believed. III. PHILOSOPHY (1) The Starting Point The immediate starting-point of Plato's philosophical speculation was the Socratic teaching. In his attempt to define the conditions of knowledge so as to refute sophistic scepticism, Socrates had taught that the only true knowledge is a knowledge by means of concepts. The concept, he said, represents all the reality of a thing. As used by Socrates, this was merely a principle of knowledge. It was taken up by Plato as a principle of Being. If the concept represents all the reality of things, the reality must be something in the ideal order, not necessarily in the things themselves, but rather above them, in a world by itself. For the concept, therefore, Plato substitutes the Idea. He completes the work of Socrates by teaching that the objectively real Ideas are the foundation and justification of scientific knowledge. At the same time he has in mind a problem which claimed much attention from pre-Socratic thinkers, the problem of change. The Eleatics, following Parmenides, held that there is no real change or multiplicity in the world, that reality is one. Heracltus, on the contrary, regarding motion and multiplicity as real, maintained that permanence is only apparent. The Platonic theory of Ideas is an attempt to solve this crucial question by a metaphysical compromise. The Eleatics, Plato said, are right in maintaining that reality does not change; for the ideas are immutable. Still, there is, as Heraclitus contended, change in the world of our experience, or, as Plato terms it, the world of phenomena. Plato, then, supposes a world of Ideas apart from the world of our experience, and immeasurably superior to it. He imagines that all human souls dwelt at one time in that higher world. When, therefore, we behold in the shadow-world around us a phenomenon or appearance of anything, the mind is moved to a remembrance of the Idea (of that same phenomenal thing) which it formerly contemplated. In its delight it wonders at the contrast, and by wonder is led to recall as perfectly as possible the intuition it enjoyed in a previous existence. This is the task of philosophy. Philosophy, therefore, consists in the effort to rise from the knowledge of phenomena, or appearances, to the noumena, or realities. Of all the ideas, however, the Idea of the beautiful shines out through the phenomenal veil more clearly than any other; hence the beginning of all philosophical activity is the love and admiration of the Beautiful. (2) Division of Philosophy The different parts of philosophy are not distinguished by Plato with the same formal precision found in Aristotelean, and post-Aristotelean systems. We may, however, for convenience, distinguish: + Dialectic, the science of the Idea in itself; + Physics, the knowledge of the Idea as incorporated or incarnated in the world of phenomena, and + Ethics and Theory of the State, or the science of the Idea embodied in human conduct and human society. (a) Dialectic This is to be understood as synonymous not with logic but with metaphysics. It signifies the science of the Idea, the science of reality, science in the only true sense of the word. For the ideas are the only realities in the world. We observe, for instance, just actions, and we know that some men are just. But both in the actions and in the persons designated as just there exist many imperfections; they are only partly just. In the world above us there exits justice, absolute, perfect, unmixed with injustice, eternal, unchangeable, immortal. This is the Idea of justice. Similarly, in that world above us there exist the Ideas of greatness, goodness, beauty, wisdom, etc. and not only these, but also the Ideas of concrete material objects such as the Idea of man, the idea of horse, the Idea of trees, etc. In a word, the world of Ideas is a counterpart of the world of our experience, or rather, the latter is a feeble imitation of the former. The ideas are the prototypes, the phenomena are ectypes. In the allegory of the cave (Republic, VII, 514 d) a race of men are described as chained in a fixed position in a cavern, able to look only at the wall in front of them. When an animal, e.g. a horse, passes in front of the cave, they, beholding the shadow on the wall, imagine it to be a reality, and while in prison they know of no other reality. When they are released and go into the light they are dazzled, but when they succeed in distinguishing a horse among the objects around them, their first impulse is to take that for a shadow of the being which they saw on the wall. The prisoners are "like ourselves", says Plato. The world of our experience, which we take to be real, is only a shadow world. The real world is the world of Ideas, which we reach, not by sense-knowledge, but by intuitive contemplation. The Ideas are participated by the phenomena; but how this participation takes place, and in what sense the phenomena are imitations of the Ideas, Plato does not fully explain; at most he invokes a negative principle, sometimes called "Platonic Matter", to account for the falling-off of the phenomena from the perfection of the Idea. The limitating principle is the cause of all defects, decay, and change in the world around us. The just man, for instance, falls short of absolute justice (the Idea of Justice), because in men the Idea of justice is fragmented, debased, and reduced by the principle of limiation. Towards the end of his life, Plato leaned more and more towards the Pythagorean number-theory, and, in the "Timaeus" especially, he is inclined to interpret the Ideas in terms of mathematics. His followers emphasized this element unduly, and, in the course of neo-Platonic speculation, the ideas were identified with numbers. There was much in the theory of Ideas that appealed to the first Christian philosophers. The emphatic affirmation of a supermundane, spiritual order of reality and the equally emphatic assertion of the caducity of things material fitted in with the essentially Christian contention that spiritual interests are supreme. To render the world of Ideas more acceptable to Christians, the Patristic Platonists from Justin Martyr to St. Augustine maintained that the world exists in the mind of God, and that this was what Plato meant. On the other hand, Aristotle understood Plato to refer to a world of Ideas self-subsisting and separate. Instead, therefore, of picturing to ourselves the world of Ideas as existing in God, we should represent God as existing in the world of Ideas. For, among the Ideas, the hierarchical supremacy is attributed to the Idea of God, or absolute Goodness, which is said to be for the supercelestial universe what the sun in the heavens is for this terrestrial world of ours. (b) Physics The Idea, incorporated, so to speak, in the phenomenon is less real than the Idea in its own world, or than the Idea embodied in human conduct and human society. Physics, i.e., the knowledge of the Idea in phenomena, is, therefore, inferior in dignity and importance to Dialectic and Ethics. In fact, the world of phenomena has no scientific interest for Plato. The knowledge of it is not true knowledge, nor the source, but only the occaision of true knowledge. The phenomena stimulate our minds to a recollection of the intuition of Ideas, and with that intuition scientific knowledge begins. Moreover, Plato's interest in nature is dominated by a teleological view of the world as animated with a World-Soul, which, conscious of its process, does all things for a useful purpose, or, rather, for "the best", morally, intellectually, and aesthetically. This cnviction is apparent especially in the Platonic account of the origin of the universe, contained in the "Timaeus", although the details regarding the activity of the demiurgos and the created gods should not, perhaps, be taken seriously. Similarly, the account of the origin of the soul, in the same dialogue, is a combination of philosophy and myth, in which it is not easy to distinguish the one from the other. It is claer, however, that Plato holds the spiritual nature of the soul as against the materialistic Atomists, and that he believes the soul to have existed before its union with the body. The whole theory of Ideas, in so far, at least, as it is applied to human knowledge, presupposes the doctrine of pre-existence. "All knowledge is recollection" has no meaning except in the hypothesis of the soul's pre-natal intuition of Ideas. it is equally incontrovertible that Plato held the soul to be immortal. His conviction on this point was as unshaken as Socrates's. His attempt to ground that conviction on unassailable premises is, indeed, open to criticism, because his arguments rest either on the hypothesis of previous existence or on his general theory of Ideas. Nevertheless, the considerations which he offers in favour of immortality, in the "Phaedo", have helped to strengthen all subsequent generations in the belief in a future life. His description of the future state of the soul is dominated by the Pythagorean doctrine of transmigration. Here, again, the details are not to be taken as seriously as the main fact, and we can well imagine that the account of the soul condemned to return in the body of a fox or a wolf is introduced chiefly because it accentuates the doctrine of rewards and punishments, which is part of Plato's ethical system. Before passing to his ethical doctrines it is necessary to indicate one other point of his psychology. The soul, Plato teaches, consists of three parts: the rational soul, which resides in the head; the irascible soul, the seat of courage, which resides in the heart; and the appetitive soul, the seat of desire, which resides in the abdomen. These are not three faculties of one soul, but three parts really distinct. (c) Ethics and Theory of the State Like all the Greeks, Plato took for granted that the highest good of man, subjectively considered, is happiness (eudaimonia). Objectively, the highest good of man is the absolutely highest good in general, Goodness itself, or God. The means by which this highest good is to be attained is the practice of virtue and the acquistion of wisdom. So far as the body hinders these pursuits it should be brought into subjection. Here, however, asceticism should be moderated in the interests of harmony and symmetry == Plato never went the length of condemning matter and the human body in particular, as the source of all evil == for wealth, health, art, and innocent pleasures are means of attaining happiness, though not indispensable, as virtue is. Virtue is order, harmony, the health of the soul; vice is disorder, discord, disease. The State is, for Plato, the highest embodiment of the Idea. It should have for its aim the establishment and cultivation of virtue. The reason of this is that man, even in the savage condition, could, indeed, attain virtue. In order, however, that virtue may be established systematically and cease to be a matter of chance or haphazard, education is necessary, and without a social organization education is impossible. In his "Republic" he sketches an ideal state, a polity which should exist if rulers and subjects would devote themselves, as they ought, to the cultivation of wisdom. The ideal state ismodelled on the individual soul. It consists of three orders: rulers (corresponding to the reasonable soul), producers (corresponding to desire), and warriors (corresponding to courage). The characteristic virtue of the producers is thrift, that of the soldiers bravery, and that of the rulers wisdom. Since philosophy is the love of wisdom, it is to be the dominant power in the state: "Unless philosophers become rulers or rulers become true and thorough students of philosophy, there shall be no end to the troubles of states and of humanity" (Rep., V, 473), which is only another way of saying that those who govern should be distinguished by qualities which are distinctly intellectual. Plato is an advocate of State absolutism, such as existed in his time in Sparta. The State, he maintains, exercises unlimited power. Neither private property nor family institutions have any place in the Platonic state. The children belong to the state as soon as they are born, and should be taken in charge by the State from the beginning, for the purpose of education. They should be educated by officials appointed by the State, and, according to the measure of ability, which they exhibit, they are to be assigned by the State to the order of producers, to that of warriors, or to the governing class. These impractical schemes reflect at once Plato's discontent with the demagogy then prevalent in Athens and in his personal predilection forthe aristocratic form of government. Indeed, his scheme is essentially aristocratic in the original meaning of the word; it advocates government by the (intellectually) best. The unreality of it all, and the remoteness of its chance to be tested by practice, must have been evident to Plato himself. For in his "Laws" he sketches a modified scheme which, though inferior, he thinks, to the plan outlined in the "Republic", is nearer to the level of what the average state can attain. IV. THE PLATONIC SCHOOL Plato's School, like Aristotle's, was organized by Plato himself and handed over at the time of his death to his nephew Speusippus, the first scholarch, or ruler of the school. It was then known as the Academy, because it met in the groves of Academus. The Academy continued, with varying fortunes, to maintain its identity as a Platonic school, first at Athens, and later at Alexandria until the first century of the Christian era. It modified the Platonic system in the direction of mysticism and demonology, and underwent at least one period of scepticism. It ended in a loosely constructed eclecticism. With the advent of neo-Platonism (q.v.) founded by Ammonius and developed by Plotinus, Platonism definitely entered the cause of Paganism against Christianity. Nevertheless, the great majority of the Christian philosophers down to St. Augustine were Platonists. They appreciated the uplifting influence of Plato's psychology and metaphysics, and recognized in that influence a powerful ally of Christianity in the warfare against materialism and naturalism. These Christian Platonists underestimated Aristotle, whom they generally referred to as an "acute" logician whose philosophy favoured the heretical opponents of orthodox Christianity. The Middle Ages completely reversed this verdict. The first scholastics knew only the logical treatises of Aristotle, and, so far as they were psychologists or metaphysicians at all, they drew on the Platonism of St. Augustine. Their successors, however, in the twelfth century came to a knowledge of the psychology, metaphysics, and ethics of Aristotle, and adopted the Aristotelean view so completely that before the end of the thirteenth century the Stagyrite occupied in the Christian schools the position occupied in the fifth century by the founder of the Academy. There were, however, episodes, so to speak, of Platonism in the history of Scholasticism == e.g., the School of Chartes in the twelfth century == and throughout the whole scholastic period some principles of Platonism, and especially of neo-Platonism, were incorporated in the Aristotelean system adopted by the schoolmen. The Renaissance brought a revival of Platonism, due to the influence of men like Bessarion, Plethon, Ficino, and the two Mirandolas. The Cambridge Platonists of the seventeenth century, such as Cudworth, Henry More, Cumberland, and Glanville, reacting against humanistic naturalism, "spiritualized Puritanism" by restoring the foundations of conduct to principles intuitionally known and independent of self-interest. outside the schools of philosophy which are described as Platonic there are many philosophers and groups of philosophers in modern times who owe much to the inspiration of Plato, and to the enthusiasm for the higher pursuits of the mind which they derived from the study of his works. The standard printed edition of Plato's works is that of STEPHANUS (Paris, 1578). Among more recent editions are BEKKER (Berlin, 1816-23), FIRMIN-DIDOT (Paris 1866-). The best English tr. is JOWETT, The Dialogues of Plato (Oxford, 1871; 3rd ed., New York, 1892). For exposition of Plato's system cf. ZELLER, Plato and the Older Academy, tr. ALLEYNE AND GOODWIN (London, 1888); GROTE, Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates (London, 1885); PATER, Plato and Platonism (London, 1893); TURNER, History of Philosophy (Boston, 1903); 93 s.q.; FOUILLEE, La philosophie de Platon (Paris, 1892); HUIT, La vie et l'oeuvre de Platon (Paris, 1893); WINDEBLAND, Platon (Stuttgart,1901); LUTOSLAWSKI, Origin and Growth of Plato's Logic (London, 1897). For history of Platonism cf. BUSSELL, The School of Plato (London, 1896); HUIT, Le platonisme à Byzance et en Italie à la fin du moyen-âge (Brussels, 1894); articles in Annales de philosophie chretienne, new series, XX-XXII; TAROZZI, La tradizione platonica nel medio evo (Trani Vecchi, 1892). WILLIAM TURNER Pierre-Guillaume-Frederic Le Play Pierre-Guillaume-Frédéric Le Play A French economist, born at La Rivière (Calvados), 11 April, 1806; died at Paris, 5 April, 1882. His childhood was spent among Christian people, with a poor widowed mother. From the college of Havre he went (1824) to Paris, where he followed the scientific courses of the Collège St. Louis, the polytechnic school, and the school of mines. At the polytechnic school he had as fellow-pupils the economist Michel Chevalier, Père Gratry, and the philosopher Jean Reynaud. In 1829 with Reynaud he made a journey on foot through the Rhine provinces, Hanover, Brunswick, Prussia, and Belgium to study mining, customs, and social institutions. On his return an accident in the course of a chemical experiment caused him eighteen months of suffering and deformed his hands for life. He became secretary of the "Annales des mines" and of "Statistique de l'industrie minérale", and professor of metallurgy at the school of mines (1840). Each year he travelled six months, studying metallurgy and social problems, and questioning traders, workmen, owners, and peasants. He spoke five languages and understood eight. His life may be divided into two periods: from 1833-55 he invented, applied, and perfected his method; from 1855-82 he explained, developed, and perfected his doctrine. In 1833 he visited Spain; in 1835 and 1846 Belgium; 1836 and 1842, Great Britain; 1837 and 1844, Russia; 1845, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway; 1844 and 1845, Germany; 1846, Austria, Hungary and Northern Italy. Extracts from his correspondence with his wife and mother during his travels were published in 1899. During his sojourns in Russia he was consulted by Nicholas I on various projects of reform, and, having undertaken at the instance of Prince Anatol Demidoff a scientific expedition into the coal regions of Donetz, the prince entrusted him with the superintendence of his gold, silver, platinum, copper, and iron mines, which employed 45,000 men in the Ural region. His conversations with Comte de Rayneval, French ambassador at Madrid, to whom he had been recommended by Boieldieu, convinced him that the forced division of inheritances established by the Code Napoléon had evil social consequences. His visit to the Baron de Tamm, who directed 2300 workmen at Osterby, near Upsala, showed him what might be done by resident owners anxious for the welfare of their people, and his theory of "social authorities" slowly took form in his mind. Among the peasants and blacksmiths of the Ural region he observed a social condition very similar to the ancient French feudal regime, and his statements regarding the comfort of these people coincided with those of Guérard and Leopold Delisle concerning the prosperous condition of the French agricultural classes during the early centuries of feudalism. He thus formed ideas quite at variance with the juridical and historical conceptions propagated by the men of the French Revolution. His "method of observation", the rules of which he gradually formulated, was in contradiction to the individualism of the French Revolution. It consisted in studying, not the individual, but the family (which is the real social unit), and in studying types of families among the stationary element of the population whose members lead uniform lives and faithfully preserve their local customs. From 1848, during the months he spent in Paris, Le Play held weekly gatherings of persons of various opinions interested in the social question; among them were Jean Reynaud, Lamartine, François Arago, Carnot, Lanjuinais, Tocqueville, Montalembert, Sainte-Beuve, Agénor de Gasparin, Abbé Dupanloup, Thiers, Auguste Cochin, and Charles Dupin. During the social troubles which followed the Revolution of 1848 these men besought Le Play to abandon his teaching at the school of mines and to devote himself exclusively to the exposition of his social system. But Le Play, ever scrupulous, considered it necessary to make further journeys to Switzerland, the Danube provinces, and Central Turkey (1848), Auvergne (1850), England and Western Germany (1851), Austria and Russia (1853). However, in 1855 he published "Les ouvriers européens", describing the material and moral life of thirty-six families, among widely different races, which he had studied at close range. The School of Le Play continues this series of valuable monographs in a periodical entitled "Les ouvriers des deux mondes". The English economist Higgs declared that Le Play's monographs on four English families are the best available account of English popular life from the economic point of view. Taine, the French historian, after studying the origins of contemporary France for his great work, wrote: "By his methodical, exact, and profound researches, Le Play has done a great service to politics and, in consequence, to history." Luzzatti, a Jew who later became president of the Italian ministry, wrote to Le Play: "After drinking at all sources, I draw inspiration for my studies from your method alone." And it was in conformity with Le Play's method that Carroll D. Wright, head of the Boston Bureau of Statistics and later Commissioner of Labour at Washington, had 6000 monographs dealing with labour problems compiled; in acknowledging the influence of the study of Le Play, he says, "I received from it a new inspiration which completely changed the trend of my thoughts." Le Play had intended to add to "Les ouvriers européens" a final chapter setting forth certain doctrinal conclusions, but at the last he held them back to let them mature, and simply wrote: "If required to point out the force which, operating at each extremity of the social scale, suffices, strictly speaking, to render a people prosperous, we should unhesitatingly answer: at the bottom, foresight; at the top, religion. In analysing facts and comparing figures, social science always leads real observers to the principles of the Divine law." In 1856 Le Play founded the Société d'Economie Sociale with the intention of preparing public opinion to accept his conclusions. In 1855 (second period) Napoleon III appointed Le Play councillor of State and reposed in him a confidence which steadily increased. He also requested Le Play to write a book on the social principles which seemed to him requisite for the prosperity of society. Le Play consented and, in 1864, published his "Réforme sociale en France, déduite de l'observation comparée des peuples européens". In the first chapter, "La religion", he defends the religious idea against Darwinism and Scepticism, but at that date the various religions seemed to him but external forms, equally respectable and inspired by the same religious sentiment; he does not decide in favour of any. He defends God, respects Jesus Christ, but fails to appreciate the Church. From his observations he concluded that the doctrine of the original goodness of man is false, that the tendency to evil is ingrained in human nature, that, therefore, a law is needed to compel man to do good in order to attain happiness, and he hails this law in the Decalogue but makes little account of the Gospel. The work was a sort of social apologetic for the Decalogue: "the erring", he writes, "on whom the traditional truths have no longer any influence, are led back by the facts which the method of observation brings to light." The book met with great success. Sainte-Beuve proclaimed him "a rejuvenated Bonald, progressive and scientific". Montalembert wrote: "Le Play has produced the most original, most useful, most courageous, and, in every respect, the strongest book of the century. He not only possesses more eloquence than the illustrious Tocqueville, but much more practical perspicacity and above all greater moral courage. I repeat, what I admire most in him is the courage which impels him to fight with raised visor against most of the dominant prejudices of his time and country. In this, even more than in his prodigious knowledge of facts, will consist his true greatness in the intellectual history of the nineteenth century." Napoleon III entrusted the organization of the Exposition Universelle of 1867 to Le Play, whom he made commissary general, and, at his request, the emperor created a new order of reward in favour of "establishments and localities throughout the world which give the best examples of social peace". But despite public opinion and the sympathy of the emperor, the jurists opposed Le Play's ideas regarding testamentary liberty. As early as 1865 Baron de Véauce, a member of the corps législatif, proposed that the Government should study the modification of the laws of inheritance, but his proposal received the votes of only forty-one deputies. The emperor, however, on two occasions had investigations made with a view to the establishment of testamentary freedom in favour of small holdings, but the project was opposed by the jurists and failed. In November, 1869, he urged Le Play to make another effort to win over five senators to this view, but this attempt, also, was unsuccessful. It was at the emperor's suggestion that, in January, 1870, Le Play in his "L'organisation du travail" gave a résumé of the principles expounded in "La Réforme sociale". The emperor also asked him to present to two of his ministers the conclusions of this book as expressing the imperial opinion, but further action was prevented by the outbreak of war and the fall of the empire. In 1871, after the war and the Commune, Le Play published his book "L'organisation de la famille" and his pamphlet on "La paix sociale après le désastre", and to propagate his ideas he founded in France "Unions de la paix sociale". His ideas met with little political success; the project laid before the National Assembly, 25 June, 1871, for the modification of the laws of inheritance was without result. Le Play grouped about him eminent economists such as Focillon, Claudio Jaunet, Cheysson, and Rostand. In 1875 he published "La Constitution de l'Angleterre"; in 1876, "La réforme en Europe et le salut de la France"; in 1877-79, the second edition of his "Ouvriers européens", which, enriched with new details, is a sort of compendium of the social history of Europe from 1855; and in 1881, "La Constitution essentielle de l'humanité". In 1881 also appeared the review, "La réforme sociale", which, even to-day, propagates Le Play's ideas. The social doctrine elaborated in his works is as follows: In all prosperous nations there are certain institutions which accompany and explain this prosperity. These institutions are; + (1) the observance of the Decalogue; + (2) public worship -- on this point Le Play devotes some beautiful passages to the rôle of the Catholic clergy in the United States and in Canada (which he calls the model nation of our time), expresses his fear that the concordatory regime in France will produce a Church of bureaucrats, and dreams of a liberty such as exists in America for the Church of France; + (3) testamentary freedom, which according to him distinguishes peoples of vigorous expansion while the compulsory division of inheritances is the system of conquered races and inferior classes. It is only, he asserts, under the former system that familles-souches can develop, which are established on the soil and are not afraid of being prolific; + (4) legislation punishing seduction and permitting the investigation of paternity; + (5) institutions founded by large land owners or industrial leaders to uplift the condition of the workman. Le Play feared the intervention of the State in the labour system and considered that the State should encourage the social authorities to exercise what he calls "patronage", and should reward the heads of industry who founded philanthropic institutions. The League for Social Service, organized at New York in 1898 by Mr. Tolman, applied these ideas of Le Play; + (6) liberty of instruction, i. e. freedom from State control; + (7) decentralization in the State. He greatly admired the English ideas of self-government. In his latest works the Catholic tendency becomes more and more clearly defined. Le Play desired to collaborate with the clergy in the work of social reform; he believed that fidelity to God's law, an essential need of societies, could not be better guaranteed than by the doctrines, sacraments, and worship of the Catholic Church. One of his last public acts was a proceeding in behalf of the Church's right to teach, which was threatened by the projects of M. Jules Ferry. He obtained from his friend St. George Mivart a statement, signed by Gladstone, Lord Rosebery, and numerous professors of Oxford, Cambridge, and London, regarding the English idea and practice of liberty of instruction. Le Play was very influential in Catholic circles. In his Lenten pastoral for 1881, Cardinal de Bonnechose compared him to "those ancient sages of Greece who went to Egypt and the most remote countries of the Orient, to glean from sanctuary to sanctuary the primitive traditions of the human race". The future Cardinal Lavigerie wrote to him, "You are one of the men whom I most respect and admire." Although the "OEuvre des cercles catholiques ouvriers", founded in 1870 by the Comte de Mun and the Marquis de la Tour du Pin, held on the subject of the State's intervention in the labour system very different ideas from those of Le Play, the marquis claimed Le Play as one of his masters, because of the latter's attacks on Rousseau's theory of the original goodness of man and on the juridical and social ideas of the men of the French Revolution. LE PLAY, Voyages en Europe: extraits de sa correspondance (Paris, 1899); AUBUETIN, Frédéric Le Play (Paris, 1906); DE CURZON, Frédéric Le Play (Poitiers, 1899); DE RIBBE, Le Play (Paris, 1906); DIMIER, Les maîtres de la contre révolution au 19 ^e siècle (Paris, 1907); Fêtes du centenaire de Le Play et XXV ^e congrès de la société internationale d'économie sociale (Paris, 1907); BAUNARD, La foi et ses victoires, II (Paris, 1884), chapter on Le Play's religious attitude. GEORGES GOYAU. Plegmund Plegmund Archbishop of Canterbury, died 2 August, 914. He was a Mercian, and spent his early life near Chester as a hermit on an island called after him Plegmundham (the present Plemstall). His reputation for piety and learning caused King Alfred to summon him to court, where he helped the king in his literacy work. In 890 he was chosen Archbishop of Canterbury and went to Rome to receive the pallium from Pope Formosus. When the acts and ordinations of Formosus were condemned in 897 and the condemnation was confirmed in 905, the position of Plegmund became questionable, and in 908 he paid a second visit to Rome, probably to obtain confirmation by Sergius III of his acts as archbishop, and to arrange a subdivision of the West Saxon episcopate. This was carried out the following year, when Plegmund consecrated seven bishops in one day, five for Wessex and two others. He died in extreme old age and was buried in his cathedral at Canterbury. EDWIN BURTON Plenarium Plenarium A book of formulae and texts. Plenarium or Plenarius (Liber) is any book that contains completely all matters pertaining to one subject otherwise found scattered in several books. Thus, in the life of Bishop Aldrich (Baluze, "Miscell.", I, iii, 29) we read of a Plenarium or Breviarium, which seems to be a book of church rents (Binterim, "Denkwurdigkeiten", IV, i, 239). The entire mortuary office, Vespers, Matins, Lauds, and Mass, is called Plenarium. A complete copy of the four Gospels was called an "Evangeliarium plenarium". Under this heading we might class the "Book of Gospels" at Lichfield Cathedral, and the "Book of Gospels" given by Athelstan to Christ church in Canterbury, now in the library of Lambeth Palace (Rock, "Church of our Fathers", I, 122). Some Plenaria gave all the writings of the New Testament, others those parts of the Sacred Scriptures that were commonly read in the Divine service and bore the name "Lectionarium plenarium" (Becker, "Catal. bibl. ant.", 1885, 28, no. 237; 68, no. 650, 659). When priests in their missionary labours began to be scattered singly in different places, and when, in consequence, co-celebration of the Sacred Mysteries was rendered impossible, and private Masses became more frequent, the complete Missal or "Missale plenarium" came into use. Early vestiges of it may be found in the ninth century, and in the eleventh or twelfth century the "Missale plenarium" was found everywhere and contained all necessary prayers for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice, which until then had to be taken from different books, the "Sacramentary", "Lectionary", "Evangelistary", "Antiphonary", and "Gradual" (Zaccaria, "Bibl. rit.", I [Rome, 1876], 50). In Germany the name Plenarium denoted a popular book, giving the German translation of the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays and festivals of the entire year together with a short exposition and instruction. Later editions add also the Introit, Gradual etc., of the Masses. The last book of the kind bearing the title Plenarium was printed in 1522 at Basle. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Plenary Council Plenary Council A canonical term applied to various kinds of ecclesiastical synods. The word itself, derived from the Latin plenarium (complete or full), indicates that the council to which the term is applied (concilium plenarium, concilium plenum) represents the whole number of bishops of some given territory. Whatever is complete in itself is plenary. The ecumenical councils or synods of the Universal Church are called plenary councils by St. Augustine (C. illa, xi, Dist. 12), as they form a compete representation of the entire Church. Thus also, in ecclesiastical documents, provincial councils are denominated plenary, because all the bishops of a certain ecclesiastical province were represented. Later usage has restricted the term plenary to those councils which are presided over by a delegate of the Apostolic See, who has received special power for that purpose, and which are attended by all the metropolitans and bishops of some commonwealth, empire, or kingdom, or by their duly accredited representatives. Such plenary synods are frequently called national councils, and this latter term has always been in common use among the English, Italian, French, and other peoples. I. Plenary councils, in the sense of national synods, are included under the term particular councils as opposed to universal councils. They are of the same nature as provincial councils, with the accidental difference that several ecclesiastical provinces are represented in national or plenary synods. Provincial councils, strictly so-called, date from the fourth century, when the metropolitical authority had become fully developed. But synods, approaching nearer to the modern signification of a plenary council, are to be recognized in the synodical assemblies of bishops under primatial, exarchal, or patriarchal authority, recorded from the fourth and fifth centuries, and possibly earlier. Such were, apparently, the synods held in Asia Minor at Iconium and Synnada in the third century, concerning the re-baptism of heretics; such were, certainly, the councils held later in the northern part of Latin Africa, presided over by the Archbishop of Carthage, Primate of Africa. The latter councils were offically designated plenary councils (Concilium Plenarium totius Africae). Their beginnings are without doubt to be referred, at least, to the fourth, and possibly to the third century. Synods of a somewhat similar nature (though approaching nearer to the idea of a general council) were the Council of Arles in Gaul in 314 (at which were present the Bishops of London, York, and Caerleon), and the Council of Sardica in 343 (whose canons were frequently cited as Nicene canons). To these we might add the Greek Council in Trullo (692). The popes were accustomed in former ages to hold synods which were designated Councils of the Apostolic See. They might be denominated, to a certain extent, emergency synods, and though they were generally composed of the bishops of Italy, yet bishops of other ecclesiastical provinces took part in them. Pope Martin I held such a council in 649, and Pope Agatho in 680. These synods were imitated by the patriarchs of Constantinople who convoked, on special occasions, a synodus endemousa, at which were present bishops from various provinces of the Greek world who happened to be sojourning in the imperial city, or were summoned to give council to the emperor or the patriarch concerning matters that required special episcopal consultation. Still further narrowed down to our present idea of plenary councils are the synods convoked in the Frankish and West-Gothic kingdoms from the end of the sixth century, and designated national councils. The bishops in these synods were not gathered together because they belonged to certain ecclesiastical provinces, but because they were under the same civil government, and consequently had common interests which concerned the kingdom in which they lived or the people over whom they ruled. II. As ecclesiastical jurisdiction is necessary for the person who presides over a plenary or national synod, this name has been refused to the assemblies of the bishops of France, which met without papal authorization in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. These comitia cleri Gallicani were not really plenary councils. The more noted among them were those held at Paris in 1681 and 1682 (Collect. Lacens., I, 793 sq.). Convocations of ecclesiastics (Assemblées du Clerge) were frequent in France before the Revolution of 1789. They consisted of certain bishops deputed by the various ecclesiatical provinces of the kingdom, and of priests elected by their equals from the same provinces, to deliberate on the temporal affairs of the French churches, and more particularly on the assistance, generally monetary, to be accorded to the Government. After the establishment of the empire, Napoleon I held a great convention of bishops at Paris, and is said to have been much incensed because Pius VII did not designate it a national council (Coll. Lacens., VI, 1024). Similarly, mere congresses of bishops, even of a whole nation, who meet to discuss common ecclesiastical affairs, without adhering to synodal forms, are not to be called national or plenary Councils, because no one having the proper jurisdiction has formally summoned them to a canonical synod. Such episcopal conventions have been praised by the Holy See, because they showed unity among the bishops, and zeal for asserting the rights of the Church and the progress of the Catholic cause in their midst, in accordance with the sacred canons (Coll. Lacens., V, 1336), but, as the requisite legal forms and proper hierarchical authority are wanting, these congresses of bishops do not consitute a plenary council, no matter how full the representation of episcopal dignitaries may be. III. A plenary or national council may not be convoked or celebrated without the authority of the Apostolic See, as was solemnly and repeatedly declared by Pius IX (Coll. Lacens., V, 995, 1336). This has always been the practice in the Church, if not explicitly, at least from the fact that recourse could always be had to the Holy See against decisions of such councils. Now, however, express and special papal authorization is required. He who presides over the council must have the necessary jurisdiction, which is accorded by special Apostolic delegation. In the United States, the presidency of such synods has always been accorded by the Holy See to the archbishops of Baltimore. In their case, a papal delegation is necessary, for although they have a precedence of honour over all the other American metropolitans, yet they have no primatial or patriarchal jurisdiction. It is not uncommon for the pope to send from Rome a special delegate to preside over plenary councils. IV. Summons to a national or plenary council is to be sent to all archbishops and bishops of the nation, and they are obliged to appear, unless prevented by a canonical hindrance; to all administrators of dioceses sede plena or vacua, and to vicars capitular sede vacante; to vicars Apostolic possessed of episcopal jurisdiction; to the representatives of cathedral chapters, to abbots having quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. In the United States, custom has sanctioned the summoning of auxiliary, coadjutor, and visiting bishops; provincials of religious orders; all mitred abbots; rectors of major seminaries, as well as priests to serve as theolgians and canonists. V. Only those who have a right to a summons have also a right to cast a decisive vote in councils. The others may give only a consultive vote. The fathers may, however, empower auxiliary, coadjutor, and visiting bishops, as well as procurators of absent bishops to cast a decisive vote. The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore allowed a decisive vote also to a general of a religious congregation, because this was done at the Vatican Council. At the latter council, however, such vote was granted only to generals of regular orders, but not to those of religious congregations (Nilles, part I, p. 127). At Baltimore, a decisive vote was refused to abbots of a single monastery, but conferred on arch-abbots. VI. In particular councils, the subject-matter to be treated is what concerns discipline, the reformation of abuses, the repression of crimes, and the progress of the Catholic cause. In former times, such councils often condemned incipient heresies and opinions contrary to sound morals, but their decisions became dogmatic only after solemn confirmation by the Apostolic See. Thus, the Councils of Milevis and Carthage condemned Pelagianism, and the Council of Orange (Arausicanum) Semipelagianism. Such latitude is not allowed to modern synods, and the Fathers are warned, moreover, that they are not to restrict opinions which are tolerated by the Catholic Church. VII. Decrees of plenary councils must be submitted, before promulgation, for the confirmation, or rather recognition and revision of the Holy See. Such recognition does not imply an approval of all the regulations submitted by the council, and still less of all the assertions contained in the synodal acts. Many things are merely tolerated by the Apostolic See for the time being. The submission to Rome is mainly for the correction of what is too severe or inaccurate in the decrees. Bishops have the power of relaxing decrees of a plenary council in particular cases in their own dioceses, unless the council was confirmed in forma specifica at Rome. In like manner, when no specific confirmation of the decrees has been accorded, it is lawful to appeal from these councils. In modern times, it is not unusual for the Holy See to confirm councils in forma specifica, but only to accord them the necessary recognition. If, consequently, anything be found in their acts contrary to the common law of the Church, it would have no binding force unless a special apostolic derogation were made in its favour. Mere recognition and revision would not suffice. WILLIAM H.W. FANNING Plessis, Joseph-Octave Joseph-Octave Plessis Bishop of Quebec, born at Montreal, 3 March, 1763; died at Quebec, 4 Dec., 1822. He studied classics at Montreal and philosophy at Quebec, was appointed in 1783 secretary to Bishop Briand, and was ordained priest in 1786. In 1797 he was named vicar-general and chosen for coadjutor. The bulls having been delayed by the imprisonment and death of Pius VII, Plessis was only consecrated in 1801. He assumed the greater part of the administration, his superior remaining at Longueuil; by the latter's death in 1806 he became Bishop of Quebec. The programme of the oligarchy then in power comprised the organization of an exclusively Protestant school system; and the subjection of ecclesiastical influence to the royal supremacy and the governor's good pleasure, in the erection of parishes and the nomination of pastors. Plessis's aim was to obtain the civil recognition of bishop and clergy, without forfeiting any right or privilege of the Church. His title of Bishop of Quebec, assumed by all his predecessors before and since the Conquest, was odious to the officials and to the Anglican bishop. Plessis, by his firm yet deferential attitude, his prudence and moderation, and his loyalty to the Crown, removed all opposition. He wisely resisted every offer of temporal betterment to maintain the fulness of his spiritual jurisdiction. When the American Congress in 1812 declared war with England, Plessis aroused the loyalty of the French Canadians, who by remarkable victories, notably at Châteauguay, saved Canada to Great Britain. The bishop was honoured with a seat in the Legislative Council, his title and dignity officially recognized, and the creation of vicariates Apostolic in Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island approved of. He succeeded in preventing the application of the odious monopolizing educational law called the "Royal Institution". An energetic and enlightened patron of education, he redeemed Nicolet College, generously contributing to reorganize, enlarge, and endow it; he likewise favoured the foundation of St-Hyacinthe College, whose regulations he wrote, and established a Latin school at St-Roch to prepare students for seminary or college. Three times after his consecration he visited every parish in Lower Canada; in 1811 and 1812 he travelled through the Maritime Provinces, and in 1816 to Upper Canada. Long since convinced of the necessity of dividing his immense diocese, he strove to create new sees. Nova Scotia was separated in 1817. To realize the formation of other dioceses in Upper Canada, in the North-West, in Prince Edward Island, and at Montreal, Plessis crossed the Atlantic in 1819 to negotiate with Rome and England. Anticipating the conclusion of the case pending before the British Government, Rome had made Quebec a metropolitan see, with two of the above-named for suffragans. The new archbishop successfully counteracted English susceptibilities, alarmed at his promotion, and obtained the other two dioceses he had in view. He likewise succeeded in preventing the Sulpicians from losing by expropriation their seigniory of the Island of Montreal. Public opinion had improved since Brand's time. On his return voyage, Plessis, at the request of Propaganda, visited Philadelphia and Baltimore. When in 1822 the House of Commons proposed a bill for the legislative Union of the two Canadas, whereby the French Catholic province would have been the sufferer, Plessis, though stricken with the disease that was to end his life, undertook an active campaign by letter to avert the disaster. His advice and influence strengthened the delegates who had been sent to England to prevent the passing of the bill. TÊTU, Les Evêques de Québec (Quebec, 1889); FERLAND, Joseph-Octave Plessis (Quebec, 1864); BAKER, True stories of New England Captives (Cambridge, 1897). LIONEL LINDSAY. Plethon, Georgius Gemistus Georgius Gemistus Plethon Born in Constantinople about 1355, died in the Peloponnesus, 1450. Out of veneration for Plato he changed his name from Gemistos to Plethon. Although he wrote commentaries on Aristotle's logical treatises and on Porphyry's "Isagoge", he was a professed Platonist in philosophy. Owing, most probably, to the influence of Mohammedan teachers, he combined with Platonism, or rather with Neo-Platonism, the most extraordinary kind of Oriental mysticism and magic which he designated as Zoroastrianism. It was due, no doubt, to these tendencies of thought that he openly abandoned Christianity and sought to substitute paganism for it as a standard of life. When he was about fifteen years old he visited Western Europe in the train of the Emperor John Palaeologus. After his return to Greece, he settled at Misithra in the Peloponnesus, the site of ancient Sparta, and there he spent the greater part of his life. In 1438, although he was then in his eighty-third year, he again accompanied the Emperor to Italy, where he was designated as one of the six champions of the Orthodox Church in the Council of Florence. His interest in ecclesiastical matters was, however, very slight. Instead of attending the Council, he spent his time discoursing on Platonism and Zoroastrianism to the Florentines. It was his enthusiasm for Platonism that influenced Cosimo de Medici to found a Platonic Academy at Florence. In 1441 Plethon had returned to the Peloponnesus, and there he died and was buried at Misithra in 1450. In 1465 his remains were carried to Rimini and placed in the church of St. Francis, where an inscription, curiously enough, styles him "Themistius Byzantinus". Among his disciples was the learned Cardinal Bessarion. Plethon's most important works are the "Laws" written in imitation of Plato's "Laws", which was condemned by Gennadios, Patriarch of Constantinople, and "On the Differences between Plato and Aristotle", in which he attacks the Aristotelian philosophy and asserts the superiority of Platonism. He also composed a work in defence of the Greek doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost. In his philosophical system he borrows largely from the Neo-Platonist, Proclus, and mingles with the traditional Neo-Platonic mysticism many popular Oriental superstitions. His influence was chiefly negative. His attack on Aristotelianism was to some extent effective, although opposed to him were men of equal ability and power, such as Gennadios, Patriarch of Constantinople. He was honoured by the Italian Platonists as the restorer of the Academy, and as a martyr for the cause of Platonism. The Laws, written about 1440, was printed at Paris, 1541 and (in Latin tr.) at Basle, 1574. The comparison of Plato and Aristotle was also printed at Basle, 1574. MIGNE, P. G., CLX, 773 sqq., reprints these and other Greek works of Plethon, with Latin tr. The best work on Plethon is a dissertation by FRITZ SCHULTZE, Georgios Gemistos Plethon (Jena, 1871). See also SANDYS, Hist. of Classical Scholarship, II (London, 1908), 60; SYMONDS, Renaiss. in Italy, Pt. ii (New York, 1888), 198 sqq.; CREIGETON, Hist. of Papacy, IV (London, 1901), 41-46. WILLIAM TURNER. Diocese of Plock Diocese of Plock (PLOCENSIS) Located in Russian Poland, suffragan of Warsaw, includes the district of Plock and parts of the districts of Lomza and Warsaw. Apparently the diocese was founded about 1087, through the efforts of the legates sent to Poland by Gregory VII; the first certain notice of it is of the year 1102, when Duke Ladislaus Hermann was buried in the cathedral of Plock. The diocese included the region between the rivers, Vistula, Narew, and Bug, and extended as far as the northern and eastern boundaries of the Kingdom of Poland of that era. At a later date the strip of land north of the Drewenz River was added to it. It therefore included the greater part of the Duchy of Masovia and the northern part of Podlachia; but was much smaller than the two other dioceses -- Gnesen and Posen -- then existing in Poland. Its bishops were under the metropolitan authority of Gnesen. The endowment of the bishopric was very large; according to a charter of Duke Conrad of Masovia, in 1239 the episcopal landed property included 240 villoe and at a later date also 20 proedia. In the thirteenth century these estates were divided between the bishop and the cathedral chapter. The Partitions of Poland gave the greater part of the diocese to Russia, and a smaller portion to Prussia; since the publication by Pius VII of the Bull "De salute animarum" of 1821, the Prussian section of the diocese has been incorporated in the Diocese of Kulm. In the readjustment of ecclesiastical conditions in Poland Warsaw was raised to an archdiocese, by the Bull "Militantis ecclesiæ" of 12 March, 1817, and the other Russo-Polish dioceses were made suffragan to it by the Bull "Ex impensa nobis" of 30 June, 1818. Consequently Plock also was transferred from its metropolitan of Gnesen to Warsaw; at the same time five deaneries were taken from it, thereby reducing the diocese to its present size. Those estates of the bishopric that had not been secularized before this date were taken one after the other by the Russian Government. The Diocese of Plock shared in the sufferings of the Catholic Church of Russia. The episcopal see remained vacant during the years 1853-63 and 1885-90; of late years the sect of the Mariavites, with the aid of the Government, has spread in the diocese. Among the bishops of the present era, George Szembek (1901-03) and Apollinaris Wnukowski (1904-08) were elevated to the Archdiocese of Mohileff; the present bishop is Anthony Julian Nowowiejski, consecrated 6 December, 1908. The cathedral of Plock was rebuilt after a fire in the years 1136-44, and thoroughly restored in 1903. The diocese is divided into 12 deaneries and at the end of 1909 included, besides the cathedral, 249 parish churches, 31 dependent churches, 275 secular priests, 5 regular priests, 794,100 Catholics. As early as 1207 the chapter consisted of 5 dignitaries and 10 canons; since the publication of the imperial decree of 1865 it has consisted of 4 prelates (provost, dean, archdeacon, and a "scholasticus") and 8 canons. There is also a collegiate chapter at Pultusk consisting of 3 prelates and 4 canons. The diocesan seminary for priests has been in existence since 1708; it has 10 professors and 72 clerics, and there are also 4 clerics in the Roman Catholic Academy at St. Petersburg. The only houses of the orders in the diocese are: a Carmelite monastery at Obory with 5 fathers and 1 lay brother; a convent of the Clarisses at Przasnysz, with 9 sisters; 5 houses of the Sisters of Mercy with 25 sisters, who have charge of 4 hospitals and 1 orphanage. RZEPINSKI, Vitoe proesulum Polonioe, II (Warsaw, 1762), 203-72; THEINER, Vetera Monumenta Polonioe, I (Rome, 1860); LESCOEUR, L'église cath. en Pologne sous la domination russe (2 vols., Paris, 1876); Encyklopedia Koscielna, XIX (Warsaw, 1893), 569-622; Catalogus ecclesiarum et utriusque cleri etc. (Plock, 1909). JOSEPH LINS. Edmund Plowden Edmund Plowden Born 1517-8; died in London, 6 Feb., 1584-5. Son of Humphrey Plowden of Plowden Hall, Shropshire, and Elizabeth his wife, educated at Cambridge, he took no degree. In 1538 he was called to the Middle Temple where he studied law so closely that he became the greatest lawyer of his age, as is testified by Camden, who says that "as he was singularly well learned in the common laws of England, whereof he deserved well by writing, so for integrity, of life he was second to no man of his profession" (Annals, 1635, p. 270). He also studied at Oxford for a time, and besides his legal studies, qualified as a surgeon and physician in 1552. On Mary's accession he became one of the council of the Marches of Wales. In 1553 he was elected member of Parliament for Wallingford and in the following year was returned for two constituencies, Reading and Wooten-Bassett; but on 12 Jan., 1554-5, he withdrew from the House, dissatisfied with the proceedings there. Succeeding the Plowden estates in 1577, he lectured on law at Middle Temple and during his treasurership the fine hall of that inn was begun. His fidelity to the Catholic faith prevented any further promotion under Elizabeth., but it is a family tradition that the queen offered him the Lord Chancellorship on condition of his joining the Anglican Church. He successfully defended Bishop Horne, and helped Catholics by his legal knowledge. On one occasion he was defending a gentleman charged with hearing Mass, and detected that the service had been performed by a layman for the purpose of informing against those who were present, whereon he exclaimed, "The case is altered; no priest, no Mass", and thus secured an acquittal. This incident gave rise to the common legal proverb, "The case is altered, quoth Plowden". He himself was required to give bond in 1569 to be of good behaviour in religious matters for he was delated to the Privy Council for refusing to attend the Anglican service, though no measures seem to have been taken against him. His works were: "Les comentaries ou les reportes de Edmunde Plowden (London, 1571), often reprinted and translated into Quares del Monsieur Plowden" (London, no date), included in some editions of the Reports; "A Treatise on Succession", manuscripts preserved among the family papers. Its object was to prove that Mary, Queen of Scots, was not debarred from her right to the English throne by her foreign birth or the will of Henry VIII. Several manuscripts legal opinions are preserved in the British Museum and the Cambridge University Libraries. He married Catherine Sheldon of Beoley and by her had three sons and three daughters. There is a portrait effigy on his tomb in the Temple Church, and a bust in the Middle Temple Hall copied from one at Plowden. EDWIN BURTON Charles Plowden Charles Plowden Born at Plowden Hall, Shropshire, 1743; died at Jougne, Doubs, France, 13 June, 1821. He was lineally descended from Edmund Plowden, the celebrated lawyer. The family adhered steadily to the Catholic faith, contributed ten members to the Society of Jesus, and numerous subjects to various female orders (see Foley, "Records of the English Province". Plowden Pedigree, IV, 537). Educated at St. Omer's, he entered the Society of Jesus in 1759, and was ordained priest, at Rome, in 1770. At the suppression of the Society, in 1773, he was minister of the English College at Bruges: the Austro-Belgic government, in its execution of the decree of suppression, kept him imprisoned for some months after the closing of the college. He wrote an account of its destruction. After his release from confinement, he was for a time at the Academy of Liège, which the prince-bishop had offered to the English ex-Jesuits. Returning to England, he became a tutor in the family of Mr. Weld, and chaplain at Lulworth Castle, where he assisted at the consecration of Bishop Carroll, in 1790. He preached the sermon on the occasion, and published an account of the establishment of the new Sec of Baltimore. Father Plowden had a large share in the direction of Stonyhurst College, founded in 1794, and by his ability and virtue, "he promoted the credit and welfare of that institution" (Oliver). Richard Lalor Shiel, who had been his pupil, speaks of him as "a perfect Jesuit of the old school". After the restoration of the Society of England, he was the first master of novices, at Hodder. In 1817, he was declared Provincial, and at the same time, Rector of Stonyhurst, holding the later office till 1819. Summoned to Rome for the election of the general of the Society, he died suddenly on his journey homeward, and, through mistaken information to his mission and identity, he was buried with full military honours. His attendant had gathered the information that he had been at Rome in connection with business concerning a "general", and the town authorities, mixing things, concluded that he was a general of the British army == hence the military funeral. In addition to his many administrative activities and occupations, Father Plowden was a profile writer. Sommervogel gives a list of twenty-two publications of which he was the author, besides several works in manuscript which have been preserved. He was a lifelong correspondent of Bishop Carroll and wrote a beautiful eulogy on the death of his friend in 1815. A large collection of the letters which the interchanged, originals or copies, exists at Stonyhurst and Georgetown Colleges, as also in the Baltimore diocesan archives. He was protagonist in the polemics that distracted the Catholic body in England, in relation to the Oath proposed as a preliminary to the Catholic Relief Bill. It was "a desperate life and death struggle of Catholicism in England, during one of the most insidious and dangerous assaults upon its liberties to which it had ever been exposed". Writers on both sides, in the heat of controversy, employed language which subsequently necessitated explanation, apologies, and retractions. Plowden was too outspoken and perfervid in some of his utterances, but his spirit was that of loyalty to the vicars-Apostolic and to Catholic traditions. E.I. DEVITT Francis Plowden Francis Plowden Son of William Plowden of Plowden Hall, b. at Shropshire, 8 June, 1749; d. at Paris, 4 Jan., 1819. He was educated at St. Omer's and entered the Jesuit novitiate at Watten in 1766. When the Society was suppressed, he was teaching at the College at Bruges. Not being in Holy Orders he was, by the terms of suppression, relieved of his first vows, and soon afterwards married Dorothea, daughter of George Phillips of Carnarvonshire. He entered the Middle Temple and practiced as a conveyancer, the only department of the legal profession open to Catholics under the Penal Laws. After the relief Act of 1791 he was called to the Bar. His first great work, "Jura Anglorum", appeared in 1792. It was attacked in a pamphlet by his brother Robert, a priest under the title of "A Roman Catholic Clergyman". The book was so highly thought of that the University of Oxford presented him with the honorary degree of D.C.L., a unique distinction for a Catholic of those days. His improvidence, extreme views, and intractable disposition made his life a troubled one. Having fallen out with the Lord Chancellor, he ceased to practice at the bar and devoted himself to writing. His "Historical Review of the state of Ireland" (1803) was written at the request of the Government; but it was too outspoken a condemnation to meet their views, and was attacked by Richard Musgrave in the "Historical Review" and also by the "British Critic". Plowden answered by a "Posthumous Preface" giving an account of his communications with Addington, and also by a "Historical Letter" to Sir Richard Musgrave. While in Dublin (1811) he published his work "Ireland since the Union" which lead to a prosecution on the part of the Government for libel, resulting in a verdict of £5000 damages. Plowden considered that this was rewarded by a packed jury and determined not to pay it. He escaped to Paris where he spent the remaining years of his life in comparative poverty. He continued to write at intervals, his "Historical Letters" to Sir John Cops Hippisley (1815) containing important matter connected with the question of Catholic emancipation. His other works are: "The Case Stated" (Cath. Relief Act, 1791); "Church and State" (London, 1794); "Treatise on the Law of Usury" (London, 1796); "The Constitution of the United Kingdom" (London, 1802); "Historical Letters to Rev. C. O'Connor" (Dublin, 1812); "Human Subornation" (Paris, 1824). COOPER in Dict. Nat Biog., s. v.; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. s. v.; KIRK, Biographies; FOLEY, Records Eng. Prov. S. J., IV, VII (London, 1878-80), giving pedigree of Plowden; WARD, Dawn of Cath. Revival (London, 1909); Gent's Magazine (1829). BERNARD WARD Robert Plowden Robert Plowden Elder brother of Charles, born 27 January, 1740; died at Wappenbury, 27 June, 1823. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1756, and was ordained in 1763. After some years spent at Hoogstraet in Belgium, as director of the Carmelite Nuns, he returned to England, and was stationed at Arlington, Devon, from 1777 to 1787. Appointed to Bristol, he had a wider field for his zeal and ability: at his coming, the Catholics had only one wretched room in a back alley for a chapel; Father Plowden's exertions resulted in the erection of St. Joseph's Church, together with a parochial residence and schools. His activity was extended to the mission of Swansea and South Wales District, of which he may be considered the principal founder. He remained at Bristol for nearly thirty years, beloved by his flock, and esteemed by all for his frank character, disinterested labours, and bounty to the poor. Removed from Bristol in 1815, he became chaplain to the Fitzherbert family at Swynnerton until 1820, when he retired to Wappendbury, where he died. He was a keen theologian, "a more solid divine than his brother Charles", according to Bishop Carroll == an unflinching defender of Catholic principles and practices, and a firm supporter of Bishop Milner in trying circumstances. The inscription on his tomb commemorates his candor, zeal, and learning. He translated from the French: "The Elevation of the Soul to God", which passed through several editions in England; American editions, Philadelphia, 1817, and New York, 1852. Foley, Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus. IV, 554; Oliver Collections S.J. E.I. DEVITT Thomas Plowden Thomas Plowden (Alias Salisbury). Born in Oxfordshire, England, 1594; died in London, 13 Feb., 1664; grandson of Edmund Plowden, the great lawyer; entered the Society of Jesus, 1617; sent on the English Mission about 1622. He was seized, with other fathers, by the pursuivants in 1628, at Clerkenwell, the London residence of the Jesuits. He filled various responsible offices of the order, and laboured on the perilous English Mission until his death. He translated form the Italian of D. Bartoli "The Learned Man Defended and Reformed" (London, 1660) Foley, Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, I, VII. E.I. DEVITT Thomas Percy Plowden Thomas Percy Plowden Born at Shiplake, Oxfordshire, England, 1672; died at Watten, 21 Sept., 1745; joined the Society of Jesus in 1693. He was rector of the English College, Rome, 1731-34; superior at Ghent, 1735-39; and rector of St. Omers, 1739-42. He translated Father Segneri's "Devout Client of the Blessed Virgin", and wrote the preface to it. he died at the novitiate of Watten. FOLEY, records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, IV, VII. E.I. DEVITT Charles Plumier Charles Plumier (botanical abbreviation, Plum.) A French botanist, born at Marseilles, 20 April, 1646; died at Puerto de Sta Maria near Cadiz, 20 November, 1704. At the age of sixteen he entered the order of the Minims. He devoted himself to the study of mathematics and physics, made physical instruments, and was an excellent draughtsman, painter, and turner. On being sent to the French monastery of Trinità dei Monti at Rome, Plumier studied botany with great zeal under two members of the order, and especially under the well-known Cistercian botanist, Paolo Boccone. After his return to France he became a pupil of Tournefort, whom he accompanied on botanical excursions. He also explored the coasts of Provence and Languedoc. His work, of permanent value for the science of botany, began in 1689, when, by order of the government, he accompanied Surian to the French Antilles. As this first journey proved very successful, Plumier was appointed royal botanist; in 1693, by command of Louis XIV, he made his second journey, and in 1695 his third journey to the Antilles and Central America. While in the West Indies he was greatly aided in his work by the Dominican Labat. In 1704, when about to start on his fourth journey, intending to visit the home of the true cinchona tree in Peru, he was taken ill with pleurisy and died. He is the most important of the botanical explorers of his time. All natural scientists of the eighteenth century spoke of him with admiration. According to Cuvier he was "perhaps the most industrious investigator of nature", while Haller said, "vir ad incrementum rei herbariæ natus" (a man born to extend the knowledge of botany). Tournefort and Linnæus named in his honour the genus Plumeria, which belongs to the family of the Apocynaceoe and is indigenous in about forty species to Central America; it is now called Plumiera with the name of Plumieroideoe for its first sub-famiiy. Plumier accomplished all that he did in fifteen years (1689-1704); his labours resulted in collections, descriptions, and drawings. His first work was, "Description des plantes de l'Amérique" (Paris, 1693); it contained 108 plates, half of which represented ferns. This was followed by "Nova plantarum americanarum genera" (Paris, 1703-04), with 40 plates; in this work about one hundred genera, with about seven hundred species, were redescribed. At a later date Linnæus adopted in his system, almost without change, these and other newly described genera arranged by Plumier. Plumier left a work in French and Latin ready to be printed entitled "Traité des fougères de l'Amérique" (Paris, 1705), which contained 172 excellent plates. The publication "Filicetum Americanum" (Paris, 1703), with 222 plates, was compiled from those already mentioned. Plumier also wrote another book of an entirely different character on turning, "L'Art de tourner" (Lyons, 1701; Paris, 1749); this was translated into Russian by Peter the Great; the manuscript of the translation is at St. Petersburg. At his death Plumier left thirty-one manuscript volumes containing descriptions, and about 6000 drawings, 4000 of which were of plants, while the remainder reproduced American animals of nearly all classes, especially birds and fish. The botanist Boerhave had 508 of these drawings copied at Paris; these were published later by Burmann, Professor of Botany at Amsterdam, under the title: "Plantarum americanarum, quas olim Carolus Plumierus detexit", fasc. I-X (Amsterdam, 1755-60), containing 262 plates. Plumier also wrote treatises for the "Journal des Savants" and for the "Mémoires de Trévoux". By his observations in Martinique, Plumier proved that the cochineal belongs to the animal kingdom and should be classed among the insects. HALLER, Bibliotheca botanica, II (Zurich, 1772); SPRENGEL, Geschichte der Botanik, II (Leipzig, 1818); JESSEN, Botanik d. Gegenwart u. Vorzeit (Leipzig, 1864). JOSEPH ROMPEL. St. Oliver Plunket Blessed Oliver Plunket Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland, born at Loughcrew near Oldcastle, County Meath, Ireland, 1629; died 11 July, 1681. His is the brightest name in the Irish Church throughout the whole period of persecution. He was connected by birth with the families which had just then been ennobled, the Earls of Roscommon and Fingall, as well as with Lords Louth and Dunsany. Till his sixteenth year, his education was attended to by Patrick Plunket, Abbot of St. Mary's, Dublin, brother of the first Earl of Fingall, afterwards bishop, successively, of Ardagh and Meath. He witnessed the first triumphs of the Irish Confederates, and, as an aspirant to the priesthood, set out for Rome in 1645, under the care of Father Scarampo, of the Roman Oratory. As a student of the Irish College of Rome, which some twenty years before had been founded by Cardinal Ludovisi, his record was particularly brilliant. The Rector, in after years, attested that he "devoted himself with such ardour to philosophy, theology, and mathematics, that in the Roman College of the Society of Jesus he was justly ranked amongst the foremost in talent, diligence, and progress in his studies, and he pursued with abundant fruit the course of civil and canon law at the Roman Sapienza, and everywhere, at all times, was a model of gentleness, integrity, and piety". Promoted to the priesthood in 1654, Dr. Plunket was deputed by the Irish bishops to act as their representative in Rome. Throughout the period of the Cromwellian usurpation and the first years of Charles II's reign he most effectually pleaded the cause of the suffering Church, whilst at the same time he discharged the duties of theological professor at the College of Propaganda. In the Congregation of Propaganda, 9 July, 1669, he was appointed to the primatial see of Armagh, and was consecrated, 30 Nov., at Ghent, in Belgium, by the Bishop of Ghent, assisted by the Bishop of Ferns and another bishop. The pallium was granted him in Consistory 28 July, 1670. Dr. Plunket lingered for some time in London, using his influence ti mitigate the rigour of the administration of the anti-Catholic laws in Ireland, and it was only in the middle of March, 1670, that he entered on his apostolate in Armagh. From the very outset he was most zealous in the exercise of the sacred ministry. Within three months he had administered the Sacrament of Confirmation to about 10,000 of the faithful, some of them being sixty years old, and, writing to Rome in December, 1673, he was able to announce that "during the past four years", he had confirmed no fewer that 48,655 people. To bring this sacrament within the reach of the suffering faithful he had to undergo the severest hardships, often with no other food than a little oaten bread; he had to seek out their abodes on the mountains and in the woods, and as a rule, it was under the broad canopy of heaven that the Sacrament was administered, both flock and pastor being exposed to the wind and rain. He made extraordinary efforts to bring the blessings of education within the reach of the Catholic youth. In effecting this during the short interval of peace that marked the beginning of his episcopate his efforts were most successful. He often refers in his letters to the high school which he opened at Drogheda, at this time the second city in the kingdom. He invited Jesuit Fathers from Rome to take charge of it, and very soon it had one hundred and fifty boys on the roll, of whom no fewer than forty were sons of the Protestant gentry. He held frequent ordinations, celebrated two Provincial Synods, and was untiring in rooting out abuses and promoting piety. One incident of his episcopate merits special mention: there was a considerable number of so-called Tories scattered through the province of Ulster, most of whom had been despoiled of their property under the Act of Settlement. They banded themselves together in the shelter of the mountain fastnesses and, as outlaws, lived by the plunder of those around them. Anyone who sheltered them incurred the penalty of death from the Government, anyone who refused them such shelter met with death at their hands. Dr. Plunket, with the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant, went in search of them, not without great risk, and reasoning with them in a kind and paternal manner induced them to renounce their career of plundering. He moreover obtained pardons for them so that they were ble to transfer themselves to other countries, and thus peace was restored throughout the whole province. The contemporary Archbishop of Cashel, Dr. Brennan, who was the constant companion of Dr. Plunket, in a few words sketches the fruitful zeal of the primate: "During the twelve years of his residence here he proved himself vigilant, zealous, and indefatigable, nor do we find, within the memory of those of the present century, that any primate or metropolitan visited his diocese and province with such solicitude and pastoral zeal as he did, - benefitting, as far as was in his power, the needy; wherefore he was applauded and honoured by both clergy and people". The storm of persecution burst with renewed fury on the Irish Church in 1673; the schools were scattered, the chapels were closed. Dr. Plunket, however, would not forsake his flock. His palace thenceforward was some thatched hut in a remote part of his diocese. As a rule, in company with the Archbishop of Cashel, he lay concealed in the woods or on the mountains, and with such scanty shelter that through the roof they could at night count the stars of the sky. He tells their hardship in one of his letters: "The snow fell heavily, mixed with hailstones, which were very large and hard. A cutting north wind blew in our faces, and snow and hail beat so dreadfully in our eyes that up to the present we have scarcely been able to see with them. Often we were in danger in the valleys of being lost and suffocated in the snow, till at length we arrived at the house of a reduced gentleman who had nothing to lose. But, for our misfortune, he had a stranger in his house by whom we did not wish to be recognized, hence we were placed in a garret without chimney, and without fire, where we have been for the past eight days. May it redound to the glory of God, the salvation of our souls, and of the flock entrusted to our charge". Writs for the arrest of Dr. Plunket were repeatedly issued by the Government. At length he wwas seized and cast into prison in Dublin Castle, 6 Dec., 1679, and a whole host of perjured informers were at hand to swear his life away. In Ireland the character of those witnesses was well known and no jury would listen to their perjured tales, but in London it was not so, and accordingly his trial was transferred to London. In fact, the Shaftesbury Conspiracy against the Catholics in England could not be sustained without the supposition that a rebellion was being organized in Ireland. The primate would, of course, be at the head of such a rebellion. His visits to the Tories of Ulster were now set forth as part and parcel of such a rebellion. A French or Spanish fleet was chartered by him to land an army at Carlingford Bay, and other such accusations were laid to his charge. But there was no secret as to the fact that his being a Catholic bishop was his real crime. Lord Brougham in "Lives of the Chief Justices of England" brands Chief Justice Pemberton, who presided at the trial of Dr. Plunket, as betraying the cause of justice and bringing disgrace on the English Bar. This Chief Justice set forth from the bench that there could be no greater crime than to endeavour to propagate the Catholic Faith, "than which (he declared) there is not anything more displeasing to God or more pernicious to mankind in the world". Sentence of death was pronounced as a matter of course, to which the primate replied in a joyous and emphatic voice: : "Deo Gratias". On Friday, 11 July (old style the 1st), 1681, Dr. Plunket, surrounded by a numerous guard of military, was led to Tyburn for execution. Vast crowds assembled along the route and at Tyburn. As Dr. Brennan, Archbishop of Cashel, in an official letter to Propaganda, attests, all were edified and filled with admiration, "because he displayed such a serenity of countenance, such a tranquillity of mind and elevation of soul, that he seemed rather a spouse hastening to the nuptial feast, than a culprit led forth to the scaffold". From the scaffold he delivered a discourse worthy of an apostle and martyr. An eye-witness of the execution declared that by his discourse and by his heroism in death he gave more glory to religion than he could have won for it by many years of a fruitful apostolate. His remains were gathered with loving care and interred apart in St. Giles' churchyard. In the first months of 1684 they were transferred to the Benedictine monastery at Lambspring in Germany, whence after 200 years they were with due veneration translated and enshrined in St. Gregory's College, Downside, England. The head, in excellent preservation, was from the first enshrined apart, and since 1722 has been in the care of the Dominican Nuns at their Siena Convent at Drogheda, Ireland. Pilgrims come from all parts of Ireland and from distant countries to venerate this relic of the glorious martyr, and many miracles are recorded. The name of Archbishop Plunket appears on the list of the 264 heroic servants of God who shed their blood for the Catholic Faith in England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which was officially submitted for approval to the Holy See, and for which the Decree was signed by Leo XIII 9 Dec., 1886, authorizing their Cause of Beatification to be submitted to the Congregation of Rites. The Blessed Oliver Plunket's martyrdom closed the long series of deaths for the faith, at Tyburn. The very next day after his execution, the bubble of conspiracy burst. Lord Shaftesbury, the chief instigator of the persecution, was consigned to the Tower, and his chief perjured witness Titus Oates was thrown into gaol. For a few years the blessings of comparative peace were restored to the Church of Ireland. Writings The Martyr's discourse at Tyburn was repeatedly printed and translated into other languages. Dr. Plunket published in 1672 a small octavo of fifty-six pages with the title "Jus Primatiale"; or the Ancient Pre-eminence of the See of Armagh above all other archbishoprics in the kingdom of Ireland, asserted by "O.A.T.H.P.", which initials represent "Oliverus Armacanus Totius Hiberniae Primas", i.e. "Oliver of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland". PATRICK FRANCIS CARDINAL MORAN Pluscarden Priory Pluscarden Priory Founded in 1230 by Alexander III, King of Scotland, six miles from Elgin, Morayshire, for monks of the Valliscaulian Order, whose mother-house was that of Val-des-Choux, Burgundy. Pluscarden was the first of the three Scottish monasteries of the order whose observance was a combination of the Carthusian and Cistercian rule. In 1454 Nicholas V transferred the two surviving monks of the Benedictine priory of Urquhart to form one community with the six monks of Pluscarden, the latter assuming the Benedictine rule and habit. Pluscarden thus became a dependency of Dunfermline Abbey, whose sacrist, William de Boyis, was appointed prior. Mr. Macphail, a non-Catholic, refutes the calumny that the union was due to the "very licentious" lives of the Valliscaulian monks. The last prior, Alexander Dunbar, died in 1560, and Alexander Seton, later Earl of Dunfermline, a secret Catholic, became commendator; in consequence the monks were never dispersed. They numbered thirteen in 1524; in1586 one still survived. After various vicissitudes the property was acquired by John, third Marquess of Bute, who partially restored the buildings. The nave of the church was never completed. The aisleless choir (56 feet long), and the transepts (measuring 92 feet), are roofless. In the north wall of the chancel is a "sacrament house" -- the stone tabernacle occasionally met with in Scottish churches. Stone steps connect the transept with the dormitory. Consecration crosses and the remains of interesting frescoes are still visible. A northern chapel was added by Prior Dunbar; with this exception the architecture is chiefly Early English. East of the cloister garth -- 100 feet square -- stands the calefactory, its vaulted roof upheld by two pillars; this long served for a Presbyterian kirk. The well preserved chapter-house has stone benches round the walls, and a central pillar supports the groining. The dormitory above was formerly used as a tenants' ballroom. The buildings, standing in lovely surroundings, are full of charm. Some holly trees in the garden are probably relics of monastic days. BIRCH, Ordinale Conventus Vallis Caulium (London 1900); MACPHAIL, History of the religious House of Pluscardyn (1881); SKENE, The Book of Pluscarden in Historians of Scotland Series (Edinburgh, 1880). MICHAEL BARRETT Diocese of Plymouth Diocese of Plymouth (PLYMUTHENSIS, PLYMUTHÆ) Plymouth consists of the County of Dorset, which formed a portion of the old Catholic Diocese of Salisbury, whose last ruler, Cardinal Peto, died in March, 1558; also of the Counties of Devon and Cornwall with the Scilly Isles, which formed the ancient Diocese of Exeter, whose last Catholic bishop, James Turberville, died on 1 November, 1570. Since the Reformation these counties have, with more or less of the rest of England, been governed by three archpriests and fourteen vicars Apostolic, the last of whom, called Vicar Apostolic of the Western District (1848), was William Hendren, Bishop of Uranopolis. In the Brief "Universalis Ecclesiæ" (29 September, 1850), Pius IX separated the three counties from the Western District and formed them into the new Diocese of Plymouth: the rest of the district to be the new Diocese of Clifton, to which Bishop Hendren was forthwith translated, and the Diocese of Plymouth was placed under his temporary administration. Reverend George Errington (1804-86) of St. John's Church, Salford, was appointed by the Holy See first Bishop of Plymouth, and on 25 July, 1851, consecrated there, together with the first Bishop of Salford, by Cardinal Wiseman. On 7 August he was installed at St. Mary's church, East Stonehouse, Devon, which mission included its neighbour, Plymouth, wherein no Catholic place of worship existed. In this Ultima thule and poor district he found 17 secular and 6 regular priests, and 23 missions including three institutes of nuns. No railways had reached the diocese except the Great Western to Plymouth, and a short mining railway established between Truro and Penzance at the extreme of Cornwall. A goodly number of the clergy did not belong to the diocese but were temporarily accepted. On 26 November, 1853, the bishop established his cathedral chapter, consisting of a provost and, by permission from Rome under the above difficulties, seven instead of ten canons for the time. In February, 1854, he held a synod at Ugbrooke Park, the seat of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and, amongst his synodal acts, established a clerical conference with its dean for each county. By 30 March, 1855, he had traversed the whole diocese for purpose of visitation and conferring confirmation, when bulls from Rome of that date appointed him Archbishop of Trebizond and Coadjutor cum jure successionis to Cardinal Wiseman of Westminster. William Vaughan (1814-1902), Canon of the Clifton Diocese, was nominated second Bishop of Plymouth, and on 16 September, 1855, consecrated by Cardinal Wiseman in Clifton pro-cathedral. Encouraged by generous offers of assistance from Edmund Polifex Bastard of Kitley, Yealmpton, Devon, and from Miss Letitia Trelawny of Cornwall, Bishop Vaughan on 28 June, 1856, laid the foundation stone of the Cathedral of Our Immaculate Lady and St. Boniface, Apostle of Germany (born at Crediton, Devon), solemnly opened it on 25 March, 1858, and on 22 September, 1880, in the twenty-fifth year of his episcopate, he consecrated the Cathedral. attended the Vatican Council throughout, in 1869-70. Between 10-12 March, 1888, the diocese, by a triduum of prayer, celebrated the bishop's Golden Jubilee of fifty years' priesthood. By the end of 1891 the Diocese of Plymouth, through the bishop's energetic supervision, became well established. It had 49 secular and 48 regular clergy, 52 public churches, and 15 chapels of communities, as well as ten orders of men and sixteen of nuns. Early in 1891 Bishop Vaughan requested from Rome a coadjutor-bishop. Leo XIII elected, from the Plymouth Chapter's terna, Charles Graham (1834), canon of Plymouth, on 25 September, 1891. On 28 October following he was consecrated titular Bishop of Cisamos, with right of succession, by Bishop Clifford of Clifton, in the Plymouth cathedral. Bishop Vaughan retired to St. Augustine's Priory, Newton Abbot, Devon, where, on 24 October, 1902, he died in his eighty-ninth year, and was buried in the priory cemetery. In October, 1902, Dr. Graham became third Bishop of Plymouth. Between 19 and 21 December, 1907, the diocese celebrated with a triduum the fiftieth anniversary of his priesthood: on this occasion he added a fresh member to the cathedral chapter. After a severe illness in 1910, Bishop Graham tendered his resignation of the see, which was accepted 9 Feb., 1911. The recent expulsion of religious from France has, during 1910, raised the number of communities of nuns in this diocese to twenty-nine. The Catholic population is about one in a hundred, that is, 12,000, most of whom, being employed in the Government Army and Navy establishments, reside in Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devonport. It is worthy of note that Bishop John Carroll of Baltimore, founder of the Hierarchy of the Church in the United States of America, was on 15 August, 1790, consecrated in Lulworth Church, Dorset, by Bishop Walmesley, Vicar Apostolic of the Western District. The Faith never failed during the Reformation at Lanherne, Cornwall, and at Chideock, Dorset, through the fidelity of the Lords Arundell. Blessed Cuthbert Mayne (q. v.), the protomartyr of pontifical seminarists, was a native of Devon. OLIVER, Collections (1857); BROTHER FOLEY, Records of the English Province S. J. (London, 1877-83); CHALLONER, Memoirs of Missionary Priests; BRADY, English Hierarchy (London, 1877). C. M. GRAHAM. Pneumatomachi Pneumatomachi (Macedonians) A heretical sect which flourished in the countries adjacent to the Hellespont during the latter half of the fourth, and the beginning of the fifth century. They denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost, hence the name Pneumatomachi or Combators against the Spirit. Macedonius, their founder, was intruded into the See of Constantinople by the Arians (342 A.D.), and enthroned by Constantius, who had for the second time expelled Paul, the Catholic bishop. He is known in history for his persecution of Novatians and Catholics; as both maintained the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. He not only expelled those who refused to hold communion with him, but imprisoned some and brought others before the tribunals. In many cases he used torture to compel the unwilling to communicate, forced baptism on unbaptized women and children and destroyed many churches. At last his cruelty provoked a rebellion of the Novatians at Mantinium, in Paphlagonia, in which four imperial cohorts were defeated and nearly all slain. His disinterment of the body of Constantine was looked upon as an indignity to the Protector of the Council of Nicaea, and led to a conflict between Arians and anti-Arians, which filled the church and neighbourhood with carnage. As the disinterment had taken place without the emperor's sanction, Macedonius fell into disgrace, and Constantius caused him to be deposed by the Acacian party and succeeded by Eudoxius in 360. This deposition, however, was not for doctrinal reasons, but on the ground that he had caused much bloodshed and had admitted to communion a deacon guilty of fornication. Macedonius continued for some time to live near Constantinople and cause trouble. He died about 364. It is thought that during these last years he formulated his rejection of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost and founded his sect. His intimacy with Eleusius of Cysicus makes this probable. Some scholars, however, reject the identification of Macedonians and Pneumatomachians, apparently on insufficient grounds and against the authority of Socrates, a contemporary historian living at Constantinople. The Council of Nicaea had used all its energies in defending the Homoousion of the Son and with regard to the Spirit had already added the words: "We believe in the Holy Ghost" without any qualification. The Macedonians took advantage of the vagueness and hesitancy of statement in some of the early Fathers to justify and propagate their error. The majority of this sect were clearly orthodox on the Consubstantiality of the Son; they had sent a deputation from the Semi-Arian council of Lampsacus (364 A.D.) to Pope Liberius, who after some hesitation acknowledged the soundness of their faith; but with regard to the Third Person, both pope and bishops were satisfied with the phrase: "We believe in the Holy Ghost." While hiding in the desert during his third exile, Athanasius learned form his friend Serapion of Thumis of a sect acknowledging Nicaea, and yet declaring the Holy Ghost a mere creature and a ministering angel (on the strength of Heb., i, 14). Athanasius wrote at once to Serapion in defence of the true Doctrine, and on his return from exile (362 A.D.) held a council at Alexandria which resulted in the first formal condemnation of the Pneumatomachi. A synodal letter was sent to the people of Antioch advising them to require of all converts from Arianism a condemnation against "those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature and separate from the essence of Christ. For those who while pretending to cite the faith confessed at Nicaea, venture to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, deny Arianism in words only, while in thought they return to it." Nevertheless, during the following decade the heresy seems to have gone on almost unchecked except in the Patriarchate of Antioch where at a synod held in 363 Meletius had proclaimed the orthodox faith. In the East the moving spirit for the repression of the error was Amphilochius of Iconium, who in 374 besought St. Basil of Caesarea to write a treatise on the true doctrine of the Holy Ghost. This he did, and his treatise is the classical work on the subject (peri tou hagiou II. M. 32). It is possible that he influenced his brother Gregory of Nyssa to write his treatise against the Macedonians, of which only a part has come down to us and which appears to be based on the words: "Lord and life-giver who proceeds from the Father." These words, apparently taken from the Creed of Jerusalem, had been used by St. Epiphanius of Salamis in his "Ancoratus" when combating this error (374 A. D.). Amphilochius of Iconium, as Metropolitan of Lycaonia, wrote in concurrence with his bishops a synodal letter to the bishops of Lycia, which contains and excellent statement of the true doctrine (377 A. D.). In Constantinople (379) Gregory of Nazianzus pronounced his brilliant theological oration on this subject. The West likewise upheld the truth in a synod held in Illyria and mentioned by Theodoret (H. E., IV, 8) and by Pope Damasus in his letter to Paulinus of Antioch. The heresy was condemned in the First Council of Constantinople, and internal divisions soon led to its extinction. Socrates (H. E., V, 24) states that a certain Macedonian presbyter, Eutropius, held conventicles of his own while others followed Bishop Carterius. Eustathius of Sebaste, Sabinus, and Eleusius of Cyricus seem to have been leaders whom the sect repudiated (for Eustathis, see Basil, Ep., CCLXIII, 3). In June 383 Theodosius tried by means of a conference to bring the Arian factions to submission. Eleusius handed in his symbol of faith as representing the Macedonians, as he had represented them with Marcianus of Lampsacus at the Council of Constantinople. After this fruitless attempt at reconciliation the Macedonians with other heretics incurred all the severities of the Theodosian code and with a generation disappeared from history. Socrates and Sozomus mention a certain Marathonius, made Bishop of Nicomedia by Macedonius, who obtained such a leading position in the sect that they were often styled after him Marathonians. Through St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Damasus, and Rufinus, the name Macedonians became the customary designation in the West. No writings of Macedonius are extant, but Pneumatomachian writings are mentioned by Didymus the Blind, who wrote an excellent treatise on the Holy Ghost in thirty-six chapters (translated into Latin by St. Jerome at the command of Pope Damasus), and who refers in his later work (379) on the Trinity (II, 7, 8, 10) to some "Brief Expositions" of Macedonian doctrines which he possessed. Loors, Eustathius von Sebaste (Halle, 1898); Schermann, Gottheit d. H. Geist, n. d. griech. Vätern d. IV Jahrh. (Leipzig, 1901); Fuller in Dict. Christ. Biogr., s. v.; Hergenroether, Histoire de l'Eglise, II (Paris, 1901), 99. J.P. ARENDZEN Hebrew Poetry of the Old Testament Hebrew Poetry of the Old Testament Since the Bible is divinely inspired, and thus becomes the "written word" of God, many devout souls are averse from handling it as literature. But such a view tends to lose sight of the second causes and human constituents without which, in fact, Holy Scripture has not been given to us. The Bible, as a concrete whole, is something definite in make, origin, time, and circumstances, all of which must be taken into account if we desire to reach its true meaning. It is history and it is literature; it lies open consequently to investigation under these lights, and if they are neglected misconceptions will follow. The fact that spiritual or supernatural influences have moulded phenomena does not withdraw from scientific inquiries anything which is properly amenable to them. "God speaks to mankind", said medieval Jewish commentators, "in the language of the children of men." This observation, while it justifies verbal criticism, points out the way to it. Literature demands a special study; and Hebrew literature, because it is sacred, all the more, inasmuch as the outcome of misunderstandings in regard to it has ever been disaster. No one can read attentively the poorest version of the Old Testament without feeling how strong a vein of poetry runs through its pages. We need not venture on a definition of what poetry means; it is a peculiar form of imagination and expression which bears witness to itself. Verse has been called by Ernest Hello, "that rare splendour, born of music and the word"; now assuredly in writings such as many of the Psalms, in the Prophets, the Book of Job, and Proverbs we recognize its presence. On the other hand, from the great collection of documents which we term Chronicles (Paralipomena), Ezra, and Nehemias, this quality is almost entirely absent; matter and style announce that we are dealing with prose. We open the Hebrew Bible, and we find our judgment confirmed by the editors of the Massora -- the received and vocalized text. Conspicuously, where the title indicates "songs" (shirim, Ex., xv, 1; Num., xxi, 17), the lines are parted into verse; for instance, Deut., xxxii, Judges, v, II Kings, xxii. But more. As Ginsburg tells us, "In the best M.S.S. the lines are poetically divided and arranged in hemistichs" throughout the Psalter, Proverbs, and Job. And this was enjoined by the Synagogue. Yet again, the punctuation by the period (soph pasuk), which marks a complete statement, coincides with a rhythmical pause in nearly all such passages, demonstrating that the ancient redactors between 200 and 600 A.D. agreed as to sense and sound with the moderns who take the same citations for poetry. So emphatic indeed is this impression that, however we print either text or rendering, the disjecta membra poetae will be always visible. Hebrew forms of verse have been much disputed over; but the combination of a lively picturesque meaning with a definite measure is beyond denial in the places alleged. Such are the "Songs of Sion" (Ps. cxxxvii, 3). This was known and felt from earliest times. Josephus describes the Hebrew poets as writing in "hexameter" (Antiq., II, xvi); St. Jerome speaks of their "hexameters and pentameters"; while in his own translations he has constantly succeeded in a happy rhythm, not, however, giving verse for verse. He is markedly solemn and musical in the Latin of the Book of Job. The English A. V. abounds in magnificent effects of a similar kind. Given, in short, the original structure, it would be almost impossible not in some degree to reproduce it, even in our Western versions. But on what system was the poetry of the Old Testament composed? Rabbi Kimchi and Eben Ezra had caught sight of an arrangement which they termed kaful, or doubling of enunciation. But to bring this out as a principle was reserved for Bishop R. Lowth, whose lectures "De sacra poesi Hebraeorum" (1741 begun, finally published 1753) became the starting point of all subsequent inquiries. In his Preface to Isaiah (1778, German 1779) he gave fresh illustrations, which led on to Herder's more philosophical handling of the subject (1782-3). Lowth convinced scholars that Hebrew verse moved on the scheme of parallelism, statement revolving upon statement, by antiphon or return, generally in double members, one of which repeated the other with variations of words or some deflection of meaning. Equal measures, more or less identical sense, these were its component parts. Degrees in likeness, and the contrast which attends on likeness, gave rise, said Lowth, to synonymous, antithetic, or synthetic arrangement of members. Modern research inclines to take the mashal or similitude as a primitive norm for Hebrew verse in general; and Prov., x, is quoted by way of showing the three varieties indicated by Lowth. Evidently, given a double measure, it admits of combinations ever more subtle and involved. We will speak of other developments later. But the prevailing forms were exhibited in Lowth's "Praelections". Recent comparisons of this device with similar structures in Babylonian, Assyrian and Egyptian poetical remains discover its extreme antiquity (see for the first Schrader; for Egypt, W. Max Müller, 1899; and on the whole, C. A. Briggs, "Gen. Introd. to H. Script.", 1899). It might seem fanciful to call the type from which parallelism originates "echo-music", yet nothing is more likely than that the earliest rhythm was a kind of echo, whereby the object of expression became fixed and emphasized. See the remarkable instances in Deborah's chant (Judges, v, 26-30) etc. Here we must observe how the logic of feeling, as distinguished from the logic of reasoning, controls the poet's mind. That mind, until a late period, was not individual, but collective; it was the organ of a tribe, a public worship, a national belief; hence, it could shape its ideas only into concrete forms, real yet symbolical; it expressed emotions, not abstractions, and it was altogether concerned with persons, human or superhuman. Poetry, thus inspired, glances to and fro, is guided by changing moods, darts upon living objects, and describes them from its own centre. It is essentially subjective, and a lyrical outcry. It does not argue; it pleads, blames, praises, breaks into cursing or blessing, and is most effective when most excited. To such a temperament repetition becomes a potent weapon, a divine or deadly rhetoric of which the keynote is passion. Its tense is either the present (including the future perceived as though here and now), or a moving past seen while it moves. Passion and vision -- let us take these to be the motive and the method of all such primitive poetry. We may compare II Kings, xxiii, 2, David's last words, "The sweet Psalmist of Israel, said 'The spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was on my tongue'"; or Ps. xliv, 2, "My heart bursts out with a goodly matter, my tongue is the pen of a ready writer"; or Job, xxxii, 18, "I am full of words, the spirit within constraineth me"; but especially Num., xxiv, 4, "He hath said, the man who heard the words of God, who saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open". These declarations lead up to impassioned metrical utterances, while they betoken the close relation which unites Hebrew poetry with prophecy. Both alike are a pouring forth of feelings too violent to be held in, aroused by contemplation not of the abstract or the general, but of persons and events, in their living power. To this belongs the idea of recurrence. Curtius observes acutely, "The gradual realization and repetition of an action are regarded by language as nearly akin." (Elucidations, 143, quoted by Driver, "Treatise on the Use of Tenses in Hebrew", xv.) The whole being moves as the object impresses it; speech, music, dancing, gesture leap out, as it were, to meet the friend or enemy who draws nigh. The Semites term their religious festivals a "hag", i.e. a dance (Ex., xii, 14; xxxii, 5, 19; Deut., xvi, 10, 12; and frequently), of which the reminiscence is vividly shown in the whirling motion and repeated acclamations practised by dervishes among Mohammedans to this day. We may thus connect the lyrical drama out of which in due course the Hebrews developed their temple-liturgy and the Psalms, with Greek dithyrambs, the chorus of the Athenian stage, and the anapaestic strophes danced thereon to a lively musical accompaniment. When past or future is caught up after this manner, made present as though seen, and flung into a series of actions, the singer prophesies. For what else is prophecy than the vision of things absent in space or time, or hidden from common eyes? The state of mind corresponding is "trance" ("deep sleep", Gen., xv, 12; Job, iv, 13; Ezech., viii, 1). The literary form, then, in which primitive religion and law, custom and public life, were embodied, implies a poetic heightening of the ordinary mood, with effects in speech that may fall at length under deliberate rules; but as rules multiply, the spirit either evaporates or is diffused pretty equally over an eloquent prose. That all human language was once poetical appears everywhere probable from researches into folk-lore. That repetition of phrase, epithet, sentiment came earlier than more elaborate metres cannot well be denied. That religion should cleave to ancient forms while policy, law, and social intercourse move down into the "cool element of prose", we understand without difficulty. Why the mediating style belongs to the historian we can also perceive; and how the "epic of gods" is transformed by slow steps into the chronicle and the reasoned narrative. It does not seem, indeed, that the Israelites ever possessed a true epic poetry, although their kinfolk, the Babylonians, have left us well-known specimens, e.g., in the Gilgamesh tablets. But this extensive form of Assyrian legend has not been imitated in the Old Testament. G. d'Eichthal, a Catholic, first undertook in his "Texte prim. du premier recit de la Creation" (1875) to show that Genesis, i, was a poem. The same contention was urged by Bishop Clifford ("Dublin Review", 1882), and C. A. Briggs ventures on resolving this narrative into a five-tone measure. Of late, other critics would perceive in the song of Lamech, in the story of the flood and of Babel, fragments of lost heroic poems. It is common knowledge that the so-called "creation-epic" of Assurbanipal is written in four-line stanzas with a caesura to each line. But of this no feature seems really discernible in the Hebrew Genesis (consult Gunkel, "Genesis", and "Schoepfung und Chaos"). There is no distinct metre except an occasional couplet or quatrain in Gen., i-x. But Ps. civ, on the wonders of God's works; Ps. cv, cvi, on His dealings with Israel; Job, xxxviii-xlii, on the mysteries of nature and Providence; Prov., viii, 22-32, on creative wisdom, might have been wrought by genius of a different type into the narrative we define as epical. Why did Israel choose another way? Perhaps because it sought after religion and cared hardly at all for cosmogonies. The imagination of Hebrews looked forward, not into abysses of past time. And mythology was condemned by their belief in monotheism. Psalms are comprehended under two heads, -- "Tehillim", hymns of praise, and "Tephilloth", hymns of prayer, arranged for chanting in the Temple-services. They do not include any very ancient folk-songs; but neither can we look on them as private devotional exercises. Somewhat analogous are the historic blessings and curses, of a very old tradition, attributed to Jacob (Gen., xlix) and Moses (Deut., xxviii, xxxii-iii). Popular poetry, not connecting itself with priestly ritual, touches life at moments of crisis and pours out its grief over death. Much of all this Holy Scripture has handed down to us. The Book of Lamentations is founded on the Kinah, the wailing chant improvised by women at funerals in a measure curiously broken, one full verse followed by one deficient, which reminded St. Jerome of the pentameter. It seems to be aboriginal among Semites (cf. Amos, v, 2; Jer., xlviii, 36; Ezech., xix, 1; Ps. xix, 8-10). Martial songs, of which Judges, v; Num., xxi; Jos., x; I Kings, xviii, are specimens, formed the lost "Book of the Wars of the Lord". From another lost roll, the "Book of Jashar", i.e., of the Upright or of Israel, we derive the lament of David over Saul and Jonathan, as well as in substance Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the Temple (II Kings, i, 3; III Kings, viii, 53). However we interpret Canticles, it is certainly a round of wedding-songs and is high poetry; Ps. xlv is an epithalamium of the same character. The song of the vineyard may be added to our list (Is., v, 1). Historically, at all events, the Book of Psalms is late and supposes prophecy to have gone before it. A second stage is attained, the nearest approach in the Hebrew Testament to philosophy, when we reach the gnomic or "wisdom" poetry. Proverbs with its two line antitheses gives us the standard, passing into larger descriptions marked by numerals and ending in the acrostic or alphabetical praise of the "valiant", i.e., the "virtuous" woman. Job takes its place among the great meditative poems of the world like "Hamlet" or "Faust", and is by no means of early date, as was once believed. In form it may be assigned to the same type as Prov., i-x; but it rises almost to the level of drama with its contrasted speakers and the interposition of Jahweh, which serves to it as a denouement. Notwithstanding its often corrupt text and changes consequent on re-editing at later times, it remains unquestionably the highest achievement of inspired Hebrew verse. Ecclesiastes, with its mingled irony and sadness, falls into a purely didactic style; it has traces of an imperfect lyrical mood, but belongs to the prose of reflection quite as much as Seneca or Marcus Aurelius. The Hebrew text of Ben Sira, thus far recovered, is of a loftier kind, or even a prelude to the New Testament. As regards the Prophets, we can scarcely doubt that oracles were uttered in verse at Shiloh and other ancient shrines, just as at Delphi; or that inspired men and women threw their announcements commonly into that shape for repetition by their disciples, to whom they came as the "word of the Lord". To prophesy was to sing accompanied by an instrument (IV Kings, iii, 15). The prophetic records, as we now have them, were made up from comparatively brief poems, declaring the mind of Jahweh in messages, "burdens", to those whom the seer admonished. In Amos, Osee, Micheas, Isaias, the original chants may still be separated and the process of joining them together is comparatively slight. Prophecy at first was preaching; but as it became literature its forms passed out of verse (which it always handled somewhat freely) into prose. The Book of Ezechiel, though abounding in symbol and imagery, cannot be deemed a poem. Yet from the nature of their mission the Prophets appealed to that in man's composition which transcends the finite, and their works constantly lift us to the regions of poetic idealism, however fluctuating the style between a strict or a looser measure of time. Divine oracles given as such fall into verse; expanded or commented on, they flow over into a less regular movement and become a sort of rhythmical prose. Our Latin and English translations often render this effect admirably; but attentive readers will note in the English A. V. many unconscious blank verses, sometimes the five foot iambic, and occasionally classic hexameters, e.g., "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" (Is., xiv, 12). There is likewise in Hebrew a recognized poetical vocabulary, though some critics deny it, and the grammar keeps a few archaic forms. We can distinguish popular unwritten prophecy as lasting from unknown periods down to Amos. From Amos to Esdras the prophets all write still under poetic influences, but their singing has declined into metaphor. The rhapsodists (moshelim) give place more and more to the rabbim. We hear the last echoes of Hebrew sacred poetry in St. Luke's Gospel; for the "Benedictus", the "Magnificat", the "Nunc Dimittis", though in Greek, are songs of Israel, moulded on Old Testament reminiscences. Now we come into a debatable land, where critics dispute endlessly over the essence and make of Biblical versification, beyond the lines drawn by Lowth. What metrical system does Hebrew follow? Take the single line; does it move by quantity, as Latin and Greek, or by accent, as English? If by accent, how is that managed? Should we reckon to each kind of verse a definite number of syllables, or allow an indefinite? Since no Jewish "Poetics" have been preserved from any age of the Bible, we have only the text itself upon which to set up our theories. But if we consider how many fragments of divers periods enter into this literature, and how all alike have been passed through the mill of a late uncritical recension, -- we mean the Massora -- can we suppose that in every case, or even in general, we enjoy so much evidence as is required for a solid judgment on this matter? Infinite conjecture is not science. One result of which we may be certain is that Hebrew verse never proceeded by quantity; in this sense it has no metre. A second is that the poetical phrase, be it long or short, is governed by tone or stress, rising and falling naturally with the speaker's emotion. A third would grant in the more antique forms a freedom which the development of schools and the fixedness of liturgy could not but restrain as years went on. At all times, it has been well said by W. Max Müller, "the lost melody was the main thing"; but how little we do know of Hebrew music? Under these complicated difficulties to fix a scale for the lines of verse, beyond the rhythm of passionate utterance, can scarcely be attempted with success. G. Bickell, from 1879 onwards, undertook in many volumes to reduce the anarchy of Old Testament scansion by applying to it the rules of Syriac, chiefly as found in St. Ephrem. He made the penultimate tonic for syllables, counted them regularly, and held all lines of even syllables to be trochaic, of uneven iambic. On such a Procrustean bed the text was tortured into uniformity, not without ever so many changes in word and sense, while the traditional readings were swept aside though supported by the versions (see his "Metrices biblicae regulae exemplis illustratae", 1879, "Carmina Vet. Test. metrice", 1882; Job, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs). This dealing, at once arbitrary and fanciful, leaves us with so uncertain a text that our problem is utterly transformed, and the outcome is scepticism. Yet Bickell has indicated the true poetic measure by his theory of main accents, such as travellers note in the modern songs of Palestine. Julius Ley constructs a system on the tone-syllable which, preceded by unaccented syllables and followed by one that has "a dying fall", constitutes the metre. His unit is the verse formed by parallel lines; he admits the caesura; with regard to text and vocalization he is conservative ("Grundzüge d. Rhythmus, d. Vers. u. Strophenbau in d. hebr. Poesie", 1875; "Leitfaden d. Metrik der heb. Poesie", 1887). A third writer, Grimme, while not discarding the received vowel-signs, gives them a new value, and combines quantity with accent. Probably, our conclusion should be that none of these ingenious theories will explain all the facts; and that we had better let the text alone, marking only where it seems to be corrupt. Another amusement of Hebrew scholars has been the discovery and delimitation of "strophes" (Koester, 1831), or of larger units embracing several verses. Bickell and many recent critics allow the four-line combination. Anything more is very doubtful. In Ps. xlii, and elsewhere, a sort of refrain occurs, which corresponds to the people's answer in Catholic litanies; but this does not enter into the verse-structure itself. C. A. Briggs, who clings resolutely to the idea of complex Hebrew metre, extravagates on the subject, by taking the "whole of sense" for a rhythmical whole. We must obey the plain law of parallelism, and allow a three-line arrangement where the words themselves demand it. But much of what is now written concerning the hidden links of Old Testament poetry is like the Cabbala, perversely and needlessly wrong. The lamentation verse lends itself to strophe; and beginnings of it may well exist, provided we do not assimilate this hard and severe language to the gracious flexures which were native in Hellenic composition. There is a species of "canon" or fugue in the fifteen chants called "Songs of Ascent" -- our "Gradual" Psalms -- an ambiguous title referring perhaps to this feature as well as to the pilgrim journey they denoted. Various poems and especially the great Ps. cxviii (Hebrew cxix) are arranged alphabetically; so the Book of Lamentations; Prov., xxxi; Ecclus., li, 13-29. In Talmudic and Rabbinical writings the Psalms cxiii-cxviii (Hebrew) are taken as one composition and known as the "Hallel of Egypt", intended to be sung on the feast of Hanukkah or of Machabees (I Mach., iv, 59). Ps. cxxxvi, Hebrew (Vulgate cxxxv) "Confitemini Domino", is the "Great Hallel", and Ps. cxlvi-cxlviii make up another collection of these "Alleluia" hymns. In Hebrew poetry when rhymes occur they are accidental; alliteration, assonance, word-play belong to it. We find in it everywhere vehemence of feeling, energetic and abrupt expression, sudden changes of tense, person, and figure, sometimes bordering on the grotesque from a Western point of view. It reveals a fine sense of landscape and abhors the personification familiar to Greeks, whereby things lower than man were deified. In sentiment it is by turns sublime, tender, and exceedingly bitter, full of a yearning after righteousness, which often puts on the garb of hatred and vengeance. "From Nature to God and from God to Nature" has been given by Hebrews themselves as the philosophy which underlies its manifestations. It glorifies the Lord of Israel in His counsels and His deeds. In prophecy it judges; in psalmody it prays; in lamentation it meditates on the sufferings which from of old the chosen people have undergone. Though it composes neither an epic nor a tragedy, it is the voice of a nation that has counted its heroes in every age, and that has lived through vicissitudes unequalled in pathos, in terror, in a never defeated hope. By all these elements Hebrew poetry is human; by something more mysterious, but no less real, breathed into its music from on high, it becomes divine. MEIER, "D. Form d. hebr. Poesie" (Tübingen, 1853) seems to anticipate LEY's theory of verse; BELLERMAN, "Versuch über d. Metrik d. Hebr." (Berlin, 1813); ZUNZ, "Synagogale Poesie d. M. A." (Berlin, 1853); EWALD, "D. Dichter d. A. B.", I (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1866); NETELER, "Grundzüge d. Metrik d. Psalmen" (Münster, 1879); BRIGGS, "Biblical Studies" (1883) and other works; BUDDE, "D. Volkslied Israels im Munde d. Propheten" in "Preuss. Jahrb.", Sept., 1893; Dec., 1895; IDEM in HASTING, "Dict. of the Bible", s.v. "Poetry, Hebrew"; MUELLER, "D. Propheten in ihrer ursprünglichen Form" (Vienna, 1896); ZENNER, "D. Chorgesaenge im Buch d. Psalmen" (Freiburg, 1896); KOENIG, "Stillstik, Rhetorik, Poetik etc. in A. T." (Leipzig, 1900); modern views in "Ency. Biblica", 1902, older in HAMBURGER, "Realency. of Judaism", 1896; medieval and late Heb. poetry, see "Jewish Ency." WILLIAM BARRY Poggio Bracciolini Giovanni Francesco Poggio Bracciolini An Italian humanist and historian; born at Terranuova, near Arezzo, in 1380; died at Florence, 10 Oct., 1459. He studied at Florence and went to Rome about 1402. Boniface IX made him one of the Apostolic secretaries, which position he held under Innocent VII, Gregory XII, Alexander V, and John XXIII. The deposition of John XXIII and the delays of the Council of Constance afforded him leisure to search the libraries of the monasteries of Germany and France. In 1415 he discovered at Cluny a manuscript containing the following discourses of Cicero: "Pro Cluentio", "Pro S. Roscio", "Pro Murena", "Pro Milone", and "Pro Cælio". This manuscript was sent to Florence where Francesco Barbaro deciphered it with great difficulty. Later Poggio discovered at St. Gall's the first complete text of Quintilian's "Institutio Oratoria", of which Petrarch had known only fragments, a portion of Valerius Flaccus (I-IV, 317), commentaries on Cicero, among others that of Asconius, a commentary of Priscian on twelve verses of Virgil, and a manuscript of Vitruvius. During another search through the monasteries, probably Einsiedeln, Reichenau on Lake Constance, and Weingarten, he discovered Vegetius, already known by Petrarch, Festus in the abridgment of Paul the Deacon, Lucretius, Manilius, Silius Italicus, Ammianus Marcellinus, the grammarians Caper, Eutyches, and Probus. It was during this journey or the next that Poggio discovered the "Silvæ" of Statius. In 1417 he went as far as Langres, France, where he recovered seven discourses of Cicero, three on the agrarian law, "Pro Rabirio", "Pro Roscio Comoedo", and "In Pisonem". This journey also resulted in the discovery of a manuscript of Columella. Unfortunately most of these manuscripts exist now only in copies. One in his own hand at Madrid (Bib. Nat., X, 81) contains Asconius and the first part of Valerius Flaccus. After the Council of Constance Poggio accompanied Martin V to Italy and stayed with him at Mantua (1418). In 1423 he became his secretary. On his return from a journey to England Poggio discovered an incomplete Petronius at Cologne and Nonius Marcellus at Paris. Niccoli admitted him to his confidence with regard to the "History" of Tacitus, of which he made a secret. He shared in the discovery of the lesser writings of Tacitus by Enoch of Ascoli, in that of Aulus Gellius, of Quintus Curtius and the last twelve works of Plautus by Nicholas of Cusa. In 1429 he made a copy of the "De aquæ ductibus" of Frontinus. In 1429 he published his dialogue on avarice, in which he attacked especially the professors of law and the Mendicant Friars. Shortly after the death of Martin V (20 February, 431) he began to write the four books of his "De Varietate Fortunæ", in the first of which he describes the ruins of Rome. Indeed it may be said that he was the first to practise archæology systematically. He brought from Switzerland the valuable booklet of a ninth-century pilgrim, the Anonymous Einsiedlensis, and he preceded J. B. de Rossi in studying it. He compared the ruins which he saw with the texts of writers and endeavoured to decipher the inscriptions. He collected some of his letters and in 1440 issued a dialogue on nobility. In 1450 an outbreak of the pest sent Nicholas V to Fabriano and Poggio to his birthplace where he completed the compilation of the "Facetiæ". This is a collection of witty sayings, anecdotes, quidproquos, and insolence, mingled with obscenities and impertinent jesting with religious subjects. In 1451 Poggio dedicated to Cardinal Prospero Colonna his "Historia disceptativa convivalis", in three books, of which the third alone is interesting. Poggio maintains against Leonardo Bruni of Mezzo that there was only one language spoken at Rome by the people and the educated classes. This question had a practical bearing for the Italians upon whom it was incumbent to create their literary language, but Poggio's sole ideal was Latin literature. Poggio himself wrote only in Latin, into which tongue he translated the history of Diodorus Siculus and the "Cyropædia" of Xenophon. In June, 1453, Poggio was summoned by the Medicis to Florence where he was given charge of the chancery of the republic. Here he composed his last works, the dialogue "De Miseriis humanæ condicionis", a translation of Lucian's "Golden Ass", and the ten books of his history of Florence from 1350 to 1455, a work much admired by contemporaries, but written in a diffuse style, and partial. No mention has been made of his occasional writings, eulogies, discourses, invectives, but reference must be made to his numerous quarrels with other humanists, Filelfo, George of Trebizond, Tommaso Rieti, Lorenzo Valla (author of "Antidotus in Poggium"). In all these disputes Poggio showed the same fecundity of low insults and calumnies as his opponents. Poggio's works were collected at Basle (in folio, 1513). His letters were issued in a special edition by Tonelli (3 vols., 1832-61). SHEPHERD, Life of Poggio Bracciolini (London, 1802); VOIGT, D. Wiederbelebung d. klassischen Altertums, 3rd ed., I, 235 sq.; SYMONDS, The Renaissance in Italy, II (London, 1875-86), 230 sq.; SANDYS, A History of Classical Scholarship, I, 26, 38, 162; SABBADINI, Ciceronianismo, 20; IDEM, Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne' secoli XIV e XV (Florence, 1905), 76; CLARK, Anecdota Oxoniensia, X (1905). PAUL LEJAY. Poggio Mirteto Poggio Mirteto DIOCESE OF POGGIO MIRTETO (MANDELENSIS) Diocese in the province of Perugia, central Italy. The city is situated on a pleasant height, by the River Sole, in a fertile region, where pot-herbs, cereals, grapes, and pastures are cultivated, and where ancient ruins of villas and of aqueducts are numerous; the villa of Terentius Varro was in this neighbourhood. Poggio Mirteto was under the jurisdiction of the Abbot of Farfa, and the present home of the bishop was the abbot's residence. The Abbey of Farfa, however, like that of San Salvatore Maggiore, passed to the Diocese of Sabina, from which the territory of the See of Poggio Mirteto was taken in 1841; the old collegiate church became the cathedral, and a seminary was established. The first bishop was Nicolo Crispigni. The diocese has 38 parishes, with 32,600 inhabitants, 2 religious houses of men, and 8 of sisters, under whose direction are the schools for girls in several communes. U. BENIGNI Pogla Pogla (ta Pogla) Titular see in Pamphylia secunda. Pogla is mentioned only by Ptolemy, V, 5, possibly by Hierocles, "Synecdemus", 689, 4, but the name is written Socla and it refers without doubt to another locality. Money was coined with the pagan pogleon (Head, "Historia numorum", 591). At present it is the town of Foughla, sandjak of Adalia, vilayet of Koniah. Le Quien (Oriens christianus, I, 1027) mentions two bishops Paul, present at the Council of Chalcedon (451) and Nicephorus at the Council of Nicæa (787). The "Notitiæ Episcopatuum" continue to mention the see among the suffragans of Perge as late as the thirteenth century. RADET, The Cities of Pisidia, extract from the Revue Archæologique (Paris, 1893), p. 13. S. PÉTRIDÈS Poitiers Poitiers Diocese of Poitiers (Pictavensis) The Diocese of Poitiers includes the Departments of Vienne and Deux-Sèvres, and is suffragan of Bordeaux. The Concordat of 1802 added to the see besides the ancient Diocese of Poitiers a part of the Diocese of La Rochelle and Saintes (see LA ROCHELLE). Mgr Duchesne holds that its earliest episcopal catalogue represents the ecclesiastical tradition of Poitiers in the twelfth century. The catalogue reckons twelve predecessors of St. Hilary, among them Nectarius, Liberius, and Agon, and among his successors Sts. Quintianus and Maxentius. Mgr Duchesne does not doubt the existence of these saints but questions whether they were bishops of Poitiers. According to him, St. Hilary (350-67 or 8) is the first bishop of whom we have historical evidence. Among his successors were St. Pientius (c. 544-60); St. Fortunatus (c. 599); St. Peter (1087-1115), exiled by William IX, Count of Poitiers, whose divorce he refused to sanction; Gilbert de la Porrée (1142-54); Blessed William Tempier (1184-97), who, as Mgr Barbier de Montault has shown, was irregularly venerated as a saint in certain parts of the diocese since he died subsequent to the declaration of Alexander III which reserved canonizations to the Holy See; Blessed Gauthier de Bruges (1278-1306); Arnauld d'Aux (1306-12), made cardinal in 1312; Guy de Malsec (1371-5), who became cardinal in 1375; Simon de Cramaud (1385-91), indefatigable opponent of the antipope, Benedict XIII, and who again administered the diocese (1413-23) and became cardinal in 1413; Louis de Bar (1394-5), cardinal in 1397; Jean de la Trémouille (1505-7), cardinal in 1507; Gabriel de Gramont (1532-4), cardinal in 1507; Claude de Longway, Cardinal de Givry (1538-52), became cardinal in 1533; Antonio Barberini (1652-7), cardinal in 1627; Abbé de Pradt (1805-9), afterwards Archbishop of Mechlin, Pie (1849-80), cardinal in 1879. St. Emmeram was a native of Poitiers, but according to to the Bollandists and Mgr Duchesne the documents which make him Bishop of Poitiers (c. 650) are not trustworthy; on the other hand Bernard Sepp (Analec. Boll., VIII) and Dom Chamard claim that he did hold the see, and succeeded Didon, bishop about 666 or 668 according to Dom Chamard. As early as 312 the Bishop of Poitiers established a school near his cathedral; among its scholars were St. Hilary, St. Maxentius, Bishop Maximus of Trier, and his two brothers St. Maximinus of Chinon and St. John of Marne, St. Paulinus, Bishop of Trier, and the poet Ausonius. In the sixth century Fortunatus taught there, and in the twelfth century intellectual Europe flocked to Poitiers to sit at the feet of Gilbert de la Porrée. Charles VII erected a university at Poitiers, in opposition to Paris, where the majority of the faculty had hailed Henry VI of England, and by Bull of 28 May, 1431, Eugene IV approved the new university. In the reign of Louis XII there were in Poitiers no less than four thousand students -- French, Italians, Flemings, Scots, and Germans. There were ten colleges attached to the university. In 1540, at the Collège Ste. Marthe, the famous Marc Antoine Muret, whom Gregory XIII called in later years the torch and the pillar of the Roman School, had a chair. The famous Jesuit Maldonatus and five of his confrères went in 1570 to Poitiers to establish a Jesuit college at the request of some of the inhabitants. After two unsuccessful attempts, they were given the Collège Ste. Marthe in 1605. Père Garasse, well known for his violent polemics and who died of the plague at Poitiers in 1637, was professor there (1607-8), and had as a pupil the great French prose writer, Guez de Balzac. Among other students at Poitiers were Achille de Harlay, President de Thou, the poet Joachim du Bellay, the chronicler, Brantome Descartes, Viète the mathematician, and Bacon, afterwards Chancellor of England. In the seventeenth century the Jesuits sought affiliation with the university and in spite of the lively opposition of the faculties of theology and arts their request was granted. Jesuit ascendancy grew; they united to Ste. Marthe the Collège du Puygareau. Friction between them and the university was continuous, and in 1762 the general laws against them throughout France led to the Society leaving Poitiers. Moreover, from 1674 the Jesuits had conducted at Poitiers a college for clerical students from Ireland. In 1806 the State reopened the school of law at Poitiers and later the faculties of literature and science. These faculties were raised to the rank of a university in 1896. From 1872 to 1875 Cardinal Pie was engaged in re-establishing the faculty of theology. As a provisional effort he called to teach in his Grand Séminaire three professors from the Collegio Romano, among them Père Schrader, the commentator of the Syllabus, who died at Poitiers in 1875. At Ligugé in the diocese, St. Martin founded the first monastery in Gaul, to which were attached a catechetical school and a baptistery. This monastery, afterwards eclipsed by that of Marmoutiers founded by St. Martin near Tours, was destroyed by the Normans in 865, and was later a simple priory depending on the Abbey of Maillezais, and still later belonged to the Jesuits. In 1853 the Benedictines settled in Ligugé and in 1856 it became an abbey. The Benedictines of Ligugé, driven out in 1880, took refuge at Silos in Spain; the abbey in after years became once more a religious centre, but the Associations Law of 1901 again forced the monks into exile at Chevetogne in Belgium. Another important monastery was that of Ansion, or St. Jouin of Marne, founded before 500, and subsequently placed under the Rule of St. Benedict. St. Generosus, St. Paternus (Pair), afterwards Bishop of Avranches, his friend St. Scubilio, and St. Aichard, afterwards Abbot of Jumièges, were all monks of Ansion. A Benedictine abbey founded in 785 by Roger, Count of Limoges, and his wife Euphrasia, was the origin of the town of Charroux, and was enriched with many gifts by Charlemagne. The Abbey of St. Savin-sur-Gartempe, was founded by Charlemagne. Its church and crypt, studied in 1836 by Prosper Mérimée, dates from the eleventh century, and possesses a series of frescoes of the eleventh and twelfth centuries representing the history of the world from the creation until Moses, and the martyrdom of SS. Savinus and Cyprian, which are unique in the history of French mural painting. The church of St. Peter of Chauvigny (eleventh and twelfth centuries) has some admirable sculpture work; and the town of Poitiers is a veritable museum of religious art. Parts of the baptistery of St. John, recently studied with care by the Jesuit archæologist, P. de la Croix, date from the fourth century; and there is evidence that in the time of Constantine baptism by immersion was practised in Poitiers. The church founded in the fourth century by St. Hilary in honour of SS. John and Paul, martyrs and where St. Hilary was buried, was afterwards dedicated to St. Hilary, and reconstructed in the eleventh century by Emma, Queen of England and mother of Edward the Confessor, and by her architect Gautier Coorland. The vaulting of the seven naves of this building, known to-day as St. Hilary the Great, reminds one of Byzantine cupolas, and is an imposing sight. The church of St. Radegunde, which has a Roman apse (eleventh century) and a Gothic nave (twelfth century), rises on the site of a church founded in the sixth century in honour of the virgin queen St. Radegunde, who retired to the monastery of Ste. Croix. In the crypt is her tomb, and facing it a statue of the saint, an "ex voto" of Anne of Austria in 1658, for the cure of her son Louis XIV. The church of Notre Dame la Grande has a twelfth-century façade, which, to a height of fifty-six and a breadth of forty-eight feet, is completely covered with Romanesque carvings at one time polychrome. The cathedral, St. Peter's, is a beautiful Gothic building begun in the second half of the twelfth century under the reign of Henry II Plantagenet of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine and consecrated 18 October, 1379. The Hotel de Ville of Poitiers contains some frescoes, masterpieces of Puvis de Chavannes; they represent the victorious arrival of Charles Martel at Poitiers, and Fortunatus reading his poems to St. Radegunde. Among councils held at Poitiers are those of: 590, in which the Frankish princess and nun, Chrodielda, was excommunicated for revolt against her abbess; 1074, which dealt with the matrimonial affairs of William, Count of Poitiers, and to which the Bishop of Poitiers, Isambert, came with a troop of soldiers and dispersed the members; 1075, which dealt with the heresy of Berengarius, and at which Giraud was papal legate; 1078, in which the papal legate Hugues passed laws against simony; 1100, in which Bishop Norgaud of Autun was deposed for simony, Philip I of France and his concubine Bertrade were excommunicated, and the bishops narrowly escaped being stoned by the order of the Count of Poitiers, who was displeased with their decision; 1106, at which a crusade was proclaimed. The Synod of 1868, assembled to celebrate the fifteenth centenary of St. Hilary's death, was attended by representatives from every part of the ecclesiastical province of Bordeaux. Five councils were held at Charroux in the diocese; that of 1027 legislated against the spread of Manichæism, and was concerned with the "Pax Dei", or Truce of God. Poitiers is rich in historical souvenirs. The neighbourhood of Poitiers was the scene of two famous battles, that of October, 732, in which Charles Martel defeated Abd-el-Raman and definitively saved France from Saracen invasion, and that of September, 1356, in which the King of France, John II, the Good, was made prisoner by the English. In the convent of the Cordeliers at Poitiers dwelt for sixteen months (June, 1307-8) Pope Clement V, while Philip IV, the Fair, of France dwelt with the Jacobins. Jacques Molay and seventy-two Templars were questioned by Clement V at Poitiers. In 1428 when the English held the country north of the Loire, Poitiers was more or less the headquarters of Charles VII, and thither in March, 1429, went Blessed Jeanne d'Arc to see Charles VII and to be questioned concerning her mission. The convent of the Calvarians was founded in 1617 by Antoinette d'Orléans, under the inspiration of the Capuchin Francis Le Clerc du Tremblay. "Poitiers, a town full of priests and monks", wrote La Fontaine in 1633, during a journey through Poitou. The portion of the diocese which lies in the Department of Deux-Sèvres was greatly disturbed during the sixteenth century by the Wars of Religion and under the French Revolution by the Wars of La Vendée. Among natives of the diocese are: Cardinal Jean Balue; the Sainte-Marthes (see GALLIA CHRISTIANA); Filleau de la Bouchetterie (1600-82), who, in 1654, accused Saint-Cyran, Jansenius, and four other Jansenists, with having at a meeting in 1621, discussed the means of substituting Deism for Catholicism; Mme de Maintenon; the Protestant theologian, Isaac Beausobre (1659-1738), the historian of Manichæism. Urbain Grandier was curé of Loudun in the diocese and after a famous trial was burned to death there (18 August, 1634) on the charge of having bewitched the Ursulines of Loudun. Besides St. Radegunde, the great saint of the diocese, and the saints already named the diocese especially venerates: St. Abra, daughter of St. Hilary; St. Leonius (Liène), friend of St. Hilary; St. Justus, priest, who was designated as his successor by St. Hilary, but who refused the honour (fourth century); SS. Savinus and Cyprian, apostles of Poitou, martyred by the Huns in 438; St. Maxentius (d. 515), founder of a monastery between Niort and Poitiers, whence arose the town of St. Maixent; St. Fridolinus, an Irishman, abbot of St. Hilary's of Poitiers (d. c. 540); St. Lubin, Bishop of Chartres, native of Poitou (d. 556); St. Junianus, director of St. Radegunde, founder and first abbot of the monastery of Mairè-l'Evescault (d. 587); St. Agnes (d. 588); St. Disciola (d. 583), abbess and nun of Ste. Croix; St. Léger, Abbot of St. Maxentius and afterwards Bishop of Autun (616-678); St. Adelelmus (Alléaume), Abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, Prior of Burgos (d. 1097), a native of Loudun; St. William of Aquitaine, Count of Poitiers (1099-1137), excommunicated as a partisan of the Schism of Anacletus, and converted by St. Bernard; and Blessed Francis d'Amboise (d. 1485), whose father was Viscount de Thouars; Blessed Théophane Vénard, missionary, martyred in Tonkin in 1861, born at St. Loup-sur-Thouet in the Diocese of Poitiers; Ven. Charles Cornay, missionary in China, martyred in 1839, a native of Loudun. The chief shrines of the diocese are: Notre-Dame la Grande, or Notre-Dame des Clefs at Poitiers, a place of pilgrimage since the thirteenth century; Notre-Dame de l'Agenouillée at Azay-sur-Thouet, a place of pilgrimage since the middle of the sixteenth century; Notre-Dame de Pitié, near the Chapelle St. Laurent, a celebrated place of pilgrimage during the Middle Ages; Notre-Dame de Beauchêne, at Cerizay, a place of pilgrimage since the twelfth century. Many pilgrims are also drawn by the chapel built at Ligugé on the site of the cell of a catechumen whom St. Martin brought to life in order to baptize him, by the crypt of St. Radegunde at Poitiers, and by the church at Marçay, built in 1884, the first church to be dedicated to St. Benedict Labre. Before the application of the Associations Law of 1901 there were in the Diocese of Poitiers, Augustinians of the Assumption, Jesuits, Dominicans, Canons Regular of St. Augustine and many congregations of teaching brothers, a house of Picpus Fathers, who were founded at Poitiers early in the nineteenth century by the Venerable Père Coudrin, and who afterwards changed their parent-house to Paris. Many important congregations of women originated in the diocese: The Daughters of the Cross known as Sisters of St. Andrew (mother-house at La Puye), a nursing and teaching order, established in 1807 by Ven. André-Hubert Fournet, pastor of St. Pierre-de-Maillé, and his penitent, Elisabeth Bichier des Ages; this congregation has houses in Spain and Italy; the Sisters of the Immaculate Conception, a teaching order founded in 1854 by Père Pécot with mother-house at Niort; the Sisters of St. Philomena, a teaching order founded in the middle of the nineteenth century by Abbé Gaillard with mother-house at Salvert. At the beginning of the twentieth century the religious congregations in the diocese had charge of 44 nurseries, 1 school for the blind, 2 schools for deaf and dumb, 1 orphanage for boys, 7 orphanages for girls, 13 hospitals, 1 home for incurables, 1 lunatic asylum, 2 houses of retreat, and 6 district nursing homes. In 1905, at the breach of the Concordat, the Diocese of Poitiers had 684,808 inhabitants, 69 parishes, 574 auxiliary parishes, and 97 curacies maintained by the State. Gallia Christiana, nova, II (1720), 1136-1221: instr. 325-80; CHAMARD, Hist. Ecclésiastique du Poitou (3 vols., Poitiers, 1874, 1880, 1890); AUBER, Hist. gén. civile religieuse et littéraire du Poitou (8 vols., Poitiers, 1885-8); CHERGÉ, Les vies des saints du Poitou (Poitiers, 1856); BARBIER DE MONTAULT, oeuvres complètes, IX (Poitiers, 1894); BEAUCHET-FILLEAU, Pouillé du Diocèse de Poitiers (Poitiers, 1869); CHAMARD, St. Martin et son monastère de Ligugé (Poitiers, 1873); BOYLE, The Irish College in Paris with a brief recount of other Irish Colleges in France (London, 1901); ROBUCHON, Paysages et monuments du Poitou (2 vols., Paris, 1903); RICHARD, Hist. des comtes de Poitou (2 vols., Paris, 1903); DE LA CROIX, Etude sommaire du baptistère St. Jean de Poitiers (Poitiers, 1903); IDEM, Les origines des anciens monuments religieux de Poitiers (1906); IDEM, La Chapelle St. Sixte et les cathédrales de Poitiers (1907); LEFEVRE PONTALIS, St. Hilaire de Poitiers, étude archæologique (Caen, 1905); MÉRIMÉE, Notes d'un voyage dans l'ouest de la France (Paris, 1836); DE LA MAUVINIÈRE, Poitiers et Angoulême, St. Savin, Chauvigny (Paris, 1908); FOURNIER, Statuts des Universités françaises, III (Paris, 1892), 283-335; PILOTELLE, Essai histor. sur l'ancienne université de Poitiers in Mémoires de la Société des antiquaires de l'ouest, XXVII (1863); DARTIGES, Notes sur l'Université de Poitiers in Bulletin de la faculté des lettres de Poitiers (1883); DELFOUR, Les Jésuites à Poitiers 1604-1762 (Paris, 1902). GEORGES GOYAU Poland Poland I. GEOGRAPHY The western part of the Sarmatian Plain together with the northern slopes of the Carpathians, i.e., the territory included between lat. 46° and 59° N., and between long. 32° and 53° E. of Ferro, with an area of about 435,200 square miles (twice as large as Germany), constituted the former Kingdom of Poland. Very likely Poland received its name on account of its extensive plains (in Polish the word for "field", or "plain", is pole), which are the characteristic feature of its topography. As an independent country (i.e., until the year 1772), Poland was bounded on the north by the Baltic Sea, on the east by the Russian Empire, on the south by the dominions of the Tatars and Hungary, on the west by Bohemia and Prussia. The rivers of Poland flow either to the north and west, and empty into the Baltic, or flow south into the Black Sea. The rivers that empty into the Baltic are the Oder, Vistula, Niemen, and the western Düna; those that empty into the Black Sea are the Dniester, Boh (Bug), and Dnieper. The climate is universally temperate, and the four seasons are sharply defined. The chief industry has always been agriculture, and little account has ever been made of either commerce or manufactures, although the country was situated on the direct line of communication between Europe and Asia. The various divisions, by the union of which the Kingdom of Poland was formed, still bear their original names. They are: (1) Great Poland, in the basin of the Warthe. Cities: Gnesen, Posen on the Warthe; (2) Kujavia, north of Great Poland, at the foot of the Baltic ridge to the left of the Vistula. City: Bromberg; (3) Little Poland, the basin of the upper and middle Vistula. Cities: Cracow, Sandomir, Czenstochowa, Radom; (4) Silesia, at the headwaters of the Vistula and on the upper Oder, belonged to Poland only until the year 1335. Capital: Breslau; (5) Masovia, in the basin of the middle Vistula. Capital: Warsaw; (6) Pomerania, between the Baltic Sea, the Vistula and Netze. Cities: Kolberg and Danzig; (7) Prussia, originally the country between the Baltic, the Vistula, the Niemen and the Drewenz. Cities: Thorn, Marienburg, and Königsberg; (8) Podlachia, on the rivers Narew, and Bug. City: Bjelsk; (9) Polesia, in the valley of the Pripet. City: Pinsk; (10) Volhynia in the basin of the rivers Styr, Horyn, and Slucz. Cities: Vladimir and Kamenetz; (11) Red Russia, on the Dniester, San, Bug, and Prut. Cities: Sanok, Przemysl, Lemberg, and Kolomyia; (12) Podolia, in the basin of the Strypa, Seret., Sbrucz, and upper Boh. Cities: Kamenetz, on the Smotrycz, Mohileff, on the Dniester, Buczacz; (13) The Ukraine, east of the Dniester in the basin of the Bug and Dnieper. Cities: Kieff, Zhitomir, Poltava, Oczakow, and Cherson; (14) White Russia, on the upper Dnieper, Düna, and Niemen. Cities: Minsk, Vitebsk, and Polotsk; (15) Lithuania, on the middle Niemen, extending to the Düna. Cities: Vilna, Grodno, Kovno; (16) Samland, to the right of the lower Niemen. City: Worme; (17) Courland, on the Gulf of Riga, with the city of Mitau, belonged to Poland only indirectly; (18) Livonia, on the Gulf of Riga, and Esthonia, on the Gulf of Finland, belonged to Poland for a short time only. Poland was, for the most part, populated by Poles; after the union of Lithuania with Poland were added Ruthenians and Tatars, and furthermore, though in no considerable numbers, Jews, Germans, Armenians, Gipsies, and Letts. As a matter of fact, the Poles inhabited the whole of Great Poland, Little Poland, and a part of Lithuania, as well as part of the Ruthenian territory. Moreover, the nobility, the urban population, and the upper and better educated classes in general throughout the whole country were either Poles or thoroughly Polonized. The total population was generally given as nine millions. The Ruthenians inhabited the eastern (White and Red Russia), and the south-eastern provinces (Red Russia and the Ukraine). The Lithuanians formed the bulk of the population in Samland and the waywodeships of Wilna and Troki. A political distinction was made between "Crown Poland" and Lithuania. These two divisions, which united after 1569, differed more particularly in that each country had its own officials. After 1569, also, the designation "Republic of Poland" became customary to denote not any definite polity, but a league of states (Lithuania and Crown Poland). Crown Poland was called a kingdom; Lithuania, a grand-duchy. In 1772, 1793, and 1795 the territory of Poland was divided among the three adjoining states: Lithuania and Little Russia were given to Russia; the purely Polish territories, to Prussia and Austria. The new boundary between these states was formed by the Pilica and the Bug. Thus Russia received 8500 square miles and 6,500,000 inhabitants; Prussia, 2700 square miles and 3,000,000 inhabitants; Austria, 2100 square miles and 4,275,000 inhabitants. Napoleon took from Prussia the Polish territories annexed in 1793 and 1795 and out of them formed what he called the Duchy of Warsaw. New territorial changes were effected by the Congress of Vienna: Prussia received a part of the Duchy of Warsaw as the Grand duchy of Posen; Russia received the rest of the Duchy of Warsaw as a separate Kingdom of Poland (Congress Poland); Austria retained the territories previously acquired, under the name of the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. Galicia now has a population of more than seven millions, of whom somewhat less than four millions are Poles, and 3,074,000, Ruthenians. Grouped according to religion there are 3,350,000 Catholics of the Latin Rite, 3,104,000 Greek Uniats, and 811,000 Jews. The San, a tributary of the Vistula, divides Galicia into an eastern and western part. The latter is occupied by the Poles, the former by the Ruthenians, though there are also many Poles. For administrative purposes Galicia is divided into seventy-nine districts. The intellectual centre of the country is Cracow (150,000 inhabitants), but the actual capital is Lemberg (250,000 inhabitants). There are two universities, one at Cracow and one at Lemberg, one polytechnic institute at Lemberg, and one commercial academy in each of these two cities. In the Polish provinces belonging to Prussia there are approximately four million Poles. In Silesia they constitute two-thirds of the population; they are also found on the Baltic and in the provinces of East and West Prussia, being most numerous (more than 1,500,000) in the Grand duchy of Posen. The capital, Posen, numbers about 150,000 inhabitants. Among the Poles the Catholic religion predominates. The Poles under Russian rule are found chiefly in Congress Poland; also, in small numbers, in Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia, and the Ukraine. The total probably amounts to nine millions. The capital of Russian Poland is Warsaw, with 800,000 inhabitants. The Greek Uniat Bishopric of Chelm (Kholm), situated within the boundaries of the Kingdom of Poland, was compelled by force to accept the schism in 1875; however, since 1905, a large majority of the former Uniats have returned to the Catholic Church. II. POLITICAL HISTORY At the period when the authentic history of Poland begins, the Germans had already become the most powerful nation of Europe, and their kings sought to extend their dominion to the Slavic tribes beyond the Elbe. The latter were very soon partly exterminated, partly subjugated. The eastern boundary of Germany was advanced as far as the Oder; beyond this was Polish territory. But the German armies did not halt there; in the neighbourhood of where Frankfort now stands they crossed the Oder and attacked the Polish strongholds. Mieszko, the Polish ruler of Posen (96292), acknowledged the German Emperor as his lord paramount, promising to pay a yearly tribute, and upon demand to aid him with an armed force. In 963 Mieszko bound himself and his people to embrace Christianity. Christian missionaries were at once sent to Poland; the first bishopric was that of Posen, which was placed under the supervision of the German archbishop at Magdeburg. This was the first contact of the Poles with European civilization. From Germany and Bohemia numerous missionaries entered the country to baptize the people, while from all the Western countries came immigrants and monks, and convents began to be built. The spread of Christianity was greatly furthered by the two wives of Prince Mieszko: first, Dabrowska, a sister of the King of Bohemia, and then Oda, formerly a nun whom Mieszko had married after the death of Dabrowska. Prince Mieszko considered himself a vassal of the pope, and as such paid him tribute. From this time on, the Church contributes so much to the national development that it will be impossible to trace intelligently the political history of Poland without at the same time following its ecclesiastical development. Poland had hardly begun to play a part in history when it acquired extraordinary power. This was in the reign of the famous Boleslaw Chrobry (992-1025), the eldest son of the first Polish ruler. His dominions included all the lands from the Baltic to the country beyond the Carpathians, and from the River Oder to the provinces beyond the Vistula. He had at his command, ready for instant service, a well-equipped army of 20,000 men. In spite of his great power, Boleslaw continued to pay the customary tribute to Germany. By his discreet diplomacy he was successful in obtaining the consent of the pope, as well as of the German emperor, to the erection of an archiepiscopal see at Gnesen, and thus the Polish Church was relieved of its dependence upon German archbishops. To emphasize Poland's independence of Germany, Boleslaw assumed the title of king, being crowned by the newly created archbishop of Gnesen in 1024. The clergy in Poland were at that time exclusively of foreign birth; intimate relations between them and the people were therefore impossible. The latter did not become enthusiastic about the new religion, nor yet did they return to paganism, for severe penalties, such as knocking out the teeth for violating the precept of fasting, maintained obedience to the clergy among the people. After the death of Chrobry disaster befell the Poles. Their neighbours attacked them on all sides. The son of Boleslaw, Mieczyslaw II (1025-34), unable to cope with his enemies, yielded allegiance to the emperor and lost the title of king. After his death there was an interregnum (1034-40) marked by a series of violent revolutions. Hosts of rebellious peasants traversed the country from end to end, furiously attacked castles, churches, and convents, and murdered noblemen and ecclesiastics. In Masovia paganism was re-established. Casimir, a son of Mieczyslaw II, surnamed the Restorer, recovered the reins of government, with the aid of Henry VIII, restored law and order, and rooted out idolatry. At his death the sovereignty devolved upon his son, Boleslaw II, Smialy (1058-79). This ruler was favoured by fortune in his warlike undertakings. His success at last led him to enter upon a conflict with the emperor. Conditions at the time were favourable to his securing political independence. The Emperor Henry IV was engaged in a struggle for supremacy with Pope Gregory VII, who allied himself with the vassal princes hostile to the emperor, among them Boleslaw Smialy, to whom he sent the kingly crown. Poland revolted from the empire, and the Polish Church began a reform in accordance with Gregory's decrees. By the leading nobles Boleslaw was thoroughly hated as a despot; the masses of the people murmured under the burden of incessant wars; the clergy opposed the energetic reformation of the Church, which the king was carrying on, their opposition being particularly directed against Gregory's decree enforcing the celibacy of the clergy. The dissatisfied elements rose and placed themselves under the protection of Bohemia, Bishop Stanislaw even placed the king under the ban of the Church, while the king declared the bishop guilty of high treason for allying himself with Bohemia and the emperor. The king's sentence was terribly executed at Cracow, where the bishop was done to death and hewn in pieces. In the civil war which ensued Boleslaw was worsted and compelled to take refuge in Hungary. After his death Poland had to pass through severe and protracted struggles to maintain its independence. Towards the end of the eleventh century its power was broken by the Bohemians and Germans, and it was once more reduced to the condition of an insignificant principality, under the incompetent Wladislaw Herman (1081-1101). At this period the clergy constituted the only educated class of the entire population, but they were foreigners, and the natives joined their ranks but slowly. At all events they are entitled to extraordinary credit for the diffusion of learning in Poland. The convents were at that time the centres of learning; the monks taught the people improved methods of cultivating the soil, and built inns and hospitals. During the whole of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Poland was in a most unfortunate condition. Boleslaw III, Krzywousty (1112-39), at his death divided the country into principalities, which were bequeathed to his sons as hereditary possessions. The eldest son was to receive the territory of Cracow, with his capital at Cracow, and to be the overlord of the whole country. In course of time the other sons again divided their lands among their children, and thus Poland was split up into smaller and smaller principalities == a process which proved fatal. The overlords were unable to effect permanent reforms; Wladislaw II (1139-46), Boleslaw the Curly-haired (1146-73), Mieczyslaw the Old (1173-77), Casimir II the Just (1177-94), Mieczyslaw the Old (supreme for the second time, 1194-1202), Wladislaw III (1202-06). The only spiritual bond that held the dismembered parts of Poland together was the Church. With this in mind Leszek the Wise (1206-27) increased popular respect for the clergy by giving them the right to elect their bishops, and territorial jurisdiction over church lands. His brother, Prince Conrad of Masovia, about this time summoned the knights of the Teutonic Order. The heathen tribes on the borders of Poland == Jazygians, Lithuanians, and Prussians == were constantly making predatory incursions into the country. The Prussians, who had settled east of the Vistula, were active in these raids. To put an end to this state of things a knightly order established by Germans in Palestine was summoned by Conrad for the conquest and Christianization of Prussia. These Knights of the Cross, so called from the black cross upon their white cloaks, established themselves on the Vistula in 1228. They were also known as the Teutonic Knights (Deutschen Ritter). In a short time they exterminated the Prussians, to replace whom German colonists were brought into the land, forming a powerful state controlled by the order, a state of strictly German character, which soon directed its attacks against Poland. The condition of Poland, meanwhile, was disastrously affected by another cause: it was subdivided into about thirty small states, and the supreme princes, Henry I the Bearded (1232-38), Henry II the Pious (1238-41), Boleslaw (1243-79), Leszek the Black (1279-88), Henry Probus (1288-90), Przemyslaw II (1290-95), and Waclaw II (1290-1305), could find no remedy for the evil. Moreover, in the years 1241 and 1259 the Tatars invaded the country, completely devastated it, and carried off vast multitudes into captivity. The territories thus depopulated were then occupied by well organized colonies from Germany. In the early thirteenth and late fourteenth centuries these colonists became possessed with a desire to seize the sovereign power in the State, weakened as it was by sub-division. But the magnates of Poland decided to oppose this scheme resolutely. The clergy issued instructions at synods against the admission of Germans to church benefices, the church being the only power that could supply any means of firm national organization. The Archbishop of Gnesen was the supreme religious head of all the Polish principalities. The clergy of the time, having been for fully a century native Poles, cultivated the Polish language in the churches and schools. It was among the clergy that the opposition to the German influence first took form. Above all, it was the clergy who took active measures to bring about the union of the various divisions of Poland into one great kingdom. Circumstances favoured this plan. For during this period of incessant civil wars, Tatar invasions, famine, contagious diseases, conflagrations, and floods, the piety of the common people was remarkable. Never before or after was the number of hermits and pilgrims so large, never was the building of convents carried on so extensively. Princes, princesses, nobles, and knights entered the various orders; large sums of money were given for religious foundations. To this period belong the Polish saints whom the Church has recognized. The clergy gained extraordinary influence. In the convent-schools singing and preaching was henceforth carried on in the Polish language. Germans were not admitted to the higher dignities of the Church. At the same time the Polish clergy prepared to bring about a union of the several states into which the country was divided. This was accomplished after many years of war by the energetic prince Wladislaw, surnamed the Short (1305-33). He determined, furthermore, to have himself crowned king. After receiving the kingly crown from the pope, he crowned himself in the city of Cracow (1320). His whole reign was spent in warfare; in a way, he restored Poland and preserved it from foreign domination. His son and successor, Casimir the Great (1333-70), undertook to restore order in the internal affairs of the realm, demoralized by a century of almost uninterrupted warfare. He promoted agriculture, the trades, and commerce; he built fortresses and cities, constructed highways, drained marshes, founded villages, extended popular education, defended the laws, made them known to the people by collecting them into a code (1347), established a supreme court at Cracow (1366), and offered a refuge in Poland to the Jews, who were then everywhere persecuted. He also founded a university at Cracow (1364) and organized a militia. When he inherited the Principality of Halicz (Galicia), a part of Little Russia, he brought this district to a high degree of prosperity by his policies. Casimir died without issue, and with him the Piast dynasty became extinct. During Casimir's reign the clergy, on account of their services in bringing about the unification of the kingdom, gained extraordinary popularity, all the more because they were the only educated element of the nation. There were seven religious orders: Benedictines, Templars, Cistercians, Dominicans, Franciscans, Lateran Canons, and Præmonstratensians. Libraries and schools were to be found only in the convents, where, also, the poor, the sick, and the crippled received comfort and help. Besides promoting religion, some of the convents, especially those of the Cistercians, sought to promote agriculture by clearing forests, laying out gardens, and introducing new varieties of fruits, etc. The Cistercians employed the lay members attached to their order in manual labour, under strict regulations, in their fields, gardens and workshops. The Norbertine, Cistercian, Dominican, Franciscan, and Benedictine nuns devoted themselves more particularly to the education of girls. Laymen despised learning as something unworthy of them. On the other hand, the clergy only unwillingly admitted laymen into their schools, which they regarded as preparatory institutions for those intending to take orders. The first schools were established by the Benedictines at Tyniec, but as early as the thirteenth century this order, composed for the most part of foreign-born members, ceased teaching. The secular clergy established schools in the cathedral, collegiate, and parish churches. While Casimir still lived the nobility elected as his successor Louis, King of Hungary (1370-82), who assumed the regency without opposition immediately after Casimir's death. Under him the relations existing between the people and the Crown underwent substantial changes. Louis had no sons, only daughters, and he was anxious that one of these should occupy the Throne of Poland. With this object in view he began to treat with the Polish nobles. The nobles assented to his plan and in return received numerous privileges. Thereafter there was bargaining and haggling with each new king, a course which finally resulted in the complete limitation of the royal power. On the other hand, the despotism of the aristocracy increased in proportion as the power of the kings declined, greatly to the detriment of the other estates of the realm. Louis was succeeded, after much hesitation on her part, by Queen Hedwig (Jadwiga), in the year 1384. The Poles urged her marriage to Jagiello, or Jagellon, the Prince of Lithuania, but on condition that he and all his people should embrace Christianity. As soon as Jagiello had accepted this proposal and had been baptized, he was crowned King of Poland (1386-1434) == on the strength of being the consort of Queen Hedwig. Soon after the close of the coronation festivities at Cracow a large body of ecclesiastics crossed into Lithuania, where, after a short resistance on the part of the heathen priests, the people were baptized in vast multitudes. One of the most important tasks of the united kingdom of Poland and Lithuania was the final reckoning with the Teutonic Knights, whose power still threatened both countries. In 1409 began a war which was signalized by the crushing defeat of the order at Tannenberg-Grnfelde. The battle of Tannenberg broke for all time the power of the order, and placed Poland among the great powers of Europe. Until then Poland had been looked upon as a semi-civilized country, where the natives were little better than savages, and culture was represented by the German clergy and colonists. With the battle at Tannenberg this period of disrepute was at an end. The influence of the Polish clergy was still further increased after the union of Poland and Lithuania. The royal chancery was administered by clerics. The clergy now (1413-16) caused the adoption of a whole series of enactments against heresy with especially severe provisions against apostates. In the general synods, in which the Polish clergy had formerly been classed as German, its representatives in the course of time received even greater attention, and the candidacy of Polish church dignitaries for the papal Throne was considered in all seriousness. Polish ecclesiastics brought it about that the adherents of the Eastern Schism in the Province of Halicz (Galicia) made their submission to the Holy See at Florence in 1439. Jagiello's son Wladislaw (1434-44) in the year 1440 accepted the Hungarian Crown also, in order that, with the united forces of the two kingdoms, he might successfully resist the power of the Turks. He gained a brilliant victory over the Turks (1443), but, continuing the war at the pope's instance, in spite of the treaty of peace, met with disaster, and fell in the battle of Varna. His successors, Casimir the Jagellon (1447-92), John Albert (1492-1501), and Alexander (1501-06), wrought for the welfare of the State with varying success. The son of Alexander, Sigismund I (1506-48), sought to consolidate his military power and replenish his treasury. He succeeded in redeeming the mortgaged estates of the Crown, but could not obtain the consent of the nobility to the formation of a standing army and the payment of regular taxes. Sigismund also carried on several wars == with the Russians, the Tatars, and the Wallachians. In his reign, too, the secularization of the domains of the Teutonic order took place. The grand master, Albert, with the whole chapter and a majority of the knights, abjured their allegiance to the emperor, and adopted Lutheranism, an example followed by a large part of the Prussian nobility and all the commonalty. At the same time the land which had heretofore belonged to the order was proclaimed as a secular Prussian principality. Poland, desirous of continuing its suzerainty over Prussia, sanctioned these changes (1525), on condition, however, that Albert should swear allegiance to the Polish king. Albert accepted these terms, and Prussia accordingly became a fief of the Jagellons. Towards the end of Sigismund's reign, between 1530 and 1540, a powerful tendency towards reform in religious matters manifested itself throughout Poland. This reform was indeed necessary. At the close of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth century the clergy were thoroughly depraved. As a memorial, presented to the papal nuncio by the better elements, proves, the bishops were concerned only about the attainment of new dignities and the collection of their revenues; they oppressed the labourers on church lands, keeping them at work even on Sundays and holy days; the priests were uneducated and in many cases were only half-grown youths; the clergy were venal; monks dressed in silken robes often shared in the carousals of the nobility. The nobles envied the flourishing estates of the clergy. Thus a fruitful soil was provided for the spread of heresies in Poland. The spread of Hussite doctrines was not arrested until as late as 1500. The aristocracy, especially the younger members, who had attended foreign universities, now began to turn more and more to Calvinism, because this religion gave laymen a voice in matters affecting the church. Complete freedom of speech and belief was introduced. From all sides the Reformers, driven from other countries on account of their teachings, migrated to Poland, bringing with them a multiplicity of sects. The depraved clergy were unable to maintain their supremacy. Zebrzydowski, Bishop of Cracow, was wont to say openly: "You may believe in what you will, provided you pay me the tithe". Moreover, many of the clergy married. The aristocracy regarded the new doctrines as an advance upon the old, drove the Catholic priests from the villages, substituted Protestant preachers, and ordered their dependents to attend the Calvinistic or Hussite devotions. But the common people opposed this propaganda. The Reformation failed in Poland; but it stimulated the intellectual activity of the Poles and contributed very largely to the creation of a national Polish literature in place of the hitherto prevalent Latin literature. The sectarians were compelled to employ the vernacular in their addresses, if their teachings were to be effective with the masses. The Reformation gained momentum and growth especially after the death of Sigismund I, when his son Sigismund Augustus (1548-72) succeeded him. There was at the time much discussion as to convoking a national synod and establishing a national Church, independent of Rome. The representatives of various denominations in 1550 demanded the abolition of the ecclesiastical courts and complete religious liberty; they furthermore proposed the confiscation of church lands, the permission of marriage to the clergy, and communion in both kinds. But the king would not consent to these demands. The diet even passed stringent laws against the Protestant agitators, placing them on the footing of persons guilty of high treason. Nevertheless a decree was issued forbidding the payment of any and all tribute to the pope; at the same time the ecclesiastical courts were deprived of jurisdiction in cases of heresy, and the civil power was no longer obliged to execute their sentences. The heretics, however, did not gain complete equality of rights under the law. This curtailment of their liberty was because the sects were at variance with one another and because, furthermore, the Reformation was hardly more than a matter of fashion with the magnates, while the gentry and common people remained true to the Church; so that the heretics were unable to secure a majority in any part of Poland. Still the number of Catholic churches converted to Protestant uses amounted to 240 in Great Poland and more than 400 in Little Poland, in addition to which the various sects had built 80 new churches, while in Lithuania, where Calvinism was particularly prevalent, there were 320 Reformed churches. As many as 2000 families of the nobility had abandoned the Faith. But the Protestants, although a very considerable portion of the population, were rendered incapable of successful effort by endless dissensions, while the Catholics, led by Hosius, Bishop of Ermland (see ERMLAND), sought to strengthen their position more and more. The latter took advantage of all the blunders committed by the sectarians, organized the better part of the Polish clergy, and with great energy carried into effect the reforming decrees of the Council of Trent. Furthermore, the Catholics adopted all that was good in the policy of the heretics. Polish works no longer appeared in Latin but in Polish, and it was even decided to translate the Holy Scriptures into Polish. In the field of science the Jesuits also developed great activity after the year 1595. As a result of these measures, the dissidents steadily lost ground; the Senate and the Diet were exclusively Catholic. The plan of creating a national Church lost ground, and at last was entirely abandoned (1570). Sigismund Augustus endeavoured to bring the nations under his sway into closer relations with one another, and he succeeded in effecting the union of Poland with Little Russia and Lithuania at the Diet of Lublin (1569), after which these three countries formed what was called the Republic (see above, under 1). With Sigismund the House of Jagiello came to an end. After his death the Archbishop of Gnesen, Primate of Poland, assumed the reins of government during the interregnum. As early as the reign of Sigismund the Old, the nobility had secured a fundamental law in virtue of which the king was to be elected not by the Senate but by the entire nobility. After the death of Sigismund the nobles elected Henry of Valois king (1574). But after five months, upon receiving news of his brother's death, he secretly left Poland to assume the Crown of France. Stephen Bathori, Prince of Transylvania, was next chosen king. His wise administration (1576-86) had many good results, more particularly in extending the boundaries of the kingdom. After his death the Swedish prince, Sigismund III, of the House of Vasa (1587-1632) was elected. This king was one of the most zealous champions of Catholicism. His main object was, besides completely checking the propaganda of the Reformation, to give Poland a stable form of government. In the very first years of his reign Catholicism gained considerably. At this time, also, the Jesuits came into Poland in larger numbers and very soon made their influence felt among the entire population. Their schools, founded at enormous expense of energy and capital, were soon more numerously attended than the schools of the heretics. Jesuit confessors and chaplains became indispensable in great families, with the result that the nobles gradually returned to Catholicism. Among the masses the Jesuits enjoyed great esteem as preachers and also because of their self-sacrifice in the time of the plague. Lastly, they pointed out to the nobility the exalted mission of Poland as a bulwark against the Turks and Muscovites. After the influence of the heretics in Poland had been destroyed, the Society of Jesus resolved to reclaim from the Greek schism the millions of inhabitants of Little Russia. To these efforts of the Jesuits must be ascribed the important reunion of the Ruthenian bishops with Rome in 1596. Ecclesiastically, the Polish dominions were at this time divided into two Latin archbishoprics with fifteen suffragan dioceses, while the Uniat Greeks had three archbishoprics with five bishoprics. The schismatical Greeks had the same number of archbishoprics (Metropolia), besides four bishoprics. Under Sigismund III Poland waged wars of self-defence with Sweden, Russia, the Tatars, and the Turks. Poland's power at that time was so great that the Russian boyars requested a Polish prince, the son of Sigismund III, to be their ruler; but the king refused his consent. Sigismund transferred the royal residence from Cracow to Warsaw. After his death the nobility elected Wladislaw IV king (1632-48). Towards the end of this reign the warlike Cossacks, a tribe of Little Russia on the River Dnieper in the Ukraine, who defended the southeastern frontier of Poland against the Turks and Tatars, revolted, joined forces with the Tatars, and with their combined armies inflicted a severe defeat upon the Poles. But even worse times were in store for Poland under the succeeding rulers, John Casimir (1648-68) and Michael Chorybut Wisniowiecki (1669-73). The Cossacks and Tatars made terrible ravages on the eastern frontiers of Poland. Then the Swedes, under Charles Gustavus, conquered (1665) almost the whole of Poland; King Casimir was compelled to flee to Silesia. After that the Russians invaded the country and occupied Kieff, Smolensk, Polotsk, and Vilna. In the autumn of 1655 the State, as such, ceased to exist. Lithuania and the Ukraine were under the power of the Czar; Poland had been conquered by the Swedes; Prussia was occupied by the Brandenburgers. No one dared offer any resistance. But when the Paulite monks of Czenstochau repelled an attack of 2000 Swedish troops, the spirit of the nobles and magnates revived. The clergy made this a religious war, the victory of Czenstochowa was ascribed to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin, whose gracious image was venerated in that convent; she was proclaimed "Queen of the Crown of Poland", and John Casimir, at Lemberg (1656), devoutly placed himself and the entire kingdom under her protection. In the event, the Swedes were soon routed. The wars almost simultaneously conducted against Lutheran Swedes, the schismatic Muscovites, and Mohammedan Tatars intimately associated Catholicism with patriotism in the minds of the Poles. "For Faith and Fatherland" became their watchword. Overwhelmed by so many reverses, John Casimir abdicated in 1668. He was succeeded by Michael Wisniowiecki, during whose reign anarchy steadily increased. The Cossacks and Tatars again invaded Poland, as did a large army of Turks. The latter were defeated, however, by Sobieski, at Chotin, when barely 4000 out of 10,000 escaped death. In gratitude for this glorious achievement the nation, after the death of Wisniowiecki, elected John Sobieski king (1674-96). An excellent general and pious Christian knight, Sobieski, immediately after his accession to the throne, entered upon a struggle with the Turks. He aimed at the complete annihilation of the Turkish power, and for this purpose zealously endeavoured to combine the Christian Powers against the Turks; he also entered into a defensive and offensive alliance with the German Emperor. When the grand vizier, Kara Mustafa, at the head of about 200,000 men, had crossed the German frontier and was besieging Vienna, Sobieski with a Polish army hastened to its relief, united his forces with the emperor's, and utterly defeated the Turks (1683). This campaign was the beginning of a series of struggles between Poland and Turkey in which the latter was finally worsted. Under Augustus II, Elector of Saxony, Sobieski's immediate successor (1697-1733), Poland began to decline. Charles XII, King of Sweden, invaded Poland and occupied the most important cities. The Elector of Brandenburg, a former vassal of Poland, took advantage of the internal dissensions to make himself King of Prussia with the consent of Augustus II, thereby increasing the number of Poland's enemies by the addition of a powerful neighbour. Charles XII deposed Augustus II, and a new king, Stanislaus Leszczynski (1704-09), was elected by the nobility. Civil war followed, and the Swedes and Russians took advantage of it to plunder the country, pillaging churches and convents, and outraging the clergy. Augustus II resumed the throne under the protection of Russian troops, and Leszczynski fled to France. From that time on Russia constantly interfered in the internal affairs of Poland. The next king, Augustus III, of Saxony (1733-63), was chosen through the influence of Russia. The political parties of Poland endeavoured to introduce reforms, but Russia and Prussia were able to thwart them. The king promoted learning and popular education; he was inspired with the best intentions but was weak towards Russia. From the very beginning Russia had the partition of Poland in view, and for that reason fomented discord among the Poles, as did Prussia, especially by stirring up the magnates and the heretics. As early as 1733 the Diet deprived non-Catholics of political and civil rights, and Russia made use of this fact to stir up open revolt. The question of equal rights for dissidents was discussed, it is true, at one session of the Diet, but in 1766 the protest of the papal nuncio resulted in the rejection of the proposed change. At the same time a keen agitation was carried on against even the slightest concession in favour of non-Catholics. The latter, together with some of the aristocracy, who were dissatisfied with the abrogation of several aristocratic prerogatives, altogether 80,000 in number, placed themselves under the protection of Russia, with the express declaration that they regarded the Empress Catherine II as protectress of Poland, binding themselves to use their efforts towards securing equal rights for the dissidents, and not to change the Polish laws without the consent of Russia. But the patriotic elements could not submit to so disgraceful a dependence on Russia: they combined, in the Confederation of Bar (in Podolia), in defence of the Catholic Faith and the rights of independence under republican institutions. At the same time, through the efforts of the Carmelite monk Marcus, the religious brotherhood of the Knights of the Holy Cross was organized. The confederation, therefore, was of a religious character: it desired, on the one hand, to free Poland from its dependence on Russia, on the other to reject the demands of the dissidents. After it had declared an interregnum, the king's Polish regiments and the Russian forces took the field against it. The confederation had hardly been dispersed when Austria, Russia, and Prussia occupied the Polish frontier provinces (altogether about 3800 square miles with more than four million inhabitants). The manifesto of occupation set forth as reasons for the partition: the increasing anarchy in the republic; the necessity of protecting the neighbouring states against this lawlessness; the necessity of readjusting conditions in Poland in harmony with the views and interests of its neighbours. Prussia received West Prussia and Ermland; White Russia fell to Russia; Galicia was given to Austria. In the countries thus annexed each state began to pursue its own policies. In White Russia there were many Ruthenian Uniats: the Russian government at once took active measures to sever their union with Rome, and bring them into the schism. The parishes of the Uniats were suppressed, and their property confiscated. A systematic course of oppression compelled them to adopt the schism. Austria and Prussia, in their turn, sought to repress the Polish national spirit; in particular, colonization of Polish territory with German colonists was begun systematically, and on a vast scale. The Poles were excluded from all official positions, which were now filled by Germans imported for that purpose in large numbers. The state schools became wholly German. Such treatment by the neighbouring states roused all Poland to energetic action, so as to prevent a second partition. The Poles now learned the value of popular education, and their ablest men zealously applied themselves to improve the schools. The Four Years Diet (so called because its deliberations lasted four years without interruption) busied itself with reform, on 3 May, 1791, the Constitution was proclaimed. According to this fundamental law the Catholic remained the dominant religion, but the dissidents were granted complete civil equality and the protection of the law. The new ordinances curbed licentiousness, and thus caused dissatisfaction, especially among the higher nobility, who formed the Confederation of Targowitz for the purpose of annulling the Constitution which had just been granted, and called Russian troops to their assistance. The king sided with this deluded faction. Thus Russia and Prussia had another opportunity of making annexations; once more they both seized large tracts of Polish territory and thus was consummated the second partition of Poland (1793). The Poles, resolved to defend their independence, rose, under the leadership of Tadeusz Kosciuszko, against Russia and Prussia. Victorious over the Russians at Raclawice (4 April, 1794), he occupied Warsaw, but was defeated and taken prisoner at Maciejowice (10 October, 1794). The revolt had miscarried: Russia, Prussia, and Austria divided among them the rest of the Polish kingdom. The king abdicated. And thus the third and last partition of Poland was effected (1795). The occupation by hostile armies of the territory thus divided proceeded without resistance on the part of the inhabitants. The Polish people were exhausted by wars and so humbled by numerous defeats that they seemed to look on with unconcern. After Poland had disappeared from the political map of Europe, each of the three states which had absorbed it began to carry out its own policy in the annexed territory. In Prussia all church lands were confiscated just as after the first partition, and the clergy as a body were made answerable for the political crimes of individuals. In Austria likewise, the policy of germanization prevailed. Under Russian rule official hostility to the Polish national spirit was not entirely open, but the persecution of the Uniats continued. In 1796 all the Uniat dioceses, except Plotsk and Chelm, were suppressed. Poland had lost its independence, but liberty-loving patriots did not lose courage, for they counted on foreign aid. Dabrowski and Kniaziewicz organized in Italy a force composed of Polish emigrants, the "Polish Legions", which served Napoleon in the hope that, out of gratitude, he would re-establish the Polish Kingdom. These expectations came to naught. Napoleon did not reestablish the Kingdom of Poland, but, after the defeat of Prussia, he created the independent "Grand duchy of Warsaw" which continued in existence from 1807 to 1815 out of the Polish territories that were affected by the second and third partitions. This small state had an area of 1860 square miles, with 2,400,000 inhabitants. Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, became grand-duke. After .the war with Austria in 1809, the Grand-duchy of Warsaw became a factor which the European diplomats could not afford to overlook in their calculations. After the fall of Napoleon, the Czar Alexander, in the Congress of Vienna, claimed the grand duchy for himself. At first there was some opposition to this demand, but an agreement was finally reached, with the result that the grand-duchy was divided: the westerly part, with Posen, fell to Prussia; Cracow, with the territory under its jurisdiction, became a free state, and the rest of the grand-duchy, with Warsaw, as the autonomous Kingdom of Poland, came under Russian dominion. The new Kingdom of Poland (or Congress Poland) was taken by the Czar Alexander I, who had himself crowned as its king in the year 1815. In the territory annexed to Prussia the Poles received complete equality of rights, and Polish was recognized as the official language. But from the very beginning a difference was apparent in the treatment accorded to districts whose inhabitants were Poles and those in which the population was mixed. In the latter regions German officials were appointed; schools and courts were conducted in German, and the process of germanizing the Polish minority was begun. A policy similar to that of Prussia was adopted by the Russian Government in Congress Poland, where Polish culture was in a particularly flourishing condition. The new Kingdom of Poland was connected with Russia only through its rulers, who belonged to the reigning dynasty of the latter state. The governor was the king's brother, the Grandduke Constantine. His government of Poland was despotic in the extreme; he paid not the slightest regard to the Constitution, which had been confirmed by the king, but ruled as in a barbarian country. This despotism growing still worse after the death of Alexander I, when Nicholas I succeeded him upon the Russian throne, provoked, on 29 November, 1830, an insurrection in Congress Poland, which was put down, however, by the overwhelming military force of Russia (end of October, 1831). Thereupon the Czar Nicholas abolished the Diet and the Polish army, and assigned the government of Poland to Russia, whose administration was characterized by harsh persecution of the Catholic faith and the Polish nationality. While the Russian Government preserved at least the semblance of justice in Congress Poland, it did not deem it necessary to restrict itself in this respect in Lithuania and Little Russia. All the Polish schools were closed, and Russian schools founded in their stead. Even the clergy were subjected to manifold restraints: the church lands were confiscated, admittance to the seminaries for the training of priests was made more difficult, and communication with Rome forbidden. The suppression of the revolt in Congress Poland involved a severe defeat of Polish nationality in all the three neighbouring states. In Galicia the system of germanization grew more and more oppressive. In the Grand-duchy of Posen the use of the Polish language was restricted, German teachers were appointed in the schools, and the prerogatives of the Poles were curtailed. In 1833 provision was made for the purchase of Polish lands, the money for this purpose being supplied from a special public fund. At this time also the last of the surviving convents were suppressed, and their revenues applied to the support of religious schools. The Prussian Government ventured even to lay violent hands upon the clergy. In the year 1838 the government engaged in a dispute with Archbishop Dunin concerning mixed marriages, and the archbishop, fearlessly defending the position of the Church, was imprisoned. In Congress Poland Russian became the official language; a large number of schools were closed. At the same time an attempt was made to introduce Russian settlers into Poland, but proved a complete failure. In Lithuania the persecution of the Uniats had indeed the desired effect, but it brought discredit upon the Russian Government: in 1839, at the instance of Bishop Siemiaszko, 1300 Uniat priests signed a document announcing their desertion to the schism. The Polish nation, unable to accomplish anything by fair means, had recourse to conspiracies. A national uprising in all the territories that had been Polish was planned for February, 1846, but the insurrection was not general, and wherever it made its appearance it was promptly crushed. Cracow, where the manifesto of the insurrection was published, was permanently occupied by the Austrians; the Austrian Government incited the peasants against the insurgents, and, as a bounty was furthermore offered for every corpse, the peasants attacked the residences of the nobility, set them on fire, and inhumanly massacred "the lords" (altogether 2000 nobles). In the year 1848, when the long-expected revolution broke out in almost the whole of Western Europe, the Poles under Prussian rule also revolted, but without success. In April, 1848, serfdom was abolished in Galicia (in Prussia as early as 1823), and suitable compensation out of the public treasury was granted to the nobility. After 1848 the Polish districts in Prussia and Austria received the Constitution, as did the other districts subject to those Governments. In Galicia conditions began to improve, especially after the year 1860, when it was granted a certain degree of autonomy and its own diet. In Prussia, too, the Constitution gave the Polish inhabitants opportunity to develop their national resources independently. The educated clergy devoted themselves with wholehearted zeal to elevating the morals of the people, and in this way helped to form a middle class that was both well-to-do and, from a national point of view, well instructed. The most unfortunately situated Poles were those under the Russian Government. Russian was the language heard in all the public offices, to fill which natives of Russia were introduced into the country in ever-increasing numbers. Under these adverse conditions Congress Poland steadily declined; in ten years (1846-56), the number of inhabitants was diminished by one million. The Government, during the long-continued state of war (not suspended until 1856), was of a despotic character. The clergy, however, constituted a force not to be neglected, for it amounted to 2218 priests, 1808 monks, and 521 nuns, in 191 convents, while the teachers and professors of every sort numbered 1800. The clergy exercised a vast influence over the people, and all the more so because the long struggle between the Government and the Catholic Church had given the clergy the character of an opposition party. Conditions in Poland generally improved after the year 1856, after Russia had been defeated in the Crimean War. The Government of Congress Poland was entrusted to the Pole Wielopolski, who, with the best intentions, attempted to check the revolutionary activity of the Polish youth by too severe measures. It was the purpose of the younger Poles to awaken the national spirit by means of pageants in commemoration of national events and by great parades of the people to give utterance to their protests. These manifestations acquired a religious character from their association with practices of piety, an association permitted by the clergy, who were hostile to the Government. Prayers were continually offered in the churches "for the welfare of the fatherland". The clergy, with Archbishop Fijatkowski at their head, favoured these manifestations, upon the repetition of which Russian troops entered the churches and arrested, not without violence, several thousands of the participants. By the bishops' orders, the churches were closed. In January, 1863, an insurrection broke out which was doomed to pitiful failure. About 10,000 men were involved, scattered in very small bands throughout the whole country, and wretchedly armed. Opposed to them was an army of 30,000 regular troops with 108 field-pieces. In March, 1864, to keep the peasants from joining the insurrection, the Russian Government abolished serfdom, and the uprising collapsed in May of the same year. The Government now exerted all its energy to blot out Polish nationality, especially in Lithuania and Little Russia: Russian became the official language in all schools and public offices; Poles were deprived of their employments, and all societies were suppressed. Confiscated lands were distributed among Russians, and every pretext was seized to expropriate the Poles. A decree was even issued forbidding the use of the Polish language in public places. Peculiarly energetic measures were taken against the Catholic Church in Lithuania. Obstacles raised by the Government to hinder vocations were so effective that in the seven years immediately following 1863 not more than ten priests were ordained in Lithuania. Public devotions, processions, the erection of wayside crosses, and the repair of places of worship were forbidden; convents were suppressed; large numbers of the people forced to accept the schism. An attempt was even made, though unsuccessful, to introduce the use of Russian in some of the popular devotions. To remove all traces of Polish nationality in Lithuania and the Ukraine, the Polish place-names were changed to Russian; in the cities, inscriptions and notices in the Polish language were forbidden; the cabmen were obliged to wear Russian clothing and drive Great-Russian teams. In the Kingdom of Poland conditions were the same. Pupils were forbidden to speak even a single Polish word in school. In addition, Congress Poland was completely stripped of its administrative independence. In 1865 diplomatic relations were interrupted between Russia and Pius IX, who was favourably disposed towards the Poles. The Uniat Church was attacked, and then the Government sought to organize a national Polish Church independent of Rome. The bishops were strictly forbidden to entertain relations of any kind with Rome. A college of canons of the most various dioceses was formed at St. Petersburg, to be the chief governing body of the Polish Church, in all Russia, but the bishops as well as the deans and chapters in Lithuania and Poland opposed this measure. Recourse was then had to violence and some of the high dignitaries of the Church were deported to Russia. The clergy, however, courageously held their ground and refused to yield. After the last defeat of 186364, a strong reaction set in among the Poles of all of the three neighbouring states. The clergy were active in inspiring the people with new courage. In Prussia the Polish clergy worked diligently to establish and maintain social and agricultural organizations, as well as societies and loan offices for artisans and labourers, industrial associations, etc. The oppression of the Poles continued, especially after Bismarck became chancellor. The schools had to serve as instruments in the process of germanization; the Polish towns and villages received German names. Bismarck also began his conflict with the Catholic Church (see KULTURKAMPF). On the motion of Bismarck, the Prussian Diet, in the year 1886, granted the Government one hundred million marks for the purpose of buying up Polish lands and colonizing them with German peasants and labourers. In 1905 Congress Poland was again the scene of an insurrection, which was set on foot largely by workingmen, and the Government, compelled by necessity, somewhat mitigated the existing hardships. III. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY Even before Poland became Christian under Prince Mieczyslaw I (962-92), there were Christians in Polish territory. This explains the comparatively peaceful acceptance by the people of a new faith and a new code of morals. It may be assumed that the Faith reached Poland from the neighbouring country of Moravia when, after the Hungarian invasion, numerous Christians found a refuge in Poland, so that there must have been a certain number of Christians among the heathen Poles, though no organized Church existed. Definite conclusions, however, as to the progress of Christianity before the accession of Mieczyslaw I are impossible. This prince, having married the Catholic Dabrowka, a daughter of the King of Bohemia, embraced Christianity, with all his subjects, in 966. He did this partly because he wished to protect himself against the Germans. Priests for the new Christian parishes were obtained from Bohemia and Germany. As early as 970 a Polish bishopric was established at Posen, under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Magdeburg. In 1000 the Emperor Otto III and Pope Sylvester II erected the metropolis of Gnesen for the bishoprics of Posen, Plotsk, Cracow, Lebus, Breslau, and Kolberg. The formation of this ecclesiastical hierarchy for Poland was effected by a clever political move on the part of Boleslaw the Great (992-1025), and had important results. For since that time the Church of Poland has ceased to be dependent on Germany, and has been under the protection and patronage of the Polish princes, with whose history its own is most intimately connected. The Polish ruler thus obtained the right to found and endow churches, to take the same important part in the establishment of dioceses and the appointment of bishops as the emperor took in Germany. Poland did not cease to be a German fief, but in ecclesiastical matters it became absolutely independent. Henceforth Boleslaw the Great assumed the supervision of the Polish church, and the Church, founded and organized with the co-operation of the rulers, was placed in the service of the State. Although Boleslaw exercised his right of supervision rather arbitrarily, he nevertheless always entertained a great respect for the clergy. The first bishops were appointed by the pope; canons regular were appointed to assist them. The Camaldolese Order also came (997) and settled in Great Poland, but being attacked by robbers, who expected to obtain a large amount of booty from them, they came to a terrible end in 1005. In 1006 the Benedictines came to Poland and settled in three places. They cleared forests and spread religion and civilization. Boleslaw granted the churches tithes, which the nobility were unwilling to pay; the resulting disturbances (1022) were soon suppressed. The king also procured for the churches valuable gifts, such as vessels of silver and gold. After the death of his son Mieczyslaw II (1025-34), a strong feeling against Christianity and its teachers manifested itself among the people; many even relapsed into paganism. The nobility discontinued the payment of tithes, and the masses attacked the churches and the estates of the aristocracy. Bishops and priests were massacred, and the cathedrals of Gnesen and Posen were destroyed. After six years of such disturbances Casimir I (1040-58), having ascended the throne, restored Christianity and respect for the clergy; he also built churches and convents. His activity was continued by Boleslaw II the Bold (1058-80), so persistently that the number of Polish bishoprics had risen to fifteen by the year 1079. As early as this reign native Poles attained the episcopal dignity. The question of heathen marriages, which were condemned by Bishop Stanislaus of Cracow, gave rise to a quarrel between the king and the bishop. The latter, having formed a conspiracy with the magnates, who were incensed at the despotic rule of the king, was slain by the king himself. A revolt, caused by this act, drove Boleslaw to seek an asylum in Hungary. The church thereupon gained in esteem and influence even in political matters. Bishops were elected by the chapters, and consecrated by the archbishops of Gnesen as metropolitans. Under the next ruler, Wiadislaw Herman (1080-1102), the clergy took a lively interest in public affairs. Boleslaw Krzywousty (1102-39) showed his great concern for the welfare of Church and clergy by various benefactions, founding new convents and embellishing those already in existence. At this period, too, Count Piotr Wlast Dunin (d. 1153) is said to have built forty places of worship. All of these works perished when Boleslaw's will stirred up a series of terrible wars that raged for almost two hundred years throughout Poland. (See above: II.) During these struggles the Church alone preserved the national homogeneity, and this circumstance, more than any other, increased the influence of the clergy in political matters. It was at this time that Henry, Duke of Sandomir, with a numerous retinue of Polish nobles undertook a crusade to the Holy Land and spent an entire year there. Upon their return to Poland these pilgrims introduced the knightly orders of the Templars, of St. John, and of the Holy Sepulchre. The clergy, now more numerous, held synods in which, among other matters, education was dealt with. At the instance of the bishops, schools were established in connexion with the churches and convents. The first provincial synod of this kind, at Leczyca (1180), decreed excommunication as the punishment for the robbery of church property. The clergy now began more and more to carry into effect the plans of the murdered Bishop Stanislaus by their efforts to secure the supremacy of the Church. The Church succeeded in freeing itself from the fetters with which the temporal rulers had bound her. For the reform for which Gregory had striven had not been carried out in Poland. While it had long been customary in the West for cathedral chapters to elect the bishops, so that the Church was in this respect no longer dependent on the temporal power, in Poland the bishops were still appointed by the sovereign, who furthermore claimed for the state treasury certain fees from the lands held by the clergy. The pope's demand for the celibacy of the clergy had also been disregarded. Pope Innocent III first undertook to free the Polish clergy from dependence upon the temporal sovereign; he found an active supporter in the Archbishop of Gnesen, Henry Kietticz. The latter enforced the celibacy of the clergy under him and obtained for the decrees of the ecclesiastical courts both force and validity; he also excommunicated the senior prince, Wiadislaw Laskonogi (1202-06), for trying to keep the Church in its condition of dependence and refusing to give up the old royal prerogatives of appointment of bishops, jurisdiction over the church lands, and the exaction of fees and other payments from them. From that time a growing movement for the deliverance of the Church from oppression by the State is manifest, a relief which had already been secured in the neighbouring kingdoms to the west. The Church, now freed from the guardianship of the State, made an energetic stand against the encroachments of the princes and the immorality of the people. At the synods held at this time severe penalties were imposed, by the direction of the papal legates, upon those laymen who claimed for themselves the right of granting benefices. From that time bishop and prince were considered titles of equal rank in Poland. In 1210 two Polish princes jointly conferred privileges upon the clergy, thereby recognizing the independence of the Church, not only within its own organization, but also (within the confines of church lands) over all its own subjects, together with exemption from taxation. The Church of Poland was now organized in conformity with the canon law; its jurisdiction covered, not only the clergy, but also the inhabitants domiciled on the church lands and, in many matters, the whole Catholic community as such. The Church wielded the powerful weapons of interdict and excommunication. Church and clergy together formed an independent political division of the population, endowed with complete power of self-government. Not only had the dependence of the bishops on the princes ceased, but the lesser clergy, too, no longer sought the favour of the prince: it was well known to them that, if they preserved the spirit of the Church and guarded its interests, distinction and honours awaited them within its domain. Thanks to their really enormous financial resources and their influence in the domain of morals, the clergy represented a power with which temporal rulers had to reckon. The highest legislative bodies of the Catholic Church in Poland, the synods, provided for the independence of the Church, and occupied themselves in strengthening its influence over the laity. Literature and all that pertained to education were wholly in the hands of the clergy, the members of the various religious orders, in particular, rendering great service in this direction. In this period, also, religious life developed to a high degree among the people, as a result of the severe afflictions caused by the wars and invasions of the Tatars (1241, 1260, 1287). The horrors of the time acted as a powerful stimulant upon the general piety, which revealed itself in religious endowments and privileges conferred upon the clergy. In the next period (from the beginning of the fourteenth to the end of the fifteenth century) churches and convents were especially numerous. The clergy added to its popularity by striving for the union of the Polish principalities into a great kingdom. Archbishop Pelka, for instance, in 1257 ordered that the people should learn the Lord's Prayer in Polish, and the synod under Archbishop Swinka (1285) forbade the granting of benefices to foreigners or the appointment as teacher of any person who was not master of the national tongue. The consolidation of Poland having been effected under Lokietek (1306-33), the clergy were dissatisfied with him because he would not exempt them from taxation. This grievance gave rise to a quarrel between the clergy and Lokietek's successor, Casimir the Great (1333-79). Casimir's life was far from faultless, and Bodzanta, Bishop of Cracow, after admonishing him without effect, placed him under excommunication. The cathedral vicar, Martin Baryczka, notified Casimir of this censure, and the king had him drowned in the Vistula (1349). Casimir sought to make amends for the murder by lavish alms giving, pious bequests, and privileges granted to the clergy. At Cracow he founded, under the patronage of the bishop, a more advanced school or university == the first in Northern Europe (1364) == which was approved by Pope Urban V. He also brought order into ecclesiastical affairs in Little Russia by establishing the archiepiscopal See of Halicz, in 1367, with Chelm, Turow, Przemysl and Wlodzimiesz for its suffragans. The Archbishopric of Halicz was afterwards transferred to Lemberg. The archbishops of Gnesen became the foremost princes of the realm, and the clergy were hereafter relieved of all taxes. This displeased the nobility, who, moreover, had to pay the tithes to the clergy, with the alternative of exclusion from the Church. Under Louis of Hungary (1370-82) the clergy received new privileges, but in the same reign the bishops of Poland began to be nominated by the State: the kings, having established the bishoprics, believed that they had the right of patronage. Beginning with the reign of Jagiello (1386-1434), the Church of Poland worked in a new field, spreading religion among the neighbouring heathen peoples. The Lithuanians accepted Christianity, and Jagiello caused many churches to be built. But the morals of the clergy were declining. The Church of Poland took part, it is true, in the Synod of Constance, at which Hus was burnt, but had not the strength to oppose effectively the reactionary tendency of the nobility, which sought to use heresy as a counterpoise to the influence of the Church. That influence, attaining its maximum when the Cardinal Bishop of Cracow, Zbigniew Olesnicki, wielded political power at Court, roused the emulation of the secular lords. With the appearance of Hus in Bohemia there arose in Poland an anti-church party composed of Hussites. The ecclesiastical synods issued severe decrees against these heretics, whom Jagiello, in 1424, also adjudged guilty of high treason. The Inquisition became active against them. It was clerical influence, too, that led King Wladislaw III (1434-44) to take the field against the Turks in defence of Christendom. During the reign of his brother, Casimir the Jagellon (1446-92), the Church of Poland produced a number of saintly men, and was so highly esteemed, even in Bohemia, that it was the general wish there that the Pole Dlugosz should be made their archbishop. Nevertheless, the temporal power sought to free itself from the domination of the spiritual. The nobility insisted more and more on the taxation of the clergy. With the death of Cardinal Olesnicki the political power of the Church in Poland was at an end. During the succeeding periods the Reformation made ominous progress. It found a soil prepared for it by the moral decline of the clergy and the indifference of the bishops. In 1520 a Dominican named Samuel rose against the Roman Church at Posen; in 1530 Latatski, Bishop of Posen, appointed a Lutheran preacher; in 1540 John Laski, a priest of Gnesen, renounced the Catholic faith and openly married, as did many others; under Modrzewski efforts were made to establish an independent state church. King Sigismund I the Old (1506-48), a zealous Catholic, was opposed to a reformation of that nature; he issued rigorous edicts against the preaching of the new doctrines and the introduction of heretical writings (1523, 1526). The populace remained indifferent to the Reformation, only the nobility took part in it. The clergy adopted precautionary measures: the primate put all sectarians under the ban of the Church, and it was decided to establish an ecclesiastical court of inquisition. Catholic congresses were also assembled. But all these means were ineffectual to check the Reformation, winch was, in fact, favoured by some of the bishops. In 1552, at the Diet of Piotrkow, it was proposed to summon a Polish national synod both for Catholics and for heretics, and in 1555 a resolution was adopted, by which heretics were not to be prosecuted on account of their belief until the holding of this synod. The Protestant preachers returned to Poland and the sectarians formed a union against Catholicism. Religious war first broke out in all its violence under Sigismund Augustus (1548-72), who did not defend Catholicism with the same conviction and firmness as his father. His vacillating conduct inspired the heretics with courage. In 1550 demands were made for the abolition of celibacy, celebration of Mass in the vernacular, and communion under both forms. Bishops were deprived of the right to sit in judgment on heresy. Monks were expelled; churches were seized. The confusion in the land grew steadily worse. The heretics, themselves of the most varied creeds, quarrelled with one another. Alarmed by the progress of the Reformation in Poland, Rome sent Luigi Lippomano thither as nuncio. At this time too, the first Jesuits came to Poland. The papal legate, Commendone, carried out the reform of the Catholic Church, and in this way deprived the Reformers of their pretext. He was also able to secure from the king two decrees (1564): one against non-Catholic aliens, the other against native Poles who sought in any way to injure the Catholic Church. The Jesuits, introduced into Poland in 1564 by Hosius, Bishop of Ermland, opened their schools in many places, successfully conducted debates with the heretics, and energetically contended against heresy both from the pulpit and in writing. Under their influence the families of the magnates began to return to the Catholic Church. In 1571 == the year when the Conference of Warsaw secured freedom of belief for the dissidents == the Jesuit houses in Poland were organized into a separate province. The heretics still continued to cause disturbances, but fortune deserted them. After the short reign of Henry of Valois (1574-75) Stephen Báthori succeeded to the throne (1576-86). The latter openly supported the Jesuits in their endeavours, and under his protection they founded a very large number of new schools. The next king, also, Sigismund III Vasa (1588-1632), gave no support to the dissidents; on the contrary, he confirmed the rights of the Catholic Church (1588) and, as a good Catholic, so influenced many of his magnates by his pious life that they returned to the religion of their fathers. The reconciliation of the Ruthenian Church was effected in 1595; and the Armenians, who were domiciled here and there in Poland, also united with the Catholic Church. Wiadislaw IV (1632-48) introduced into Poland the Piarists, who established numerous schools. In his dealings with the mutually hostile sects this king pursued a policy of duplicity, by which a horrible war was brought upon a later generation. At this time there were in Poland 750 convents, representing 20 male and 15 female orders. He was succeeded on the throne by John Casimir (1648-68), who had previously been a Jesuit (1643) and then a Cardinal (1645). To the general distress of this reign the dissidents contributed not a little. For this reason, the Socinians (1658), the Arians (1661), and other sects were driven out of Poland. In return the king received from the pope the title Rex Orthodoxus. Bowed down by his misfortunes, he resigned the crown and took up his residence in Paris, where he lived until 1672 as titular Abbot of St. Germain. Under his successors upon the Polish throne, Michael Wisniowiecki (1669-72) and John III Sobieski, the solicitude of the people for the Faith and their efforts to repress heresy steadily increased. When, after the death of John Sobieski, Frederick II, Elector of Saxony, assumed the Government (1697-1733), he affirmed in his coronation oath that he would not confer any high offices on the dissidents, although toleration was assured them. This king had abandoned Protestantism and become a Catholic; although a lukewarm Catholic, and leading a reprehensible life, he nevertheless restricted the liberties of the heretics (1716), and they were removed from public office (1743). At the same time violent disputes were carried on with the clergy over appointments to bishoprics, ecclesiastical courts, payment of taxes, etc. The endless wars during the reign of this king led to the oppression of the clergy, impoverishment and deterioration of the churches, and, among the nobility, to demoralization and lack of sympathy for the common people in their distress. The priests in their sermons defended the peasants against the tyranny of the nobility and finally succeeded in obtaining a legal decision (1764) which made noblemen liable to the death penalty for killing a peasant. Frederick Augustus III (1733-63) confirmed the decrees issued during the lifetime of his father against the dissidents, but beyond this he was wholly unconcerned about church and state. The next ruler, Stanislaus Augustus Poniatowski (1764-95), was a man of culture and actively promoted popular education, but the evil conditions had grown beyond his control. During his reign the bonds of matrimony, the very basis of all society, became so loosened, and the number of divorces reached such an alarming total, that Benedict XIV was compelled to address the Polish bishops in three Bulls (1741, 1743, 1748) in reference to this evil. In addition to this the neighbouring states began to interfere in behalf of the non-Catholics in Poland, demanding that they should be given the same rights as Catholics (1766); this, however, was denied. Thereupon the dissidents formed a confederation at Radom (1767), and the Diet was compelled to grant them all the rights enjoyed by Catholics except the right to the Crown. Independently of this, the right to convoke synods was granted them; mixed courts, generally with a majority of non-Catholic members, were appointed to decide questions involving religion. In mixed marriages the sons were to follow the religion of the father, the daughters that of the mother. Unrestricted permission was also granted the dissidents to build places of worship. Meanwhile Rome reminded the Poles that, as knights in the service of Christ, it was their duty to break a lance for Catholicism. In defense of the Faith the Confederation of Bar was formed (1768-72), but it only added to the confusion and misfortune of the country. Coming from France to Poland, freemasonry spread especially in the higher circles of society, where French literature had done its work of corruption. Atheism was preached openly and acknowledged. New palaces arose while the churches fell into decay; the Theatines left the country (1785); at this time too the Society of Jesus was suppressed (1773), and its possessions converted to the use of popular education; a commission on education was created. With the consent of Pius VI, several church holydays were abolished, the number of those retained being only seventeen, besides Sundays. Further attacks on the property of the bishops, and especially of the richly endowed orders, followed. At the first Diet, after the coronation of King Stanislaus Augustus (1764), the Polish Church was represented by two archbishops and fifteen bishops. The external splendour of the Catholic Church in Poland had reached its zenith. But the political disturbances and wars, the repeated passage of armies, continued for perhaps a year without interruption, the conflict with the dissidents, were extremely disastrous to the Church. After the three partitions (1773, 1793, 1795), the Government of Russia strove to extirpate, not only Polish nationality, but also the Catholic Church. After the insurrection of 1831, the Uniats were forced into apostasy; convents were suppressed, churches closed. Even harsher measures were adopted after 1863: by a cabinet order of 1864, the property of the Church was confiscated, the convents still in existence suppressed; in 1867 the clergy were placed under the authority of a commission at St. Petersburg, without any regard to the wishes of the Apostolic See. The liturgical books and devotions of the schismatics were forcibly introduced into the churches of the Uniats. Peasants who tried to prevent the schismatical popes from entering the churches were simply shot down; the christening of children as Catholics and the solemnization of matrimony in Catholic churches were forbidden. Not until after the war with Japan was an edict of toleration proclaimed in Russia, making it permissible for schismatics to be reconciled with Rome. The Prussian Government treated the Catholic Poles no better than did the Russian. The Catholic clergy in Prussian Poland was subordinated to the temporal power. The election of bishops, prelates, and superiors of religious societies, in view of the extensive right of veto, was made to depend upon the decision of an administrative council, which receives the oath of allegiance from the clergy and gives them instructions for the celebration of German national anniversaries. In civil and criminal proceedings, too, the clergy is subject to the civil authorities. The ecclesiastical courts have jurisdiction only in matters of a purely religious character; but they have not the right to order temporary or permanent divorce in the case of mixed marriages. The properties of the Catholic clergy as such were confiscated; for the support of the clergy a part of the income of the confiscated estates and the interest on capital, which belongs to ecclesiastical corporations, but had been lent to private individuals, was set aside. In addition to this the Government granted the clergy permission to accept payment at a fixed rate for the performance of services attached to their office. In Galicia (Austrian Poland) the patent of toleration of Joseph II, granted in 1781, admitted Protestants, Calvinists and schismatics to official positions, secured for them freedom of religious belief, and even the permission, where there were about 100 Protestant families in a community, to build churches, etc. (but without steeples and bells, and with entrances at the side). Although Catholicism was recognized as the dominant religion, the Church was nevertheless subject to the control of the State. Without the placet of the State papal Bulls and pastoral letters were invalid. The Government assumed the supervision and conduct of seminaries for the training of priests, and prescribed the character and method of instruction in theology. In 1782 the convents of the contemplative orders were suppressed, and their property converted to the fund for religious purposes. At present, however, the Church is free from state restrictions in the Polish provinces; and as a result Catholicism is here making progress. IV. THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS IN POLAND The Augustinian Hermits were introduced into Poland in the second half of the thirteenth century, and at one time had more than thirty-five convents there. At present there remains but one Augustinian convent in all the territory that was Poland: that at the Church of St. Catherine, Cracow. A convent for nuns of the same order, connected with the same church since the seventeenth century, now serves for the training and education of girls. The Basilians (see BASIL, RULE OF SAINT), persecuted by the Greek Iconoclasts, migrated in large numbers to the Slavic countries and founded convents and schools. In Poland, particularly, they rendered great services in the most varied fields of ecclesiastical activity. From them sprang excellent bishops, archbishops metropolitan, and their order was known as "the order of prelates". From them, too, teachers in the schools, seminaries, and universities were recruited. Many of them became famous in science as well as by their virtuous and self-sacrificing life. The common people held this order in high esteem and gladly frequented the devotions in their convents. The Basilians devoted themselves to the schools with a zeal that shrank from no sacrifice, especially after the reform of 1743. Every convent had its elementary school, but they also founded more advanced schools, particularly for students of divinity. Their schools were attended for the most part by the children of the wealthy. In the middle of the eighteenth century it had as many as two hundred convents in the Polish dominions. After the fall of Poland these convents were suppressed in Russia; only eleven of them survived in Galicia. The Basilian nuns were established in Eastern Poland. They were suppressed at the same time as the Basilian monks. At present only two convents are in existence in Galicia. The Benedictines began their activity in Poland during the period of the reorganization of Cluny. They were the first missionaries of Poland; whence they came it is impossible to determine, no historical records of the earliest Benedictines in Poland having come down to us. The first historically authenticated houses of the order date from the reign of Boleslaw I Chrobry (eleventh century). This ruler, desiring to free the Church in Poland from German influence, introduced Benedictines from Italy. The order soon exercised an incalculable influence upon the education of the Poles, as well as strengthening the position taken by the Polish Church within its own organization. With the twelfth century, however, their beneficent influence began to decline. Their manifold activities ceased in the schools, and became confined to the immediate interests of the convents themselves. Among the causes of their decay were the enormous material wealth of the order, the consequent excesses of the lay abbots, and the discord between abbots and subordinates within the order. A contributing cause was the arbitrary exemption of abbeys from the supervision of the abbots-general of Tyniez. Five of the largest abbeys became absolutely independent of one another, both in finance and in internal organization. Prosperity brought tepidity and relaxation of monastic discipline. The Benedictines allowed themselves to be outstripped in the social work of the Church by the other religious orders that had been introduced into Poland. Several attempts at reform, undertaken at the beginning of the eighteenth century, did not achieve the desired result. The Partition of Poland undermined the existence of the Polish Benedictines. First the possessions of the abbots were confiscated and then the convents suppressed. The Benedictine nuns had convents in Poland in the Middle Ages. Their rules were strict: they were permitted to eat only two meals a day; the entire day was spent in prayer, meditation, spiritual reading, and hearing two Masses, the Divine Office, and work. They made beautiful church vestments and also occupied themselves with the copying of books. Strict discipline prevailed in the congregation. The Bernardines, made famous by St. John Capistran (1386-1456), the pupil of St. Bernardine of Siena, were much sought everywhere. Convents were gladly built for them in Poland, where they were introduced by John Casimir and Sbigniew Olesnizki. This order, the largest in Poland with members of Polish descent, rendered distinguished service to the fatherland. When the Franciscans established themselves in Poland about the year 1232, and later also, the Order of Tertiaries began to gain more and more members here. The Tertiary Sisters, members of the laity, formed themselves into religious organizations for prayer and good works. From these societies there arose in Poland in the year 1514 an order of women, the so-called Bernardine Nuns. The Brothers of Mercy were introduced into Poland in the seventeenth century. Many of them died in the odour of sanctity. Whereas in other countries the care of the sick in general was entrusted to the religious, in Poland they devoted themselves to the care of the insane. The Camaldolese came to Poland in the year 1605 from the congregation of Monte Corona near Perugia. They were dependent on the mother-house; not until after the partition of Poland did this dependence cease. Of the five convents established in Poland only the hermitage at Bielany, near Cracow, is still in existence. The Canons Regular of St. John Lateran, one of the oldest congregations in Poland, were suppressed in 1782 by Joseph II; there are, however, six convents at present in Austria. The Capuchins. == As early as 1596 King Sigismund had memorialized the Apostolic See to introduce this order into Poland, but permission to introduce it there was first granted to King John Sobieski. In 1681 some Capuchins came to Warsaw and Cracow. Gradually the number of foreigners in the convents grew smaller; the novices were mostly Poles, so that the Apostolic See, in 1738, transferred the supervision of the Polish Capuchins to the Bohemian provincials. When the order had as many as 9 convents, 129 fathers, 31 novices, and 73 brothers, Benedict XIV established a separate Polish province. The Capuchins in Poland, as elsewhere, won for themselves high esteem and exerted a wholesome influence upon the awakening of the religious sentiment among the people. In Galicia there are at present nine Capuchin convents. In Russian Poland all their convents but one have been suppressed. The Carmelites (Calced) in Poland date from the latter part of the fourteenth century. Here, as elsewhere, some of their convents observed the milder rule of Eugene IV, while others observed the more severe rule of John Soreth. Before the partition there were 58 Carmelite convents and 9 residences in Poland. After the partition those in the Polish provinces of Prussia were all suppressed; this happened in Russia also, some being suppressed in 1832, the rest somewhat later. Under Austrian rule Joseph II retained only six convents, which formed the Galician province of the order. There were also in Poland Calced Carmelite Nuns. The Carmelites (Discalced) who, at the pope's request, went as missionaries to Persia, passed through Poland on their way. The Poles then for the first time saw members of this order, and it at once found general favour. In the next year it was introduced and in time became widespread. Several convents of the Discalced Carmelite nuns are still in existence. The Carthusians. == The time of their first settlement in Poland is unknown. It is probable that the first superiors were foreigners, possibly also the majority of the monks. Natives, however, were also received into their convents, and in this way they were gradually Polonized. They observed the general rule of the order, and devoted themselves to prayer and manual labor, especially to the copying of manuscripts. The Cistercians, the most important offshoot of the Benedictines, were introduced into Poland about the year 1140, when the order had been sanctioned only about twenty years. From the very beginning they proved themselves a contemplative order, devoted to manual labor, rendering great service to agriculture by clearing forests, bringing the land under cultivation, and encouraging the various industries. For this reason the order received the hearty support of bishops and magnates. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries it spread through Poland with extraordinary rapidity, and was richly endowed with landed property. The Cistercians having come to Poland from Germany, France, and Italy, their convents as late as the sixteenth century preserved the individualities corresponding to the various nationality of their first inmates respectively. The Germans even introduced German colonists into their convent villages. Sigismund I was the first to forbid this seclusion by the decrees of 1511 and 1538. To the final Polonization of the Cistercian convents Lutheranism was a contributing cause; for many German monks, infected by the teachings of Luther, left the convents, while the rest cared little for the rules of the order or for propriety. The places vacated by Germans were filled by Poles. The reform of the order, accomplished in the year 1580, purified and elevated the fraternal spirit of the Polish Cistercians. In the course of the eighteenth century they had to endure severe reverses of fortune; indeed, they lived in poverty and need, and at the time of the partition of Poland the Polish province of the order numbered 20 convents with more than 500 male or female inmates. At present there remain only two Cistercian convents in Galicia, while under Prussian and Russian rule they have all been suppressed. The Dominicans were introduced into Poland by the Bishop of Cracow, Iwo Odrowasch (1223). The had no great successes to record until the fourteenth century, in the reign of Casimir the Great, when they gained a firm footing in Little Russia and to some extent also in Lithuania. As an order intended to combat heresy, however, they were of no great importance in Poland, for the reason that most of them were Germans who did not understand the Polish character. As a result their missionary work was not very successful. The sixteenth century, the period of the Reformation, was unfavourable to the further development of the Dominican houses, and later, when the counter-Reformation began, not Dominican but Jesuit houses were founded expressly to combat the Reformation. Not until the seventeenth century were any new Dominican convents founded. The Polish province of the order, in the year 1730, had 43 convents for men and 10 for women; the Russian province, 69 and 3, the province of Lithuania numbered 38 convents and 4 so-called residences. But one Dominican convent now remains, at Cracow. The Felician nuns are an offshoot of the women's Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which is so highly esteemed to-day for its charitable work. In Warsaw there was formed in 1855 a purely Polish congregation, under the patronage of St. Felix and the rule of St. Francis. (See FELICIAN SISTERS, O.S.F.) The Franciscans have left comparatively few traces of their activity in the Polish countries. The time of their introduction into Poland is uncertain; the year is probably 1231. Certain it is that the Franciscans were in Cracow in 1237. Kindly received, they soon obtained recognition from the Polish people, for most of them were Poles by birth. Conformably with the rule of their order, they developed great activity in the missionary field among the Lithuanians and Ruthenians. Thanks to their labours the subsequent organization of the Catholic Church in Lithuania and Little Russia was made possible. In 1832 twenty-nine Franciscan convents were suppressed in Lithuania; in 1864, all those in Congress Poland with the single exception of the convent at Kaliach. The Jesuits were introduced into Poland by Cardinal Hosius, in 1564, to combat heresy. After their arrival, Poland, where 32 Protestant sects had been committing all sorts of excesses, witnessed a return to Catholicism. To root out heresy public debates were arranged, which opened the eyes of many of the heretics. The Jesuits began their labours in Lithuania, at Vilna, which was most seriously threatened by the heretical teachings. In a short time Jesuit communities arose throughout the land. Because of their extraordinary successes in the missionary field, schools were founded for them by every zealous bishop. The example of the bishops was followed by the kings and the magnates. After the suppression of the Society, its possessions were devoted to the support of public education. Of the Jesuit priests some retained their positions at the former Jesuit schools, the rest obtained employment in families of the higher nobility in the capacity of chaplains, secretaries or tutors. They were also employed in cathedral churches and in the parishes. In Poland, as everywhere, the Jesuits fought heresy with its own weapons == with sermons, disputations, education of the youth. The answered the polemical pamphlets of the dissidents wit polemical pamphlets; they appeared in public with systematic courses of excellently prepared sermons of a politico-dogmatic character. They also furnished distinguished confessors. They attracted many by means of devotions conducted with great pomp and by the organization of religious brotherhoods. For the pupils in their schools they introduced the Sodality of the Blessed Virgin. They distinguished themselves particularly as preachers in the parochial missions. But they were also not unmindful of the sick, the prisoners and the soldiers. The position of military chaplain was for the most part filled by a Jesuit. There was no field of church-activity or of science in which the Jesuits did not labour successfully for the benefit of mankind. At present the Jesuit Order does not exist in any of the Polish lands except Galicia, where it forms a separate province of the order, attached to the German Assistance. Part also of the Jesuits, expelled from White Russia, came to Galicia in 1820. When, as a result of the Revolution of 1848, they were banished thence also, they went to Silesia and the Grand duchy of Posen, whence a part of them, in 1852, returned to their former homes, when the order was rehabilitated throughout the Austrian dominions. When again, in 1862, the Jesuits were banished from Prussia, some went to Galicia, others undertook missions to Germany, Denmark, and America. Since 1852 there has been a continuous development of the province of the Society in Galicia; at the beginning of 1906 it numbered 473 members, among them 215 priests, 119 clerics, and 139 brothers. The Priests of the Mission (Lazarists) were introduced into Poland by the wife of King John Casimir, Maria Ludwika Gonzaga, who had personally known and highly esteemed their founder, St. Vincent de Paul, in France. At her request he sent members of his congregation to Poland in 1651. Their introduction was at first resented by the Jesuits, whose confessors at the royal court were replaced by members of the new order. Queen Maria Ludwika wished the Priests of the Mission employed not only for the instruction of the common people in the villages and parishes, but particularly for the organization and supervision of the diocesan seminaries and for the spiritual improvement of the priesthood in the country. Devout Polish magnates were anxious to have them upon their estates. There is scarcely a spot anywhere in Poland where the Lazarists have not conducted a mission. For this reason their services in the care of souls are truly extraordinary. During the first twenty-seven years the Priests of the Mission came from France and native Poles entering the congregation had to go to France for probation and training, an arrangement which continued until the founding of a seminary at Warsaw. After the partition the convents suffered many hardships: under Russian rule the congregation was disbanded in 1842 and 1864, the Lazarist houses in Galicia were suppressed by Joseph II, and the same fate overtook the Priests of the Mission in Prussia at the beginning of the Kulturkampf in 1876. The Paulites came to Poland from Hungary in 1382, sixteen in number. Undoubtedly these Hungarian monks were not unacquainted with the Polish nationality, for they were chosen from the Slovaks and Poles, who were at that time well represented in the convents of Hungary. The first convent was that of Czentochowa on the Klarenberg (Clarus Mons, Jasna Góra), and the picture of the Blessed Virgin there, said to be the work of the Evangelist St. Luke, at once became famous because of numerous miracles, so that Czentochowa surpassed all other places of pilgrimage to Poland. As a result, the convent became very wealthy. In 1430 it was attacked by the Hussites. In the part of Poland which fell to Austria after the first partition the Paulite convents were suppressed in 1783 by the Emperor Joseph. Only the Galician convents, which at the last partition came under the dominion of Austria, survived. In other parts of Poland one convent after another went out of existence, and since 1892 the Paulite Order has had only two convents: Czentochowa and Cracow. The Paulites in Poland devoted themselves for the most part to parochial work. Parishes were connected with all their convents, and in these parishes all the pastoral work was done by members of the order. The Piarists. == In 1642 the first thirteen Piarists came from Rome to Warsaw at the request of King Ladislaus IV. The Poles readily entered this order, and it soon spread through the whole country. The first monks were Bohemians, Moravians, and Germans by birth. The schools founded by them were organized in accordance with the constitutions of St. Joseph Calasanctius. In the first hundred years the schools of the Piarists, so far as excellence is concerned, were in no way different from the others. Not until the reform of Konarski was there an improvement in the instruction and training. This monk, during a journey through Italy, France, and Germany, studied the foreign educational systems and undertook the reform of the Piarist schools on a basis more in conformity with the requirements of the time. He carried out the reform not only by the living word in the schools, but by writing educational treatises. The method of instruction as systematized by him stimulated every faculty of the mind, it made demands on the reason rather than on the memory, it led the pupil to a consideration of the main points and to clearness of expression. A further aim of his schools was the education of the pupil's heart, in order that as men they might be useful members of society and be qualified to bring up others to a religious life. This reform of the Piarist schools had its successes in other schools as well, for the Jesuits adopted the new method of instruction, and other schools did the same. The beneficial efficacy of this school-reform at once became apparent in the general advance of culture. The Piarist convents were suppressed in Galicia after the partition of Poland, and in Russian Poland in 1864. Only one Polish convent of this congregation, that of Cracow, is still in existence. The order of the Reformed Franciscans was introduced into Poland at the time of the beatification of St. Peter of Alcántara (1622 under Gregory XV). The first members of this new order were recruited from the Bernardines and Franciscans; they were at first persecuted and even banished. But when the news of their piety reached the Court, King Sigismund III himself made an appeal to the pope for permission to introduce the order into Poland. The Holy Father did not refuse him, and the Bishop of Cracow had hardly issued the decree of their admission (29 May, 1622), when foundations of Reformati were at once begun, the number rising to fifty-seven. The Reformati in Poland lived entirely on alms; they gave themselves up exclusively to religious exercises. Their convents were suppressed at various times: in Austria, partly between 1796 and 1809; in Congress Poland in 1834 and 1864, lastly in Russian Poland in 1875. The Templars are supposed to have been introduced into Poland as early as 1155, but this date is not absolutely certain. However, the account of a Templar foundation at Gnesen before 1229 is reliable. When the order was suppressed throughout Europe, in 1312, all their possessions in Poland were transferred to the Knights of St. John. The Theatines were in Poland from 1696 to 1785; their place of residence was Warsaw. They had as pupils at their lectures the sons of the wealthiest families, but their instruction was inadequate, and ignored the Polish tongue. There was no fixed curriculum, no advanced method of instruction, no system of classes, arranged according to the degree of progress of the pupils. The main subjects of instruction were the Latin, Italian, and French languages, with architecture, painting, and music. There were no class rooms, the teacher giving instruction in his own dwelling to one or more pupils in his own specialty. The subjects taught followed one another in accordance with no uniform plan, but in accordance with the wishes and choice of the teacher or pupil. When tired of teaching, the teachers not infrequently went visiting with their pupils to some acquaintance or relative. Not until later did they begin to pay any regard to the principles of pedagogy relative to joint instruction by classes. Failing in energy and in the ability to adapt themselves to the demands of their time, they were compelled to leave Poland in the year 1785. The Trappists, driven out of France as the result of the French Revolution, stopped for a while in White Russia and Volhynia. The Russian Emperor Paul welcomed them within the boundaries of his empire and gave them refuge and support. The first eighteen Trappists came in 1798 and settled in White Russia. However, they did not remain there long, for as early as the beginning of the year 1800 they left their new homes and went to England and America. The Trinitarians (Ordo Coelestis SS. Trinitatis de Redemptione Captivorum). == King John Sobieski, after the deliverance of Vienna (12 September, 1683), sent Bishop Denhof to Rome to Innocent XI with the captured Turkish flag, which the pope caused to be placed in the Lateran on 7 October of the same year. While in Rome, Denhof frequently visited the convent church of the Trinitarians, and this order pleased him so much that he decided to introduce it into Poland. He succeeded in doing this in April, 1685. The Trinitarians were installed at Lemberg, because this city, being near the Turkish frontier, was more favourably situated than Warsaw for the negotiations necessary for the ransom of prisoners. A second convent of the Trinitarians was at Cracow; the third, at Stanislaw, was suppressed by the Austrian government in 1783; the fourth, in Volhynia (Beresczek), in 1832. The eighteen convents in Poland constituted a separate province. In Austria they were suppressed in 1783 by Joseph II, in Russian Poland, in 1832 and 1863. The discalced Trinitarians led a rigorous life; no member of the order was permitted to have any property, and as a result great poverty prevailed among them. In addition to the daily prayer of the Breviary, they had meditations and prayers lasting two hours and a half; they kept silence and fasted on all days of the week except Sunday; furthermore, there were frequent disciplines. The Trinitarians in Poland regarded it as their chief task to ransom prisoners from the Turks and Tatars, for which purpose they devoted, according to the rule of their order, one-third of all they received. They also collected aims for the deliverance of prisoners; ecclesiastical as well as secular lords contributed large sums of money for this purpose. Two years after their arrival in Poland (1688) the Trinitarians ransomed 8 prisoners; 13 in 1690; 43 in 1691; 45 in 1694; 25 in 1695; 43 in 1699; 55 in 1712; 49 in 1723; 70 in 1729; 33 in 1743. Among those ransomed were not only Poles but also members of other nationalities, particularly Hungarians. The Ursulines entered Poland only in the nineteenth century, but they have rendered great service to the country by training and instructing the girls. Expelled by the Prussian Government, they found a refuge in Austria. The Vincentian Sisters, or Sisters of Charity, observing the rule of St. Vincent de Paul, came to Poland during his lifetime (1660). Besides nursing the sick, they devoted themselves to the training of orphans and poor girls. They have survived in all the provinces of the former Kingdom of Poland, except Lithuania, where they were suppressed in 1842 and 1864. V. PRESENT POSITION OF THE CHURCH At the present time the Polish people are closely bound to the heads of their Church by ties of love and confidence. In Russian Poland it is not probable that any enemy could alienate the Catholic part of the population from the bishops; in Austria the relations between the Polish episcopate and the people under them in no way justify the hopes of the enemies of the Church that exceptional laws of any kind directed against the orders could be passed; in Prussian Poland the Polish archbishop has not yet exhausted all his resources in his struggle for the rights and the freedom of the Church. There are at present in Poland four ecclesiastical provinces: at Gnesen, Lemberg, Mohileff, and Warsaw. In the year 1000 Poland had five bishoprics; this number increased to thirty-three in 1818. The head of the Catholic Church in Poland was the Archbishop of Gnesen, primate of the kingdom and legatus nalus. In the ecclesiastical hierarchy the following order of precedence was established: after the primate came the Archbishop of Lemberg, then the Bishops of Cracow, Wladislaw (Lesslau), Posen, Vilna, Plock, Ermland, Lutzk, Przemysl, Samland, Kulm, Chelm, Kieff, Kamenets, Livonia, and Smolensk. The Uniats had two archbishops, at Kieff and Polotzk, besides the Bishoprics of Lutzk, Chelm, Lemberg-Kamenets and Przemysl-Pinsk. At present Austrian Poland has a Latin archbishop at Lemberg and the Bishops of Cracow, Tarnow, and Przemysl, with about 4,000,000 laity and about 2,000 priests, besides an archbishop of the Greek Rite at Lemberg and bishops at Przemysl and Stanislawow. In Prussian Poland the Archbishop of Gnesen has under him the suffragan Dioceses of Posen and Kulm, while the Bishops of Breslau and Ermland are immediately subject to the Apostolic See. Russian Poland has the following sees: Warsaw (archbishopric), Plock, Kielce, Lublin, Sandomir, Sejny and Augustowo, and Wladislaw (Lesslau); in the districts of Lithuania and Little Russia, Mohileff (archbishopric), Vilna, Samland, Minsk, and Lutzk-Zhitomir. These thirteen dioceses number about 4,500 priests and over 12,000,000 Catholics. The Polish clergy is working in the forefront in every field, setting a splendid example; it unites Polish patriotism with Catholicism. An infallible sign of its powers of development is undoubtedly seen in the growth of religious literature in the Polish language. This movement clearly shows that the Polish clergy is receiving a thorough education and contributing much to the advancement of culture and religion in Polish society. Every Polish province has at least one periodical of a religious-social character. (See PERIODICAL LITERATURE, CATHOLIC . == Poland.) The clergy everywhere enjoy an extraordinary esteem and large sections of the people are very religious. One instance, however, must be recorded in which a defection from the true faith has taken place in the bosom of the Polish Church. In Russian Poland the sect of Mariavites, during the years 1905-08 attracted much attention. About 1884 Casimir Przyjemski, a priest, came to Plock, seeking to establish an association of priests in connexion with the Third Order of St. Francis, for mutual edification and the promotion of asceticism. After he had become acquainted with Felicya Kozlowska, a poor seamstress, and a tertiary, he informed her of his plan. On 2 August, 1893, Kozlowska claimed to have had a revelation from God, according to which she was to found an association of priests and pious women under the name of Mariavites, and thus to regenerate the world. The association, which took its name from the words "Hail Mary", gathered a large number of followers. Kozlowska, generally called "mateczka" (little mother), placed herself at the head of both the male and female branches of the association; she was regarded as a saint, and her followers even ascribed miracles to her. The Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, having decided that the alleged visions of Kozlowska were hallucinations, ordered the society to disband. The Mariavites refused to submit to this decision, and, moreover, continued to preach a body of blasphemous doctrines tending to exalt the personality of Maria Kozlowska. They were, accordingly, placed under excommunication by Rome. In 1906 the number of Mariavite priests amounted to about 50 in some 20 odd parishes, claiming a following of 500,000 souls. By the spring of the following year their numbers had already fallen to 60,000. Public opinion in all parts of Poland almost unanimously condemned the new body, which had been recognized by the Russian Government as a religious sect. It now (1910) numbers among its adherents 40 priests and 22 parishes, with, it is said, 20,000 adherents. The Mariavites have recently adopted an entirely Polish liturgy. The sect appeared in Poland at a time when the country began to revive under the impulse of freedom, and when the hostility between Poles and Russians appeared to be on the point of dying out: a reconciliation of the two nations might possibly prepare the way for a religious union. Emigration from Poland to the New World did not begin to assume any considerable proportions until the middle of the nineteenth century. The impulse which resulted in this movement may be traced to the unfavourable conditions, not only economic, but also political and religious, which prevailed in Poland. The United States, Brazil, Canada, Uruguay, and Australia have received an accession of population amounting to more than 3,000,000, chiefly from the labouring classes of the population. (See POLES IN THE UNITED STATES.) In English: VAN NORMAN, Poland, the Knight among Nations (New York, 1908); LODGE, The Extinction of Poland, 1788-97, in Cambr. Mod. Hist., VIII (Cambridge, 1904), 521-52; ASKENAZY, Poland and the Polish Revolution in Cambr. Mod. Hist., X (Cambridge, 1907), 445-74; MONTALEMBERT, The Insurrection of Poland (London, 1863); BRANDES, Poland, A Study of the Land, People and Literature (London, 1903); PARSONS, The Later Religious Martyrdom of Poland in Am. Cath. Q. Rev., XIII (Philadelphia, 1898), 71-96; MCSWINEY, The Cath. Church in Poland under the Russian Government in The Month (London, July, Aug., Sept., 1876), 296, 430; MacCAFFREY, Hist. of the Cath. Church in the Nineteenth Century (Dublin, 1910); BAIN, Slavonic Europe (Cambridge, 1908); SAXTON, Fall of Poland (New York, 1851); FLETCHER, Hist. of Poland (London, 1831). In Polish: SZYC, Geography of Former Poland (Posen, 1861); LIMANOWSKI, Galicia Portrayed in Words and Drawings (Warsaw, 1891); BULINSKI, Ecclesiastical History of Poland (Cracow, 1873-74); WLADISLAW, Organization of the Church in Poland (Lemberg, 1893); ZALESKI, The Jesuits in Poland (Lemberg, 1900-06); Church Lexicon, XXVI (Warsaw, 1903). In other languages: Hist. religieuse des peuples slaves (Paris, 1853); FORSTER, La Pologne (Paris, 1840); PIERLING, BATHOM AND POISSEVIN, Documents inédits sur les rapports du Saint Siège avec les Slaves (Paris, 1887); CHODZKO, La Pologne histor. monumentale et illustrée (Paris, 1844); IDEM, Hist. populaire de la Pologne; BRANDENBERGER, Polnische Gesch. (Leipzig, 1907); KROMER, Polonia, sive de situ, populis, moribus, et republica regni Polonici (Cracow, 1901); IDEM, Lites ac res gestoe inter Polonos ordinemque cruciferorum (2 vols., Posen, 1890). EDMUND KOLODZIEJCZYK Polish Literature Polish Literature The subject will be divided, for convenience of treatment, into historical periods. First Period Of the literature of Poland before the advent of Christianity (965) very few traces indeed are extant. Even when converted, the country long remained uncivilized. The laity were engaged in perpetual wars; and a few schools founded by the clergy were wrecked when (1138-1306) the country, after suffering from a divided sovereignty, was again and again invaded by the Tatars. The schools, however, were restored, and Casimir the Great founded, in 1364, the academy which was destined to become the University of Cracow in 1400. Chroniclers, writing in medieval Latin, appeared: Gallus, Kadlubek, and Martinus Polonus, in the thirteenth century; John of Czarnkow, in the fourteenth. In the fifteenth century the University of Cracow was famous and attracted many students; Poles began to study abroad, and came back Humanists and men of the Renaissance. But though both Dlugosz (Longinus), the first great historian of Poland, and John Ostrorog, an excellent political writer, flourished at this time, they wrote in Latin. The national language, though it was being gradually formed by sermons and translations, was not mature for such work until the second half of the sixteenth century, circumstances favourable to its development having arisen only in the beginning of that century. Books printed in Polish == translations or paraphrases == date from 1520; from this time, too, the influence of Italian culture, fostered by Queen Bona, increased notably. Latin versification became fashionable, books on historical and political subjects appeared, as well as the early attempts of some writers (Rey, Orzechowski, and Modrzewski) who afterwards became famous. Second Period (1548-1600) More political treatises, together with books of religious controversy, followed in and after the days of Sigismund Augustus (1550-70). Catholic literature == represented by the Jesuit Wujek, who translated the Bible into Polish, by Hosius, the great theologian who wrote "Confessio fidei Christianæ" and presided at the Council of Trent, by Kromer, and others, increased in volume and importance. Nor was there less activity in the opposite camp, where Budny, Krowicki, and the preacher Gregory of Zarnowiec were distinguished. Poetry in the vernacular now first appeared: Rey and Bielski produced didactic poems and satires; John Kochanowski, in 1557, wrote the first of his poems, the beauty of which has not been surpassed by any save those of Mickiewicz. Towards the close of the century the political tractates of Cornicki and of Warszewicki were written, also many works of history, notably Heidenstein's "Rerum polonicarum libri XII". At this period, too, the Jesuit Skarga, the purest embodiment of Polish patriotism in literature, preached and wrote, calling upon all Poles to save their country, though that country was then so powerful that his cry of alarm was like the voice of a prophet. Rey and Kochanowski, and many another, had the like misgivings, but none felt them so deeply, or could express them with such eloquence. == This was the Golden Age of Polish literature. Kochanowski, indeed, can scarcely be called versatile, though as a lyric poet he excels, and did much for his country's literature, adding beauty to its poetry, which, until then, had been only mediocre. Historical and political writing flourished, and the Polish controversial writers were excellent on both sides. Third Period (1600-48) A decided falling-off took place after the beginning of the seventeenth century. Poets merely imitated John Kochanowski, badly-set phrases often taking the place of inspiration. Those who aspired to bring about a new departure (if we except Peter Kochanowski, the translator of Tasso and Ariosto) were not sufficiently talented, while most writers were careless, though often brilliant, amateurs who felt no such need. Szymonowicz, indeed, was a humanist of the old school and a true artist; so were his disciples, the brothers Zimorowicz; but of these two, the one died young, having produced very little, while the other, though he maintained the good traditions for a long time, was unable to raise the level of Polish poetry. Szymonowicz's idyls, perfect as they are, show the poverty of a period that can boast of nothing else. Sarbiewski, a contemporary poet of great talent, unfortunately wrote only in Latin. The prose writers of this period are also inferior to their predecessors, the historians being the best, and the best among the historians, Lubienski and Biasecki, were perhaps worthy successors to those of former times. Memoirs began to abound, curious and important as sources of history, the best of them being those of Stanislaus Olbracht Radziwill and Zolkiewski. As a political essayist similar to those of the former period, but less eminent because not so original, Starowolski deserves mention; nor must we forget Birkowski's sermons, which, though often in bad taste and full of literary shortcomings, are strikingly representative of the ideal of religious chivalry admired in Poland when patriotism and piety vied with each other. Fourth Period (1648-96) The writers of this period lack originality and interest; they merely tread in the beaten track. Morsztyn and Twardowski translated some medieval romances and Italian tales, which might have proved mines of fresh interest, but were not adequately worked. One form of literature then becoming effete while no other was developed, decay set in. French and Italian authors were studied to the detriment of the ancients, badly exploited, and imitated amiss; conceits were sought after, bad taste became fashionable, the Baroque style obtained vogue everywhere, the pest of "macaronics" raged. Never had there been so many writers, never so few earnest literary artists; most wrote merely to divert themselves and friends, and did not even care to print their own slovenly work. Much of it was lost, or was only recovered generations later, in manuscript == like Pasek's "Memoirs", found in 1836, and Potocki's "War of Chocim", in 1849, and many other works invaluable to the historian. Translations from French and Italian writers appeared, some original novels, some good poems == e.g. those of Kochowski, instinct with patriotic feeling, of Wenceslaus Potocki, whose epics have the true heroic ring, the pleasant idyls of Gawinski, Opalinski's satires, which, though very inferior in style, were extremely bitter and often hit their mark, Andrew Morsztyn's "Psyche", also his "Cid", translated from Corneille. In prose, eloquence, both religious and secular, was blighted by the same affectation and bad taste. History remained what it bad been, a mere chronicle of facts; the political essays were woefully inferior to those of former times. In short, at the end of the seventeenth century, Polish literature was in full decay, the only worthy representative of the national spirit being Kochowski, in a few of his lyrical productions, and W. Potocki. Fifth Period (1696-1763) It was fated to fall still lower == so low, indeed, that it scarce deserved the name of literature. Among the writers of this time, Jablonowski, Druzbacka (the first Polish authoress), Rzewuski, Zaluski, and Minasowicz were the least wretched; history was represented only by the "Memoirs" of Otwinowski. Yet even at this lowest ebb we find everywhere a spirit of sincere, unaffected piety, untouched as yet by French flippancy and unbelief, together with a feeling of discontent with existing conditions and a desire for reform. Karwicki, Leszczynski (King Stanislaus), and Konarski were thinkers who did noble work in the sense of political regeneration. The tide was now at its lowest, and about to turn. Sixth Period (1763-95) As to the necessity of reform, the nation was divided into two parties. The reforming party was considerably strengthened after the first partition of Poland, and the Four Years' Diet followed with a most liberal constitution, to which Russia and Prussia replied by dividing Poland a second time. Kosciuszko took up arms for his country, but failed; the third partition took place, and Poland, as a separate polity, existed no more. Meanwhile, though the nation itself was tottering to its fall, its literature had already begun to revive. New tendencies, new forms, new talents to realize them, were appearing, the very humiliation of belonging to a people barren of literary creations stirred up patriots to write. The influence of French letters, which had originated with Marie Louise Gonzaga, queen of John Casimir, continued and increased, not indeed without injury to faith and morals; Voltaire's Deism, Rousseau's false sentimentality, the materialism of Diderot and his followers, had their echoes in Poland. Every form of Liberalism too, from its first parliamentary shape to the sanguinary terrorism of later times, was in turn adopted from French patterns. But during all this time public opinion was ripening. Konarski's labours had already doomed the " liberum veto" (the right of any one member of the Diet to prevent a bill from becoming law); Stazic, followed by Kollataj, attacked the system of elected kings. A lively discussion followed, and many pamphlets were published on either side; but at last the reformers' ideas triumphed in the Four Years' Diet. At the same time poetry was making great strides forward, though as yet inadequate to the utterance of Poland's sorrow. The contemporary poets, Krasicki and Tremlicki especially, were men of their time, sober, sensible, humourous, witty, aiming at perfection of language and clearness of style; what they produced was not unworthy of an enlightened nation, but in no wise truly great work. Kniaznin, however, and Karpinski have left us productions more lyrical in tone, in which scenes of peasant life, together with religious sentiments, are often to be found. About this time, too, a multitude of songs without any claim to style began to express the sorrows of the nation; these were the seeds which later produced fruit in the poems of Mickiewicz and his contemporaries. The drama had hitherto been barren in Poland; it now showed signs of fruitfulness in the comedies of Bohomolec, of Czartoryski, and especially of Zablocki, a comic writer of no mean powers. Science, too, law, philosophy, art-criticism, geography, grammar, and philology now found exponents in Sniadecki, Poczubut, Czacki, Nagurczewski, Dmochowski, Wyrwicz, and Kopczynski. History was completely transformed by Naruszewicz, less great indeed than Dlugosz, but the only historian at all comparable to him until after the fall of Poland. If the former laid the foundations of her history, the latter rebuilt it with his critical studies and strict investigation of sources. In the same field, Albertrandi, Loyko, and Czacki were also able workers; nor should we omit to notice many memoirs, not all equally valuable, but for the most part very important and instructive. During this period then there was rapid progress. The direction of studies was completely changed. The literature run wild of the former era was succeeded by good, sensible, carefully written work; the unruly nobility of former Diets was replaced by men like Niemcewicz, Wybicki, Andrew Zamoyski, Ignatius Potocki, and Bishop Krasinski. No wonder that their achievement, the Constitution of the Third of May, was proclaimed by Burke and Sièyés the best in Europe. In a word, this period may be judged by its results == the realization of Poland as a true political organization, the notion of equality before the law, a culture higher than any since the sixteenth century, a literature both serious and worthy of respect, great examples of strenuous work, and an intense sentiment of patriotic duty. Seventh Period (1796-1822) The silent stupefaction of the first few years after Poland's downfall was followed by an awakening prompted by the instinct of self-preservation, which in the first place made for the preservation of the national language and literature. This sentiment became strong, ardent, universal. The Society of the Friends of Learning was then founded in Warsaw. Of its members, many have already been named as men of note in the sixth period. It did admirable work, and was not dissolved until 1831. Prince Adam Czartoryski, having become minister to Alexander I, prevailed upon him to sanction a vast plan for public education in Lithuania and Ruthenia, embracing all studies from the most elementary to those of the University of Vilna, whence Mickiewicz was one day to come forth and endow the national poetry with new life. And as Vilna University was inadequate to the needs of so vast a country, the Volhynian Lyceum was founded in 1805. During this period, the general course of literature was very like that of the preceding epoch, but more strongly marked with patriotic sadness as became a generation imbued with the constitutional ideas of the Four Years' Diet, but grown up under the shadow of a great catastrophe. To keep the memories of the past and the love of the fatherland was now the aim evidently pursued by Niemcewicz in his "songs", by Woronicz in his "Sybil" (an anticipation of the poetry that was soon to come), by Kozmian in his "Odes", by Wezyk and Felinski in their tragedies; but the form was still French. Poles had come to be ignorant of any other literature, and the pseudo-classic taste of the time, together with the glamour of Napoleon's victories, had an excessive influence upon both literature and politics, upon language and social life. It was through the French themselves that the Poles came to know the existence of other sources of inspiration. But this revelation once made, though Kozmian and Osinski still held exclusively to Latin models and the ideas of Laharpe, Wezyk began to study German æsthetic writers, Niemcewicz imitated Scott and pre-Byronic English poets, and Morawski translated Byron. The drama especially, though still following French models, was making great and much needed progress. Felinski's "Barbara" deserves mention as a successful play, and the actors who played it were better than had ever been seen in Poland. Romanticism was yet to come, but it had a forerunner in Brodzinski, who, though somewhat stereotyped in his diction, was nevertheless familiar with German poetry and tended to simplicity of thought, seeking his inspiration where the Romantics were wont to seek it. In the fields of science and scholarship, also, we meet with great names == Lelewel, Sniadecki, Bandtkie, Linde, Ossolinski, Betkowski, Surowiecki, Szaniawski, Goluchowski, and others already mentioned. In a word, this period presents a steady and continual upward trend in every direction. Eighth Period (1822-50) This period, though brief, is the most brilliant in Polish literature. It may be divided into two parts: before 1831, the search after new and independent paths; after 1831, the splendid efflorescence of poetical creations resulting from this search. What gave its tone to all the poetry of the time was the downfall of Poland, an influence that was patriotic, political, and at the same time mystical. But this factor alone, strong as it was, was not enough; other elements co-operated. There was the great Romantic movement of revolt (in England and Germany especially) against the French Classical school. In Poland the first efforts to cast off the yoke were feeble and timid, but little by little the new forms of beauty kindled interest, while the idea of a return to the poetry of the people proved particularly attractive. Both external influences and popular aspirations now tended in the same direction: there was needed only a man able to lead the movement. The needed pioneer appeared in Adam Mickiewicz, after whom the Romantic period of Polish literature should rightly be called. From the outset his verse marked the opening of a new poetical epoch. It was hailed with delight by the younger generation. New talents sprang up around him at once == the "Ukraine" school, whose most characteristic exponents were Zaleski, his friend Goszczynski, whose best poem was "The Castle of Kaniow", and Malczewski, whose one narrative poem, "Marya", made him famous. Hitherto the prevailing tone in Mickiewicz's poems had been purely literary and artistic; but he was exiled to Russia, and wrote there his celebrated "Sonnets" and his "Wallenrod". The latter work shows him for the first time inspired by the history and the actual political state of Poland. Patriotism apart, the characteristics of his school were the substitution of simpler methods of expression for the old conventional style and vivid delineation of individuals instead of abstract general types. National feeling, present from the first, predominated only after the calamitous insurrection of 1831. Among the pioneers of the movement were many men of talent, but only one of genius, and two == Zaleski and Malczewski == whose talents were really eminent. For the drama in this period we must notice Fredro, most of whose excellent comedies were written between 1820 and 1830, and Joseph Korzenniowski's first dramatic attempts. Prose literature had changed but little as yet, though in one beautiful historical novel by Bernatowicz, "Pojata", Scott's influence is distinctly traceable. History continued to be represented by Lelewel. Among the most important consequences of the insurrection of 1831 must be reckoned an emigration unparalleled in history for numbers, which continued until 1863 to be a factor of the highest importance in the destinies of the nation, both political and literary. Men of the highest talent emigrated to countries where literature was free and untrammeled, and where the national sorrows and aspirations might be uttered with impunity. Poetry was the only fitting outlet for the emotions which then stirred the spirit of the nation; poetry, therefore, played a part in the life of the people greater, perhaps, than has ever been the case elsewhere. There were few poems of that time but called to mind Poland's past, present, or impending woes. This patriotic element stamped its character upon the whole period. Poets endeavoured to answer two questions in particular: Why had this doom fallen on the nation? == What was its future to be? == Now essaying to treat the philosophy of history, now endeavouring to raise the veil of the future, however feebly a versifier might write, he was sure to attempt some answer to these questions. And here writers were influenced by the two contrary currents of Catholicism and Messianism. The strong revival of religion in France could not but influence the men of the Polish emigration. Until 1831 Poland had been outside of that movement. Most Poles were traditionally Catholic, but not all Polish Catholics possessed deeply grounded convictions; some lived in eighteenth-century indifference; some were influenced by the opinion, as common as it is baseless, that Rationalism is the first condition of progress. Under the stress of conflicting tendencies in France, some Polish refugees entirely abandoned religion. Others learned that religiosity and practical religion are not the same thing; that Poland had in latter days, to a great degree, lost touch with the essentials of the Catholic Faith, through sheer ignorance, torpor, and thoughtlessness, and that ere its political regeneration could be thought of, the nation must be born again by a return to truly religious life. The men who thought thus == Zalenski, Witwicki, Stanislaus, John Kozmian, and others == rallied round Mickiewicz, whose idea that a new religious congregation, consisting of refugees, was necessary to set them all on the right path, became the germ of the Congregation of Our Lord's Resurrection. This congregation was founded by two priests who had been soldiers in the rising of 1831, Kajsiewicz and Semenenko. Their example did much for pulpit eloquence in Poland. Excepting Skarga, Father Jerome Kajsiewicz was the greatest of Polish pulpit orators; he was also a great writer. His inspired utterances, the truth and wisdom of his judgments in matters of learning, proceeded from his love for God, for the Church, and == though he well knew her faults and blamed them with much severity == for his country too. He was one of the greatest figures in the Church and in the literature of Poland. In France, together with the revival of Catholicism, there were also movements in another direction; that of Saint-Simon, for example, and that of Lamennais, and these had affected the Poles of the emigration when the Lithuanian, Andrew Towianski, preached to them his new creed of Messianism. Readily explicable as a result of false conditions of existence, and the contrast between laws of conscience and facts of life, this outbreak was none the less deplorable on account of those whom it misled. But Messianism never had much, if any, weight with the emigrants; unfortunately, Mickiewicz was entrapped by the sect, and the beauty of his utterances gave its errors some appearance of truth. The national literature had now reached its zenith; Mickiewicz now produced his great national epic "Pan Tadeusz"; and it was now that Stowacki and Krasinski, lesser names indeed, yet of the first rank, wrote all their works. All three were intensely patriotic, and in some degree mystics. With them the idea of Poland as God's chosen nation, the martyr among nations largely, prevails and is strongly emphasized in the "Dziady" of Mickiewicz, though earlier poets were not without some traces of this doctrine. Of course Poles at the present day repudiate it as an exaggeration; but it was the first beginning of the error into which Mickiewicz fell later; and it was the only stain upon the immaculate splendour and high-souled patriotism of Polish poetry. Mickiewicz, after "Pan Tadeusz" was published, gave up poetry as a vanity. But Stowacki wrote his magnificent "Kordyan", followed by many other poems of a still higher flight, as "Anhelli", "Cjclec Zadzumionych", "W. Szwajcarij", "Lilla Weneda", "Beniowski"; and his tragedies, though not perfect, are still the best in Polish literature. Zaleski produced his religious idyl, "The Holy Family", and an attempt towards the solution of many a problem in "The Spirit of the Steppe". Gosczzynski, Garczynski, Witwicki, and Siemienski, not to mention a great number of other poets of less renown, surrounded Mickiewicz in his exile. Sigismund Krasinski published his "Nieboska Komedya" (The Not-Divine Comedy) and "Iridyon", both full of deep philosophical and Christian thought, showing the contradictions of European civilization, and the supremacy of God's law over nations as over individuals. His "Przedswit" (The Dawn) told Poland that her present condition was a trial to purify her, which lesson was repeated in his "Psalms of the Future", together with a warning against acts that might call down a yet greater calamity. In Poland itself, the literary movement, though cramped, still existed. Vincent Pol wrote his pleasing "Songs of Janusz" and the "Songs of Our Land", marked by much originality of feeling and a faithful portraiture of the national character. There were also some poets who exaggerated Romanticism with all its defects; Magnuszewski, for instance, Zeglinski, Norwid, Zmorski, and Zielinski. Of another type were Lenartowicz, whose first poems now appeared, and Ujejski, who won fame by his "Lamentations of Jeremias", so well suited to the actual state of Poland. Prose, particularly prose fiction, now began to flourish. As early as 1829 Kraszewski had begun to pour forth the multitudinous and varied stream of works which was to continue for more than fifty years. His first novels were feeble, his best are open to much criticism; but there is a great deal of truth and of merit in his work, taken as a whole, with all its wonderful variety. Korzenniowski, a very different kind of talent, a serious artist and a correct writer, less satirical in tone and of a merrier turn of wit, was another good novelist; he also wrote some dramas, chiefly with a comic tendency, which were successfully produced at Warsaw during the darkest days of the censure. His novels, fewer than Kraszewski's, were written with much care. In the historical novel Rzewuski was supreme, with his "Memoirs of Soplica" and "Listopad" (November). Chodzko, however, in his "Lithuanian Pictures", was not very far behind him. Science and learning progressed, in spite of great difficulties. Of all the universities on Polish soil Cracow alone remained open and taught in Polish. Yet here the struggle for culture was successful. History broke with the last of the eighteenth century and took its stand upon the principle of severe research. The best historian then living, after Lelewel, was Bielowski. Mickiewicz, as a lecturer in the "College de France", sketched the history of Polish literature with a master hand, while Wiszniewski collected and studied vast stores of material of which he was able to exploit only a part. In science, both physical and medical, many names of distinguished men might be quoted. Philosophy was now more studied than ever; Gotuchowski, Libelt, Cieszkowski, Trentowski, and Kremer all tended towards the establishment of a Polish school of metaphysics, removed equally from German Transcendentalism and French Empiricism, and founded on the harmony of all our faculties (not on reason alone) and on a true reconciliation between science and religion. But all took the cue from German teachers, some from Schelling, others from Hegel, whom, however, they often contradicted; and they failed to produce any distinct system of philosophy. Ninth Period (1850 to the present time) A short interval of transition, following the brilliant outburst of the eighth period, lasted until 1863. Newspapers and periodicals began to be very widely read; they sowed broadcast the seeds of culture, but with the inevitable shortcomings of inadequate criticism and superficiality. Vincent Pol continued to write; "The Senatorial Agreement" and "Mohort" came from his pen during this period. Syrokomla, an author resembling Pol in simplicity and originality of tone, was decidedly his inferior in other respects. Lenartowicz, too, still wrote with much talent, but, like Pol and Zaleski, with a certain monotony of diction and ideas. Two women should be mentioned here: Narcyza Zmicowska (Gabryela) and Hedwige Luszczewska (Deotyma). The former had strong imagination and great audacity; the latter, while yet very young, astonished Warsaw with the brilliancy and facility of her poetical improvisations. In later years she set about writing seriously, and produced much good and scholarly work. The old classics, Cajetan Kozmian, Wezyk, and Morawski, still lived and wrote on, possibly even with more spirit than in their young days. Odyniec, another relic of expiring Romanticism, made his mark about this time; his translations of Scott, Moore, and Byron are excellent. Contemporary with these are Siemienski's translations of Homer and Horace, and Stanislaus Kozmian's of Shakespeare. Romanowski gave great promise as a poet, but he died in 1863; and Joseph Szujski, destined to be one of the great historians of the present time, had already come forward as a narrative, dramatic, and lyric poet. In prose literature Kraszewski and Korzenniowski still held their places, and Kaczkowski now stood by their side. In history, besides the men already named, we find Maciejowski, Hube, and Helcel; these last, with Dzialynski and Bielowski, also did good work by editing ancient sources. Szajnocha, who with modern strictness of research united a most brilliant style, and Frederick Skarbek came to the front. Wojcicki's "History of Polish Literature" is a very good work; and Lukasiewicz Bartoszewicz, Mecherzynski, Przyborowski, Tyszynski, Malecki, Klaczko, and Kalinka wrote excellent tractates and essays on literary, political and æsthetic subjects. A great change in political conditions supervened after 1863. While Austria granted autonomy to her Polish subjects, Russia attempted by a long and ferocious persecution to stamp out every vestige of national life, and in Prussian Poland, under Bismarck's rule, even the Catechism was taught in German. Thus Austrian Poland, having two universities (Cracow and Lemberg) besides an academy of sciences, became an important factor in Polish culture. The awful consequences of the rising of 1863 had taught the nation that, instead of fighting, it must employ peaceful means, increasing the national wealth, raising the level of culture, manoeuvering dexterously to get what political advantages could be got, and strengthening religious convictions among the people. The former mystical ideas of patriotism, together with all the hopes of prompt restoration, now disappeared; in their place came truth == the knowledge of former, and of present, shortcomings and errors which had contributed to the national ruin == and the firm hope that Poland might live on, but at the cost of incessant and heroic struggles. No wonder that with such dispositions, prose had the upper hand. Poetry had had its day, though its stimulating effects still remained; its action upon the national imagination had been great; now was the turn of prose, with its appeal to the understanding and the will. History flourished: Szajnocha, Helcel, Bielowski, Szujski, Kalinka, Liske, Pawinski, Jarochowski, Wegner, Bobrzynski, Zakrzewski, Smolka, Kubala, Likowski, Korytkowski, Korzon, whose works are too numerous to be even noticed here, were all historians of great merit. In the history of Polish law, Piekosinski, Balzer, and Ulanowski must be named, besides others among those mentioned above. Estreicher published his extremely valuable and useful "Bibliografia Polska", in eighteen vols.; Malecki and Kallenback respectively wrote the lives of Stowacki and of Krasinski; Nehring, Tretiak, and Kallenbach took Mickiewicz for their theme, and Spasowicz, Tarnowski, Chmielowski, and Bruckner all published histories of Polish literature in several volumes, whilst Klaczko wrote in French his "Causeries Florentines", a very beautiful and serious study on Dante. In the philological field, particularly in the study of Polish and the other Slavonic languages, Malinowski, Baudoin de Courtenay Karlowicz, Krynski, Kalina, and Hanusz did most distinguished work. Qepkowski, Luszkiewicz, Sokolowski, Mycielski, and many others laboured successfully for the advancement of archæology and the history of art, as also did Kolberg, for ethnography. Klaczko, already mentioned, wrote in French two political works, "Deux études de diplomatie contemporaine", and "Les deux chanceliers". Bishop Janiszewski's "The Church and the Christian State" is a remarkable work. In philosophy, Swigtochowski and Marburg represented the modern Positivist tendency, while the contrary attitude of thought was taken by Struve, and Fathers Pawlicki and Morawski, Straszewski, Raciborski, Twardowski, Wartenberg, and others. Pawlicki wrote his "History of Greek Philosophy", and Straszewski is the author of a work on Sniadecki and another on Indian philosophy. Poetry, as has been said, no longer occupies the same lofty position as formerly. A few dainty verses distinguished by nobility of thought and grace of diction have come from Falenski's pen. The late Adam Asnyk published many poems under the nom de plume of "Ely". They were singularly melodious and graceful, melancholy and sad in tone. Marya Konopnicka is a poet of the younger generation and possesses a really fine talent. Lucyan Rydel has shown much lyrical and also dramatic talent: "Na Zawsze" (For ever) and "The Polish Bethlehem" are fine plays. Casimir Tetmajer has great command of language, a stormy, passionate lyricism; he is at war with the world and with himself. Patriotism is, as a rule, differently manifested in the poets of our days: there being no hope of victory by insurrection, the life of the people, its fortunes and its sufferings have now the first place. Poets, too, write more willingly for the drama. Many have produced very successful plays == Anczyc, for instance, "Peasants and Aristocrats" and "Kosciuszko at Raclawice". Balucki has made good hits in his petite bourgeoisie comedies; Fredo the younger, Blizinski and Gawalewicz are also good comedy-writers. In fiction, a great and unexpected step forward has been taken. Kraszewski was still continuing to write with uncommon power (though at his age progress was out of the question) when Henryk Sienkiewicz came to the front. After a few short tales and sketches he took the field with bis immortal trilogy: "With Fire and Sword", "The Flood", "Pan Wolodyjowski". To these he added "Without Principle", and "The Polaniecki Family", novels of contemporary life. He then published "Quo Vadis" and, reverting to national themes, brought out "The Teutonic Knights" and "On the Fields of Glory". Around him sprang up many another author of very considerable talent. There were Eliza Orzeszko (On the Niemen), Prus ("The Outpost", "The Doll"), Szymanski (Sketches), Rodziewicz (Dewajtys), Ladislaus Lozinski (The Madonna of Busowisk). Among the most recent are Zeromski ("The Homeless Ones", "Ashes", "The History of a Sin"), Rejmont (Peasants), and Przybyszewski (Homo Sapiens). At the end of the nineteenth century there came a decided change, especially in the drama, under the influence of Impressionists and Symbolists == of Maeterlinck, Ibsen, Hauptmann, and Sudermann: the prose drama, often coarsely realistic, endeavoured to solve problems of real life; the poetical and tragical drama tried to create new forms and a symbolic atmosphere. Stanislaus Wyspianski, who died lately, is the principal and most successful exponent of this latter school, but John Kasprowicz has at the same time produced beautiful plays of his own and fine translations of Shakespeare and Æschylus. Such is, in brief, the history of Polish literature == remarkable in that, during the last century, and in spite of the cruel disasters which overtook the nation, it not only maintained itself, but showed a most wonderful and consoling vitality of development; remarkable, too, for the high ideal of uprightness and nobility of mind which the nation, notwithstanding many shortcomings, constantly set up for itself from the time of Dlugosz down to our own. It has fully understood, even when it has failed to fulfil, the idea of Christian civilisation. CHMIELOWSKI, Historya Literatury Polskiej (Warsaw, 1900); BRUCKNER, Historya Literatury Polskiej (Warsaw, 1896); TARNOWSKI, Wypisy Polskie (Cracow, 1910); IDEM, Historya Literatury Polskiej (Cracow, 1905); IDEM, Ksiadz Waleryan Kalinka (Cracow, 1887); N====, Stanislaw Kozmian (Cracow, 1885); POREBOWICZ, St. Kozmian i jego przeklady szekspira (Warsaw, 1885); ANON., Jan Kozmian (Cracow, 1877); KRASZEWSKI, Zywot i dziela ig. Krasickiego (Warsaw, 1879); NEHRING, Poezye Krasickiego (Posen, 1884); CHMIELOWSKI, Charakterystyka Ig. Krasickiego (Cracow, 1886); TRETIAK, Krasicki jako prezydent trybunalu (Cracow, 1855); IDEM, O satyrach Krasickiego (Cracow, 1896); KURPIEL, Przekonania religijne Krasickiego (Cracow, 1893); KLACZKO, La poésie polonaise au XIX siècle et le poète anonyme in Revue des Deux Mondes (Jan., 1862); NEHRING, Nieboska Komedya i Irydion (Posen, 1884); CHMIELOWSKI, Kobiety Mickiewicza, Slowackiego i Krasinskiego (St. Petersburg and Cracow, 1884); HÖSICH, Milosa w zycia Krasinskiego (Warsaw, 1899); TRETIAK, Z. Krasinski w pierwszej dobie mlodosci (Lemberg, 1884); TARNOWSKI, Z. Krasinski (Cracow, 1892); KALLENBACH, Mlodoso Z. Krasinskiego (Cracow, 1892); KRZYCKI, Weclewski, O poezyach Andrezja Krzyckiego (Cracow, 1874); DROBA, Andrzej Krzycki (Cracow, 1879); MORAWSKI, Corpus antiquissimorum poetarum Polonioe Latinorum (Cracow, 1888), Preface; WLADYSLAW MICKIEWICZ, Zywot Adama Mickiewicza (Posen, 1890-95); CHMIELOWSKI, Adam Mickiewicz (Warsaw, 1886); KALLENBACH, Adam Mickiewicz (Cracow, 1897); TRETIAK, Mickiewicz w Wilnie i Kownie (Cracow, 1884); GOSTOMSKI, Arcydzie poezyi polskiej (Warsaw, 1898), and many others. ST. TARNOWSKI John Bede Polding John Bede Polding Archbishop of Sydney, born at Liverpool, 18 Oct., 1794; died at Sydney, 16 March, 1877. In 1805 he was sent to school at the Benedictine Monastery of St. Gregory at Acton Burnell near Shrewsbury (now Downside Abbey near Bath). In 1810 he received the Benedictine habit and made his vows the year following. He was ordained in 1819 and filled in turn the offices of parish priest, prefect, novice-master, and sub-prior in his monastery. In 1833 Propaganda selected Polding Vicar Apostolic of Madras, Bishop of Hiero-Cæsarea. It was pointed out, however, that his health could not stand the climate of Madras, and the Holy See accepted this excuse as sufficient. About this time an appeal was made to the pope to send a bishop to New South Wales. Polding was appointed to this newly-created vicariate which, besides New South Wales, included the rest of New Holland and Van Dieman's Land (now Tasmania). The consecration took place in London, 29 June, 1834. Bishop Polding reached Sydney in September, 1835, and at once set to work to organize his vast diocese. He found only three priests in New South Wales and one in Tasmania; these with the three or four Benedictine monks whom he had brought with him constituted the entire force at his disposal. Then, and for many years afterwards, he worked like one of his priests, saying Mass daily in various stations, often in the convict prisons, teaching the Catechism, hearing the confessions of multitudes, and attending the sick and dying. He obtained permission to give retreats in the prison establishments, and between 1836 and 1841 no less than 7000 convicts made at least ten days' retreat under his guidance. The authorities soon realized the good effect his influence was having, and arranged that, on the arrival of every ship-load of convicts, all the Catholics should be placed at his disposal for some days, during which the bishop and his assistants saw each prisoner personally and did all they could for them before they were drafted off to their various destinations. In 1841 Bishop Polding revisited England and thence went on to Rome to report on his vicariate and petition for the establishment of a hierarchy, which was granted in 1842, the vicar Apostolic becoming first Archbishop of Sydney and Primate of all Australia. During this visit he was sent on a special diplomatic mission to Malta, and in recognition of his success therein was made a Count of the Holy Roman Empire and an assistant at the pontifical throne. In 1843 he returned to Sydney, taking with him a band of Christian Brothers, four Passionists, and some Benedictines. His return as archbishop aroused a violent storm among the Church of England party in the colony, but his gentleness and tact disarmed all opponents. Two provincial synods were held, at Sydney in 1844 and at Melbourne in 1859; he founded the University College of St. John at Sydney and the College of St. Mary, Lyndhurst. He visited Europe in 1846-48, in 1854-56, and in 1865-68, returning on each occasion with new helpers in his work. In 1870 he started for Rome to take part in the Vatican Council, but his health failed on the journey and he returned to Sydney. In 1873 the Holy See appointed Dom Roger Bede Vaughan, another Downside monk, as his coadjutor with right of succession, and from this time he gradually withdrew from active work. SNOW, Necrology of the English Benedictines (London, 1883), 171; BIRT, History of Downside School (London, 1902), 169, 198, 212, 273, 326; IDEM, Benedictine Pioneers in Australia (2 vols., London, 1911); Orthodox Journal, III (London, 1834), 14; The Tablet, XLIX (London, 1877), 406, 727; Catholic Times (London, 29 March, 1877); Melbourne Argus (Melbourne, 17 March, 1877); Downside Review, I (London, 1882), 91-102, 165-175, 241-249. G. ROGER HUDLESTON. Reginald Cardinal Pole Reginald Pole Cardinal, b. at Stourton Castle, Staffordshire, England, in March, 1500; d. at Lambeth Palace, 17 Nov., 1558; third son of Sir Richard Pole, Knight of the Garter, and Margaret, daughter of George, Duke of Clarence, brother of Edward IV. From the beginning of his reign Henry VIII recognized him as a near kinsman and showed him special favour, while in 1513 he created his widowed mother Countess of Salisbury, an act of tardy reparation for the attainder and execution under Henry VII of her only brother Edward, Earl of Warwick. She was also made governess to the Princess Mary in 1516 and we may assume that Pole's intimacy with the royal mistress whom he was afterwards to serve so devotedly began before he left England. The boy received his early education in the Charterhouse at Sheen, where he spent five years. He went to Oxford at the age of twelve or thirteen, and took his degree soon after he was fifteen. He was, it seems, intended for the Church, a choice to which he willingly assented, and though he had received no orders and was still hardly more than a lad, benefices were showered upon him, amongst others, a prebend bearing with it the title of dean in the collegiate church of Wimborne (15 Feb., 1518). Throughout all his career Pole's attraction for a studious life was most pronounced. At his own wish and with the approval and pecuniary help of Henry VIII he set out in Feb., 1521 for Padua, at that time a great centre of learning, and in the coterie of scholars which he found there the young kinsman of the King of England became a great favourite. Men like Longolius (de Longueil), who, dying shortly afterwards, left Pole his library, Leonicus, who taught him Greek, Bembo the humanist, and later Cardinal Contarini, also one day destined to adorn the Sacred College, and the English scholar Lupset, all sought his intimacy, while at a later period and under other circumstances he acquired the friendship and won the high esteem of Erasmus and More. All these were not only learned but large- minded men, and the mere fact of his choosing such associates would suffice to prove that Pole was not the bigot he has been sometimes represented. Pole remained in Italy until 1527. After a visit to Rome in 1526, and on his return he still pursued his studies, residing within the enclosure of the Carthusians at Sheen. Even at this date he had not yet received minor orders, but he was nevertheless elected Dean of Exeter (12 Aug., 1527). Shortly after this the great matter of the king's divorce came to a head, and Pole, to avoid having to take sides in a complication in which conscience, friendship, and gratitude to his royal kinsman were inextricably entangled, obtained permission to continue his studies in Paris. But he did not thus escape from his embarrassment, for his aid was asked by the king to obtain from the university an opinion favourable to the divorce. When the young student pleaded inexperience, Fox was sent to assist him. The situation wa a delicate one and Pole probably did little to forward a cause so distasteful to his own feeling (the effective pressure, as we know, was really applied by Francis I), but he had the credit of managing the business and was thanked for his exertions (see Calendar, IV, 6252, 6483, 6505). None the less, Henry required his kindman to return to England, and when shortly afterwards Wolsey's disgrace was followed by his death, Pole was invited to succeed him as Archbishop of York, or to accept the See of Winchester. That this was merely a bribe to obtain Pole's support was not so obvious then as it must seem to us now in the light of subsequent developments. He hesitated and asked for a month to make up his mind. Finally he obtained an interview with the king and seems to have expressed his feelings on the divorce question so boldly that Henry in his fury laid his hand upon his dagger. To explain his position he subsequently submitted a memorial on the subject which, even according to the unfriendly testimony of Cranmer, was a masterly document (Strype, "Cranmer", Ap. 1), moderately and tactfully worded. "The king", so Pole pleaded-it was in the early part of 1531-"standeth even upon the brink of the water and he may yet save all his honour, but if he put forth his foot but one step forward, all his honour is drowned." The course of subsequent history fully justified Pole's prescience, and indeed for a moment the king seems to have wavered, but evil counsels urged him forward on the road to destruction. Still, as Pole had not made his opposition public, Henry was magnanimous enough at this stage to give him permission in January, 1532, to withdraw to the continent, while continuing as before to pay his allowances out of the royal exchequer. Resuming, eventually, his peaceful life in Padua, Pole renewed or established an intimacy with the leaders in the world of letters, men like Sadolet (then Bishop of Carpentras), Contarini, and Ludovico Priuli. The two or three years which followed were probably the happiest he was fated ever to know. Meanwhile events were moving rapidly in England. The last strands which bound England to Rome had been severed by the king in 1534. The situation was desperate, but many seemed to think that it was in Pole's power to render aid. On the side of Princess Mary and her cousin Charles V advances were made to him in June, 1535, and after some demur he agreed to make an attempt at mediation. On the other hand, Henry seemed still to cling to the idea of gaining him over to support the divorce, and through the intermediary of Pole's chaplain, Starkey, who happened to be in England at the close of 1534, Pole had been pressed by the king to write his opinion on the lawfulness jure divino of marriage with a deceased brother's widow, and also upon the Divine institution of the papal supremacy. Pole reluctantly consented, and his reply after long delay eventually took the form of a treatise, "Pro ecclesiasticæ Unitatis defensione". It was most uncompromising in language and argument, and we cannot doubt that events in England, especially the tragedy of the execution of Fisher and More and of his friends the Carthusians, had convinced Pole that it was his duty before God to speak plainly, whatever the cost might be to himself and his family. The book, however, was not made public until a later date. It was at first sent off privately to the king (27 May, 1536), and Henry on glancing through it at once dispatched the messenger, who had brought it, back to Pole, demanding his attendance in England to explain certain difficulties in what he had written. Pole, however, while using courteous and respectful language to the king, and craving his mother's pardon in another letter for the action he felt bound to take, decided to disobey the summons. At this juncture he was called to Rome by command of Paul III. To accept the papal invitation was clearly and before the eyes of all men to side with the pope against the king, his benefactor. For a while Pole, who was by turns coaxed and threatened in letters from his mother and relatives in England, seems to have been in doubt as to where his duty lay. But his advisers, men like Ghiberti, Bishop of Verona, and Caraffa, the founder of the Theatines, afterwards Paul IV, urged that God must be obeyed rather than man. So the papal invitation was accepted, and by the middle of November, 1536, Pole, though still without orders of any kind, found himself lodged in the Vatican. The summons of Paul III had reference to the commission which he had convened under the presidency of Contarini to draw up a scheme for the internal reform of the Church. The pope wished Pole to take part in this commission, and shortly afterwards announced his intention of making him a cardinal. To this proposal Pole, influenced in part by the thought of the sinister construction likely to be put upon his conduct in England, made an energetic and, undoubtedly, sincere resistance, but his objections were overborne and, after receiving the tonsure, he was raised to the purple along with Sadolet, Caraffa, and nine others on 22 Dec., 1536. The commission must have finished its sittings by the middle of February (Pastor, "Geschichte der Päpste", V, 118), and Pole was despatched upon a mission to the north on 18 Feb., with the title of legate, as it was hoped that the rising known as the "Pilgrimage of Grace" might have created a favourable opportunity for intervention in England. But the rivalry between Charles V and Francis I robbed Pole's mission of any little prospect of success. He met in fact with rebuffs from both French and Spaniards, and eventually had to take refuge with the Cardinal bishop of Liège. After being recalled to Rome, he was present in the spring of 1538 at the meeting between Charles V and Francis I at Nice. Meanwhile Pole's brothers had been arrested in England, and there was good reason to believe that his own life was in danger even in Venetian territory from Henry's hired assassins (cf. Pastor, op. cit., V, 685). Pole then set himself with the pope's approval to organize a European league against Henry. He met Charles at Toledo in Feb., 1539, but he was politely excluded from French territory, and after learning the sad news of his mother's martyrdom, he was recalled to Rome, where he was appointed legate to govern from Viterbo the district known as the Patrimony of St. Peter. His rule was conspicuously mild, and when two Englishmen were arrested, who confessed that they had been sent to assassinate him, he remitted the death penalty and was content to send them for a very short term to the galleys. In 1542 Pole was one of the three legates appointed to preside over the opening of the Council of Trent. Owing to unforeseen delays the Fathers did not actually assemble until Dec., 1545, and the English cardinal spent the interval in writing the treatise "De Concilio". At the second session of the Council, 7 Jan., 1546, the impressive "Admonitio Legatorum ad Patres Concilii" (see Ehses, "Conc. Trid.", IV, 548- 53) was drafted by Pole. For reasons of health he was compelled to leave Trent on 28 June, but there seems to be good evidence that his malady was real enough, and not feigned, as some have pretended, on account of the divergence of his views from those of the majority upon the question of justification (Pastor, op. cit., V, 578, note 3). None the less before the Diet of Ratisbon he undoubtedly had shared certain opinions of his friend Contarini in this matter which were afterwards reprobated by the Council (ibid., V, 335-37). But at that period (1541) the Council had not spoken, and Pole's submission to dogmatic authority was throughout his life absolute and entire. It is possible that an exaggerated idea of those errors produced at a later date that bias in the mind of Caraffa (Paul IV) which led him so violently to suspect Pole as well as Morone (q.v.) of heretical opinions. On the death of Henry VIII Pole with the approval of Paul III made persistent efforts to induce the Protector Somerset and the Privy Council to treat with the Holy See, but, while these overtures were received with a certain amount of civility, no encouragement was given to them. Paul III died 10 Nov., 1549, and in the conclave which followed, the English cardinal was long regarded as the favourite candidate. Indeed it seems that if on a particular occasion Pole had been willing to present himself to the cardinals, when he had nearly two-thirds of the votes, he might have been made pope "by adoration". Later the majority in his favour began to decline, and he willingly agreed to a compromise which resulted in the election of Cardinal Del Monte (Julius III). On the votes given for Pole, see "The Tablet", 28 Aug., 1909, pp. 340-341. The death of Edward VI, 6 July, 1553, once more restored Pole to a very active life. Though the cardinal was absent from Rome, Julius III at once appointed him legate in England, and Pole wrote to the queen to ask her advice as to his future procedure. Both Mary's advisers in England and the Emperor Charles V, who was from the first anxious to marry the new queen to his son Philip, considered that the country was not yet ready for the reception of a papal legate. Julius, by way of covering the credit of his envoy in the delays that might possibly ensue, entrusted Pole with a further commission to establish friendly relations between the Emperor Charles and Henry II of France. All this brought the cardinal a good many rebuffs, though he was courteously received in Paris. Charles V, however, deliberately set himself to detain Pole on the continent until the marriage between Mary and Philip had been concluded (see Mary Tudor). Eventually Pole was not allowed to reach Dover before 20 Nov., 1554, provision having previously been made that holders of church property should not be compelled to restore the lands that they had alienated. A great reception was given to the legate upon his arrival in London, and on 30 Nov., Pole, though not even yet a priest, formally absolved the two Houses of Parliament from the guilt of schism. Owing to Pole's royal descent and his friendship with the queen, he exercised a considerable indirect influence over affairs of state and received a special charge from Philip to watch over the kingdom during his absence. On the other hand, the cardinal does not seem to have been at all anxious to add to his responsibilities, and when Archbishop Cranmer was deprived, he showed no great eagerness to succeed him in his functions as archbishop. Still a synod of both convocations was held by him as legate in Nov., 1555, which passed many useful decrees of ecclesiastical reform, rendered necessary by the disturbed condition of the Church after twenty years of separation from Roman authority. On 20 March, 1557, Pole was ordained priest, and two days after he was consecrated archbishop, while he solemnly received the pallium on the feast of the Annunciation in the Church of St. Mary-le-Bow, delivering an address which is still preserved. With the persecutions which have cast so regrettable a shadow over Mary's reign Pole seems to have had little to do (Dixon, "Hist. of the Ch. of Eng.", IV, 572). "Three condemned heretics from Bonner's diocese were pardoned on an appeal to him; he merely enjoined a penance and gave them absolution" (ibid., 582). The cardinal was now somewhat infirm, and his last days, like those of his royal mistress, were much saddened by fresh misunderstandings with Rome, due mainly to the impetuous temper and bitter anti-Spanish feeling of Paul IV. As a Neapolitan, Paul was bent upon driving the Spaniards out of Naples, and war broke out in Italy between the pope and King Philip. The pope made an alliance with France, and Philip set deliberately to work to implicate England in the quarrel, whereupon Paul withdrew his legates from the Spanish dominions and cancelled the legation of Pole. Although the tension of this state of affairs was in some measure remedied by concessions on the part of the pope, which were wrung from him by the success of Philip's arms, the cloud had by no means completely lifted, aggravated as it was by the pope's perverse conviction of Pole's doctrinal unsoundness, when the cardinal in Nov., 1558, contracted a mortal sickness and died a few hours after Queen Mary herself. Throughout his life Pole's moral conduct was above reproach, his sincere piety and ascetical habits were the admiration of all. "Seldom", writes Dr. James Gairdner, than whom no one is more competent to pronounce judgment, "has any life been animated by a more single-minded purpose". As compared with the majority of his contemporaries, Pole was conspicuously gentle, both in his opinions and in his language. He had the gift of inspiring warm friendships and he was most generous and charitable in the administration of his revenues. An early life of Pole was written by his secretary Beccatelli. It may be found printed in Quirini's great collection, Epistola Reginaldi Poli et aliorum ad se (5 vols., Brescia, 1744-57); upon these materials was founded the History of the Life of Reginald Pole by Philipps (Oxford, 1764), which still retains its value. A more modern biography is that of "Martin Haile" (Miss Mary Hallé), The Life of Reginald Pole (London, 1910); compare also Zimmermann, Caridnal Pole (Freiburg, 1893); Antony, The Angelical Cardinal (London, 1909); Lee, Reginald Pole (London, 1888); an admirable account of Pole by Gairdner is given in Dict. Nat. Biog.; on the other hand the Life of Pole in Hook's Archbishops of Canterbury (London, 1860-84) is disfigured by conspicuous anti-Catholic animus. Much useful supplementary information is furnished by the Monumenta Concilii Tridentini, vols. I and IV (Freiburg, 1901-04), and in Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste (Freiburg, 1908-10), IV, V. See also "The Tablet", 28 Aug., 1909, p. 340. The edition of the letters published by Quirini is far from complete, and many still remain in MS. HERBERT THURSTON Polemonium Polemonium Titular see in Pontus Polemoniacus, suffragan of Neocæsarea. At the mouth of the Sidenus, on the coast of Pontus in the region called Sidene, was a town called Side, which, it is believed, took the name of Polemonium in honour of Polemion, made King of Pontus by Marcus Antonius about 36 B.C. Doubtless its harbour gave it a certain importance, since it gave its name to the Pontus Polemoniacus. It is now the village of Pouleman in the vilayet of Trebizond, on the right bank of the Pouleman Tchai; the ruins of the ancient town, octagonal church, and ramparts, are on the left bank. Six of its bishops are known: Aretius, present at the Council of Neocæsarea in 320 (he was perhaps Bishop of Lagania); John, at Chalcedon (451), signer of the letter from the bishops of the province to Emperor Leo (458); Anastasius, at the Council of Constantinople (680); Domitius, at the Council of Constantinople (692); Constantine, at Nicæa (787); John, at Constantinople (869 and 879). The "Notitiæ episcopatuum" mentions the see until the thirteenth century. SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geog., s. v., gives bibliography of ancient authors; RAMSAY, Asia Minor, 325; LE QUIEN, Oriens christ, I, 515. See also MUELLER'S notes to Ptolemy, ed. Didot, I, 867. S. PÉTRIDÈS Giovanni Poleni Giovanni Poleni Marquess, physicist, and antiquarian; b. at Venice, 23 Aug., 1683; d. at Padua, 14 Nov., 1761; son of Marquess Jacopo Poleni. He studied the classics, philosophy, theology, mathematics, and physics. He was appointed, at the age of twenty-five, professor of astronomy at Padua. In 1715 he was assigned to the chair of physics, and in 1719 he succeeded Nicholas Bernoulli as professor of mathematics. As an expert in hydraulic engineering he was charged by the Venetian Senate with the care of the waters of lower Lombardy and with the constructions necessary to prevent floods. He was also repeatedly called in to decide cases between sovereigns whose states were bordered by water-ways. His knowledge of architecture caused Benedict XIV to call him to Rome in 1748 to examine the cupola of St. Peter's, which was rapidly disintegrating. He promptly indicated the repairs necessary. He also wrote a number of antiquarian dissertations. In 1739 the Academy of Sciences in Paris made him a member, and later the societies of London, Berlin, and St. Petersburg did the same. The city of Padua elected him as magistrate, and after his death erected his statue by Canova. Venice also honoured him by striking a medal. The following are his principal works: "Miscellanea" (dissertations on physics), Venice, 1709; "De vorticibus coelestibus", Padua, 1712; "De motu acquæ mixto", Padua, 1717; "De castellis per quæ derivantur fluviorum latera convergentia", Padua, 1720; "Exercitationes Vitruvianæ" Venice, 1739; "Il tiempo di Diana di Efeso", Venice, 1742. ANON, Memorie per la vita del Signor G. P. (Padua, 1762); FOUCHY, Eloge, Mém. de l'ac. des Sc. hist. (Paris, 1763). WILLIAM FOX Poles in the United States Poles in the United States Causes of Immigration There is good foundation for the tradition that a Pole, John of Kolno (a town of Masovia), in the services of King Christian of Denmark, commanded a fleet which reached the coast of Labrador in 1476 ("American Pioneer", I, Cincinnati, 1844, 399). The well-known Zabriskie family of New York is descended from Albert Zborowski, who not later than 1662 settled on the Hackensack River, New Jersey. His signature is found affixed as interpreter to an Indian contract of purchase in 1679 (New York General Records, XXIII, 26, 33, 139-47). One descendant, Abraham O. Zabriskie, was the eminent Chancellor of New Jersey. Other descendants intermarried with the most prominent colonial families, and were soon merged in the general population. In 1659 the Dutch on Manhattan Island hired a Polish school-master (Conway, "Cath. Educ. in U.S."). In 1770 Jacob Sodowski settled in New York, and his sons were among the first white men to penetrate as far as Kentucky. It is said that Sandusky, Ohio, was named after him (American Pioneer, I, 119; II, 325). Roosevelt, "Winning of the West", Vol. I, p. 164. Previous to this there were Polish settlers in Virginia (Kruszka, op. cit. infra, I, 54) and the southern states (Johns Hopkins Studies, XIII, p. 40). But among the European champions of American Independence few if any were more prominent than the noble Polish patriots, Thaddeus Kosciusko and Casimir Count Pulaski, the brilliant cavalry officer. Several of the aides of Pulaski's famous Legion were Polish noblemen. The Polish Revolution of 1830 brought to the United States a considerable and abiding contingent of Poles, mostly soldiers and members of the lower nobility. Part of Napoleon's Polish Legion had been dispatched to San Domingo, whence such as did not perish miserably or return to Europe came to the United States. A considerable number of Poles were in the American armies, fighting the Seminole Indians in the south. Among Americans of that time enthusiasm in Poland's cause ran high, and the tourist who visits the Polish National Museum in the ancient Hapsburg castle in Rappersschwyl, Switzerland, can see many tokens of sympathy sent to the struggling Poles by their American admirers. In 1835 there existed a "Polish National Committee in the United States", whose members were prominent Americans, and whose president, as we learn from a pamphlet printed in Philadelphia, 30 Sept., 1835, was M. Carey. The number of Poles in the United States must have run up to thousands, if we may judge from the frequent allusions to the various groups in the American Press of the time. American sympathy took concrete form when Congress made the Poles a grant of thirty-six sections of land, and surveyed two townships for them near Rock River, Illinois. A number of veterans of the Revolution of 1830 organized the Stowarzyszenie Polaków w Ameryce (Association of Poles in America), in New York. An appeal dated New York, 20 March, 1842, calls upon all Poles in America to affiliate with an organization recently effected at the home of the Rev. Louis Jezykowicz, 235 Division Street, New York. "To die for Poland" was the watchword of the organization, which, according to a brochure printed in Paris, elaborately commemorated the Revolution of 1830, at the Stuyvesant Institute, New York. Poles from Boston, Baltimore, Utica, Philadelphia, and Niagara were present at the celebration, and many distinguished Americans and foreigners, as well as various Scandinavian, French, and German societies participated. In 1852 probably the second Polish organization in the United States was founded, Towarzystwo Demokratyczne Wygnancow Polskich w Ameryce (Democratic Society of Poles in America), an ardent anti-slavery organization. In 1854 it numbered over two hundred members, but there are no records of its activities later than 1858. The Poles coming throughout this period of political immigration were persons of culture, and were freely admitted into American society, which looked upon them as martyrs for liberty. Their Americanization was most frequently concomitant with the loss of their Faith. With a few noteworthy exceptions, they exercised no influence upon the Polish immigrants of a succeeding generation. At the solicitation of Bishop Carroll a number of Polish priests, all former members of the disbanded Society of Jesus, came to America; one of the most prominent of these was Father Francis Dzierozynski. In the thirties several Polish Franciscan Fathers were labouring in the United States, among whom the most prominent was Father Anthony Rossadowski, chaplain in the Polish army in the Revolution of 1830. Father Gaspar Matoga, who came to the United States in 1848, and completed his studies at Fordham, was the first Polish priest to be ordained in the United States. Broadly speaking, the causes of Polish immigration have been political, religious, and economic. While economic conditions have been the direct cause, it must be borne in mind that the indirect causes, political and religious, are quite as potent as the economic. Prussianizing, which lately has assumed a religious as well as a political aspect, renders the progress of Prussian Poland distasteful to the Poles, because whatever progress is made must be along Prussian lines. The Kulturkampf gave the American Poles many of their noblest priests, through whose influence thousands of Poles came to America. While Prussianizing by means of class legislation, expropriation, and colonization has not been very rapid, its methods have been attended with a certain measure of success. The economic prosperity of Western Germany has checked the emigration of Prussian Poles from the empire, and the Poles already form an important and growing part of the population of Westphalia and the Rhenish provinces. Russian Poland experiences the full force of militarism, but still more important as a cause of emigration is the state of terrorism in the great manufacturing districts of Russian Poland, aggravated by the Russo-Japanese War. The mentally more alert are emigrating from Russian Poland, mostly young men who, under the constant strain of Government repression, are the first to be drawn into the revolutionary propaganda and have developed exaggerated notions concerning social wrongs. It is mostly from this class that Socialism in America draws its Polish recruits. A condition responsible for much of the emigration from Poland is the persecution of the Jews in Russia proper, and the Government's policy of concentrating its Jewish problem within "the Kingdom", which has been constituted a vast pale whither the Jews are being forced until they are overflowing into Galicia. By granting autonomy to communities in which the Jews are numerically strong, the Government is effectually expatriating the Poles by what amounts to disfranchisement, and thus Polish progress is blocked. The Poles were never a commercial people, and under present conditions they abandon all trade and commerce to the Jews. About 35 per cent of the population of Warsaw and about 31 per cent of that of Cracow are Jews. They have control of Poland's industry, commerce, and agriculture. Industry receives poor reward, taxation of the poor is oppressive, and education in Russian Poland is positively discouraged. Since the beginnings of Galician emigration land values in Galicia have advanced fourfold. The abandonment of the feudal system, whereby one child received the family holding intact, the decreasing death-rate, and the high birth-rate, have cut the peasant's acre into tiny patches, which under most careful cultivation are insufficient for a population of 241 to the square mile, especially in Western Galicia. Polish emigration is constantly stimulated by the steamship agencies, which form a network of newspapers, petty officials, and innkeepers; cheapness of transportation and the accounts from America of better conditions add greatly to its tide. The annual emigration to the industrial regions of Germany tends to mitigate the extreme poverty of the peasants, which heretofore rendered emigration impossible. Poverty and not patriotism is at the bottom of all present-day Polish emigration. Memories of European conditions are an important factor in causing the Poles in the United States to forget any intention they may have had of returning to the mother country. Distribution and Statistics The immigration of the Polish masses began in 1854. In 1851 Father Leopold Moczygemba, a Franciscan, came to America and soon after induced nearly one hundred families from Upper Silesia to come to Texas. They first came by sailing vessels to Galveston and brought with them all their possessions, their tools and ploughs; indeed, even the bell and great cross in the village church were brought to the New World, and still remain in the church in Panna Maria, Texas, lasting memorials of the faith of the early pioneers. In 1855 the church in Panna Maria was built, the first Polish church in America. Within a few years ten little colonies had been established in Texas, and during the same period colonies were founded in Parisville, Michigan, and Polonia, Wisconsin, and in 1862 a parish was being organized at Milwaukee. In 1870 there were twenty Polish settlements in ten parishes in the States of Texas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. It was to the virgin lands of Michigan, Wisconsin, and southern Illinois, and to the coal-fields of Pennsylvania and Illinois that they went in greatest numbers. The number of Polish priests grew from 25 in 1870 to 79 in 1877. The total Polish population in the United States did not exceed 40,000 in 1870, of whom fully a fourth were in Chicago alone. While the immigration of the Polish masses had its distinct beginning in 1854, and the number of immigrants was increased by the disastrous Revolution of 1863, it was not until after the Franco-Prussian War, and until after the United States began to recover from the effects of the Civil War, that it became a mighty stream; and although Prussian Poland has long ceased to send more than a modicum, the stream is gaining volume with each passing month. The financial panic of 1873 checked for a brief period the growing immigration. In 1875 the Poles in the United States numbered nearly 150,000, of which number nearly 20,000 were in Chicago, which as early as 1866 had become and still remains the metropolis of this the fourth division of Poland, as the Polish community in America is called by the Poles. In 1889 they had 132 churches, 126 priests, and 122 schools, nearly all conducted by the Felician Sisters and the School Sisters of Notre Dame. Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburg, and Milwaukee, in addition to Chicago, had become important Polish centres as early as 1880. The vast majority, probably 80 per cent of all Polish immigration from 1854 to 1890, was from Prussian Poland. Among them were many Cassubians from West Prussia who, living in what was for centuries a borderland between Poland and the domains of the Teutonic Knights, were much affected by Prussian influence. While there is no small number of these Cassubians in parishes noted as German in the official directory, they have of late years, both in Poland and America, regained their national consciousness and have fully entered into the life of the Polish-American community. From the so-called Mazurenland (Masuria) in northern Prussia we have a few thousand Polish Lutherans who but for their jargon of Prussianized Polish are lost to Poland. Between them and the Poles no community of interests exists either in America or Poland. There are several isolated colonies of these Masurians in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Within the past two decades a great change has come over the character of Polish immigration. The pioneers who came from Silesia, the Grand Duchy of Posen, and West Prussia came with their families, were mostly men of early middle age, and came with no thought of ever returning. The Prussian Poles took readily to farming. They were resourceful, disinclined to hazard health and life, and not intent upon making money in a very short time. The Prussian Poles and their children constitute much the greater part of the rural Polish population in the Middle West and North-west. Polish immigration from Russian Poland and Galicia has been so great that many of the older parishes founded by Prussian Poles in the industrial regions are made up almost wholly of their numbers. The Russian Poles constituted about 53 per cent, those from Galicia about 43 per cent, and the Prussian Poles about 4 per cent of the total Polish immigration from 1895 to 1911. The recent Polish immigrants are mostly young men. The vast majority are unskilled labourers from the villages; the few skilled labourers and mechanics are for the most part from Russian Poland, and these latter are employed in the textile industries and sugar refineries, with which work they are familiar. Those from Galicia come in many instances to earn enough money to clear their small plot of land of debt. They come to mill and mine, and seem utterly indifferent to hardship and danger. The percentage of illiterates among the immigrants from Prussian Poland, never very high, is now insignificant, while their knowledge of German is a valuable asset. The percentage of illiterates from Poland for the fiscal year, 1910, was 30.1 per cent. The small number of Poles becoming public charges would be much smaller but for the laws making little or no provision for the workmen and compelling them to undertake expensive litigation in case of accident. The records of our penal and eleemosynary institutions fail to show that the Poles constitute a lawless element. The very low death rate among the Poles, in spite of abnormal conditions of living (high infant mortality, and the heavy death rate in the mines and mills), is striking proof of their morality. It is not unusual to see Polish churches in the United States filled with congregations in which the men far outnumber the women. This is largely explained by the character of recent immigration, but it may nevertheless be asserted that no other class of American Catholics can boast of a greater percentage of church-going men. Historically the Poles have been so circumstanced that their racial and religious sympathies completely coincide. So fused and intensified are these sentiments that it has been well said that the soul of Poland is naturaliter Christiana. Conditions leading to ruptures with ecclesiastical authorities have been many and it would be exceedingly unjust to place all blame upon the masses of the Polish people. The Poles are easily led by a fiery eloquence, and "independence" among them was the result of deliberate deception on the part of rebellious priests who to carry on their deception more successfully had some of their number consecrated bishops by the Old Catholic bishops in Europe. The "Independents" are possessed of no unity, and represent no heretical or schismatic movement in the real sense. The movement was strongest from 1895 to 1900, and spread with astonishing rapidity, becoming most destructive in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and throughout Pennsylvania, in which state it still continues a demoralizing factor. It is impossible to estimate with any degree of accuracy the numerical strength of the movement at its height, but to-day the total number cannot exceed 30,000. Protestants, notably Baptists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians, have fraternized with the "Independents" and given them a respectability. In recent years many of the immigrants have been drawn into the movement in good faith. The fact that the Poles from an aggregation of units, frequently lacking efficient spiritual leadership, torn by dissensions, led astray by a Liberal press, have slowly and painfully arisen to a position commanding respect is the most splendid tribute that can be paid them. The failure of certain classes of immigrants to come to the material support of the Church is most frequently explained by adducing the fact of a state-supported Church in the mother country. Since in most parts of Poland the Church is supported by indirect taxation, the generosity of the American Poles is brought out into stronger relief, and their willingness to build and maintain their magnificent churches and institutes is deserving of the unbounded praise accorded them. Coupled with their deep faith, their intense nationalism acts as an incentive to their generosity. Unfortunately the immigrant tide pours into our great cities in spite of the fact that our Polish immigrants are almost solidly from the agricultural villages. What has been said concerning the necessity of intelligent colonization in the article on Italians in the United States holds with equal force when speaking of the Polish immigration. The settlement of the Poles in lower New England is evidence of the need of intelligent colonization. The movement to the farms, at first confined to the Prussian Poles, is now spreading and extending to the other classes, who are even entering Canada. The settlement of the Poles in the Connecticut Valley, whither more than 5000 went in 1910, dates from about 1895. The Poles saved their money and succeeded. In time they bought the land of their employers. Hundreds of abandoned farms in New England have passed into their hands, and they are now invading Long Island. Their industry and thrift are shown by their success on these abandoned farms, on which women and children share the toil of the father. Customs The Poles in America cling tenaciously to their quaint customs, which are in nearly every instance quite as much religious as national in character. Poland was but little affected by the religious rebellion of the sixteenth century and hence the Catholic medieval spirit is still that of the Poles. The Christmas and Easter carols heard in the Polish churches are exact counterparts of those sung by the peasants of pre-Reformation England, and are the expression of the childlike faith of the people. The most beautiful custom and the one that bids to outlive all others among the American Poles is that of the oplatki (wafers). Shortly before Christmas the parish organist distributes wafers resembling those used for Holy Mass, and at this distribution each parishioner makes a slight offering to the organist or altar-boys who bring the wafers. These are sent to friends and relatives in Europe, and the latter do not forget those in America. On Christmas Eve the family gathers to partake first of all of the wafer in token of continued love, mended friendship, and goodwill to all men. During the Octave of the Epiphany the priests bless the homes of the people, and the doors are marked with the initials of the names of the Wise Men, with chalk blessed on the feast of the Epiphany. On Holy Saturday the priest blesses the baskets of food prepared for the morrow. Very early on Easter morning Holy Mass is celebrated and after the Mass the priest and the laity go in solemn procession thrice around the church, inside or outside, according to circumstances. This is called the Resurekcya. During the Easter season the priests issue confession cards, on which are printed the words: Signum Communionis Paschalis. Each card is numbered, and a record is kept of the numbers and names of those to whom cards are issued. These cards are returned by penitents in the confessional and the names are cancelled. Thus a record is kept of all those who have satisfied their Paschal obligation. While the custom is liable to misinterpretation and even abuse, the Polish clergy are loath to abolish it because of many excellent features. In no other way in the large city parishes where the population is constantly shifting can the clergy meet many of their people. On the feast of the Assumption the faithful bring flowers and greenery to the church to be blessed, and the day is called the feast of Our Lady of the Greenery. Polish women are careful in their observance of the custom of being churched after childbirth. It is not uncommon for the brides to come to church very soon after marriage to receive the blessing novoe nuptoe. Seldom does a Polish marriage take place except with a nuptial Mass. Name-days, not birthdays, are celebrated, and sponsors are regarded as relatives by the interested families. On the death of a parishioner the church bell is tolled each day immediately after the Angelus until after the funeral, at which very frequently the Office of the Dead is chanted. The Poles love their own vernacular songs, and in most of their churches one may hear them chant the "Little Hours" before High Mass on Sunday mornings. Nor is Latin popular with Poles, who frequently sing all parts of the High Mass except the responses in Polish. Hospitality ceases to be a virtue with the Poles. Generous to a fault, they turn a deaf ear to no petition for assistance, especially if the object appeals to national or religious sympathies. Poles are lovers of processions, flags, banners, uniforms, and marshals' batons. A Polish church on festal days resembles some national fane whither the battle-flags of nations have been brought from fields of glory. The Pole is not utilitarian, and all this to him is more than useful, serving as it does to bind him more closely to the Church, whose feasts are given added solemnity. The observance of national festivals is religiously kept. May recalls the adoption of Poland's famous Constitution; November, the Revolution of 1830; and January, Poland's last war for freedom, the Revolution of 1863. The various organizations vie with one another in preparing these celebrations, which serve the useful purpose of affording instruction in Poland's history to the younger generation and to the invited Americans. Polish Charitable Institutions Besides contributing to the support of the various diocesan charities the Poles maintain a growing number of such institutions for those of their own nationality. Only the more important are noted: Felician Sisters, orphanages, 5, orphans, 585; Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, orphanages, 1, orphans, 105; Bernardine Sisters, orphanages, 1, orphans, 120; Sisters of the Holy Family of Nazareth, orphanages, 1, orphans, 160. A very large orphan asylum is now building in Chicago, which will be supported by all the Polish parishes of the archdiocese and will be placed in charge of the Felician Sisters. There are three Polish homes for the aged in which 200 are provided for. In 1909 St. Felix's Home for Polish working girls, Detroit, conducted by the Felician Sisters, assisted 202 girls; another such institution in East Buffalo, New York, conducted by the same community, assisted 267 girls; in the Polish day nurseries of Chicago and Milwaukee nearly 20,000 children were cared for; St. Mary's Hospital, Chicago, conducted by the Sisters of the Holy Family of Nazareth, cared for 2,150 patients. The Immigrant Home, East Buffalo, New York, aided 8978 immigrants. St. Joseph's Home for Polish and Lithuanian Immigrants, New York, has since its foundation in 1896 given aid to 86,912 immigrants. Both homes are now in charge of the Felician Sisters. One of the most notable of the early Polish emigrants was the patriot-poet, Julian Niemcewicz, who came to America in 1796. He had been Secretary to the Polish Senate, adjutant-general of Kosciuszko in the latter's struggles for Polish independence and his companion in captivity in St. Petersburg. He became an American citizen and remained in the United States until the formation by Bonaparte of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, when he returned to Poland and was actively engaged in Poland's cause until his death in 1841. The leading spirit of all movements among the Poles in America throughout the period of political immigration was Henry Corvinus Kalusowski, the son of one of the chamberlains of Stanislaus Poniatowski, the last King of Poland. He came to America in 1834. Returning to Poland he represented a Polish constituency in the Prussian Parliament, and upon his expulsion by the Prussian Government again came to the United States. During the Civil War he organized the Thirty-first New York Regiment. Later held positions in the State Department in Washington, and translated all official Russian documents relating to the purchase of Alaska by the United States. He died in 1894. Other political immigrants were: Tyssowski, the "Dictator of Cracow"; the learned Adam Gurowski, who in his "Diary of 1861-1865" betrayed a keen insight into the conditions of the Civil War period; Lieutenant Bielawski, Paul Sobolewski, translator of the Polish poets into English; Leopold Julian Boeck, soldier, statesman, scholar, who had been Professor of Higher Mathematics in the Sorbonne before coming to New York, where he founded the Polytechnic Institute, said to be the first of its kind in America. He later occupied chairs in the Universities of Virginia and Pennsylvania. He was appointed American Educational Commissioner at the Universal Exposition in Vienna by President Grant, and served in a similar capacity at the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia. The quality of the Polish immigrants previous to 1870 was such as to give them a prominence out of proportion to their numbers, and the record of the Poles in the Civil War was a really brilliant one, although there were not more than a few hundred Poles in the various divisions of the Union Army. The most prominent of these was General Krzyzanowski, who gained his military title in this war serving under Carl Schurz, who in his memoirs speaks very favourably of his services. Others who served with distinction were Louis Zychlinski, Henry Kalusowski, Peter Kiolbassa, Joseph Smolinski, the youngest cavalry officer in the Union Army, and Edmund Louis Zalinski, who served on General Miles's staff, and after the war occupied the chairs of military science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other institutions of a similar nature, and became an authority on military science and an inventor of military appliances. The most commanding figure among the American Poles was Father Vincent Barzynski, C.R. As a leader of men, whose vision extended far into the future, he stands unique. He was the central figure of the most dramatic chapters in the history of the Poles in America. He gave the Poles St. Stanislaus College, their first orphanage, their first Catholic paper (the "Gazeta Katolicka"), their first daily paper ("Dziennik Chicagoski"), he formed the first teaching corps of Polish nuns, and brought into being the Polish Roman Catholic Union. The most typical of the Polish American laymen to achieve distinction was Peter Kiolbassa, through whose efforts the Resurrectionist Fathers came to Chicago. He served as captain in the Union Army during the Civil War, and later served the State of Illinois and the city of Chicago in various and very important positions. The name of Father Joseph Dabrowski will long be held in grateful remembrance. Besides founding the Polish Seminary at Detroit he brought the first group of Felician Sisters to the United States, and later established them in Detroit, where in 1882 they established their first American mother-house. Of Polish American women one of the most prominent was Dr. Mary Zakrzewska, who came to America in 1853 and founded the New York Infirmary for Indigent Women and Children, and the New England Hospital for women and children. Poland s contribution to the development of musical, dramatic, and plastic art has been a notable one. In 1876 a little band of Polish intellectuals, among whom was Henry Sienkiewicz, attempted to found a sort of Brook-Farm community in California. The attempt failed but gave to America Helena Modjeska (Modrzejewska), who from the night of her American début in San Francisco in 1877 until her retirement thirty years later was among the foremost artists on the American stage. Others who became more or less identified with American national life were the sculptors Henry Dmochowski, whose busts of Kosciuszko and Pulaski adorn the national capital, and Casimir Chodzinski, creator of the Kosciuszko monument in Chicago and the Pulaski monument in Washington. Prominent in the Polish community of to-day are: Ralph Modjeski, one of the foremost engineers in the United States; John Smulski, ex-state treasurer of Illinois; Dr. F. Fronczak, health commissioner of Buffalo; Bishop Paul Peter Rhode, the first Pole to be raised to the episcopate in the United States; Felix Borowski, composer and critic. Every Polish parish has its mutual aid societies, affiliated in nearly every instance with one of the major national organizations, all of which are conducted on a basis of fraternal insurance. These societies do a great amount of good among the poor, caring for such of their members as are visited by misfortune, giving the Poles desirable solidarity, and making for the social, religious, and economic advance of the Polish community. Most frequently they are parish organizations, and partake of the character of confraternities, whose public appearance at Divine services on national and religious festivals lends solemnity to the occasions and constitutes an open profession of the Faith of the Polish masses. In the larger Polish communities there are associations of physicians, dentists, druggists, journalists, merchants, and military, dramatic, and singing societies, nearly all of which are affiliated with the major organizations. The many building, loan, and savings associations among the Poles have received high praise from state officials. From 1866 to 1870 various local organizations were forming in Philadelphia, Pittsburg, Chicago, New York, Milwaukee, and in San Francisco, where there had existed a Polish colony since the Civil War. The most important Polish Catholic organization, Zjednoczenie Polsko-Rzymsko Katolickie pod Opieka Boskiego Serca Jezusa (The Polish Roman Catholic Union under the Protection of the Sacred Heart of Jesus), was organized in 1873, but it was not until 1886 that it assumed its present character, although the spirit of the Union has always been staunchly Catholic. Its first organ was the "Gazeta Katolicka"; the present official organ is the "Naród Polski" (The Polish Nation). The Union has a membership of 52,000, in 550 councils, all of which are parish organizations; its assets are $666,708. In 1910 the increase in membership was 13,000, and the increase in its assets $175,815. In the same year it assisted fifty-six students, children of its members, by distributing among them $4268. It has assisted crippled members by voluntary gifts amounting to $1455 in the same period. Its educational fund, the interest of which supports indigent students, is $31,051. The Zwiazek Narodowy Polski (Polish National Alliance) was founded in Philadelphia in 1880, and in the same year the head-quarters of the organization were established in Chicago, where they have since remained. In its first constitution the Alliance professed "obedience to the Roman Catholic faith, since that is the faith of the vast majority of the Polish nation", but further committed itself to a programme of "toleration of all creeds in the spirit of Poland's ancient constitution". Socialists were barred. All official religious services were to be conducted according to Catholic rites. Succeeding conventions gradually eliminated all reference to religion, and the bar to admission of Socialists was removed. "Anarchists and criminals" are still excluded. Recently the Alliance is waging open war with the Socialistic element, with whose doctrine of internationalism the exaggerated nationalism of the Alliance is at variance. At first many of the clergy belonged to the Alliance, but with the development of the anticlerical programme of the organization the number has become insignificant. The Alliance has a membership of 71,000 men and women, in 1118 councils. The Zwiazek Spiewaków (Alliance of Singers), the Zwiazek Wojsk Polskich (Alliance of Polish Military Societies), and the Zwiazek Sokolow (Athletic Alliance), while maintaining autonomy, are federated with the Alliance, and their membership is included in the number given for the National Alliance, with slight exceptions. There is likewise an independent Turners' Alliance with a membership of 3000. The assets of the National Alliance are placed at $1,150,000, but including as it does the Alliance Home, etc., are probably in excess of the actual assets. The organ of the Alliance is the "Zgoda" (Harmony). Except in its attitude towards the Church the Alliance closely resembles the Polish Roman Catholic Union. The Catholic Order of Foresters has 62 Polish courts, with a membership of 8166, and the number of Polish members in other courts exceeds 1000. The order furnishes the Polish courts with constitutions and rituals printed in Polish, and all business of these courts is transacted in Polish. Zwiazek Polek (Alliance for Polish Women) has a membership of 8000. It closely resembles the Polish National Alliance, but since a society of Polish women cannot thrive except as a parish organization, much of the official indifferentism of the national body is counteracted by the priests who act as chaplains of the local branches. Of Catholic organizations besides the Polish Roman Catholic Union the following are important: Stowarzyszenie Polaków w Ameryce (Association of Poles in America), Milwaukee, membership, 7332; Macierz Polska, Chicago, membership, 4500; more than any other Catholic organization it is concerned with the social welfare of the young. It is confined almost entirely to the parishes in charge of the Resurrectionist Fathers; Unia Polska (The Polish Union), Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, membership, 9000. A schism occurred in the organization in 1908, and one faction, with head-quarters in Buffalo, has a membership slightly smaller than the first. A Catholic Union in Winona, Minnesota, has a membership of 1400. Excepting the numerically insignificant Socialistic group none of the nationalistic organizations have dared to attack the Church as such, however much their organs may attack individual members of the clergy and certain religious congregations. The younger element does not take kindly to these attacks, and the indications are that the crisis has passed. The spread of the spirit of independence occasioned the first Polish Congress, held in Buffalo in 1896. A second was held in the same city in 1901, and a third in Pittsburg in 1904. These congresses sought to find remedies for the sad conditions then prevailing, and the efforts of the promoters were largely confined to inducing the Holy See to give the American Poles bishops of their own nationality. A fourth congress, differing radically from the three preceding, inasmuch as its spirit was purely secular, was convened under the auspices of the Polish National Alliance on the occasion of the unveiling of the Pulaski and Kosciuszko monuments in Washington, 12 May, 1910. The congress, which was ignored by the clergy and the Catholic organizations, declared itself in favour of educational institutions for the Polish youth which would be utterly removed from "clerical" influence. Many attempts have been made to federate the various Polish organizations, but they have invariably failed. Bishop Rhode has fathered the last attempt at federation, which seems likely to succeed because unity is being sought along purely Catholic lines. The growth in numbers and efficiency of the Polish parochial schools is a story of faith, patriotism, unparalleled generosity, and supreme endeavour on the part of Polish clergy, religious communities, and laity, who came with no asset but their willing hands and the faith of their fathers. The Poles take care of themselves. Where they have contributed to the building of non-Polish churches and schools, they are quick to establish schools for their own children as soon as their numbers warrant the attempt, which with them is much earlier than with those of any other nationality. The Poles realized very early that their children who attended schools other than Polish, however much they succeeded, ceased to be an asset to the Polish community in its endeavours to lift itself above its present condition. The Polish schools in America are a distinctly new world product. Considering the shortness of their American history the Poles have a larger proportion of native clergy and teaching nuns than any other class of American Catholics. Fully 95 per cent of the teachers in the Polish parochial schools are American by birth or training. The Poles cannot be satisfied with teachers other than Polish. Hence their Americanization is a development and not a veneer. This factor of a native clergy and teaching corps thoroughly American in thought and speech, and thoroughly Polish in their sympathies with the incoming thousands, makes for a healthy conservatism, and precludes violent ruptures with traditions of the past. The Polish parochial schools are performing a task which could not, because of a multitude of circumstances, be satisfactorily performed by any other, however superior from a purely scholastic standpoint. The most formidable obstacle to more rapid progress is the ever-increasing tide of immigrants. Clergy and teachers must contend with parents whose poverty and old-world viewpoint are factors in keeping the children at home upon every pretext, and withdrawing them for ever on the day of their First Communion. The constant increase in the number of children necessitates the erection of new schools, in spite of the parents' inability to contribute to their support, increases the shortage of teachers, makes for overcrowding and inefficiency, because the religious communities, to satisfy the demands made upon them, must send into the class-room the young nun to whom it has been impossible to give a thorough training. These hardships fall with double force upon the newly-organized parishes. The older religious communities, several of which have reached a high degree of efficiency, cannot supply the increasing demand in the schools already under their charge, and hence the new parishes must content themselves with teachers such as the more recently established communities can afford. The presence of lay teachers in the Polish schools is evidence of the inadequacy in the number of the Polish nuns. The necessity of teaching in two languages doubles the work of the teachers, and yet it is this very system which will most intelligently adjust the Poles to their American surroundings. The establishment of Polish schools, especially in the Middle West, nearly always coincides with the organization of the parishes. The first building erected is usually made to serve as school and church for some years until a church can be built, when the first building is used entirely for school purposes. The first Polish school in the United States is that in Panna Maria, Texas, established by Father Bakanowski, C.R., in 1866. The first teacher was Peter Kiolbassa. The second school was that of St. Stanislaus's Parish, Milwaukee, which dates from 1867. St. Stanislaus's School in Chicago was placed in charge of the School Sisters of Notre Dame in 1873. The accompanying list of statistics affords striking evidence of the growth in numbers of the Polish schools since that time. Besides the parochial schools the Poles maintain the following institutions of higher education: SS. Cyril and Methodius's Seminary, Orchard Grove, Michigan, founded by Fathers Leopold Moczygemba and Joseph Dabrowski. The seminary was established in Detroit in 1887, and was transferred to Orchard Grove in 1909. Professors, 17; students, 350. St. Stanislaus's College, Chicago, founded by the Resurrectionist Fathers in 1891, a day and boarding school, professors, 15; students, 210. St. Bonaventure's College, Pulaski, Wisconsin, founded by the Franciscan Fathers in 1889, professors, 7; students, 45. St. John Cantius's College, Brookland, Washington, D.C., founded in 1909, embraces scholasticate for the Missionaries of the Divine Love of Jesus, and is affiliated with the Catholic University of America. St. John Cantius's College, Erie, Pennsylvania; founded in 1909, maintained by the Society of St. John Cantius, which is composed of Polish priests and laymen. Pennsylvania Polish College of St. John, Philadelphia, founded in 1908 by Rev. John Godrycz, D.D., Ph.D., J.U.D. The Academy of the Holy Family of Nazareth, Chicago, founded in 1887 by the Sisters of the Holy Family of Nazareth. Twenty nuns form the teaching staff; students, 150. The number of Polish students at various other institutions is very considerable, especially in day-schools in our large cities. Nearly one-third of the student body at St. Francis's Seminary, St. Francis, Wisconsin, are Poles. Several of our non-Polish Catholic institutions, notably the University of Notre Dame and St. Francis's Seminary, have introduced the study of the Polish language, literature, and history into their curricula. The teaching of Polish has likewise been introduced in the public schools of several of our large cities in which there is a large Polish population. One hundred of the Polish clergy are members of religious communities. Of this number 65 are members of Polish communities or provinces. == (a) Franciscan Fathers (O.F.M.), Commissariate of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Pulaski, Wisconsin: fathers, 8; professed clerics, 7; novice clerics, 4; professed brothers, 18; novice lay brothers, 1; brothers of the Third Order, 3. (b) Franciscan Fathers (O.M.C.), Province of St. Anthony of Padua, Buffalo, New York: fathers, 20; clerics and students, 44; lay brothers, 16. (c) Fathers of the Resurrection: priests, 33, of whom 27 are Poles; brothers, 21. (d) Missionaries of the Divine Love of Jesus, Washington, D.C., 1. (e) Vincentian Fathers (C.M.), Polish Province of the Congregation of the Mission, Chicago: fathers, 8. Polish priests, members of other congregations and orders: == Holy Ghost Fathers, 10; Benedictines, 2; Augustinian, 1; Jesuits, 5; Fathers of the Holy Cross, 10; Redemptorists, 2; Carmelite, 1; Servites, 2; Passionist, 1; Capuchin, 1; Society of the Divine Saviour, 1. Communities of Women. == (a) Bernardine Sisters of St. Francis, Reading, Pennsylvania: sisters, 70. (b) Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, under the Patronage of St. Cunegunde, Chicago: professed sisters, 98; novices, 6; candidates, 26. (c) Polish Franciscan School Sisters, St. Louis, Missouri: professed sisters, 29, novices, 18; postulants, 4; aspirants, 2. (d) Felician Sisters, O.S.F. The Community is divided into three provinces, with mother-houses at Detroit, Buffalo, and Milwaukee. (1) Western Province of Presentation of the B.V.M., mother-house at Detroit, established 1882: professed sisters, 273; novices, 30; postulants, 55; in preparatory course, 65. (2) North-western Province of the Presentation of the B.V.M., Milwaukee: professed sisters, 170; novices, 17; postulants, 27. (3) Eastern Province, Buffalo: professed choir sisters, 278; novices, 32; postulants, 93; lay sisters, professed, 66; novices, 6; postulants, 21; candidates in preparatory course, 73. These were the statistics of the province just prior to the establishment of the new province, with mother-house in Milwaukee, to which 203 professed sisters and novices were transferred (August, 1910). Eastern Province, Buffalo, New York: professed sisters, 240; novices, 50; postulants, 87; professed lay sisters, 61; novices, 3; postulants, 14; candidates, 52. (e) Sisters of the Holy Family of Nazareth, Desplaines, Illinois: professed sisters, 350; novices, 90; postulants, 45. (f) Polish Sisters of St. Joseph, Stevens Point, Wisconsin: professed sisters, 191; novices, 60; candidates, 40. (g) Sisters of the Resurrection, Chicago: professed sisters, 50; novices, 13; candidates, 19. Total number in communities distinctively Polish, 2180. There are upwards of eight hundred Polish sisters in the various non-Polish communities. Of this number 412 are members of the Community of the School Sisters of Notre Dame (Milwaukee); 30 belong to the Holy Cross community (Notre Dame, Indiana); 73 to the Sisters of St. Francis (La Fayette, Indiana), 20 to the Sisters of St. Francis (St. Francis, Wisconsin). Since 1900 the efficiency of the various census and immigration bureaux has been greatly improved, and statistics of Polish immigration are thoroughly reliable. Government Census Reports have hitherto been inadequate, partly because of the indifference of the Poles themselves, who frequently were satisfied to be enumerated as Germans, Russians, and Austrians; the classification "natives of Poland" embracing a large non-Polish element, and the migratory character of a large part of the Polish population all added to the confusion. The following tables from the "Report of the Twelfth Census", 1900, are not without interest: YEAR POLISH BORN PERCENTAGE OF FOREIGN TOTAL FOREIGN POPULATION POPULATION ====================== ============================== =============================== 1860 7,298 0.2 1870 14,436 0.3 1880 48,557 0.7 1890 147,440 1.6 1900 383,510 3.7 Persons in the United States having both parents born in Poland, 668,536. Native white persons having one parent born in Poland, 290,912. Total white persons having fathers born in Poland, 704,405; having mothers born in Poland, 683,572. The "natives of Poland" Census, 1900, are classified as follows: + From German Poland . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. 150,237 + From Russian Poland . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . 154,424 + From Austrian Poland . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. 58,503 + Poland, unknown . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . 20,436 YEARS ENDING IMMIGRANTS EMIGRANTS NET GAIN 30 JUNE ========================= ======================= ====================== ======================= 1899 28,446 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1900 46,938 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1901 43,617 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1902 69,620 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1903 82,343 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1904 67,757 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1905 102,437 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1906 95,835 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1907 138,033 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1908 68,105 46,727 21,378 1909 77,565 19,290 58,275 1910 128,348 16,884 111,464 1910 (July-Dec.) 45,448 . . . . . . . . . . . . Since July, 1907, the Bureau of Immigration has recorded the number of departing aliens. The period embraces the financial depression of 1907-08, which sent so many of other nationalities to Europe as to cause a marked decrease in their American numbers. Basing an estimate upon the record of the year ending 30 June, 1910, during which year the United States had resumed an almost normal condition, we may safely assume that the net increase in the number of Poles in the United States was, for the period 1899 to 1 Jan., 1911, not less than 750,000. In the period 1900-07 the outward movement was very slight. The birth-rate in many of our parishes in which the Galician element predominates is almost 50 per cent of the number of families. Statistics given in the accompanying table are based upon the following sources, viz: == the "Official Catholic Directory" (1911); manuscript information received from Polish clergy and non-Polish priests labouring among the Poles; information received from officials of various Polish organizations; reports (several based upon special census taken for this article) sent by 46 archbishops and bishops, in whose diocese are more than 90 per cent of the Polish clergy; recent reports of the Bureau of Immigration, which give the intended destination of the immigrants. Where discrepancies occur in the various reports, averages have not been struck, but an effort was made to learn the method used in making an estimate in typical districts. Allowance should be made for the recent natural increase and enormous immigration, the vast floating population, the 800 small settlements neither constituting Polish parishes nor having Polish pastors, the "Independents", those indifferent to the Faith, the single men. A number of the reports were based upon a census taken in 1907. Taking all these factors into consideration it may be safely assumed that there are no fewer than 2,800,000 Poles in the United States. ARCHDIO- CLER- PAR- SCH- NUNS LAY SCH- POLISH CESE GY ISHES OOLS TEACH- TEACH- OOL POPU- ING ERS CHIL- LATION DREN ================== ============== ============== ============= ============== ============= ============== ============== Baltimore 9 5 3 25 . . . 1,616 16,700 Boston 8 8 3 7 2 414 13,747 Chicago 81 36 28 362 . . . 23,283 223,304 Cincinnati 2 2 2 . . . 2 95 981 Milwaukee 44 18 17 148 7 9,232 59,182 New York 11 9 4 . . . 5 553 30,000 Oregon city 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,600 Philadelphia 28 19 11 51 6 3,470 56,000 St. Louis 7 6 6 . . . . . . 849 12,700 St. Paul 9 9 5 23 2 1,275 11,500 DIOCESE CLER- PAR- SCH- NUNS LAY SCH- POLISH GY ISHES OOLS TEACH- TEACH- OOL POPU- ING ERS CHILD- LATION REN ================== ============ ============ =========== ============= ============== =============== ================== Albany 9 7 5 15 15 1,541 13,200 Altoona 8 7 4 . . . 5 504 17,515 Belleville 6 5 4 10 1 375 5,491 Brooklyn 14 11 6 25 2 1,285 46,000 Buffalo 41 21 21 141 1 8,398 88,759 Burlington 2 2 1 . . . 2 64 2,200 Cheyenne 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838 Cleveland 24 18 12 55 10 4,927 51,990 Columbus 4 4 4 5 2 325 3,216 Crookston 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,100 Dallas l 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 Denver 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,400 Detroit 33 18 16 138 . . . 8,028 49,000 Duluth 7 7 2 3 . . . 390 5,476 Erie 8 7 5 18 . . . 1,610 13,200 Fall River 4 4 2 6 1 372 6,200 Fargo 5 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,200 Fort Wayne 18 13 12 55 1 3,031 29,000 Galveston 8 8 4 5 5 329 7,205 Grand Rapids 19 17 14 81 4 4,418 40,200 Green Bay 33 28 19 47 2 2,344 23,231 Harrisburg 6 4 4 21 . . . 1,800 9,544 Hartford 16 11 10 14 19 1,740 39,000 Kansas City 1 1 1 1 . . . 40 900 La Crosse 13 12 8 18 3 797 11,032 Leavenworth 1 1 1 3 . . . 86 1,100 Lincoln 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,400 Little Rock 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,550 Louisville 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 Manchester 3 2 1 5 . . . 184 1,900 Marquette 7 8 2 4 1 283 9,500 Mobile 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 Monterey and Los Angeles 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,200 Newark 15 11 7 39 1 2,570 50,550 Ogdensburg 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,100 Omaha 15 12 7 47 . . . 1,613 16,000 Peoria 6 6 5 26 2 1,429 12,140 Pittsburg 40 33 19 74 18 4,913 77,309 Providence 6 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,500 Rochester 3 3 3 11 . . . 496 4,700 Rockford 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 St. Cloud 17 14 6 18 4 639 12,076 St. Joseph 1 1 1 4 . . . 190 1,700 Salt Lake 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 San Antonio 8 10 10 32 . . . 1,071 6,042 Scranton 33 32 12 23 4 1,842 52,200 Seattle 3 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,800 Sioux City 1 1 1 3 . . . 57 1,100 Sioux Falls 2 1 1 . . . 2 90 1,250 Springfield 9 8 4 45 . . . 1,437 28,580 Superior 8 8 3 13 . . . 493 7,200 Syracuse 4 4 2 6 2 455 4,500 Trenton 13 8 7 25 2 1,687 23,000 Wheeling 4 4 1 . . . 1 78 6,000 Wichita 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,100 Wilmington 1 1 1 8 . . . 500 4,200 Winona 8 7 3 18 . . . 925 6,420 ================== ============ ============ =========== ============= ============== =============== ================== (Totals) 702 517 330 1,678 134 104,143 1,244,428 ARCHDIOCESE, POLISH DIOCESE,OR POPULATION VICARIATE APOSTOLIC =========================== ========================== Dubuque 800 New Orleans 700 San Francisco 3,000 Santa Fe 550 Alexandria 400 Alton 410 Baker City 500 Bismarck 600 Boise 700 Concordia 300 Covington 450 Davenport 550 Helena 800 Indianapolis 900 Lead 300 Nashville 600 Natchez 350 Oklahoma 700 Portland 1,600 Richmond 900 Sacramento 800 St. Augustine 250 Savannah 1,200 Tucson 300 Brownsville 350 North Carolina 420 Alaska, Hawaii, etc. 400 =========================== ========================== Total 18,830 The Polish Press in the United States Since the appearance of the first issue of the "Echo z Polski" (Echo from Poland), 1 June, 1863, in New York the Polish Press has been a faithful mirror of the conditions obtaining among the Poles in the United States. No fewer than one hundred and forty papers have been established since 1863, but of this number not more than seventy have survived, and the number is constantly fluctuating, although there is a steady average increase from year to year. The first paper was devoted entirely to agitation in favour of the mother country. Its publication was discontinued in 1865. Not until 1870 was another attempt made, when the "Orzel Bialy" (The White Eagle), made its appearance at Washington, Missouri, a promising Polish colony. The paper was issued at irregular intervals until 1875, and differed from the "Echo", inasmuch as it was devoted entirely to the affairs of the Poles in America. A third paper was established at Union, Missouri, by John Barzynski, for many years after a prominent figure among the American Poles. This third paper was the "Pielgrzym" (Pilgrim), which later became "Gazeta Polska Katolicka", published at Detroit until 1875, since when it has been published at Chicago and has borne the name "Gazeta Katolicka". For many years it was the organ of Father Vincent Barzynski and the Resurrectionist Fathers, and its strong militant spirit passed into the "Dziennik Chicagoski", established by them in 1890. Until 1880 the "Gazeta" was edited by John Barzynski, who was succeeded by Ladislaus Smulski. Both were men of no mean ability and sterling Catholicity. The "Gazeta Katolicka" passed into the control of Ladislaus Smulski, and is still published by the Smulski estate. It has always preserved its splendidly Catholic tone, and still ranks as the foremost among the Polish Catholic weeklies. The "Gazeta Polska" was founded by Ladislaus Dyniewicz at Chicago in 1873, and for many years the "Gazeta Katolicka" and the "Gazeta Polska" were avowed champions of two factions, the Catholic Conservatives and the Nationalists. The circulation of the two papers is about 20,000. Of the seventy Polish papers now published, nineteen are published at Chicago. Not more than twenty are really as well as professedly Catholic. About twenty-five are "neutral", while the rest range from the merely neutral to the "yellow" anti-clerical daily papers published at Chicago and Milwaukee, and the two Socialistic papers. The latter are less harmful to the Polish masses than the sensational papers claiming to be Catholic but countenancing open opposition to ecclesiastical authority. It is remarkable testimony to the faith of the Polish masses that this campaign of vilification has not been fraught with greater harm, and that it must be carried on under the pretence of the reformation of the Polish clergy. With the exception of the avowedly Socialistic Press, which lays no claim to being Polish in spirit, none of the papers are professedly atheistic or irreligious. Of the nine Polish daily papers four are published at Chicago, two at Buffalo, two at Milwaukee, and one at Detroit. Their combined circulation is nearly 80,000; that of the "Dziennik Chicagoski" is over 16,000. Three of the daily papers, "Dziennik Chicagoski", "Nowiny Polskie" ("The Polish News", Milwaukee), and the "Polak w Ameryce" ("The Pole in America", Buffalo), are thoroughly Catholic; one published at Chicago is Socialistic; one, the "Zgoda" (Harmony), published at Chicago, is "neutral" and openly anti-clerical. The sensational Press, daily and weekly, constitutes the most demoralizing factor among the American Poles, brazenly defying every law of journalistic ethics, publishing every scandal under heavy display lines, bitterly attacking clergy, religious communities, and parochial schools, comparable only to the lowest type of journalism of the Latin countries. Of the Polish daily papers, the oldest is the "Dziennik Chicagoski", a valiant defender of the Faith throughout the twenty years of its publication. With but short interruption, its guiding spirit from the beginning has been Stanislaus Szwajkart, one of the ablest Catholic journalists in the United States. Another daily, a tower of strength in the Catholic cause, is "Polak w Ameryce", for many years edited by Stanislaus Slisz, whose brilliant mind was equalled only by his uncompromising Catholicism. The circulation is 14,000. FORD, Century Magazine (Feb., 1902); Official Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, 1911); MODJESKA, Memories and Impressions, an Autobiography (New York, 1910); American Catholic Historical Researches (January and April, 1910); VAN NORMAN, Poland, the Knight among Nations (New York, 1907); BALCH, Our Slavic Fellow-Citizens (New York, 1910); STEINER, On the Trail of the Immigrant (New York, 1906); IDEM, The Immigrant Tide, its Ebb and Flow (New York, 1909); MAYO-SMITH, Emigration and Immigration (New York, 1908); Reports of the Commissioner General of Immigration (Washington, 1908, 1909, 1910); Twelfth Census of the United States (Washington, 1901-04); HALL, Immigration and its Effects upon the United States (New York, 1908); Statesman's Year Book (London, 1910); DORSEY, letters in the Chicago Tribune (Oct. and Nov., 1910); WEYL, The Outlook (April, 1910); WARNE, The Slav Invasion (Philadelphia, 1904); KRUSZKA, Historya Polska w Ameryce (Milwaukee, 1905-08); OSADA, Historya Zwiazku N. P. (Chicago, 1905); ZAHAJKIEWICZ, Zlota Ksiega (Chicago, 1897); DUNIKOWSKI, Wsrod Polonii w Ameryce (Lemberg, 1893); BUJAK, Galicya (Lemberg, 1910); SZCZEPANOWSKI, Nedza, Galicyi w Cyfrach (Lemberg, 1888); KARBOWIAK, Dzieje Edukacyjne Polaków na Obczyznie (Lemberg, 1911); OSADA, O Stronnictwie Demokratyczno-Narodowym i Lidze Narodowej == Liga Narodowa a Polacy w Ameryce == Sokolstwo Polskie (Chicago, 1905); SIENKIEWICZ, Listy z Podrozy (Warsaw, 1894); Pamiatka Srebrnego Jubileuszu Parafii Sw. Stanislawa Kostki w Pittsburgu (Pittsburg, 1901); Dzieje Parafii Sw. Trojcy (Chicago, 1898); Pamiatka Srebrnego Jubileuszu Parafii Sw. Jozefa w Manistee (Manistee, 1909); Historya Parafii Sw. Jacka (La Salle, Illinois, 1900); BERNARD, Die Polenfrage (Leipzig, 1910); IDEM, Die Stadtpolitik in Gebiet des deutschpolnischen nationalitatenkampfes (Leipzig, 1909); SEROCZYNSKI, Confessions of a Polish Priest in Catholic Standard and Times. FELIX THOMAS SEROCZYNSKI Poles in the U.S. (Table) Poles in the United States (Table) YEAR POLISH BORN PERCENTAGE OF FOREIGN TOTAL FOREIGN POPULATION POPULATION ====================== ============================== =============================== 1860 7,298 0.2 1870 14,436 0.3 1880 48,557 0.7 1890 147,440 1.6 1900 383,510 3.7 YEARS ENDING IMMIGRANTS EMIGRANTS NET GAIN 30 JUNE ========================= ======================= ====================== ======================= 1899 28,446 ...... ...... 1900 46,938 ...... ...... 1901 43,617 ...... ...... 1902 69,620 ...... ...... 1903 82,343 ...... ...... 1904 67,757 ...... ...... 1905 102,437 ...... ...... 1906 95,835 ...... ...... 1907 138,033 ...... ...... 1908 68,105 46,727 21,378 1909 77,565 19,290 58,275 1910 128,348 16,884 111,464 1910 (July-Dec.) 45,448 ...... ...... ARCHDIO- CLER- PAR- SCH- NUNS LAY SCH- POLISH CESE GY ISHES OOLS TEACH- TEACH- OOL POPU- ING ERS CHIL- LATION DREN ================== ============== ============== ============= ============== ============= ============== ============== Baltimore 9 5 3 25 ... 1,616 16,700 Boston 8 8 3 7 2 414 13,747 Chicago 81 36 28 362 ... 23,283 223,304 Cincinnati 2 2 2 ... 2 95 981 Milwaukee 44 18 17 148 7 9,232 59,182 New York 11 9 4 ... 5 553 30,000 Oregon city 1 1 ... ... ... ... 1,600 Philadelphia 28 19 11 51 6 3,470 56,000 St. Louis 7 6 6 ... ... 849 12,700 St. Paul 9 9 5 23 2 1,275 11,500 DIOCESE CLER- PAR- SCH- NUNS LAY SCH- POLISH GY ISHES OOLS TEACH- TEACH- OOL POPU- ING ERS CHILD- LATION REN ================== ============ ============ =========== ============= ============== =============== ================== Albany 9 7 5 15 15 1,541 13,200 Altoona 8 7 4 ... 5 504 17,515 Belleville 6 5 4 10 1 375 5,491 Brooklyn 14 11 6 25 2 1,285 46,000 Buffalo 41 21 21 141 1 8,398 88,759 Burlington 2 2 1 ... 2 64 2,200 Cheyenne 1 1 ... ... ... .... 838 Cleveland 24 18 12 55 10 4,927 51,990 Columbus 4 4 4 5 2 325 3,216 Crookston 2 2 ... ... ... ... 1,100 Dallas l 1 ... ... ... ... 700 Denver 1 1 ... ... ... ... 2,400 Detroit 33 18 16 138 ... 8,028 49,000 Duluth 7 7 2 3 ... 390 5,476 Erie 8 7 5 18 ... 1,610 13,200 Fall River 4 4 2 6 1 372 6,200 Fargo 5 5 ... ... ... ... 7,200 Fort Wayne 18 13 12 55 1 3,031 29,000 Galveston 8 8 4 5 5 329 7,205 Grand Rapids 19 17 14 81 4 4,418 40,200 Green Bay 33 28 19 47 2 2,344 23,231 Harrisburg 6 4 4 21 ... 1,800 9,544 Hartford 16 11 10 14 19 1,740 39,000 Kansas City 1 1 1 1 ... 40 900 La Crosse 13 12 8 18 3 797 11,032 Leavenworth 1 1 1 3 ... 86 1,100 Lincoln 1 1 ... ... ... ... 1,400 Little Rock 1 1 ... ... ... ... 1,550 Louisville 2 ... ... ... ... ... 400 Manchester 3 2 1 5 ... 184 1,900 Marquette 7 8 2 4 1 283 9,500 Mobile 1 1 ... ... ... ... 400 Monterey and Los Angeles 1 1 ... ... ... ... 1,200 Newark 15 11 7 39 1 2,570 50,550 Ogdensburg 1 1 ... ... ... ... 1,100 Omaha 15 12 7 47 ... 1,613 16,000 Peoria 6 6 5 26 2 1,429 12,140 Pittsburg 40 33 19 74 18 4,913 77,309 Providence 6 5 ... ... ... ... 5,500 Rochester 3 3 3 11 ... 496 4,700 Rockford 1 ... ... ... ... ... 600 St. Cloud 17 14 6 18 4 639 12,076 St. Joseph 1 1 1 4 ... 190 1,700 Salt Lake 1 ... ... ... ... ... 600 San Antonio 8 10 10 32 ... 1,071 6,042 Scranton 33 32 12 23 4 1,842 52,200 Seattle 3 3 ... ... ... ... 2,800 Sioux City 1 1 1 3 ... 57 1,100 Sioux Falls 2 1 1 ... 2 90 1,250 Springfield 9 8 4 45 ... 1,437 28,580 Superior 8 8 3 13 ... 493 7,200 Syracuse 4 4 2 6 2 455 4,500 Trenton 13 8 7 25 2 1,687 23,000 Wheeling 4 4 1 ... 1 78 6,000 Wichita 1 1 ... ... ... ... 1,100 Wilmington 1 1 1 8 ... 500 4,200 Winona 8 7 3 18 ... 925 6,420 ================== ============ ============ =========== ============= ============== =============== ================== (Totals) 702 517 330 1,678 134 104,143 1,244,428 ARCHDIOCESE, POLISH DIOCESE,OR POPULATION VICARIATE APOSTOLIC =========================== ========================== Dubuque 800 New Orleans 700 San Francisco 3,000 Santa Fe 550 Alexandria 400 Alton 410 Baker City 500 Bismarck 600 Boise 700 Concordia 300 Covington 450 Davenport 550 Helena 800 Indianapolis 900 Lead 300 Nashville 600 Natchez 350 Oklahoma 700 Portland 1,600 Richmond 900 Sacramento 800 St. Augustine 250 Savannah 1,200 Tucson 300 Brownsville 350 North Carolina 420 Alaska, Hawaii, etc. 400 =========================== ========================== Total 18,830 Policastro Policastro DIOCESE OF POLICASTRO (POLICASTRENSIS) Diocese in the province of Salerno, Southern Italy. The city is situated on a hill that overlooks that gulf of the Tyrrhenian Sea, to which Policastro gives its name. It is the ancient Pituntia, and may be regarded as the continuation of the Diocese of Buxentum, the first known bishop of which was Rusticus (501), while another, Sabbadius, is mentioned in 649. San Pietro Poppa Carbone (1079), a Benedictine of Cava, resigned after governing the diocese for a short while, and was succeeded by Arnaldo. In 1211 the Emperor Frederick II, disregarding the candidate of the chapter, wished to give this see to his physician, Jacopo, but Innocent III appointed the regularly elected bishop. Other bishops of Policastro were: Gabriele Atilio (1471), a Latin poet; Urbano Felicio (1630), who held a synod, and was the author of several excellent works; Filippo Jacobio (1652) remodelled the episcopal palace of Orsaca, where the bishops usually reside; Vincenzo de Sylva, O.P. (1672), remodelled the episcopal of Policastro; he was besieged in his palace of Orsaca by Count Fabrizio Carafa, on account of his firmness in maintaining the rights of his Church; Tommaso della Rosa (1679) restored the cathedral; Antonio della Rosa (1705) restored the seminary. In the Diocese of S. Giovanni a Piro there was a Basilian monastery. Policastro is a suffragan of Salerno; it has 38 parishes, with 64,000 inhabitants; 2 religious houses of men, and 3 of women; 207 secular, 9 regular priests; 234 churches or chapels. Mgr. Vescia is the present bishop. CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XXI. U. BENIGNI Melchior de Polignac Melchior de Polignac Cardinal, diplomatist, and writer, b. of an ancient family of Auvergne, at Le Puy, France, 11 October, 1661; d. in Paris, 3 April, 1742. He studied with great distinction at the Collège de Clermont and the Sorbonne. While still a young man, he was present at the conclave which elected Pope Alexander VIII in 1689; and he took part in the negotiations at Rome concerning the Declaration of 1682. In 1691 he assisted at the election of Innocent XII, and in 1693 was appointed ambassador extraordinary to Poland. Here he won the favour of John Sobieski, and succeeded in having the Prince de Conti chosen as Sobieski's successor. Through Conti's dilatoriness, the election proved ineffectual, and Louis XIV, blaming Polignac, ordered him to return to his Abbey of Bon-Port. In 1702, however, he was granted two new abbeys and in 1706 sent to Rome, with Cardinal de la Trémoille, charged to settle the affairs of France with Clement XI. Between 1710 and 1713 he energetically supported French interests at the Conferences of Gertruydenberg and the Congress of Utrecht, and in 1713 was made cardinal. Compromised in Cellamare's conspiracy, he was banished, in 1718, to his abbey of Auchin, in Flanders. In 1724 he was again placed in charge of French interests at Rome and assisted at the conclave which elected Benedict XIII. For eight years he represented his country at the Court of Rome, occupied with the difficulties arising out of the Bull "Unigenitus", and returned to France in 1730, having been Archbishop of Auch since 1724. Devoted to art and literature, and the collection of medals and antiques, Polignac became a member of the Academy in 1704, succeeding Bossuet. His addresses, sometimes delivered in Latin as correct and fluent as his French, were much admired. His great work, "Anti-Lucretius", a poem in nine books (Paris, 1745), offers a refutation of Lucretius and of Bayle, as well as an attempt to determine the nature of the Supreme Good, of the soul, of motion, and of space. His philosophical views == generally similar to those of Descartes == are questionable, but the poem is, in form, the best imitation of Lucretius and Virgil extant. CHARLEVOIX in Mémoires de Trévoux (June, 1742); FAUCHER, Vie de card. de Polignac (Paris, 1777); DE BOZE, Histoire de l'Académie des inscriptions. J. LATASTE Politi, Lancelot Lancelot Politi (in religion AMBROSIUS CATHARINUS) Born at Siena, 1483; died at Naples, 1553. At sixteen he became Doctor of Civil and Canon Law (J.U.D.) in the academy of Siena. After visiting many academies in Italy and France he was appointed (1508) a professor at Siena, and had among his pupils Giovanni del Monte, afterwards Pope Julius III, and the celebrated Sixtus of Siena, a converted Jew who esteemed his master, yet severely criticized some of his writings. About 1513 he entered the Order of St. Dominic in the convent of St. Mark, at Florence. He studied Scripture and theology without a master. This may account for his independence, and his defence of opinions which were singular, especially in regard to predestination, the certitude of possessing grace, the residence of bishops in their dioceses, and the intention required in the minister of a sacrament. He was a strenuous defender of the Faith against Luther and his followers; and was prominent in the discussions of the Council of Trent, to which he was called by his former pupil, Cardinal del Monte, legate of Paul III. In the third public session (4 February, 1546), Catharinus pronounced a notable discourse, later published ["Oratio ad Patres Conc. Trid." (Louvain, 1567; Paris, 1672)]. Notwithstanding attacks upon his teaching he was appointed Bishop of Minori in 1546, and, in 1552, Archbishop of Conza, Province of Naples. Pope Julius III, successor of Paul III, called Politi to Rome, intending, says Echard, to elevate him to the cardinalate, but he died before reaching Rome. Historians and theologians generally have regarded Catharinus as a brilliant, eccentric genius, who did much good, was frequently accused of teaching false doctrines, yet always kept within the bounds of orthodoxy. Pallavicini and other authorities declare positively that the Council of Trent did not condemn his singular opinions. His zeal and activity are universally praised; he defended the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and submitted all his writings to the judgment of the Church, regretting towards the end of his life the vehemence with which he had combatted Cardinal Cajetan and Father Dominic Soto (Echard). His principal works (for complete list see Echard) are: "Apologia pro veritate catholicæ et apostolicæ fldei ac doctrinæ, adversus impia ac pestifera Martini Lutheri dogmata" (Florence, 1520); "Speculum hæreticorum" (Lyons, 1541), with two opuscula on original sin and justification; "Annotationes in commentaria Cajetani super sacram Scripturam" (Lyons, 1542); "Tractatus quæstionis quo jure episcoporum residentia debeatur" (Venice, 1547); "Defensio catholicorum pro possibili certitudine gratiæ" (ibid., 1547); "Summa doctrinæ de prædestinatione" (Rome, 1550); "Commentaria in omnes D. Pauli epistolas et alias septem canonicas" (Venice, 1551); "Disputatio pro veritate immaculatæ conceptionis B. Virginis" (Rome, 1551). He also published numerous opuscula, e. g., on Providence and predestination, on the state of children dying without baptism; on giving communion to young children; on celibacy; on the Scriptures and their translation into the vernacular. QUÉTIF-ECHARD, Script. Ord. Proed., II (Paris, 1721), 144; TOURON, Hist. des hommes illustres de l'Ordre de S. Dom., IV (Paris. 1747), 128; PALLAVICINI, Hist. Conc. Trid.: De int. ministri, De Resid. epis. (Antwerp, 1670; Cologne, 1717, 1727); SIXTUS SENENSIS, Bibliotheca Sancta, Bks. IV, V, VI (Venice, 1566). D. J. KENNEDY. Politian Politian (ANGIOLO DE 'AMBROSINI DA MONTE PULCIANO) An Italian Humanist, born at Monte Pulciano in 1454; died at Florence in 1494. At the age of ten he went to Florence, where he followed the courses of Landino, Argyropoulos, Andronicus Callistus, and Marsilio Ficino. In 1477 he was tutor to the children of Lorenzo the Magnificent, and became one of the Accademia which Lorenzo had grouped about him, in which with Marsilio Ficino, were associated Landino, Pico della Mirandola, and Hermolaus Barbarus. Politian was professor of Greek and Latin literature at Florence from 1480; among his pupils were the Englishmen, Grocyn and Linacre, and the German Reuchlin. He was rather a master and interpreter of the ancient spirit than a philologist. His lessons on each author were preceded by an introduction, often in verse, with a poetic title: "Nutritia" for the general eulogy of poetry, "Rusticus" for Hesiod and the Georgics of Virgil, "Manto" for Virgil, "Ambra" for Homer. His discourses or preliminary poems form a collection called "Prælectiones". Politian was one of the first Italian Humanists who succeeded in rivalling the Greek scholarship of the native-born Hellenes. At eighteen he translated Books I to V of the "Iliad" and won the surname of Homericus juvenis. Subsequently he translated Callimacus, the historian Herodien, Epictetus, the "Charmides" of Plato, the "Eroticus" of Plutarch, treatises of Hippocrates and Galian, and selections from Moschus and the "Anthology". He read many other authors, which for a long time existed only in manuscript, e. g., the "Months" of John Lydus which Schow made known only in 1794. His most important philological work is his collection of "Miscellanea" (1489), wherein he treats various scholarly subjects; the employment of breathings in Greek and Latin, the chronology of Cicero's familiar letters, the orthography of the name of Virgil, which he fixed under the form Vergilius, the discovery of purple, the difference between the aorist and the imperfect in the signature of Greek sculptors. He was a modern philologist in his efforts to recover the best manuscripts and to procure collations. He thus contributed towards improving the text or preserved intact the Latin elegiacs, the "Silvæ" of Statius, Terence, Lucretius, Ovid, Celsus, Quintilian, Festus, Ausonius, the agricultural treatises. The critical editions of these authors place his name in the history of manuscripts, but he made a special study of the "Pandects" on the sixth century Manuscripts brought from Pisa to Florence in 1411. As a Humanist, Politian is a Latin writer ef poetry and prose, a poet of Latin sentiment in Italian. He does not share the Ciceronian purity of Valla, but endeavours to create a personal style. He had to defend these ideas against the Latin secretary of Florence, Bartolomeo Scala and against Paolo Cortesi. He was one of the earliest to attract attention to the Latin writers of the Silver Age. His Latin, like his Italian, verses are full of grace and sentiment. He wrote in Latin a history of the conspiracy of the Pazzi in which he took Sallust as a model. His letters together with those of Bembo were long considered as realizing the ideal of style. SANDYS, A Hist. of Classical Scholarship, II (Cambridge, 1908), 83; MÄHLY, Ang. Politianus, Ein Culturbild aus d. Renaissance (Leipzig, 1864); BERNAYS, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, II (Berlin, 1885), 330; SYMONDS, The Renaissance in Italy, II (London, 1875-86), 345; SABBADINI, Ciceronianismo (Turin, 1886), 34; IDEM, Le scoperte dei codici (Florence, 1905), 151. Editions: Opera (Venice, 1498; Florence, 1499; Basle, 1553); Epistoloe (Basle, 1522; Anvers. 1567); Opera, Epistoloe, Miscellanea (Lyons, 1526); Poesie latine e greche in Prose Volgari, ed. DEL LUNGO (Florence, 1867). PAUL LEJAY. Political Economy Political Economy Science of Political Economy (Economics). I. DEFINITIONS Political economy (Greek, oikonomia == the management of a household or family, politike == pertaining to the state) or economics (ta oikonomika == the art of household management) is the social science which treats of man's activities in providing the material means to satisfy his wants. Economy originally meant the management and regulation of the resources of the household; that is, of the immediate family with its slaves and dependents. Political economy originally meant the management of the household of the State. It was so used as late as Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, 1776), who defined it thus: Political economy considered as a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator proposes two distinct objects, first, to supply a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and secondly, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public service. It proposes to enrich both the people and the sovereign. The sum of the efforts and activities of the members of the household in acquiring the means to satisfy their wants may be designated as the economy of the household. Where a household is not economically self-sufficing, that is, where households are economically interdependent, we have a broader economy. Where this interdependence is state- or nation-wide, there exists a national economy or political economy. The term political economy is used in yet a third sense. It is the name of the science which treats of this nation-wide complexus of economic activities. II. METHOD Deductive. English economists in the early part of the nineteenth century, beginning with Malthus and Ricardo, hoped to establish a science of political economy independent of the art of the statesman, which would vie with the natural sciences in the exactness of its conclusions. They narrowed the field as conceived by Adam Smith by variously defining political economy as the science of wealth, the science of value, or the science of exchanges. But along with this narrowing of the field and the attainment of scientific precision in the use of terms went a divorce of their science from the economic realities of life. Their method was strictly deductive. Beginning with three or four principles for which they claimed universal validity, they proceeded to deduce a complete system without further appeal to the facts of life. These English writers, known as the Classical or Orthodox School, held that political economy must not concern itself with ethical or practical considerations. To do so, in their opinion, would degrade it to an art, for the science of political economy was concerned merely with the explanation of the causal relations existing among economic phenomena. It was their business as economists simply to explain the existing economic system not to defend or condemn it, nor to show how it might be replaced by a better one. To them good and bad were concepts which concerned moralists and not economists. Inductive. In opposition to this narrow and non-ethical view of the Classical School, there arose in Germany in the middle of the nineteenth century, the Historical School, holding that political economy is an inductive and an ethical science. They derided the abstractions of the Orthodox School, some extremists even going so far as to contend that the time was not yet ripe for a science of political economy. The business of their generation, they held, was to gather from observation and history and to classify the economic facts upon which future economists might construct a science. Deductive and Inductive. After a bitter struggle of half a century the opposition between the schools has almost disappeared, and it is now generally recognized that the economist must use both the deductive and the inductive methods, using now one predominantly and now the other, according to the nature of the problem upon which he happens to be engaged. The best usage of the present time is to make political economy an ethical science, that is, to make it include a discussion of what ought to be in the economic world as well as what is. This has all along been the practice of Catholic writers. Some of them even go so far as to make political economy a branch of ethics and not an independent science. (See Devas, "Principles of Political Economy".) For a further discussion of the relationship between the two sciences, see Ethics. III. SCOPE For purposes of exposition the field of political economy is often divided into four parts: production, consumption, distribution, and exchange. Some authors omit one or another of these divisions, treating its problems under the remaining heads. Production. The department of production is concerned with the creation of wealth through the united efforts of land, labor, and capital. The creation of wealth involves the bringing into existence of utilities, that is, of capacities to satisfy wants. Utilities are created by changes in form of goods, or in their location, or by keeping them from a time of less demand to a time of greater demand. Consumption. Consumption is concerned with the destruction of utilities in goods. It is the utilization of wealth, the carrying out of the purpose for which wealth is produced. Distribution. The department of distribution considers the manner in which the wealth which has been produced is divided among the agents which have produced it. The shares in distribution are: rent, which is paid to the landlord for the use of the land; wages, which is the return to the labourer; interest, which goes to the capitalist for the use of his capital; and profit, which is the reward of the entrepreneur or undertaker of the business. Exchange. Finally, exchange has to do with the transfer of ownership of wealth. Under this head are discussed money and credit and international exchanges. Other Subjects. Outside of these four divisions separate chapters are usually devoted to a consideration of taxation, monopolies, transportation, economic progress, and other problems. Adam Smith and his immediate followers were more closely concerned with the problems of production. Owing to the world's remarkable progress in that direction in the last century, the inequalities of distribution have come more and more into prominence, and this is now the favourite field of the economist. IV. HISTORY Ancient. In ancient Greece and Rome there was little likelihood of the emergence of a science of political economy. Their industrial system was founded on slavery, the great estates were for the most part self-sufficient economic units, leaving comparatively little room for commerce, and labour was held in contempt by the thinking element. However, fragmentary discussions on economic subjects, mingled with ethical and political considerations, are to be found. Xenophon has a rather extensive treatment of household economy. Plato, in the "Republic", advocates an ideal communistic State. Aristotle presents a defense of private property, and writes against the taking of interest on the ground that money is barren. He defends warmly the institution of slavery. Among the Romans there was not much originality. We find frequent discussions of the relative merits of large and small farms. Cicero, Pliny the Elder, and other writers deplored the introduction of gold as a medium of exchange and preferred the age of barter. Seneca wrote upon the ethics of political economy and pleaded for the simple life. Patristic Writers. Under Christian influence labour, which had been held in contempt by the Pagans, came to be respected and honoured. The rigors of slavery were mitigated and the milder form of serfdom grew up, which later gave way to free labour. The Roman law had insisted on the rights of property; the early Fathers on the other hand, insisted on the rights of man. Some even went to the extent of advocating a system of communism as the ideal state, merely tolerating private property. "The soil," says St. Ambrose, "was given to rich and poor in common." St. Gregory the Great, St. Augustine, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Jerome write in similar vein. The taking of usury was universally condemned. Middle Ages. By the end of the Middle Ages there was developed a complete and systematic economic doctrine. This doctrine differed from modern political economy in two important aspects. In the first place it was made to fit the economic institutions of that day, and would be inadequate if applied to ours; and secondly, the emphasis was placed upon the ethically desirable rather than upon the actually existent, However, this latter distinction is now very much less marked than it was in the first half of the nineteenth century. Such questions as property, wealth, consumption, value, price, money, loans, monopoly, and taxation were treated in detail. To the medieval theologian, the "just price" of an article included enough to pay fair wages to the worker, that is, enough to enable him to maintain the standard of living of his class. In a like manner, a reasonable profit was defended as the wages of the merchant. With certain limitations, the taking of interest for money loans was forbidden. On the other hand, there were certain classes of productive investments, such as the buying of rent-charges, where interest was allowed. Among the writers of the period on economic subjects, St. Thomas Aquinas takes first place. Other writers of importance were Henry of Ghent, Ægidius Colonna, Petrarch, Nicholas Oresme, Bishop of Lisieux who wrote a work on money for his pupil Charles V, and finally St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence, and St. Bernardine of Siena. Mercantile System. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries a revolution in industrial activities was taking place which had a profound influence upon the economic literature. The great geographical discoveries, the invention of gunpowder and printing, the decay of feudalism and the rise of modern states, the increase in the supply of the precious metals, and the growing use of credit == all these united to furnish problems for endless discussion. Statesmen, feeling the need of money to support war, adopted various restrictive measures to obtain it. The economic writers who defended these restrictions are usually classed together as the Mercantile School. Sometimes the attempt was made to keep money in the country by prohibiting its exportation or by debasing the coinage. Another way was to encourage the exportation of finished commodities and the importation of raw material in order to secure a balance of trade. Mercantilism reached its highest perfection under Colbert, the Minister of Finance under Louis XIV, and is sometimes referred to as Colbertism. Later imitators of Colbert were less successful, and Mercantilism often degenerated into a system of special privileges and exemptions, without any adequate advantage to the nation. Prominent among the Mercantilist writers were Jean Bodin (d. 1596), Giovanni Botero (d. 1617), Juan Mariana (d. 1623), Antonio Serra (published in 1613), Antoine de Montchrétien (Traité d'économie politique, 1615), who was the originator of the term political economy, and Thomas Mun (d. 1641), author of "England's Treasure by Foreign Trade", System of Natural Liberty. During the Mercantile period statesmen had interested themselves in industry principally for the purpose of carrying on war; in the following period wars were carried on in the interest of industry and commerce. Under Mercantile influence, the attitude of governments had been decidedly paternalistic. In the eighteenth century those who speak for commerce and industry demand that these be allowed to develop freely, unhampered by the guiding strings of government. In France there grew up a school of economic writers later known as the Physiocrats, who protested against the balance of trade doctrine of the Mercantile School and summed up the duties of the government towards industry and commerce in the famous phrase "laissez faire et laissez passer". They believed in a beneficent "order of nature" which should be allowed free play. To them, agriculture alone was productive. The Physiocrats had been strongly influenced by such English writers as Locke, Petty, and Hume, and they in turn were destined to further influence English political economy. Adam Smith (1723-90), "the father of political economy" was a result of the combination of both the English and the French currents. His work, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (1776), gained immediate popularity and exercised profound political influence in the next generation. Smith held that while the individual selfishly seeks his private gain, he is led by an invisible hand to promote the public good, and that since the individual and social interests are identical, the sphere of state action should be narrowed. He thus followed up the attack on the Mercantile system begun by the Physiocrats. He differed from the Physiocrats in making labour as well as land productive. Among the followers of Smith are to be noted Malthus ("Essay on Population", 1798), author of the startling statement that population tends to increase in a geometrical ratio while subsistence tends to increase in an arithmetical ratio, and Ricardo ("Principles of Political Economy and Taxation", 1817), whose name is associated with the differential rent theory, the subsistence theory of wages, and the labour theory of value. Other writers of the English Classical School, who followed closely in the footsteps of Malthus and Ricardo, were James Mill, MacCulloch Senior, and John Stuart Mill. The last named in his later life renounced the individualism of the Orthodox School in favour of socialistic views. Historical School. About the middle of the nineteenth century there began in Germany under the leadership of Wilhelm Roscher, Karl Knies, and Bruno Hildebrand, a reaction against the Orthodox-English School. These writers insisted on the relativity of economic theory, that is, they did not believe that economic principles, good for all times and places, and all degrees of economic development, could be established. Moreover, they insisted strongly on the need of the study of economic history and upon the ethical and practical character of political economy. They were soon in complete control of the economic teaching of Germany. They differ radically from the Physiocrats and Adam Smith in their repudiation of the doctrine of natural liberty. In fact many of them have gone so far in the opposite direction as to be designated Kathedersozialisten (Professorial Socialists), because of their reliance on state help in accomplishing social reforms. Austrian School. Since 1871 there has grown up in Austria a group of writers who make of political economy a deductive and psychological science of value. They oppose to the cost-of-production explanation of value of the Classical School, a theory of value based upon marginal utility. It is a well known psychological fact that the utilities of additional units of a commodity to a consumer diminish as the supply increases. Now it is the utility of the last or marginal unit consumed, says the Austrian School, which determines value. Menger, Wieser, Boehm-Bawerk, in Austria, the late W. Stanley Jevons, in England, and J. B. Clark, in America, are the leading representatives of this school. Socialism. Socialism represents the extreme of reaction against laissez faire or the system of natural liberty of the Physiocrats and Adam Smith. Laissez faire professes to believe in the identity of the interests of the different industrial classes and hence decries the need of restrictive legislation, while socialism emphatically denies that this solidarity exists under our present system and seeks to develop a "class consciousness" among the workers that will overthrow the influence of the dominant class. Economic socialism borrowed the labour theory of value from Ricardo and gave it an ethical interpretation, holding that since labour is the sole producer of wealth, the labourer should receive the entire product. Accordingly, the socialists deny the right of the capitalist to interest and of the landlord to rent, and would make capital and land common property. According to Karl Marx ("Das Kapital", 1867), the founder of so-called scientific socialism, the labourer under the present system does not receive more than a bare subsistence. The "surplus value" which he produces above this amount is appropriated by landlords and capitalists. Another contribution of Marx to socialism is the materialistic conception of history, according to which such factors in history as religion, ethics, and the family, undergo changes corresponding to the changes in the underlying economic organization of which they are a product. Christian Democracy. The movement which has been gaining ground for the last half century among Christian churches, both Catholic and non-Catholic, to emphasize the importance of religious and moral elements in a healthy economic life, and which protests more or less strongly against laissez faire, is usually designated as Christian Socialism. This name is, however, not well chosen, since none of the so-called Christian socialists hold to the fundamental principle of socialism, namely the abolishment of private ownership in the means of production. The Protestant writers in this field have naturally lacked an authority which would hold them together. In England their adoption of co-operative associations as a substitute for competition has given them a unity which they have not attained elsewhere. The Catholic School agrees with the socialists in much of their criticism of the competitive system, but parts company with them by insisting on the place of religion, the family, property, and the employer system in the social scheme. In the matter of state intervention, there are among Catholic writers two general tendencies. The more "liberal" wing, led by such economists as Le Play, Périn, and Victor Brants, would reduce state action to a minimum, while others, looking to Bishop Ketteler, Cardinal Manning, and Count de Mun, would invoke a considerable measure of so-called State socialism. A strong impulse towards unity of effort among Catholics was given by the publication of the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII, "Rerum Novarum", of 15 May, 1891, and "Graves de Communi", of 18 January, 1901. In addition to the writers named above, consult: INGRAM, Hist. of Pot. Econ. (London, 1907); CossA, An In-trod. to the Study of Pot. Econ., tr. from the Ital ian by DYER (London, and New York, 1893) (contains an excellent bibliography); KEYNES, The Scope and Method of Pot. Econ. (London and New York, 1904); ASHLEY, An Introd. to Eng. Econ. Hist. and Theory (New York and London, 1894); MAR SHALL, Prin. of Eco nomics (London, 1898); LIBERATORE, Prin. of Pot, Econ., tr. DARING (London and New York, 1891); SEAGER, Introd. to Economics(NewYork, 1908); ELY, Outlines of Economics (New York, 1908); HADLEY, Eco nomics (New York, 1896); NICHOLSON, Prin. of Pot. Econ. (New York and London, 1893- 1901); SELIGMAN, Prin. of Economics (New York,LondonandBom bay, 1905); WALKER, Pot. Econ. (New York, 1888); RYAN, A Living Wage (New York, 1906); PESCH, Lehrbuch der Nationalökonomie (Freiburg and St. Louis, 1905-1909); WAGNER, Grundlegung der politischen Oekonomie (1892-1894); SCHMOLLER, Grun4riss der allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre (Leipzig, 1900-1904); COHN, Grundlegung der Nationaloekonomie (Stuttgart, 1885- 1898); PHI LIPPOVICH, Grundrtss der politischen Oekonomie (Tubingen, 1904); LEROY-BEAULIEU, TraitÈ d'économie politique (Paris, 1910); GIDE, Cours d'économie politique (Paris, 1909); SAY, Trditê d'Èconomie politique (Paris, 1803); JANNET, Le Socialisme d'etat et la RÈforme Sociale (Paris, 1890); HITZE, Die Arbeiterfrage (Berlin, 1900); ANTOINE, Cours d'économie sociale (Paris, 1899); RATZINOER, Die Volkswirtschaft in ihren sittlichen Grundlagen (Freiburg, 1881); PALGRAVE, Dtcttonary of Pot. Econ. (London and New York, 1894-1899); CONRAD, Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften (Jena, 1890-1894); BRUDER in Staatslexikon (Freiburg and St. Louis, 1889-1897). FRANK O'HARA Antonio and Piero Benci Pollajuolo Antonio and Piero Benci Pollajuolo Antonio and Piero Benci Pollajuolo derived their surname, according to Florentine custom, from the trade of their father, who was a dealer in poultry. Both were born at Florence, Antonio about 1432, Piero in 1443; both died in Rome, the younger in 1496. the elder in 1498, and both were buried in the same tomb in San Pietro in Vincoli. Antonio studied painting under Uccello, and was influenced by Baldovinetti. Among his individual paintings are: "David" (Berlin Museum); "Fight of Hercules with Antæus", "Fight of Hercules with the Hydra", two small panels (Uffizi); "Hercules and Nessus" (Jarves collection, New Haven, Conn.); "Communion of Mary Magdalen" (Pieve de Staggia, near Poggibonsi). The collaboration of the brothers began in 1465. Piero, brought up in his brother's studio, received lessons from Castagno, Uccello, and Baldovinetti. He painted the altar piece representing "Sts. James, Vincent, and Eustachius" (Uffizi); "Tobias and the Angel" (Museum of Turin); and the "Annunciation" (Museum of Berlin). Both brothers drew designs depicting the life of St. John the Baptist, from which were made the embroideries for the San Giovanni baptistery (Museum of the Duomo, Florence). In 1475 they finished the altar piece representing the "Martyrdom of St. Sebastian" (National Gallery, London). The Pollajuoli were likewise portrait painters of renown, but these works have nearly all perished. The portrait of the wife of Giovanni Bardi (Museum Poldi-Pezzoli, Milan) has been ascribed to Antonio. To Piero are credited: the "Galeazzo Sforza" (Uffizi), six of the cardinal and theological "Virtues" (Mercanzia of Florence, 1469), sitting in marble niches, with mosaic ornamentation, and characterized by nobility and gravity, and the "Coronation of the Virgin" (Church of San Gimignano 1483), a mediocre altar piece. Antonio was chiefly a goldsmith and sculptor. As a goldsmith he worked in the studio of Ghiberti. His two masterpieces in the Baptistery are the bas-relief of the "Nativity" (Museum of the Duomo), and the large silver cross which he executed in collaboration with Betto di Francesco Betti. As a sculptor he was the pupil of Donatello and excelled in the treatment of bronze. He executed the small group of "Hercules and Cacus", several busts, and (1493) the tomb of Sixtus IV, ordered by Innocent VIII. This magnificent bronze tomb is in St. Peter's, in the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament. The head is a remarkable portrait, made from a cast and crowned with the tiara, on which Antonio expended all the delicacy of his talent as a goldsmith. At the sides the liberal and prospective arts are represented as half-nude women, refined and elegant, but pagan. The monument to Innocent VIII at St. Peter's was also executed by Pollajuolo. In the lower part the pope is represented as dead, while above he is depicted as in life, seated on his throne and giving his blessing. The ornamental female figures of Virtues are charming but profane. Antonio Pollajuolo also carried his passion for anatomy and the male nude into painting, even in religious pictures such as the "Martyrdom of St. Sebastian", where it is quite offensive. He was "the first of those great pagan artists of the Italian Renaissance for whom the human form, living or dead, and the study of anatomy and the nude became the sole aim and irresistible passion" (A. Pératé). VASARI, Le vite de' più eccellenti pittori . . . ed. MILANESI, III (Florence, 1878), 289-301 (tr. London, 1885); CROWE AND CAVALCASELLE, A new history of painting in Italy, II (London, 1869), 382; BLANC, Ecole florentine in Histoire des peintres de toutes les Ecoles (Paris, 1869-77); LÜBKE, Gesch. der italienischen Malerei, I (Stuttgart, 1878), 313; MÜNTZ, Histoire de l'art pendant la Renaissance, II (Paris, 1891), 471-3, 507-11, 574-5, 661-9; CRUTTWELL, Antonio Pollajuolo (London, 1907); PÉRATÉ, Peintures des Pollajuoli; FALKE, Antonio Pollajuolo, orfèvre, in MICHEL, L'Histoire de l'Art, III (Paris, 1908), pt. ii, 672-6, 884-5; MICHEL, Antonio Pollajuolo sculpteur in L'Histoire de l'Art, IV (Paris, 1909), pt. i, 139-47. GASTON SORTAIS Marco Polo Marco Polo Traveller; born at Venice in 1251; died there in 1324. His father Nicolo and his uncle Matteo, sons of the Venetian patrician, Andrea Polo, had established a house of business at Constantinople and another at Sudak on the shore of the Black Sea, in the southeast of the Crimea. About 1255 they left Constantinople with a consignment of jewels and after reaching Sudak went to the rsidence on the banks of the Volga of Barka (Bereke), Mongol Khan of Kiptchak, who welcomed them and paid them well for their wares. But war having broken out between Bereke and Hulagu, the Mongol conqueror of Persia, and Bereke having been defeated, the Venetians were at a loss how to return to their own country. Leaving Kiptchak they continued their journey towards the east, thus reaching Bokhara, where they stayed three years. Envoys from Hulagu to the Great Khan of Tatary passing through the town and finding these "Latins" who spoke the Tatar language induced them to accompany them to the residence of the great khan, which they reached only after a year's journey. Kublai, the great khan, was the most powerful of the descendants of Jenghiz Khan. While his brother Hulagu had received Iran, Armenia, and Egypt Kublai was master of Mongolia, Northern China, and Tibet, and was to conquer Southern China. This intelligent prince endeavoured to maintain intercourse with the West and favoured the Christians, whether Nestorians or Catholics. Hence Nicolo and Matteo Polo were well received by him, he questioned them with regard to the Christian states, the emperor, the pope, princes, knights, and their manner of fighting and confided to them letters to the pope in which he asked for Christian missionaries. Accompanied by a Mongol "baron", the two brothers set out in 1266 and after three years of travel reached St.-Jean d'Acre in 1269. There the papal legate, Teobaldo Visconti, informed them that Clement IV was dead and they returned to Venice to await the election of a new pope. The cardinals not having reached a decision at the end of two years the brothers Polo determined to return, but this time they brought with them the youthful Marco, son of Nicolo, then aged eighteen. All three went to Acre to see the legate and request of him letters for the great khan, but they had scarcely left Acre when they learned that this same legate had been elected pope under the name of Gregory X (1 Sept., 1271). Overjoyed, they returned to Acre and the new pope gave them letters and appointed two Friars Preachers to accompany them. But while going through Armenia, they fell amid troops of the Mameluke Sultan Bibara the Arbelester, the monks refused to go further, and the Venetians continued their journey alone. It was only after three years and a half that, after having escaped all kinds of dangers, they reached the dwelling of Kublai, who received them probably at Yen King near the present Peking (1275). The great khan was delighted to see them once more; they presented him with the letters from the pope and some oil from the lamp at the Holy Sepulchre. Kublai conceived a great affection for the youthful Marco Polo, who readily adopted the Tatar custom and soon learned the four languages as well as the four writings of which they made use (probably Mongolian, Chinese, Persian, and Uighur). The great khan sent him on a mission six months' journey from his residence (probably to Annam) and the information he brought back with regard to the countries he traversed confirmed him in the good will of the sovereign. For three years he was governor of the city of Yang-chow (Janguy), on which twenty-seven cities were dependent. The question of his share in the siege of Siang-yâng and the engines of war constructed under his supervision are much more doubtful. According to Chinese historians the reduction of this city took place in 1273, prior to Marco Polo's arrival in China; on the other hand the details which he gives concerning Kublai's expedition against the Kingdom of Mien (Burma, 1282) leave it to be supposed that he participated therein. He was also charged with several missions to the Indian seas, Ceylon, and Cochin China. At last after having journeyed through almost the whole of Western Asia, the three Venetians obtained, but not without difficulty, the great khan's permission to return to their own country. They set sail with a fleet of fourteen four-masted ships and were charged with the escort of an imperial princess betrothed to Arghun, Khan of Persia. After a perilous voyage through the Sonda Strait and the Indian Ocean, they landed at Ormuz and after having delivered the princess to the son of the lately deceased Arghun they continued their journey by land as far as Trebizond, where they took ship for Constantinople, finally reaching Venice in 1295 after an absence of twenty-four years. In costume and appearance they resembled Tatars; they had almost forgotten their native tongue and had much difficulty in making themselves recognized by their friends. Their wealth speedily aroused admiration, but their marvellous accounts were suspected of exaggeration. Marco, who was constantly talking of the great khan's millions, was nicknamed "Messer Millioni" and in the sixteenth century their dwelling was still called the "Corte de millioni". War having broken out between Genoa and Venice, Marco Polo was placed in command of a galley (1296), but the Venetian fleet having been destroyed in the Gulf of Lajazzo he was taken prisoner to Genoa. There he became associated with Rusticiano of Pisa, an adapter of French romances, who wrote down at his dictation the account of his travels. On his release from prison Marco Polo became a member of the Great Council of Venice and lived there till his death. The "Book of Marco Polo" dictated to Rusticiano was compiled in French. A more correct version, revised by Marco Polo, was sent by him in 1307 to Thibaud of Cepoy, the agent of Charles of Valois at Venice, to be presented to that prince, who was a candidate for the Crown of Constantinople and the promoter of a crusading movement. The Latin, Venetian, and Tuscan versions are merely translations which are often faulty, or abridgments of the first two texts. The compilation of his book may be regarded as one of the most important events in the history of geographical discoveries. Hitherto Occidentals knew almost nothing of Asia; in his "Tresor" Brunetto Latini (1230-94) merely reproduces in this respect the compilations of C. Julius Solinus, the abbreviator of Pliny. The "Book of Marco Polo", on the other hand, contains an exact description by an intelligent and well-informed witness of all the countries of the Far East. It is characterized by the exactness and veracity of Venetian statesmen, whose education accustomed them to secure information with regard to various nations and to estimate their resources. This Venetian character extends even to the tone, which modern taste finds almost too impersonal. The author rarely appears on the scene and it is regrettable that he did not give more ample details concerning the missions with which he was charged by the great khan. Otherwise nothing could be more lifelike than the pictures and descriptions which adorn the account, and the naïvete of the old French enhances their literary charm. In a prologue the author briefly relates the first journey of his father and uncle, their return to Venice, their second journey, their sojourn with the great khan, and their final return. The remainder of the work, which, in the editions is divided into three books, comprises the description of all the countries through which Marco Polo travelled or concerning which he was able to secure information. The first book treats hither Asia, Armenia, Turcomania, Georgia, the Kingdom of Mossul, the Caliphate of Bagdad, Persia, Beluchistan, etc. Curious details are given concerning the City of Bagdad and the fate of the last caliph, who died of hunger amid his treasures, and concerning the Old Man of the Mountain and his Assassins. He mentions the recollections in Bactria of Alexander the Great, whom the kings of the country regarded as their ancestor. Subsequently he describes Kashmir and the deserts of the plateau of Hindu Kush and Chinese Turkestan, "Great Turkey" and its capital, Kashgar. He mentions the Nestorian communities of Samarkand and after crossing the desert of Gobi reaches Karakoram, the old Mongol capital, which affords him the opportunity for an important digression regarding the origin and customs of the Tatars. Book II introduces us to the Court of Kublai Khan and we are given most curious information with regard to his capital, Kambalik (Peking), his magnificence, and the organization of his Government. We are shown with what facility the Mongols adopted Chinese etiquette and civilization. Then follows a description of the provinces of China, first of China north of Hwang-ho or Cathay, where there were stones which burned like wood (coal), then Si-ngan-fu, the ancient capital of Thâng (Shen-si), Tibet, into which he penetrated a distance of five days' walk, Sunnan, the Kingdom of Mien (Burma), Bengal, Annam, and Southeast China. At the beginning of Book III he relates the great maritime expedition which Kublai Khan attempted against Zipangu (Japan) and which ended in defeat. Then he enters the Indian seas and describes the great island of Java and that of the lesser Java (Sumatra), Ceylon, in connection with which he speaks of the Buddhists and their reformer "Sagamoni Borcam" (Khakamouni). From here he goes to the coast of "Maabar" (Coromandel) and gives a full description of India. He mentions the existence of the island of Socotra and the large island of Madagascar, in connection with which he speaks of the regular currents of the Strait of Mozambique and relates the legend of the roc, the fabulous bird of the voyages of Sinbad the Sailor. He concludes with information concerning Zanzibar, the people of the coast of Zanguebar, Abyssinia, the Province of Aden, and the northern regions where the sun disappears for a period of the year. The "Book of Marco Polo" was soon translated into all European languages and exercised an important influence on the geographical discoveries of the fifteenth century. Christopher Columbus had read it attentively and it was to reach the western route to the lands described by Marco Polo that he undertook the expedition which resulted in the discovery of America. Eighty-five MSS. of the book showing rather important differences are known. They may be ranged into four types: (1) Paris, Bib. Nat., MS. Tr. 1116, edited by the Societé de Géographie in 1824; it is regarded as the original MS. of Rusticiano of Pisa, at least as its exact copy. (2) Bib. Nat., MS. Tr. 2810. Under the name of "Libre des merveilles du monde" it is a collection of accounts of the Orient compiled in 1351 by the Benedictine Jean Lelong of Ypres and copied at the end of the fourteenth century for Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. It contains the text of Marco Polo according to the copy sent to Thibaud of Cepoy and is enriched with numerous miniatures. To the same family belong MSS. Tr. of the Bib. Nat. 5631, 5649 and the Berne MS. (Bib, canton. 125). (3) Latin version executed in the fourteenth century by Francesco Pipino, a Dominican of Bologna, according to an Italian copy. The Latin version published by Grynæus at Basle in 1532 in the "Novus orbis" is indirectly derived from this version. (4) Italian version prepared for printing by Giovanni Ramusio and published in the second volume of his "Navigazioni e viaggi" (3 vols. fol., Venice, 1539). Chief editions.-There are more than fifty-six of these in various languages. French text, ed. Pauthier (Paris, 1865); Italian version, ed. Baldelli (Florence, 1827); English tr. with commentary by Sir Henry Yule, revised by Henri Cordier (London, 1903). Cahun, Introd. à l'histoire de l'Asie (Paris, 1896); Curtin, The Mongols (Boston, 1908). LOUIS BRÉHIER Polybotus Polybotus A titular see in Phrygia Salutaris, suffragan of Synnada. This town is mentioned only in the sixth century by Hierocles, "Synecdemus", 677, 10. It is now Boulvadin, capital of the caza of the vilayet of Brousse, with 8000 inhabitants, all Mussulmans; there are some ruins of no interest, Le Quien (Oriens christianus, I, 841) mentions two bishops: Strategius, present at the Council of Chalcedon (451); St. John, whose feast is celebrated 5 Dec. and who lived under Leo the Isaurian; at the Council of Nice (787), the see was represented by the priest Gregory. The earliest Greek "Notitia Episcopatuum" of the seventh century places the see among the suffragans of Synnada, and it is still attached to this metropolis as a titular see by the Curia Romana. But from the ninth century until its disappearance as a residential see, it was a suffragan of Amorium. See the "Basilii Notitia" in Gelzer, "Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis romani" (Leipzig, 1890), 26. LEAKE, Asia Minor, 53; RAMSAY, Asia Minor, 232. S. PÉTRIDÈS. St. Polycarp St. Polycarp Martyr (A.D. 69-155). Our chief sources of information concerning St. Polycarp are: (1) the Epistles of St. Ignatius; (2) St. Polycarp's own Epistle to the Philippians; (3) sundry passages in St. Irenaeus; (4) the Letter of the Smyrnaeans recounting the martyrdom of St. Polycarp. The Epistles of St. Ignatius Four out of the seven genuine epistles of St. Ignatius were written from Smyrna. In two of these -Magnesians and Ephesians- he speaks of Polycarp. The seventh Epistle was addressed to Polycarp. It contains little or nothing of historical interest in connexion with St. Polycarp. In the opening words St. Ignatius gives glory to God "that it hath been vouchsafed to me to see thy face". It seems hardly safe to infer, with Pearson and Lightfoot, from these words that the two had never met before. The Epistle of St. Polycarp to the Philippians The Epistle of St. Polycarp was a reply to one from the Philippians, in which they had asked St. Polycarp to address them some words of exhortation; to forward by his own messenger a letter addressed by them to the Church of Antioch; and to send them any epistles of St. Ignatius which he might have. The second request should be noted. St. Ignatius had asked the Churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia to send a messenger to congratulate the Church of Antioch on the restoration of peace; presumably, therefore, when at Philippi, he gave similar instructions to the Philippians. This is one of the many respects in which there is such complete harmony between the situations revealed in the Epistles of St. Ignatius and the Epistle of St. Polycarp, that it is hardly possible to impugn the genuineness of the former without in some way trying to destroy the credit of the latter, which happens to be one of the best attested documents of antiquity. In consequence some extremists, anti-episcopalians in the seventeenth century, and members of the Tubingen School in the nineteenth, boldly rejected the Epistle of Polycarp. Others tried to make out that the passages which told most in favour of the Ignatian epistles were interpolations. These theories possess no interest now that the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles has practically ceased to be questioned. The only point raised which had any show of plausibility (it was sometimes used against the genuineness, and sometimes against the early date of St. Polycarp's Epistle) was based on a passage in which it might at first sight seem that Marcion was denounced: "For every one who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist; and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is a devil, and whosoever perverteth the oracles of the Lord (to serve) his own lusts, and saith there is neither resurrection nor judgment, this man is a first-born of Satan." St. Polycarp wrote his epistle before he had heard of St. Ignatius' martyrdom. Now, supposing the passage just quoted to have been aimed at Marcion (whom, on one occasion, as we shall presently see, St. Polycarp called to his face "the first-born of Satan"), the choice lies between rejecting the epistle as spurious on account of the anachronism, or bringing down its date, and the date of St. Ignatius' martyrdom to A.D. 130-140 when Marcion was prominent. Harnack seems at one time to have adopted the latter alternative; but he now admits that there need be no reference to Marcion at all in the passage in question (Chronologie, I, 387-8). Lightfoot thought a negative could be proved. Marcion, according to him, cannot be referred to because nothing is said about his characteristic errors, e.g., the distinction between the God of the Old and the God of the New Testament; and because the antinomianism ascribed to "the first-born of Satan" is inapplicable to the austere Marcion (Lightfoot, St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp, I, 585; all references to Lightfoot (L), unless otherwise stated, will be to this work). When Lightfoot wrote it was necessary to vindicate the authenticity of the Ignatian epistles and that of St. Polycarp. If the former were forgeries, the latter, which supports - it might almost be said presupposes- them, must be a forgery from the same hand. But a comparison between Ignatius and Polycarp shows that this is an impossible hypothesis. The former lays every stress upon episcopacy, the latter does not even mention it. The former is full of emphatic declarations of the doctrine of the Incarnation, the two natures of Christ, etc. In the latter these matters are hardly touched upon. "The divergence between the two writers as regards Scriptural quotations is equally remarkable. Though the seven Ignatian letters are many times longer than Polycarp's Epistle, the quotations in the latter are incomparably more numerous, as well as more precise, than in the former. The obligations to the New Testament are wholly different in character in the two cases. The Ignatian letters do, indeed, show a considerable knowledge of the writings included in our Canon of the New Testament; but this knowledge betrays itself in casual words and phrases, stray metaphors, epigrammatic adaptations, and isolated coincidences of thought...On the other hand in Polycarp's Epistle sentence after sentence is frequently made up of passages from the Evangelical and Apostolic writings...But this divergence forms only part of a broader and still more decisive contrast, affecting the whole style and character of the two writings. The profuseness of quotations in Polycarp's Epistle arises from a want of originality...On the other hand the letters of Ignatius have a marked individuality. Of all early Christian writings they are pre-eminent in this respect" (op.cit., 595-97). Various passages in St. Irenaeus In St. Irenaeus, Polycarp comes before us preeminently as a link with the past. Irenaeus mentions him four times: (a) in connection with Papias; (b) in his letter to Florinus; (c) in his letter to Pope Victor; (d) at the end of the celebrated appeal to the potior principalitas of the Roman Church. In connection with Papias From "Adv. Haer.", V, xxxiil, we learn that Papias was "a hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp". In his letter to Florinus Florinus was a Roman presbyter who lapsed into heresy. St. Irenaeus wrote him a letter of remonstrance (a long extract from which is preserved by Eusebius, II, E., V, xx), in which he recalled their common recollections of Polycarp. "These opinions...Florinus are not of sound judgment...I saw thee when I was still a boy in Lower Asia in company with Polycarp, while thou wast faring prosperously in the royal court, and endeavouring to stand well with him. For I distincly remember the incidents of that time better than events of recent occurrence...I can describe the very place in which the Blessed Polycarp used to sit when he discoursed...his personal appearance...and how he would describe his intercourse with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words...I can testify in the sight of God, that if the blessed and apostolic elder had heard anything of this kind, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and said after his wont, 'O good God, for what times hast thou kept me that I should endure such things?'...This can be shown from the letters which he wrote to the neighbouring Churches for their confirmmation etc.". Lightfoot (op.cit., 448) will not fix the date of the time when St. Irenaeus and Florinus were fellow-pupils of St. Polycarp more definitely than somewhere between 135 and 150. There are in fact no data to go upon. In his letter to Pope Victor The visit of St. Polycarp to Rome is described by St. Irenaeus in a letter to Pope Victor written under the following circumstances. The Asiatic Christians differed from the rest of the Church in their manner of observing Easter. While the other Churches kept the feast on a Sunday, the Asiatics celebrated it on the 14th of Nisan, whatever day of the week this might fall on. Pope Victor tried to establish uniformity, and when the Asaitic Churches refused to comply, excommunicated them. St. Irenaeus remonstrated with him in a letter, part of which is preserved by Eusebius (H. E., V, xxiv), in which he particularly contrasted the moderation displayed in regard to Polycarp by Pope Anicetus with the conduct of Victor. "Among these (Victor's predecessors) were the presbyters before Soter. They neither observed it (14th Nisan) themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet, though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed....And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp...nor Polycarp Anicetus.... But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the Church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace", etc. There is a difficulty connected with this visit of Polycarp to Rome. According to the Chronicle of Eusebius in St. Jerome's version (the Armenian version is quite untrustworthy) the date of Anicetus' accession was A.D. 156-57. Now the probable date of St. Polycarp's martyrdom is February, 155. The fact of the visit to Rome is too well attested to be called into question. We must, therefore, either give up the date of martyrdom, or suppose that Eusebius post-dated by a year or two the accession of Anicetus. There is nothing unreasonable in this latter hypothesis, in view of the uncertainty which so generally prevails in chronological matters (for the date of the accession of Anicetus see Lightfoot, "St. Clement I", 343). In his famous passage on the Roman Church We now come to the passage in St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III,3) which brings out in fullest relief St. Polycarp's position as a link with the past. Just as St. John's long life lengthened out the Apostolic Age, so did the four score and six years of Polycarp extend the sub-Apostolic Age, during which it was possible to learn by word of mouth what the Apostles taught from those who had been their hearers. In Rome the Apostolic Age ended about A.D. 67 with the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the sub-Apostolic Age about a quarter of a century later when St. Clement, "who had seen the blessed Apostles", died. In Asia the Apostolic Age lingered on till St. John died about A.D. 100; and the sub-Apostolic Age till 155, when St. Polycarp was martyred. In the third book of his treatise "Against Heresies", St. Irenaeus makes his celebrated appeal to the "successions" of the bishops in all the Churches. He is arguing against heretics who professed to have a kind of esoteric tradition derived from the Apostles. To whom, demands St. Irenaeus, would the Apostles be more likely to commit hidden mysteries than to the bishops to whom they entrusted their churches? In order then to know what the Apostles taught, we must have recourse to the "successions" of bishops throughout the world. But as time and space would fail if we tried to enumerate them all one by one, let the Roman Church speak for the rest. Their agreement with her is a manifest fact by reason of the position which she holds among them ("for with this Church on account of its potior principalitas the whole Church, that is, the faithful from every quarter, must needs agree", etc.). Then follows the list of the Roman bishops down to Eleutherius, the twelfth from the Apostles, the ninth from Clement, "who had both seen and conversed with the blessed Apostles". From the Roman Church, representing all the churches, the writer then passes on to two Churches, that of Smyrna, in which, in the person of Polycarp, the sub-Apostolic Age had been carried down to a time still within living memory, and the Church of Ephesus, where, in the person of St. John, the Apostolic Age had been prolonged till "the time of Trajan". Of Polycarp he says, "he was not only taught by the Apostles, and lived in familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, but also received his appointment in Asia from the Apostles as Bishop in the Church of Smyrna". He then goes on to speak of his own personal acquaintance with Polycarp, his martyrdom, and his visit to Rome, where he converted many heretics. He then continues, "there are those who heard him tell how John, the disciple of the Lord, when he went to take a bath in Ephesus, and saw Cerinthus within, rushed away from the room without bathing, with the words 'Let us flee lest the room should fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within'. Yea, and Polycarp himself, also, when on one occasion Marcion confronted him and said 'Recognise us', replied, 'Ay, ay, I recognise the first-born of Satan' ". The Smyrnaean letter describing St. Polycarp's martyrdom Polycarp's martyrdom is described in a letter from the Church of Smyrna, to the Church of Philomelium "and to all the brotherhoods of the holy and universal Church", etc. The letter begins with an account of the persecution and the heroism of the martyrs. Conspicuous among them was one Germanicus, who encouraged the rest, and when exposed to the wild beasts, incited them to slay him. His death stirred the fury of the multitude, and the cry was raised "Away with the atheists; let search be made for Polycarp". But there was one Quintus, who of his own accord had given himself up to the persecutors. When he saw the wild beasts he lost heart and apostatized. "Wherefore", comment the writers of the epistle, "we praise not those who deliver themselves up, since the Gospel does not so teach us". Polycarp was persuaded by his friends to leave the city and conceal himself in a farm-house. Here he spent his time in prayer, "and while praying he falleth into a trance three days before his apprehension; and he saw his pillow burning with fire. And he turned and said unto those that were with him, 'it must needs be that I shall be burned alive' ". When his pursuers were on his track he went to another farm-house. Finding him gone they put two slave boys to the torture, and one of them betrayed his place of concealment. Herod, head of the police, sent a body of men to arrest him on Friday evening. Escape was still possible, but the old man refused to flee, saying, "the will of God be done". He came down to meet his pursuers, conversed affably with them, and ordered food to be set before them. While they were eating he prayed, "remembering all, high and low, who at any time had come in his way, and the Catholic Church throughout the world". Then he was led away. Herod and Herod's father, Nicetas, met him and took him into their carriage, where they tried to prevail upon him to save his life. Finding they could not persuade him, they pushed him out of the carriage with such haste that he bruised his shin. He followed on foot till they came to the Stadium, where a great crowd had assembled, having heard the news of his apprehension. "As Polycarp entered into the Stadium a voice came to him from heaven: 'Be strong, Polycarp, and play the man'. And no one saw the speaker, but those of our people who were present heard the voice." It was to the proconsul, when he urged him to curse Christ, that Polycarp made his celebrated reply: "Fourscore and six years have I served Him, and he has done me no harm. How then can I curse my King that saved me." When the proconsul had done with the prisoner it was too late to throw him to the beasts, for the sports were closed. It was decided, therefore, to burn him alive. The crowd took it upon itself to collect fuel, "the Jews more especially assisting in this with zeal, as is their wont" (cf. the Martyrdom of Pionius). The fire, "like the sail of a vessel filled by the wind, made a wall round the body" of the martyr, leaving it unscathed. The executioner was ordered to stab him, thereupon, "there came forth a quantity of blood so that it extinguished the fire". (The story of the dove issuing from the body probably arose out of a textual corruption. See Lightfoot, Funk, Zahn. It may also have been an interpolation by the pseudo-Pionius.) The officials, urged thereto by the Jews, burned the body lest the Christians "should abandon the worship of the Crucified One, and begin to worship this man". The bones of the martyr were collected by the Christians, and interred in a suitable place. "Now the blessed Polycarp was martyred on the second day of the month of Kanthicus, on the seventh day before the Kalends of March, on a great Sabbath at the eighth hour. He was apprehended by Herodes...in the proconsulship of Statius Quadratus etc." This subscription gives the following facts: the martyrdom took place on a Saturday which fell on 23 February. Now there are two possible years for this, 155 and 166. The choice depends upon which of the two Quadratus was proconsul of Asia. By means of the chronological data supplied by the rhetorician Aelius Aristides in certain autobiographical details which he furnishes, Waddington who is followed by Lightfoot ("St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp", I, 646 sq.), arrived at the conclusion that Quadratus was proconsul in 154-55 (the proconsul's year of office began in May). Schmid, a full account of whose system will be found in Harnack's "Chronologie", arguing from the same data, came to the conclusion that Quadratus' proconsulship fell in 165-66. For some time it seemed as if Schmid's system was likely to prevail, but it has failed on two points: + Aristides tells us that he was born when Jupiter was in Leo. This happened both in 117 and 129. Schmid's system requires the later of these two dates, but the date has been found to be impossible. Aristides was fifty-three years and six months old when a certain Macrinus was governor of Asia. "Now Egger (in the Austrian 'Jahreshefte', Nov., 1906) has published an inscription recording the career of Macrinus, which was erected to him while he was governing Asia, and he pointed out that as the birth of Aristides was either in 117 or 129, the government of Macrinus must have been either in 170-171, or 182-183, and he has shown that the later date is impossible". (Ramsay in "The Expository Times", Jan., 1907.) + Aristides mentions a Julianus who was proconsul of Asia nine years before Quadratus. Now there was a Claudius Julianus, who is proved by epigraphic and numismatic evidence to have been proconsul of Asia in 145. Schmid produced a Salvius Julianus who was consul in 148 and might, therefore, have been the Proconsul of Asia named by Aristides. But an inscription discovered in Africa giving the whole career of Salvius Julianus disposes of Schmid's hypothesis. The result of the new evidence is that Salvius Julianus never governed Asia, for he was proconsul of Africa, and it was not permitted that the same person should hold both of these high offices. The rule is well known; and the objection is final and insurmountable (Ramsay, "Expos. Times", Feb., 1904. Ramsay refers to an article by Mommsen, "Savigny Zeitschrift fur Rechtgeschichte", xxiii, 54). Schmid's system, therefore, disappears, and Waddington's, in spite of some very real difficulties (Quadratus' proconsulship shows a tendency to slip a year out of place), is in possession. The possibitity of course remains that the subscription was tampered with by a later hand. But 155 must be approximately correct if St. Polycarp was appointed bishop by St. John. There is a life of St. Polycarp by pseudo-Pionius, compiled probably in the middle of the fourth century. It is "altogether valueless as a contribution to our knowledge of Polycarp. It does not, so far as we know, rest on any tradition, early or late, and may probably be regarded as a fiction of the author's own brain" (Lightfoot, op.cit., iii, 431). The postscript to the letter to the Smyrneans: "This account Gaius copied from the papers of Irenaeus...and I, Socrates, wrote it down in Corinth...and I, Pionius again wrote it down", etc. probably came from the pseudo-Pionius. The very copious extracts from the Letter of the Smyrneans given by Eusebius are a guarantee of the fidelity of the text in the MSS. that have come down. F.J.BACCHUS Polycarpus Polycarpus The title of a canonical collection in eight books composed in Italy by Cardinal Gregorius. It is borrowed chiefly from the collections of Anselm and from the "Anselmo Dedicata". Writers generally date it about 1124 because it includes a decretal of Callistus II (died 1124), but some place it prior to 1120 or 1118, date of the death of Bishop Didacus, to whom the collection is dedicated, and regard the Callistus decretal as an addition. The dedicatory epistle and the titles were published by the Ballerini ("De antiquis collectionibus et collectoribus canonum", part IV, c. xvii in "P. L.", LVI, 346, Paris, 1865), and the rubrics by Theiner ("Disquisitiones criticæ in præcipuas canonum et decretalium collectiones", Rome, 1836, 356 sqq.). Extracts from Book IV were published by Mai, "Nova bibliotheca patrum", VII, iii, 1-76 (Rome, 1852-88). PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht, IV (Ratisbon, 1851), 135-6; SCHERER, (Gratz, 1886), 240; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium, I (2nd ed., Rome, 1905), 331, 333. A. VAN HOVE. Polyglot Bibles Polyglot Bibles The first Bible which may be considered a Polyglot is that edited at Alcalá (in Latin Complutum, hence the name Complutensian Bible), Spain, in 1502-17, under the superviision and at the expense of Cardinal Ximenes, by scholars of the university founded in that city by the same great Cardinal. It was published in 1520, with the sanction of Leo X. Ximenes wished, he writes, "to revive the languishing study of the Sacred Scriptures"; and to achieve this object he undertook to furnish students with accurate printed texts of the Old Testament in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages, and of the New Testament in the Greek and Latin. His Bible contains also the Chaldaic Targum of the Pentateuch and an interlinear Latin translation of the Greek Old Testament. The work is in six large volumes, the last of which is made up of a Hebrew and Chaldaic dictionary, a Hebrew grammar, and Greek dictionary. It is said that only six hundred copies were issued; but they found their way into the principal libraries of Europe and had considerable influence on subsequent editions of the Bible. Vigouroux made use of it in the very latest of the Polyglots. Cardinal Ximenes was, he asures us, eager to secure the best manuscripts accessible to serve as a basis of his texts; he thanks Leo X for lending him Vatican MSS. Traces of such MSS. are, indeed, discernible, particularly in the Greek text; and there is still a copy at Madrid of a Venetian MS. which he is thought to have used. He did not, however, use any of what are now considered the best; appreciation of the worth of the MSS., and of their variant readings, had still much progress to make; but the active work of many years produced texts sufficiently pure for most purposes. The "Complutensian Bible" published the first printed edition of the Greek Old Testament, the one which was commonly used and reproduced, before the appearance of the edition of Sixtus V, in 1587. It is followed, on the whole, in the Septuagint columns of the four great Polyglots edited by Montanus (Antwerp, 1569-72); Bertram (Heidelberg, 1586-1616); Wolder (Hamburg, 1596); and Le Jay (Paris, 1645). Ximenes' Greek New Testament, printed in 1614, was not published until six years after the hastily edited Greek New Testament of Erasmus, which was published before it in 1516; but in the fourth edition of Erasmus' work (1527), which forms the basis of the "Textus Receptus", a strong influence of Ximenes' text is generally recognized. The "Antwerp Bible", just mentioned, sometimes called the "Biblia Regia", because it was issued under the auspices of Philip II, depends largely on the "Complutensian" for the texts which the latter had published. It adds to them an interlinear translation of the Hebrew, the Chaldaic Targums (with Latin translation) of the books of the Hebrew Bible which follow the Pentateuch, excepting Daniel, Esdras, Nehemias, and Paralipomenon, and the Peshito text of the Syriac New Testament with its Latin translation. This work was not based on MSS. of very great value; but it was carefully printed by Christophe Plantin, in eight magnificent volumes. The last two contain an apparatus criticus, lexicons and grammatical notes. The "Paris Polyglot" in ten volumes, more magnificent than its Antwerp predecessor, was edited with less accuracy, and it lacks a critical apparatus. Its notable additions to the texts of the "Antwerp Bible", which it reproduces without much change, are the Samaritan Pentateuch and its Samaritan version edited with Latin translation by the Oratorian, Jean Morin, the Syriac Old Testament and New Testament Antilegomena, and the Arabic version of the Old Testament. The "London Polyglot" in six volumes, edited by Brian Walton (1654-7), improved considerably on the texts of its predecessors. Besides them, it has the Ethiopic Psalter, Canticle of Canticles, and New Testament, the Arabic New Testament, and the Gospels in Persian. All the texts not Latin are accompanied by Latin translations, and all, sometimes nine in number, are arranged side by side or one over another on the two pages open before the reader. Two companion volumes, the "Lexicon Heptaglotton" of Edmund Cassel, appeared in 1669. The Bible was also published in several languages by Elias Hutter (Nuremberg, 1599-1602), and by Christianus Reineccius (Leipsic, 1713-51). Modern Polyglots are much less imposing in appearance than those of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; and there is none which gives the latest results of scientific textual criticism as fully as did Brian Walton's in its day. We may cite, however, as good and quite accessible:-Bagster, "Polyglot Bible in eight languages" (2 vols., London, 2nd ed. 1874). The languages are Hebrew, Greek, English, Latin, German, Italian, French, and Spanish. It gives in appendix the Syriac New Testament, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and many variants of the Greek text. This Bible is printed in very small type. It is a new edition, on a reduced scale, of Bagster's "Biblia Sacra Polyglotta" (6 vols., London, 1831). "Polyglotten-Bibel zum praktischen Handgebrauch", by Stier and Theile, in four quarto volumes (5th ed., Bielefeld, 1890). This Polyglot contains the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German texts. "Biblia Triglotta", 2 vols., being, with the omission of modern languages, a reissue of the "Biblia Hexaglotta", edited by de Levante (London, 1874-6). It contains the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin texts of the Old Testament, and the Greek, Latin, and Syriac texts of the New Testament. Published by Dickenson, London, 1890. "La Sainte Bible Polyglotte" (Paris, 1890-98), by F. Vigouroux, S.S., first secretary of the Biblical Commission, is the only modern Polyglot which contains the deuterocanonical books, and the only one issued under Catholic auspices. Vigouroux has secured the correct printing, in convenient quarto volumes, of the ordinary Massoretic text, the Sixtine Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and a French translation of the Vulgate by Glaire. Each book of the Bible is preceded by a brief introduction; important variant readings, textual and exegetical notes, and illustrations are given at the foot of the pages. Masch Lelong, Bibliotheca Sacra I (Halle, 1778), 331-424. In each Polyglot is found some historical information about itself and its predecessors. Vigouroux, Manuel biblique (Paris, 1905), 260 sq. Individual texts of the Polyglots are dealt with in Biblical introductions. Swete, Introd. to the O. T. in Greek is particularly useful. Pick, History of printed editions ... and Polyglot Bibles in Hebraica, IX (1892-3), 47- 116. W.S. REILLY Polystylum, Titular See of Polystylum A titular see of Macedonia Secunda, suffragan of Philippi. When Philippi was made a metropolitan see Polystylum was one of its suffragans (Le Quien, "Oriens christ.", II, 65). It figures as such in the "Notitiæ episcopatuum" of Leo the Wise about 901-7 (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte und ungenügend veröffentlichte Texte der Notit. episcopat.", Munich, 1900, 558); the "Nova Tactica" about 940 (Gelzer, "Georgii Cyprii descr. orbis romani", Leipzig, 1890, 80); "Notices" 3 and 10 of Parthey, which belong to the thirteenth century. In 1212 Innocent III mentions it among the suffragans of the Latin Archdiocese of Philippi (P. L., CCXVI, 585). In 1363 the Greek bishop Peter became Metropolitan of Christopolis and the see was united to the Archdiocese of Maronia (Miklosich and Müller, "Acta patriarchatus Constantinopolit", I, 474, 475, 559; Petit, "Actes du Pantocrator", Petersburg, 1903, p. x and vii). About the same time the city was restored and fortified by the Emperor Cantacuzenus (Cantacuz, III, 37, 46; Niceph. Gregoras, XII, 161). Cantacuzenus says that Polystylum was the ancient Abdera; this statement also occurs in a Byzantine list of names of cities published by Parthey (Hierocles, "Synecdemus", Berlin, 1866, 314). This is not absolutely correct. Polystylum is the modem village of Bouloustra in the villayet of Salonica, situated in the interior of the country north of Kara Aghatch where the ruins of Abdera are found, but it is doubtless because of this approximate identification that the see of Abdera is placed among the titular sees, although such a residential see never existed. PAULY-MISSOWA, Realencyk., s. v. Abdera. S. PÉTRIDÈS. Polytheism Polytheism The belief in, and consequent worship of, many gods. See the various articles on national religions such as the Assyrian, Babylonian, Hindu, and the ancient religions of Egypt, Greece, and Rome; see also ANIMISM, FETISHISM, TOTEMISM, GOD, MONOTHEISM, PANTHEISM, etc. Pomaria, Titular See of Pomaria A titular see in Mauretania Cæsarea. It is north of Tlemcen (capital of an arrondissement in the department of Oran, Algeria) and in view of the ruins of Agadir, which was built itself on the ruins of Pomaria. Named after its orchards, Pomaria was formed under the shadow of the Roman camp. At Agadir and in the outskirts may be found numerous Latin inscriptions principally from the Christian epoch, the most recent from the seventh century, and many with the abbreviation DMS, which had evidently lost all pagan meaning. We know of but one bishop, Longinus, mentioned in the list of bishops of Mauretania Cæsarea, who was summoned by King Huneric, returned to Carthage in 484 and was condemned to exile. He was praised by Victor of Vita, Gregory of Tours, and Fredegarius; the martyrology of Usuard inserts his name on 1 Feb. At the end of the eighth century Idris I founded Agadir on the site of Pomaria; on the fall of the Idrisite dynasty, Agadir was the capital of the Beni-Khazer and Beni-Yala, emirs of a Berber tribe, vassals of the Ommiads of Spain. Tlemcen, founded at the end of the eleventh century by Yussef ben Tashfin, was reunited to Agadir and finally supplanted it. TOULETTE, Géographie de l'Afrique chrétienne. Maurétanies, 117. S. PÉTRIDÈS. Marquis de Pombal Marquis de Pombal Sebastiâo JosÉ de Carvalho e Mello The son of a country gentleman of modest means, b. in Lisbon, 13 May, 1699; d. 8 August, 1782. He was said to have been educated at the University of Coimbra and served for a time in the army. After a turbulent life in the capital, he carried off and married the niece of the Conde dos Arcos, and his aversion for the nobility originated perhaps with the opposition offered by her family to what they deemed a mésalliance. Pombal then retired to a country estate near Soure, and in his thirty-ninth year received his first public appointment, being sent as minister to London in 1738. In 1745 he was transferred to Vienna, where his work was to effect a reconciliation between the pope and the empress; there in the same year he married as his second wife the daughter of Field Marshal Daun, a union brought about by the influence of John V's Austrian wife, who befriended him more than once, though the king disliked him and recalled him in 1749. John died 31 July, 1750, and on 3 August, 1750, the new monarch, Joseph, named Pombal Minister of Foreign Affairs. The distinguished diplomat, D. Luiz da Cunha, had recommended Pombal to Joseph when the latter was only prince, but it was the faovur of the queen-mother and perhaps also of a Jesuit, Father Moreira, that secured him the coveted post. His superior intelligence and masterful will enabled him in a short time to dominate his colleagues, who were dismissed or made insignificant, and with the acquiescence of his royal master he became the first power in the State. Some years later the English ambassador said of him, "with all his faults, he is the sole man in this kingdom capable of being at the head of affairs". His energy after the earthquake, 1 Nov., 1755, confirmed his ascendancy over the king, and he became successively first Minister, Count of Oceras in 1759, and Marquis of Pombal in 1770. The mysterious attempt, 3 Sept., 1758, on the king's life gave him a pretext to crush the independence of the nobility. He magnified an act of private vengeance on the part of the Duke of Aveiro into a widespread conspiracy, and after a trial which was a mockery, the duke, members of the Tavora family and their servants were publicly put to death with horrible cruelties at Belem, 13 Jan., 1759. No penalty was considered too severe for lèse majesté amd there is some evidence that Joseph himself ordered the prosecution, indicated the Tavoras for punishment, and charged Pombal to show no mercy. If true, this explains in part the leniency shown him after his fall by Joseph's daughter and successor, Queen Maria. The so-called Pombaline terror dates from these executions. The people were effectively cowed when they saw that perpetual imprisonment, exile, and death rewarded the enemies or even the critics of the dictator. He was bound to come into conflict with the Jesuits, who exercised no small influence at Court and in the country. They appear to have blocked his projects to marry the heiress presumptive to the Protestant Duke of Cumberland and to grant privileges to the Jews in return for aid in rebuilding Lisbon, but the first open dispute arose over the execution of the Treaty of Limits (13 Jan., 1750), regulating Spanish and Portuguese jurisdiction in the River Plate. When the Indians declined to leave their houses in compliance with its provisions and had to be coerced, Pombal attributed their refusal to Jesuit machinations. Various other difficulties of the Government were laid to their charge and by the cumulative effect of these accusations, the minister prepared king and public for a campaign against the Society in which he was inspired by the Jansenist and Regalist ideas then current in Europe. He had begun his open attack by having the Jesuit confessors dismissed from Court, 20 Sept., 1757, but it was the Tavora plot in which he implicated the Jesuits on the ground of their friendship with some of the supposed conspirators that enabled him to take decisive action. On 19 Jan., 1759, he issued a decree sequestering the property of the Society in the Portuguese dominions and the following September deported the Portuguese fathers, about one thousand in number, to the Pontifical States, keeping the foreigners in prison. The previous year he had obtained from Benedict XIV the appointment of a creature of his, Cardinal Saldanha, as visitor, with power to reform the Society, but events proved that his real intention was to end it. Still not content with his victory, he detrmined to humiliate it in the person of a conspicuous member, and himself denounced Father Gabriel Malagrida to the Inquisition for crimes against the Faith. He caused the old missionary, who had lost his wits through suffering, to be strangled and then burnt. He entered into negotiations with the Courts of Spain, France, and Naples to win from the pope by joint action the suppression of the Society, and having no success with Clement XIII, he expelled the Nuncio 17 June, 1760, and broke off relations with Rome. The bishops were compelled to exercise functions reserved to the Holy See and the Portuguese Church came to have Pombal as its effective head. The religious autonomy of the nation being thus complete, he sought to justify his action by issuing the "Deducçâo Chronologica", in which the Jesuits were made responsible for all the calamities of Portugal. In 1773 Clement XIV, to prevent a schism, yielded to the pressure brought to bear on him and suppressed the Society. As soon as he was sure of success, Pombal made peace with Rome and in June, 1770, admitted a nuncio, but the ecclesiastical system of Portugal remained henceforth a sort of disguised Anglicanism, and many of the evils from which the Church now suffers are a legacy from him. In the political sphere Pombal's administration was marked by boldness of conception and tenacity of purpose. It differed from the preceding in these particulars: (1) he levelled all classes before the royal authority; (2) he imposed absolute obedience to the law, which was largely decided by himself, because the Cortes had long ceased to meet; (3) he transformed the Inquisition into a mere department of the State. In the economic sphere, impressed by British commercial supremacy, he sought and with success to improve the material condition of Portugal. Nearly all the privileged companies and monopolies he founded ended in financial failure and helped the few rather than the many, yet when the populace of Operto rose in protest against the Alto Douro Wine Company, they were punished with ruthless severity, as was the fishing village of Trafaria, which was burnt by the minister's orders when it sheltered some unwilling recruits. His methods were the same with all classes. Justice went by the board in face of the reason of state; nevertheless he corrected many abuses in the administration. His activity penetrated every department. His most notable legislative work included the abolition of Indian slavery and of the odious distinction between old and new Christians, a radical reorganization of the finances, the reform of the University of Coimbra, the army and navy, and the foundation of the College of Nobles, the School of Commerce, and the Royal Press. He started various manufactures to render Portugal less dependent on Great Britain and his Chartered Companies had the same object, but he maintained the old political alliance between the two nations, though he took a bolder attitude than previous ministers had dared to do, both as regards England and other countries, and left a full treasury when the death of King Joseph, on 24 Feb., 1777, caused his downfall. He died in retirement, having for years suffered from leprosy and the fear of the punishment he had meted out to others. The bishop of Coimbra presided at his funeral, while a well-known Benedictine delivered the panegyric. Even to the end Pombal had many admirers among the clergy, and he is regarded by the Portuguese as one of their greatest statesmen and called the great Marquis. Carnota, Marquis de Pombal (London, 1871); da Luz Soriano, Historia do reinado de el rei D. José (Lisbon, 1867); Gomes, Le Marquis de Pombal Lisbon, 1869); d'Azevedo, O Marquez de Pombal e a sua epoca (Lisbon, 1909); Duer, Pombal, Sein Charakter u. seine Politik (Freiburg, 1891); Collecçâo dos Negocios de Roma no reinado de el Rey Dom José I, 3 pts. and supplement (Lisbon, 1874-75); The Bismarck of the Eighteenth Century in Am. Cath. Quart. Rev., II (Philadelphia, 1877), 51; Pombal in Catholic World, XXX (New York), 312; Pombal and the Society of Jesus (London, Sept., 1877), 86. Edgar Prestage Pomerania Pomerania A Prussian province on the Baltic Sea situated on both banks of the River Oder, divided into Hither Pomerania (Vorpommern), the western part of the province, and Farther Pomerania (Hinterpommern), the eastern part. Its area is 11,628 square miles, and it contains 1,684,345 inhabitants. In the south-east Pomerania is traversed by a range of low hills (highest point fourteen miles), otherwise it is a low plain. Farming and market-gardening take 55.2 per cent of the soil, grass-land 10.2 per cent, pasturage 6.5 per cent, and woodland 20.2 per cent. The chief occupations are farming, cattle-raising, the shipping trade, and fishing. There is no manufacturing of any importance except in and near Stettin. The earliest inhabitants were German tribes, among them Goths, Scirri, Rugians, Lemovier, Burgundians, Semnonians (Tacitus, "Germania"). About the middle of the second century these tribes began to migrate towards the south-east; they were replaced by others who also soon left, and Slavs (Wends), entering from the east, gradually gained possession of the province. Consequently the name Pommern is Slavonic, Po more, Po moran signifying "along the sea". Charlemagne compelled the acknowledgment of his suzerainty as far as the Oder, but his successors limited themselves to the defensive. In the reigns of Henry I and Otto the Great, the Wends were again obliged to pay tribute. However, German supremacy remained uncertain and the Danish influence was greater, until the Poles conquered Pomerania about 995. As suffragan of their new Archdiocese of Gnesen, established in 1000, the Poles founded the Diocese of Kolberg, which, however, existed apparently only in the parchment deed. It is doubtful whether the bishop Reinbern ever stayed at Kolberg; he died about 1015 while on an embassy to Kiev. In the following era there were wars with varying results between the Poles, Danes, and Germans for the possession of Pomerania. Finally after a long and bloody struggle the Poles were victorious (1122), and Duke Boleslaw earnestly endeavoured to convert the inhabitants to Christianity. The task was given to Bishop Otto of Bamberg who accomplished it during two missionary journeys. At this period appears the name of the first well known Duke of Pomerania, Wratislaw. Otto had the supervision of the Pomeranian Church until his death, but could not found a diocese to which to appoint the chaplain Adalbert. After Otto's death, Innocent II by a Bull of 14 Oct., 1140, made the church of St. Adalbert at Julin on the Island of Wollin the see of the diocese, and Adalbert was consecrated bishop at Rome. The difficulty as to which archdiocese was to be the metropolitan of the new bishopric was evaded by placing it directly under the papal see. Duke Ratibor of Pomerania founded the first monasteries: in 1153 a Benedictine abbey at Stolp, and later a Premonstratensian abbey at Grobe on the island of Usedom. Before 1176 the see was transferred to Kammin, where a cathedral chapter was founded for the Cathedral of St. John. The western part of the country belonged to the Diocese of Schwerin. The founding of the Cistercian monasteries at Dargun (1172) and at Kolbatz east of the Oder (1173) were events of much importance. The Cistercians greatly promoted the development of religion and civilization by engaging in agricultural undertakings of all kinds. About 1179 the Premonstratensians obtained a new monastery at Gramzow near Prenzlau, and in 1180 at Belbuk in Farther Pomerania. In 1181 Duke Bogislaw received his lands in fief from Emperor Frederick I, and thus became a prince of the German Empire. This was followed by a large immigration of Germans. The ecclesiastical organization also progressed. Cistercian monasteries were established at: Eldena (c. 1207); Neuenkamp (c. 1231); of the latter a branch on the Island of Hiddensee (1296); Bukow (c. 1253); Bergen on the island of Rügen (1193); near Stettin (1243); at Marienfliess (1248); near Kolberg (1277); near Köslin (1277); at Wollin (1288). A Premonstratensian convent was founded near Treptow on the Rega (1224). The Augustinians had monasteries at: Uckermünde (1260), later transferred to Jasenitz; Pyritz (c. 1255); Anklam (1304); Stargard (1306); Gartz (1308). The Franciscans had foundations at: Stettin (1240); Greifswald (1242); Prenzlau (before 1253); Stralsund (1254); Pyritz (before 1286); Greifenberg (before 1290); Dramburg (after 1350); the Dominicans at: Kammin (about 1228); Stralsund (1251); Greifswald (1254); Stolp (1278); Pasewalk (1272); Prenzlau (1275); Soldin (about 1289); Nörenberg (fourteenth century). Finally the Duchess Adelheid founded the Carthusian convent of Marienkron near Köslin in 1394; it was first transferred to Schlawe, then in 1407 to Rügenwalde; in 1421 the Brigitine convent of Marienkron was established at Stralsund. All these establishments contributed greatly to the extension of Christian and German civilization, as did also the orders of knights, e. g., the Knights of St. John. Foundations for canons were made about 1200 at Kolberg. and in 1261 at Stettin. In 1295 Dukes Otto and Bogislaw divided the country into the two Duchies of Stettin and Wolgast; at later dates there were further divisions. The victory of German civilization in Pomerania was assured in the fourteenth century, and the diocese became dependent upon the dukes. The bishop was merely the first in the social order of prelates; and there were constant quarrels over the possession of the diocese and of the episcopal castles. In the fifteenth century conditions were in great disorder. During the years 1437-43 the University of Rostock, founded in 1419, withdrew from Rostock on account of quarrels between the council and the citizens, and settled at Greifswald. The mayor, Heinrich Rubenow, urged Duke Wratislaw IX to establish a university at Greifswald, to which the duke agreed, gave some of his revenues for its support, and, aided by the abbots of the monasteries in Hither Pomerania, obtained from Callistus III a Bull of foundation, 29 May, 1456. In the first semester 173 students matriculated. At the same time a foundation for twenty canons, intended to furnish maintenance for new teachers, was united with the church of St. Nicholas. The university continued with increasing prosperity. About 1400 heresy, caused by the Waldensians, developed in the province; Peter the Celestine came to Stettin to investigate the matter, and scattered the heretics in 1393. The sect of the "Putzkeller", concerning which there are only confused reports, appears also to be traceable to the Waldensians. Diocesan synods were held in 1433, 1448 (at Stettin), 1454 (at Gülzow and Kammin), 1492, and 1500. The statutes show a disorderly condition of morals, but earnest attempts to improve conditions. The first traces of Lutheranism appeared at Stralsund, and in the monastery of Belbuk, where Johannes Bugenhagen (Pomeranus), rector of the town-school and teacher of the monks, became acquainted with Luther's writing "De captivitate Babylonica"; he won over many priests to the new doctrine and in 1521 went to Wittenberg. Preachers from other regions, and monks who had left their monasteries, found ready attention throughout the country, on account of the great social and economic discontent, and especially the freedom from taxes of the clergy and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In 1525 Stralsund adopted Lutheranism, while Greifswald and Stargard remained true to the Faith, and other towns were divided between passionately contending parties. When Duke Barnim XI of Stettin, who had been a student at Wittenberg, and his nephew, Philip of Wolgast, joined the Lutheran party, its victory was assured. A basis for the Lutheran Church of Pomerania was prepared by the Diet at Treptow on the Rega in 1534 with the aid of the rules drawn up by Bugenhagen. The prelates and some of the nobility protested and left the diet; the towns gradually abandoned their opposition and accepted Bugenhagen's propositions, and Bishop Erasmus Manteuffel, who maintained his protest, died in 1544. The monasteries were suppressed (1535-6) and in 1539 the nobility gave up; the dukes joined the Smalkaldic League but maintained an ambiguous position. The later church ordinance of 1563 established the strictest form of Lutheranism, and the first bishop was Bartholomäus Suawe (1546). In 1548 Emperor Charles V claimed the diocese, as it belonged to the estates of the empire. The dukes were obliged to accept the Interim, and after Suawe resigned, Martin Weiher became bishop in 1549, was recognized by Julius III, 5 Oct., 1551, and took his place as a prince of the empire. In 1555 the Peace of Augsburg gave the final victory to the evangelical party in Pomerania. After Weiher's death in 1556 the diocese came under the control of the ruling princes, who filled the see with members of their family. The Evangelical cathedral chapter with thirteen positions for worthy officials of the province and the Church continued to exist until 1810. The last duke, Bogislaw XIV, who from 1625 had ruled over the united Duchies of Stettin and Wolgast, died childless 10 March, 1637; the country then passed to Brandenburg, which by old treaties had the right of succession, but by the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) had to be content with Farther Pomerania; Hither Pomerania and Rügen were given to Sweden. The Lutheran bishop, Duke Ernest Bogislaw of Croy, gave the Diocese of Kammin to Brandenburg in 1650. By the Treaty of Stockholm of 1720, Hither Pomerania as far as the Peene was given to Brandenburg-Prussia; the rest of the province and the island of Rügen were obtained by Prussia in the treaty of 4 June, 1815. In 1824 the seven hundredth anniversary of Pomerania's conversion to Christianity was celebrated, and a monument was erected to Bishop Otto of Bamberg at Pyritz. Catholic parishes have developed since the end of the eighteenth century from the military chaplaincies in the larger garrison towns. At the beginning these parishes were under the care of the Vicariate of the North German Missions. In 1821 they were placed under the Prince Bishop of Breslau, who gave their administration to the provost of St. Hedwig's at Berlin as episcopal delegate. At present (1911) there are two arch-presbyteries, Köslin and Stettin-Stralsund. Köslin has nine parishes: Arnswalde, Grünhof, Köslin, Kolberg, Neustettin, Pollnow, Schivelbein, Stargard, Stolp. Stettin-Stralsund has eleven: Anklam, Bergen, Demmin, Greifswald, Hoppenwalde, Louisental, Pasewalk, Stettin, Stralsund, Swinemünde, Viereck. The religious orders are represented only by the Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo at Grünhof, Misdroy, Stettin, and Stralsund. The Catholics of the government district of Lauenburg-Bütow, that formerly belonged to the Kingdom of Poland, form five parishes of the Diocese of Kulm; the provostship of Tempelburg in the government district of Köslin belongs to the Archdiocese of Posen. At the last census (1905) the Catholics of Pomerania numbered 50,206. The largest Catholic parishes are Stettin (8635 souls), Lauenburg (1475), Stargard (1387), Kolberg (1054), Greifswald (951), and Stolp (951). BARTHOLD, Gesch, von Pommern u. Rügen, I-V (Hamburg, 1839-45); WEHRMANN, Gesch, von Pommern, I, II (Gotha, 1904-06); Pommersches Urkundenbuch, I-V (Stettin 1868-1903); Gemeindelexikon für das Königreich Preussen, IV (Berlin, 1908); Handbuch des Bistums Breslau u. seines Delegaturbezirks (Breslau, 1910); JANSSEN, Hist. of the German People, tr. CHRISTIE (London), passim. KLEMENS LÖFFLER. Pompeiopolis, Titular See of Pompeiopolis A titular see in Paphlagonia. The ancient name of the town is unknown; it may have been Eupatoria which Pliny (VI, ii, 3), followed by Le Quien and Battandier, wrongly identifies with the Eupatoria of Mithridates. The latter was called Magnopolis by Pompey. Pompeiopolis was, with Andrapa-Neapolis, in 64 b.c. included by Pompey in the Province of Pontus, but the annexation was premature, as the town (which ranked as a metropolis) was restored to vassal princes of eastern Paphlagonia and definitively annexed to the Roman Empire in 6 b.c. Strabo (XIII, iii, 48) says that in the neighbourhood was a mine of realgar or sulphuret of arsenic, which was worked by criminals. As early as the middle of the seventh century the "Ecthesis" of Pseudo-Epiphanius (ed. Gelzer, 535) ranks it as an autocephalous archdiocese, which title it probably received when Justinian (Novellæ, xxix) reorganized the province of Paphlagonia. In the eleventh century Pompeiopolis became a metropolitan see (Parthey, "Hieroclis Synecdemus", 97) and it was still such in the fourteenth century (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte-Texte der Notitiæ episcopatuum", 608). Shortly afterwards the diocese was suppressed. Le Quien (Oriens christ., I, 557-60) mentions fourteen titulars of this diocese the last of whom, Gregory, lived about 1350. Amon them were Philadelphus, at the Council of Nicæa (325); Sophronius, at that of Seleucia; Arginus, at Ephesus (431); Ætherius, at Chalcedon (451); Severus, Constantinople (553); Theodore, Constantinople (680-1); Maurianus, Nicæa (787); and John, Constantinople (869). Pompeiopolis is now called Tach-Keupru (bridge of stone), because of an ancient bridge over the Tatai-Tchai or Gueul-Irmak, the ancient Ammias, and is in the sandjak and vilayet of Kastamouni twenty-five miles north-east of that town. It has about 7000 inhabitants, of whom 700 are Christians, the majority Armenian schismatics. RAMSAY, Geography of Asia Minor (London, 1890), 192, 318; ANDERSON, Studia Pontica (Brussels, 1903), 93; CUINET, La Turquie d'Asie, IV (Paris, 1894), 484-7. S. VAILHÉ. Pietro Pomponazzi Pietro Pomponazzi (POMPONATIUS, also known as PERETTO on account of his small stature) A philosopher and founder of the Aristotelean-Averroistic School, born at Mantua, 1462; died at Bologna, 1525. He taught philosophy at Padua, Ferrara, and Bologna. His pupils included eminent laymen and ecclesiastics, many of whom afterwards opposed him. At Padua, since 1300 the chairs of philosophy were dominated by Averroism, introduced there especially by the physician Pietro d'Albanio and represented then by Nicoletto Vernias and Alessandro Achillini. Pomponazzi opposed that system, relying on the commentaries of Alexander Aphrodisias for the defence of the Aristotelean doctrines on the soul and Providence. His chief works are: "Tractatus de immortalitate animæ" (Bologna, 1516), in defence of which he wrote "Apologia" (1517) and "Defensorium" (1519) against Contarini and Agostino Nifo; "De fato, libero arbitrio, de prædestinatione et de providentia libri quinque" (1523), where he upholds the traditional opinion about fate; "De naturalium effectuum admirandorum causis, sive de incantationibus" (1520), to prove that in Aristotle's philosophy miracles are impossible. In opposition to the Averroists, Pomponazzi denied that the intellectus possibilis is one and the same in all men; but, with Alexander, he asserted that the intellectus agens is one and the same, being God Himself, and consequently immortal, while the intellective soul is identical with the sensitive and consequently mortal, so that, when separated from the body and deprived of the imagination which supplies its object it can no longer act and hence must perish with the body; furthermore, the soul without its vegetative and sensitive elements would be imperfect; apparitions of departed souls are fables and hallucinations. If religion and human law presuppose the immortality of the soul, it is because this deception enables men more easily to refrain from evil. Sometimes, however, Pomponazzi proposes this thesis as doubtful or problematic, or only contends that immortality cannot be demonstrated philosophically, faith alone affording us certainty; and even on this point he expresses his willingness to submit to the Holy See. In controversy with Contarini he expressly declares that reason apodictically proves the mortality of the soul, and that faith alone assures us of the contrary, immortality being, therefore, undue and gratuitous, or supernatural. Pomponazzi's book was publicly consigned to the flames at Venice by order of the doge; hence in book III of his "Apologia" he defends himself against the stigma of heresy. The refutation by Nifo, already an Averroist, was written by order of Leo X. In the Fifth Lateran Council (1513; Sess. VIII, Const. "Apost. Regiminis") when the doctrine was condemned, Pomponazzi's name was not mentioned, his book having not yet been published. He was defended by Cardinal Bembo, but was obliged by Leo X in 1518 to retract. Nevertheless, he published his "Defensorium" against Nifo, which, like his second and third apologies, contains the most bitter invective against his opponents, whereas Nifo and Contarini refrained from personalities. The philosophy of Pomponazzi has its roots in ancient and medieval ideas. Notable among his disciples and defenders are the Neapolitan Simone Porta and Jul. Cæsar Scaliger; the latter is best known as an erudite philosopher. FIORENTINO, Pietro Pomponazzi (Florence, 1868); PODESTA (Bologna, 1868); RENAN, Averroe et l'Averroisme (Paris, 1862); SCHAAF, Conspectus Historioe philosophioe recentis (Rome, 1910), 103-50, where Pomponazzi's doctrine is fully expounded. U. BENIGNI John Ponce John Ponce A philosopher and theologian, born at Cork, 1603, died at Paris, 1670. At an early age he went to Belgium and entered the novitiate of the Irish Franciscans in St. Antony's College, Louvain. He studied philosophy at Cologne, began the study of theology in Louvain, under Hugh Ward and John Colgan, was called by Luke Wadding to Rome, and admitted 7 Sept., 1625, into the College of St. Isidore which had just been founded for the education of Irish Franciscans. After receiving his degrees he was appointed to teach philosophy and later, theology in St. Isidore's. He lectured afterwards at Lyons and Paris, where he was held in great repute for his learning. In 1643 he published in Rome his "Cursus philosophiæ". Some of his opinions were opposed by Mastrius, and Ponce replied in "Appendix apologeticus" (Rome, 1645), in which he says that although he accepts all the conclusions of Duns Scotus, he does not feel called upon to adopt all Scotus's proofs. Mastrius acknowledged the force of Ponce's reasoning and admitted that he had shed light on many philosophical problems. In 1652, Ponce published "Integer cursus theologiæ" (Paris). These two works explain with great clearness and precision the teaching of the Scotistic school. In 1661, he published at Paris his great work, "Commentarii theologici in quatuor libros sententiarum", called by Hurter opus rarissimum. Ponce also assisted Luke Wadding in editing the works of Scotus. Wadding says that he was endowed with a powerful and subtle intellect, a great facility of communicating knowledge, a graceful style, and that though immersed in the severer studies of philosophy and theology he was an ardent student of the classics. Ponce succeeded Father Martin Walsh in the government of the Ludovisian College at Rome for the education of Irish secular priests; and for some time he filled the position of superior of St. Isidore's. He had a passionate love of his country and was an active agent in Rome of the Irish Confederate Catholics. When dissensions arose among the Confederates, and when Richard Bellings, secretary to the Supreme Council, published his "Vindiciæ" (Paris, 1652), attacking the Irish Catholics who remained faithful to the nuncio, Father Ponce promptly answered with his "Vindiciae Eversae" (Paris, 1652). He had already warned the Confederates not to trust the Royalists. In a letter (2nd July, 1644) to the agent of the Catholics, Hugo de Burgo, he says: "the English report that the king will not give satisfaction to our commissioners (from the Confederates) though he keep them in expectation and to delay them for his own interest". His works besides those mentioned are "Judicium doctrinæ SS. Augustini et Thomæ", Paris, 1657; "Scotus Hiberniae restitutus" [in answer to Father Angelus a S. Francisco (Mason), who claimed Scotus as an Englishman]; "Deplorabilis populi Hibernici pro religione, rege et libertate status" (Paris, 1651). WADDINGUS-SBARALEA, Scriptores Ordinis (Rome, 1806); JOANNESa S. ANTONIO, Bibliotheca universa Franciscana (Madrid, 1732); Ware's Works, ed. HARRIS (Dublin, 1764); SMITH, The Ancient and Present State of the County and City of Cork (Cork, 1815); BRENAN, The Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (Dublin, 1864); HURTER, Nomenclator; Contemporary History of Affairs in Ireland, etc., ed. GILBERT (Dublin, 1880); History of the Irish Confederation and War in Ireland, ed. GILBERT (Dublin, 1891); HOLZAPFEL, Geschichte des Franziskanerordens (Freiburg, 1908); PATREM, Tableau synoptique de l'histoire de l'Ordre Séraphique (Paris, 1879); ALLIBONE, Dictionary of Authors (Philadelphia); Manuscripts preserved in the library of Franciscan Convent, Dublin, and in the Irish College of S. Isidore, Rome. GREGORY CLEARY. Ponce de Leon Juan Ponce de León Explorer, b. at San Servas in the province of Campos, 1460; d. in Cuba, 1521. He was descended from an ancient and noble family; the surname of León was acquired through the marriage of one of the Ponces to Doña Aldonza de León, a daughter of Alfonso IX. As a lad Ponce de León served as page to Pedro Nuñuz de Guzmán, later the tutor of the brother of Charles V, the Infante Don Fernando. In 1493, Ponce sailed to Hispaniola (San Domingo) with Columbus on his second voyage, an expedition which included many aristocratic young men, and adventurous noblemen who had been left without occupation after the fall of Granada. When Nicolás Ovando came to Hispaniola in 1502 as governor, he found the natives in a state of revolt, and in the war which followed Ponce rendered such valuable services that he was appointed Ovando's lieutenant with headquarters in a town in the eastern part of the island. While here, he heard from the Indians that there was much wealth in the neighbouring Island of Buriquien (Porto Rico), and he asked and obtained permission to visit it in 1508, where he discovered many rich treasures; for his work in this expedition he was appointed Adelantado or Governor of Boriquien. Having reduced the natives, he was soon afterward removed from office, but not until he had amassed a considerable fortune. At this time stories of Eastern Asia were prevalent which told of a famous spring the waters of which had the marvellous virtue of restoring to youth and vigour those who drank them. Probably the Spaniards heard from the Indians tales that reminded them of this Fons Juventutis, and they got the idea that this fountain was situated on an island called Bimini which lay to the north of Hispaniola. Ponce obtained from Charles V, 23 February, 1512, a patent authorizing him to discover and people the Island of Bimini, giving him jurisdiction over the island for life, and bestowing upon him the title of Adelantado. On 3 March, 1513, Ponce set out from San German (Porto Rico) with three ships, fitted out at his own expense. Setting his course in a northwesterly direction, eleven days later he reached Guanahani, where Columbus first saw land. Continuing his way, on Easter Sunday (Pascua de Flores), 27 March, he came within sight of the coast which he named Florida in honour of the day and on account of the luxuriant vegetation. On 2 April he landed at a spot a little to the north of the present site of St. Augustine and formally took possession in the name of the Crown. He now turned back, following the coast to its southern extremity and up the west coast to latitude 27°30', and then returned to Porto Rico. During this trip he had several encounters with the natives, who showed great courage and determination in their attacks, which probably accounts for the fact that Ponce did not attempt to found a settlement or penetrate into the interior in search of the treasure which was believed to be hidden there. Although his first voyage had been without result as far as the acquisition of gold and slaves, and the discovery of the "fountain of youth" were concerned, Ponce determined to secure possession of his new discovery. Through his friend, Pedro Nuñez de Guzmán, he secured a second grant dated 27 September, 1514, which gave him power to settle the Island of Bimini and the Island of Florida, for such he thought Florida to be. In 1521 he set out with two ships and landing upon the Florida coast, just where, it is not known, he was furiously attacked by the natives while he was building houses for his settlers. Finally driven to re-embark, he set sail for Cuba, where he died of the wound which he had received. Herrara, Década Primera (Madrid, 1726); Oviedo, Historia General y Natural de las Indias (Madrid, 1851); Shea, The Catholic Church in Colonial Days (New Yortk, 1886); Idem, Ancient Florida in Narr. and Crit. Hist. Am. (New York, 1889); Harrisse, Discovery of North America (London, 1892); Fisk, Discovery of America (New York, 1892); Lowery, Spanish Settlements in the U. S. (New York, 1901). Ventura Fuentes Joseph Anthony de La Rivere Poncet Joseph Anthony de la Rivière Poncet Missionary; b. at Paris, 17 May, 1610; d. at Martinique, 18 June, 1675. He entered the Jesuit novitiate in Paris at nineteen, was a brilliant student in rhetoric and philosophy, pursued his studies at Clermont, Rome, and Ruen, and taught at Orléans (1631-4). In 1638 he met Madame de la Pettrie and accompanied her and Marie de l'Incarnation to Canada in the following year. He was sent immediately to the Huron mission and had no further relations with Marie de l'Incarnation. In 1645 he founded an Algonquin mission on the Island of St. Mary. After returning to Quebec he was seized by the Iroquois; he was being tortured when a rescue party arrived in time to save his life. His companion, Mathurin Franchelot, was burned at the stake. In 1657, as he became involved in ecclesiastical disputes, he was sent back to France. He held the position of French penitentiary at Loreto, and was later sent to the Island of Martinique, where he died. Jesuit Relations, ed. THWAITES (73 vols., Cleveland, 1896-1901); CAMPBELL, Pioneer Priests of North America, I (New York, 1909), 61-74. J. ZEVELY Pondicherry Archdiocese of Pondicherry (PONDICHERIANA OR PUDICHERIANA) Located in India, it is bounded on the east by the Bay of Bengal, divided on the north from the Dioceses of Madras and San Thomé (Mylapore) by the River Palar, on the west from the Diocese of Mysore by the River Chunar and the Mysore civil boundaries, and from the Diocese of Coimbatore by the River Cauvery; on the south by the River Vellar from the Diocese of Kumbakonam. Besides Pondicherry itself, and the portion of British India contiguous to it, the archdiocese includes all the smaller outlying French possessions, namely Karikal and Yanaon on the east coast, Mahe on the west coast, and Chandernagore in Bengal. The total Catholic population in French territory is 25,859, the rest, out of a total of 143,125, belonging to the North and South Arcot, Chingleput and Salem districts, all in British confines. There are 78 churches and 210 chapels, served by 102 priests (78 European and 24 native). The diocese is under the charge of the Society of Foreign Missions, Paris. The archbishop's residence, cathedral and diocesan seminaries are at Pondicherry. The Fathers are assisted by four congregations of women, viz., of the Carmelite Order, of the Sacred Heart of Mary, of St. Joseph, and of St. Aloysius Gonzaga. The districts covered by the Pondicherry Archdiocese were originally comprised within the padroado jurisdiction of San Thomé, but mission-work did not extend beyond the north-west corner near San Thomé, and a small portion in the south which lay within the limits of the Madura mission. Pondicherry itself was only a village till some shipwrecked Frenchmen under Francis Martin settled there in 1674 and afterwards purchased it from the Raja of Vijayapur. About this time some French Capuchins arrived to take care of the Europeans in the new settlement, and a few years later (in 1690) some French Jesuits followed and began to work among the natives == both under Propaganda jurisdiction. From Pondicherry the Jesuits gradually proceeded inland and founded what was called the Carnatic mission about 1700. On the suppression of the Jesuits in 1773 the whole field was entrusted to the Paris Seminary for Foreign Missions, including the Madura districts, where the disbanded Jesuits continued to work under the new regime till they gradually died out. In 1836 (Brief of Gregory XVI, 8 July) the mission of Pondicherry was made into the Vicariate Apostolic of the Coromandel coast. At the same time the Jesuits (who had been restored in 1814) were placed once more in charge of the Madura mission, excepting the portion north of the Cauvery River, which was retained by Pondicherry. In 1850 the Vicariate of the Coromandel coast was divided and two new vicariates erected == those of Mysore and Coimbatore. On the establishment of the hierarchy in 1886, Pondicherry was elevated into an archbishopric with Mysore and Coimbatore as suffragan bishoprics as well as the Diocese of Malacca outside India. Finally in 1899 the southern portion of the archdiocese was separated and made into the (suffragan) Diocese of Kumbakonam == he whole province remaining under the same missionary Society. Among its prelates were: Pierre Brigot, 1776-91 (superior with episcopal orders); Nicholas Champenois, 1791-1810; Louis Charles Auguste Herbert; 1811-36; Clement Bonnand, 1836-61 (first vicar Apostolic); Joseph Isidore Godelle, 1861-67; Francis Jean Laouenan, 1868-92 (became first archbishop in 1886); Joseph Adolphus Gandy, 1892-1909; Elias Jean Joseph Morel, present archbishop from 1909. Its educational institutions consist of the Theological Seminary at Pondicherry with 40 students and Petit Seminaire with 1102 pupils; St. Joseph's High School, Cuddalore, founded 1868, with 819 students, including 250 boarders, with branch school at Tirupapuliyur (founded 1883), with 289 pupils; at Tindavanam, St. Joseph's Industrial School, under the Brothers of St. Gabriel, with 50 pupils. Eighty other schools, mostly elementary, in various parts. Congregation of Sisters of St. Joseph (80 European and 48 native sisters) have for girls, boarding- and day-schools, orphanages, and asylums at Pondicherry, Karikal, Mahe, Chandernagore, Yercaud, Tindivanum, Arni, Cheyur, and Alladhy. Native Carmelite nuns have convents at Pondicherry and Karikal with 45 sisters. Native nuns of the Sacred Heart of Mary, established 1844 under the rules of the Third Order of St. Francis of Assisi, with 23 professed nuns, have schools at Pondicherry, Cuddalore, Karikal, Salem, and eleven other places, with total of 1626 pupils. The Native Nuns of St. Louis or Aloysius Gonzaga, 40 sisters, have a school and orphanage at Pondicherry and orphanage at Vellore. Its charitable institutions include altogether 20 orphanages for boys and girls with 534 orphans, besides 100 orphans in care of Christian families; 4 asylums for Eurasians, etc. 2 hospitals (Pondicherry and Karikal), besides homes for the aged. Madras Catholic Directory (1910); LAUNAY. Histoire Générale de la Société des Missions Etrangères; IDEM, Atlas des Missions. ERNEST R. HULL. Pontefract Priory Pontefract Priory Located in Yorkshire, England, a Cluniac monastery dedicated to St. John the Evangelist, founded about 1090 by Robert de Lacy, as a dependency of the Abbey of la Charité-sur-Loire, which supplied the first monks. Two charters of the founder are given in Dugdale. In a charter of Henry de Lacy, son of Robert, the church is spoken of as dedicated to St. Mary and St. John. These donations were finally confirmed to the monastery by a Bull of Pope Celestine (whether II or III is uncertain), which also conferred certain ecclesiastical privileges on the priory. In the Visitation Records it had sixteen monks in 1262, and twenty-seven in 1279. At the latter date a prior of exceptional ability was in charge of the house, and he is commended for his zeal during the twelve years of his rule, which had resulted in a reduction of the monastery's debts from 3200 marks to 350. A later, undated, visitation return gives the average number of monks at twenty. Duckett prints a letter from Stephen, Prior of Pontefract in 1323, to Pierre, Abbot of Cluny, explaining that he had been prevented from making a visitation of the English Cluniac houses, owing to the presence of the king and court at Pontefract, which prevented his leaving home. In the previous year (1322) Thomas, Earl of Lancaster had been beheaded at Pontefract, and his body buried in the priory church "on the right hand of the high altar". Rumour declared that miracles had been wrought at the tomb. This attempt to regard the earl as a martyr aroused the anger of Edward II, who impounded the offerings (Rymer, Foedera, II, ii, 726). However, not long after, a chantry dedicated to St. Thomas was built on the site of the execution and, in 1343, license was given to the prior and Convent of Pontefract "to allow Masses and other Divine Services" to be celebrated there. In the valor ecclesiasticus of 26 Henry VIII, the yearly revenue of the priory is entered as £472 16s. 10½d. gross, and £337 14s. 8½d. clear value. The last prior, James Thwayts, with seven brethren and one novice surrendered the monastery to the king, 23 November, 1540, the prior being assigned a pension of fifty pounds per annum. The Church and buildings have been completely destroyed, but the site is still indicated by the name of Monk-hill. DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum, V (London, 1846), 118-31; DUCKETT Charters and Records . . . of the Abbey of Cluni (privately printed, 1888), passim, esp. II, 150-54; IDEM, Record Evidences . . . of the Abbey of Cluni (privately printed, 1886); IDEM, Visitations of English Cluniac Foundations (London, 1890); BOOTHROYD, History of Pontefract (Pontefract, 1807); FOX, History of Pontefract (Pontefract, 1827). G. ROGER HUDLESTON. Pope St. Pontian Pope St. Pontian Dates of birth and death unknown. The "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 145) gives Rome as his native city and calls his father Calpurnius. With him begins the brief chronicle of the Roman bishops of the third century, of which the author of the Liberian Catalogue of the popes made use in the fourth century and which gives more exact data for the lives of the popes. According to this account Pontian was made pope 21 July, 230, and reigned until 235. The schism of Hippolytus continued during his episcopate; towards the end of his pontificate there was a reconciliation between the schismatic party and its leader with the Roman bishop. After the condemnation of Origen at Alexandria (231-2), a synod was held at Rome, according to Jerome (Epist. XXXII, iv) and Rufinus (Apol. contra Hieron., II, xx), which concurred in the decisions of the Alexandrian synod against Origen; without doubt this synod was held by Pontian (Hefele, Konziliengeschichte, 2nd ed., I, 106 sq.). In 235 in the reign of Maximinus the Thracian began a persecution directed chiefly against the heads of the Church. One of its first victims was Pontian, who with Hippolytus was banished to the unhealthy island of Sardinia. To make the election of a new pope possible, Pontian resigned 28 Sept., 235, the Liberian Catalogue says "discinctus est". Consequently Anteros was elected in his stead. Shortly before this or soon afterwards Hippolytus, who had been banished with Pontian, became reconciled to the Roman Church, and with this the schism he had caused came to an end. How much longer Pontian endured the sufferings of exile and harsh treatment in the Sardinian mines is unknown. According to old and no longer existing Acts of martyrs, used by the author of the "Liber Pontificalis", he died in consequence of the privations and inhuman treatment he had to bear. Pope Fabian (236-50) had the remains of Pontian and Hippolytus brought to Rome at a later date and Pontian was buried on 13 August in the papal crypt of the Catacomb of Callistus. In 1909 the original epitaph was found in the crypt of St. Cecilia, near the papal crypt. The epitaph, agreeing with the other known epitaphs of the papal crypt, reads: PONTIANOS, EPISK. MARTUR (Pontianus, Bishop, Martyr). The word mártur was added later and is written in ligature [cf. Wilpert, "Die Papstgräber und die Cäciliengruft in der Katakombe des hl. Kalixtus" (Freiburg, 1909), 1 sq., 17 sq., Plate III]. He is placed under 13 Aug. in the list of the "Depositiones martyrum" in the chronographia of 354. The Roman Martyrology gives his feast on 19 Nov. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, I, Introd., xxiv sq., 145 sq.; De Rossi, Roma Sotteranea, ii, 73 sqq. J.P. KIRSCH Pontifical Colleges Pontifical Colleges In earlier times there existed in Europe outside of the city of Rome a large number of colleges, seminaries, and houses of the regular orders which, in one form or other, were placed under the Holy See or under the Sacred Congregation de propaganda fide. Of these only a few remain. A list of these institutions is given, with emphasis on the fact that their object was to maintain the Faith in England, Ireland, and Scotland. The English College of St. Albans at Valladolid (1589); the English College, Lisbon (1622); the Scotch College, Valladolid (1627); the Irish College, Paris (1592); the English colleges at Douai (1568-1794), Madrid-Seville (1592- 1767), San Lucar (1517), Saint-Omer (1594-1795), Esquerchin (1750-93), Paris, (1611); the Benedictine institutions at Douai (1605-1791), Saint-Malo (1611-61), Paris (1615-1793), Lambsprug (1643-1791); the house of the Discalced Carmelites at Tongres (1770-93); the convent of the Carthusians at Nieuport (1559 at Bruges, 1626-1783 at Nieuport); the Dominican monasteries at Bornheim (1658-1794) and at Louvain (1680-1794); the monastery of the Franciscan Recollets at Douai (1614-1790); the Jesuit houses at Saint-Omer (1583-1773), Watten (1570, or perhaps 1600, to 1773), Liège (1616-1773), Ghent (1622-1773). Two of the Jesuit institutions, Saint-Omer and Liège, existed as secular colleges up to 1793. Most of the other monastic foundations emigrated later to England, where several still exist. At the present time the matter is essentially different. In speaking of pontifical colleges the distinction must be made between those which have explicitly received the honorary title Pontifical and those which can be included in such only in a general sense, because they are directly dependent upon a central authority at Rome. It is a matter of indifference whether the institutions are called seminaries or colleges, as no material difference exists. There are only three institutions with the title pontifical: (1) The Pontifical Seminary of Kandy, Ceylon; (2) The Pontifical Seminary of Scutari (Collegium Albaniense); (3) The Pontifical College Josephinum, at Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A. The remaining sixteen colleges at present under consideration do not possess this designation, which is a merely honorary title. The clergy are trained for the regular cure of souls at the American colleges at Columbus (Ohio) and Louvain; the English, Irish, and Scotch institutions at Lisbon, Valladolid, and Paris; the seminary at Athens; and the college at Scutari; the remaining eleven institutions are employed in training missionaries. There are in Europe the Leonine Seminary of Athens; the Albanian College of Scutari; the English colleges at Valladolid and Lisbon; the Scotch College, Valladolid; the Irish College, Paris; the Seminary for Foreign Missions, Paris; the seminary at Lyons; All Hallows College, Dublin; St. Joseph's Seminary, Mill Hill, London; St. Joseph's Rezendaal, Holland; the American College at Louvain; St. Joseph's at Brixen, in the Tyrol; the missionary institute at Verona; the Seminary for Foreign Missions at Milan; and the Brignole-Sale College at Genoa. In America there is the Josephinum College at Columbus, Ohio, and in Asia the seminary at Kandy, Ceylon, and the General College at Pulo-Pinang. Formerly all these institutions were under the supreme direction of the Propaganda even when, by an agreement or by the terms of foundation, the appointment of the rectors of some institutions belonged to some other authority. Since the publication of the Constitution "Sapienti consilio" (29 June, 1908), which considerably limited the powers of the Propaganda, it still has under its charge, according to the letter of the under-secretary of the Propaganda of 11 January, 1911, ipso jure the institutions at Kandy, Athens, Genoa, and Pulo-Pinang; later decisions of the Consistorial Congregation have added to these the seminary for foreign missions at Paris, as well as the seminaries at Milan and Lyons. All other houses, seminaries, and colleges are, therefore, placed under the regular jurisdiction either of the bishops of the country, or of a committee of these bishops, or of the diplomatic representative of the Holy See in the respective country, when the cardinal secretary of state has not reserved to himself the immediate supervision of certain institutions. Some of the institutions mentioned no longer belong, strictly speaking, in the present category; but it seems advisable not to exclude them, because the transfer is of recent date and they are generally regarded as papal institutions in a broader sense. Their former dependence upon the Propaganda is best shown by the detailed mention of them in the last handbook of this congregation, "Missiones Catholicæ cura S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide descriptæ anno 1907" (Rome, 1907), pp. 831-49. This is also explicitly stated in the letter referred to above. Ten of these institutions are in charge of secular priests. The general seminary at Pulo-Pinang is under the care of a congregation of secular priests located at Paris, the Paris Society for Foreign Missions. The Congregation of the Mission (Lazarists) conduct the Irish College at Paris, All Hallows at Dublin, and the Brignole-Sale College at Genoa; the Society of St. Joseph has charge of the institutions at Mill Hill, Rozendaal, and Brixen; the Pontifical Seminary of Kandy and the Pontifical College of Scutari were transferred to the Society of Jesus; the Veronese Institute is under the care of the Sons of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, for African Missions. Pontifical College Josephinum at Columbus, Ohio, founded at Pommery (1875) by Joseph Jessing as an orphan asylum, was transferred to Columbus in 1877. In 1888 a high-school, in which the sons of poor parents of German descent could be prepared for philosophical and theological studies, was added. The philosophical faculty was established the following year, and later the theological faculty. In 1892 Jessing transferred his college to the Holy See, and it became a pontifical institution on 12 December, 1892. The college has developed rapidly and its financial basis is substantial and steadily increasing. The priests educated there are under obligation to engage in diocesan parish work in the United States. The entire training of the students is at the expense of the institution and is bilingual, German and English. The number of scholarships is now one hundred and eighteen, but it is not complete. By a decree of the Congregation of the Consistory (29 July, 1909), the institution was to remain under the jurisdiction of the Propaganda only for matters relating to property, etc. otherwise being dependent upon the Congregation of the Consistory. By a decree of the same congregation, 18 June, 1910, all priests ordained in future in the Josephinum are to be assigned to the various dioceses by the Apostolic Delegate in Washington, D. C. For the American College of the Immaculate Conception, see THE AMERICAN COLLEGE AT LOUVAIN. For the Irish College at Paris see IRISH COLLEGES ON THE CONTINENT. The English College at Valladolid (St. Albans) was founded through the co-operation of the celebrated Jesuit Robert Persons with Philip II. Its purpose was to aid in saving the Catholic Church in England. Clement VIII confirmed the foundation by a Bull of 25 April, 1592. In 1767 the English colleges at Madrid and Seville were united with this institution. The English College at Lisbon was established by a Portuguese nobleman Pedro do Continho before 1622 and was confirmed on 22 September, 1622, by Gregory XV, and on 14 October, 1627, by Urban VIII. The Scotch College at Valladolid was first established in 1627 at Madrid, where the Scotch founder, William Semple, and his Spanish wife Maria de Ledesma lived. In 1767 the property of the college fell to the Irish College at Alcales de Henares, but in 1771 was restored to the Scotch College, which got a new lease of life by its transfer to Valladolid. For the College of All Hallows at Dublin, see ALL HALLOWS COLLEGE. St. Joseph's Seminary at Mill Hill, London, founded by Cardinal Vaughan in 1886, belongs to the Society of St. Joseph; it prepares missionaries for the foreign field. Connected with it are the two institutions at Rozendaal in Holland and at Brixen in the Tyrol. The Papal Seminary at Kandy, Ceylon, a general seminary for training native Indian priests, was founded and endowed by Leo XIII in 1893, and is under the immediate supervision of the delegate Apostolic for Eastern India. The Papal Albanian College at Scutari was founded in 1858 with money given by the Austrian Government, which had inherited from the Venetian Republic the duty of protecting the Christians in Albania. Soon after its erection it was destroyed by the Turks. The new building (ready for use in 1862) serves also for training Servian and Macedonian candidates for the priesthood. The Austrian Government has endowed twenty-four scholarships and the Propaganda ten. The Leonine Seminary of Athens was founded by Leo XIII on 20 November, 1901, to train Greeks for the Latin priesthood. The Seminary at Milan for Foreign Missions was founded in 1850. The Seminary at Lyons for African Missions, founded in 1856, is connected with four Apostolic schools; it has laboured with great success in Africa. The Brignole-Sale College, founded in 1855 by the Marquis Antonin Brignole-Sale and his wife Arthemisia, was confirmed by Pius IX. It has eight free scholarships for students from the dioceses of Liguria, and is conducted by the Lazarist Fathers for the training of missionaries. The Seminary of Paris, founded in 1663, for training men for the foreign mission field, is carried on by an organization of secular priests. It is the largest institution of this kind, and at the present time (1911) nearly 1500 of its graduates are missionaries. The General College at Pulo-Pinang for training a native clergy for Eastern Asia was founded by the seminary at Paris. The Veronese Institute at Vienna founded in 1867 for missions among the negroes is at present, after many misfortunes and disappointments, in a fairly flourishing condition. For the sake of completeness there might be added to this list the seminary of the Fathers of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at Scheut near Brussels, the Maison-Carrée of the White Fathers, in Algiers, and the institutions of the Missionaries of Steyl at Steyl, Heiligkreuz, St. Wendel, St. Gabriel (and Rome). These, however, are to be regarded rather as monastic novitiates than as seminaries. The seminaries established in earlier times at Naples, Marseilles, and other places for the Asiatic peoples have either disappeared or the foundations have been diverted to other purposes. Of the large bibliography for the English, Irish, and Scotch institutions we may cite the important work by Petre, Notices of the English Colleges and Convents, Established on the Continent, after the Dissolution of Religious Houses in England, ed. Husenbeth (Norwich, 1849), issued for private circulation only. For most of the other institutions there are only scattered notes, annual reports, the Missiones Catholicæ already mentioned, and articles in works of a general character. Catalogus omnium coe;nobiorum pertinentium ad subditos Regis Angliæ in Belgio in Bojanus, Innocent XI. Sa correspondance avec ses nonces 1676-9, I, 221-2, gives the most complete details concerning names and personnel of the Englsih colleges. Cappello, De Curia Romana juxta Reformationem a Pio X sapientissimo inductam, I (Rome, 1911), 248-53, where all the new rules are discussed at length. PAUL MARIA BAUMGARTEN Pontificale Pontificale (Pontificale Romanum). A liturgical book which contains the rites for the performance of episcopal functions (e.g. conferring of confirmation and Holy orders), with the exception of Mass and Divine Office. It is practically an episcopal ritual, containing formularies and rubrics which existed in the old Sacramentaries and "Ordines Romani", and were gradually collected together to form one volume for the greater convenience of the officiating bishop. Such collections were known under the names of "Liber Sacramentorum", "Liber Officialis", "Liber Pontificalis", "Ordinarium Episcopale", "Benedictionale", etc. Among these medieval manuscript volumes perhaps the most ancient and most important for liturgical study is the Pontificale of Egbert, Archbishop of York (732-6), which in many respects resembles the present Pontifical. The first printed edition, prepared by John Burchard and Augustine Patrizi Piccolomini, papal masters of ceremonies, was published (1485) in the pontificate of Innocent VIII. Clement VIII published a corrected and official edition in 1596. In his constitution "Ex quo in Ecclesia Dei" he declared this Pontifical obligatory, forbade the use of any other and prohibited any modification or addition to it without papal permission. Urban VIII and Benedict XIV had it revised and made some additions to it, and finally Leo XIII caused a new typical edition to be published in 1888. (See LITURGICAL BOOKS.) CATALANUS, Pontificale Romanum (Paris, 1850), an important commentary; ZACCARIA, Bibliotheca Ritualis (Rome, 1781). J.F. GOGGIN Pontificalia Pontificalia (PONTIFICALS). The collective name given for convenience sake to those insignia of the episcopal order which of right are worn by bishops alone. In its broader sense the term may be taken to include all the items of attire proper to bishops, even those belonging to their civil or choir dress, for example the cappa magna, or the hat with its green cord and lining. But more strictly and accurately, rubricians limit the pontificals to those ornaments which a prelate wears in celebrating pontifically. The pontificals common to all are enumerated by Pius VII in his constitution "Decet Romanos" (4 July, 1823), and are eight in number: buskins, sandals, gloves, dalmatic, tunicle, ring, pectoral cross, and mitre. When abbots, prothonotaries apostolic, and in some cases canons, receive by indult from the Holy See the privilege of celebrating cum pontificalibus, these eight ornaments are meant. The use of them is ordinarily restricted==for Abbots to their own monastery or places within their jurisdiction, for canons to their own church, and for prothonotaries to those places for which the ordinary gives his consent. Moreover, while bishops and cardinals may wear most of these things in all solemn ecclesiastical functions, those who enjoy them by papal indult may only exercise this privilege in the celebration of Mass. Several other restrictions distinguish the pontifical Mass of such inferior prelates from that of bishops or cardinals. The former are not allowed to bless the people as they pass through the church they have no right to a seventh candle on the altar; they vest in the sacristy and not in the sanctuary; they do not use faldstool, or bugia, or gremiale, or crosier, or Canon, and they are attended by no assistant priest; they do not say "Pax vobis", and they only wash their hands once, i.e. at the offertory. The legislation upon this subject is to be found in the above-mentioned constitution of Pius VII, supplemented by the "Apostolic Sedis officium" of Pius IX (26 Aug., 1872) and the Motu Proprio of Pius X, "Inter multiplices" (21 Feb., 1905). With regard to the ornaments just mentioned and other such pontificals or quasi-pontificals as the manteletta, mozzetta, rationale, rochet, etc. nearly all will be found separately treated in their alphabetical order. The buskins (caligæ) are large silk leg-coverings put on over the ordinary stockings and gaiters and tied with a ribbon. The gremiale is simply an apron of silk or linen which is spread over a bishop's lap when he is seated or using the holy oils. The "Canon" is a liturgical book containing nothing but the Canon of the Mass, which is used instead of the altar cards when a bishop pontificates. The pallium and the archiepiscopal cross may also be mentioned, but they form ordinarily the special insignia of an archbishop. The practice of conceding the use of certain of the pontificals to prelates of inferior rank is one of ancient date. A grant of dalmatic and sandals to the Abbot of Metz is recorded in the year 970 (Jaffé, "Regesta" 374). In the eleventh century Pope Leo IX granted the use of the mitre to the Canons of Besan on and of Bamberg (Jaffé, 4249 and 4293). The earliest known concession of the mitre to the ruler of a monastic house is that made to Abbot Egelsinus of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, in 1603. At a somewhat later date the grants of pontifical insignia to monastic superiors and other prelates are of constant occurrence in the papal "Regesta". To obtain such distinctions became a point of rivalry among all the greater abbeys, the more so that such concessions were by no means always made in the same form or with the same amplitude, while subsequent indults often extended the terms of previous grants. Thus while, as noticed above, the concession of the mitre to St. Augustine's, Canterbury, in one of the earliest instances on record, the use of the tunicle and dalmatic at High Mass was only granted to the same abbey by Gregory IX in 1238 (Bliss, "Papal Registers", I, 170). In 1251 Innocent IV conceded to the Prior of Coventry and his successor the use of the ring only. It might be worn at all times and in all places except in celebrating Mass (ibid., 268). To the Prior of Winchester, on the other hand, only three years later, the same pope, Innocent IV, granted a much more ample concession in virtue of which he might use mitre, ring, tunic, dalmatic, gloves, and sandals, might bless chalices, altar cloths, etc., might confer the first tonsure as well as the minor orders of ostiarius and lector, and bestow the episcopal benediction at High Mass and at table (ibid., 395). It will be noticed that the crosier is not here included. But it was included in a grant to the Abbot of Selby by Alexander IV in 1256 (ibid., 331). In many of these indults a restriction was imposed that pontifical ornaments were not to be worn in the presence of the bishop of the diocese, but even here distinctions were made. For example Urban V, in 1365, allowed the Prior of Worcester to wear the plain mitre and ring in presence of the bishop, and in his absence to wear the precious mitre and ring and episcopal vestments, and to give his solemn benediction. (Bliss, IV, 48.) Not unfrequently it was specified that such pontificals might be worn in parliaments and councils "whenever any prelates below bishops wear their mitre". One most extraordinary series of concessions, to which attention has recently been called in the English Historical Review (Jan., 1911, p. 124), where the documents are printed, first bestows upon the Abbot of St. Osyth the right to use the mitre and other pontificals (Bliss, V, 334), and then gives power to confer not only the minor orders and subdiaconate but the diaconate and priesthood. This grant made by Boniface IX, in 1397, during the great Schism, was cancelled by the same pope six years afterwards at the request of the Bishop of London. BRAUN, Liturgische Gewandung (Freiburg, 1907); BARBIER DE MONTAULT, Le Costume et les Usages Eccl siastiques, 2 vols. (Paris, 1897-1901); ROHAULT DE FLEURY, La Messe (Paris, 1884). HERBERT THURSTON Pontifical Mass Pontifical Mass Pontifical Mass is the solemn Mass celebrated by a bishop with the ceremonies prescribed in the "Cæremoniale Episcoporum", I and II. The full ceremonial is carried out when the bishop celebrates the Mass at the throne in his own cathedral church, or with permission at the throne in another diocese. The "C remoniale" supposes that the canons are vested in the vestments of their order, the dignitaries, of whom the first acts as assistant priest, in copes, those of the sacerdotal order in chasubles, those of the diaconal order, of whom the first two act as assistant deacons, in dalmatics, and the subdeacons in tunics over the amice and the surplice or the rochet. In addition a deacon and subdeacon in their regular vestments and a master of ceremonies assist the bishop. Nine acolytes or clerics minister the book, bugia, mitre, crosier, censer, two acolyte candles, gremiale, and cruets, and four minister in turn at the washing of the bishop's hands. Mention is also made of a train-bearer and of at least four and at most eight torch-bearers at the time of the Elevation. All these clerics should wear surplices except the four who attend to the washing of the bishop's hands; the first four may also wear copes. The ornaments worn or used by the bishop, besides those ordinarily required for Mass, are the buskins and sandals, pectoral cross, tunic, dalmatic, gloves, pallium (if he has a right to use it), mitre, ring, crosier, gremiale, basin and ewer, canon, and bugia. A seventh candle is also placed on the altar besides the usual six. The bishop vested in the cappa magna enters the cathedral, visits the Blessed Sacrament, and then goes to the chapel, called the secretarium, where he assists at terce. During the singing of the psalms he reads the prayers of preparation for Mass and puts on the vestments for Mass as far as the stole, then vested in the cope he sings the prayer of terce, after which the cope is removed, and he puts on the rest of the vestments. The procession headed by the censer-bearer, cross-bearer, and acolytes then goes to the main altar. The bishop recites the prayers at the foot of the altar, puts on the maniple, and after kissing the altar and the book of gospels and incensing the altar, goes to the throne, where he officiates until the Offertory. His gloves are then removed; having washed his hands, he goes to the altar, and continues the Mass. The ceremonies are practically the same as for a solemn Mass; however, the bishop sings Pax vobis instead of Dominus vobiscum after the Gloria; he reads the Epistle, Gradual, and Gospel seated on the throne; gives the kiss of peace to each of his five chief ministers; washes his hands after the ablutions; sings a special formula of the episcopal blessing, making three signs of the cross in giving it, and begins the last Gospel of St. John at the altar and finishes it while returning to the throne or to the vesting-place. In pontifical Requiem Mass the buskins and sandals, gloves, crosier, and seventh candle are not used. The bishop does not read the preparation for Mass and vest during terce and he puts on the maniple before Mass begins. A titular bishop usually officiates at the faldstool. He has no assistant deacons, their duties being performed by the deacon, subdeacon, and master of ceremonies; there is no seventh candle on the altar, and ordinarily the crosier is not used; he vests in the sacristy or at the faldstool; he recites the entire Gospel of St. John at the altar. The same parts of the Mass are said at the faldstool as at the throne. Sometimes the ordinary celebrates pontifical Mass at the faldstool, without assistant deacons. Solemn Mass celebrated with some of the pontifical ornaments and ceremonies by abbots and prothonotaries is also called pontifical. That of abbots is similar to a bishop's Mass celebrated at the throne. Certain points of difference are explained in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 27 September, 1659. The privileges and limitations in the use of the pontifical insignia by the different classes of prothonotaries are set forth in the Constitution of Pius X, "Inter multiplices curas" (21 February, 1905). The solemn pontifical Mass celebrated by the pope in St. Peter's has some peculiar ceremonies. In the papal Mass a cardinal-bishop acts as assistant priest, cardinal-deacons are assistant deacons and deacon of the Mass, an auditor of the Rota is subdeacon, there is a Greek deacon and a subdeacon, and the other offices are filled by the assistants to the pontifical throne, the members of the prelatical colleges, etc. The procession of cardinals, bishops, prelates, and those who compose the capella pontificia vested according to their rank and in the prescribed order precedes the Holy Father into St. Peter's. The pope, wearing the falda, amice, alb, cincture, pectoral cross, stola, cope (mantum), and tiara is carried into the basilica on the sedia gestatoria under the canopy and with the two flabella borne on either side. Seven acolytes accompany the cross-bearer. The pope is received at the door by the cardinal-priest and the chapter, visits the Blessed Sacrament, and goes to the small throne for terce, where he receives the obedience of the cardinals, bishops, and abbots. While the psalms are being chanted, he reads the prayers of the preparation for Mass, during which his buskins and sandals are put on, and then he sings the prayer of terce. After that vestments are removed as far as the cincture, and the pope washes his hands, and puts on the subcinctorium, pectoral cross, fanon, stole, tunic, dalmatic, gloves, chasuble, pallium, mitre, and ring. He does not use the crosier or the bugia. He then gives the kiss of peace to the last three of the cardinal-priests. The Epistle is sung first in Latin by the Apostolic subdeacon and then in Greek by the Greek subdeacon, and likewise the Gospel first in Latin by the cardinal-deacon and then in Greek by the Greek deacon. While elevating the Host and the chalice the pope turns in a half circle towards the Epistle and Gospel sides. After he has given the kiss of peace to the assistant priest and assistant deacons, he goes to the throne, and there standing receives Communion. The deacon elevates the paten containing the Host covered with the asterisk, and places it in the hands of the subdeacon, which are covered with the linteum pectorale, so that the subdeacon can bring it to the throne, then the deacon elevates the chalice and brings it to the pope at the throne. The pope consumes the smaller part of the Host, and communicates from the chalice through a little tube called the fistula. He then divides the other part of the Host, gives communion to the deacon and subdeacon, and gives them the kiss of peace, after which he receives the wine of the purification from another chalice and purifies his fingers in a little cup. The deacon and subdeacon, having returned to the altar, partake of the chalice through the fistula, the subdeacon consumes the particle of the Host in the chalice, and both the deacon and the subdeacon consume the wine and the water used in the purification of the chalice. The pope returns to the altar to finish the Mass. After the blessing the assistant priest publishes the plenary indulgence. At the end of the last Gospel the pope goes to the sedia gestatoria, puts on the tiara, and returns in procession as he had entered. Cæremoniale episcoporum (Ratisbon, 1902); CATALANUS, Cæremoniale episcoporum commentariis illustratum (Rome, 1744); MARTINUCCI, Manuale sacrarum c remoniarum (Rome, 1879); LE VAVASSEUR, Les fonctions pontificales (Paris, 1904); FAVRIN, Praxis solemnium functionum episcoporum cum appendicibus pro abbatibus mitratis et protononariis apostolicis (Ratisbon, 1906); DE HERDT, Praxis pontificalis (Louvain, 1904); SARAIVA, Cæremoniale pro missa et vesperis pontificalibus ad faldistorium (Rome, 1898); MENGHINI, Ritus in pontificalibus celebrandis a protonotariis apostolicis servandus (ROME, 1909); IDEM, Le solenni ceremonie della messa pontificale celebrata dal sommo pontifice (Rome, 1904); RINALDI-BUCCI, Cæremoniale missæ quæ summo pontifice celebratur (Ratisbon, 1889); GEORGI, De liturgia romani pontificis in solemni celebratione missarum (Rome, 1731). J.F. GOGGIN Abbey of Pontigny Abbey of Pontigny Second daughter of Cîteaux, was situated on the banks of the Serain, present Diocese of Sens, Department of Yonne. Hildebert (or Ansius), a canon of Auxerre, petitioned St. Stephen of C teaux to found a monastery in a place he had selected for this purpose. St. Stephen in 1114 sent twelve monks under the guidance of Hugh of Macon, a friend and kinsman of St. Bernard. The sanctity of their lives soon attracted so great a number of subjects that during the lifetime of the first two abbots, Hugh and Guichard, twenty-two monasteries were founded. So greet an array of episcopal sees in France were filled by men taken from its members, and to such a number of renowned personages did it offer hospitality that it was called the "cradle of bishops and the asylum for great men". Amongst the former must be mentioned particularly Blessed Hugh of Macon, Bishop of Auxerre (d. 1151); Gerard, Cardinal Bishop of Pr neste (d. 1202); Robert, Cardinal Titular of St. Pudentiana, (d. 1294); amongst the latter are mentioned especially three Archbishops of Canterbury, St. Thomas, Stephen Langton, and St. Edmund, who was interred there. Discipline gradually became relaxed, especially from 1456, when the abbey was given in commendam. In 1569 the monastery was pillaged and burnt by the Huguenots, nothing being saved, except the relics of St. Edmund. Partly restored, it continued in existence until suppressed at the French Revolution. It is now in charge of the Fathers of St. Edmund, established there by J.B. Muard in 1843. JONGELINUS, Notitia Abbatiarum O. Cist. (Cologne, 1640); MANRIQUE, Annales Cister. (Lyons, 1642); LE NAIN, Essai de l'Hist. de l'Ordre de Cîteaux (Paris, 1696); MARTÈNE and DURAND, Voyage litt. (Paris, 1716); KOBLER, Klöster d. Mittelalters (Ratisbon, 1867); HENRY, Hist. de Pontigny (Auxerre, 1839); MABILLON, Annales O.S. Benedicti, V (Lucques, 1740); Gallia Christiana, XII; JANAUSCHEK, Originum (Vienna, 1877). EDMOND M. OBRECHT Pontius Carbonell Pontius Carbonell Born at Barcelona, c. 1250; died c. 1320. Pontius and Carbonell are names frequently met with in Spain, especially in Catalonia. Hence it is difficult to distinguish between the different persons bearing this name in the same century. Pontius entered the Franciscan Order and resided principally in the convent at Barcelona, where he was teacher and confessor to St. Louis, Bishop of Toulouse, during his seven years' captivity. He was also confessor to the Infant Juan of Aragon, Archbishop of Saragossa, to whom he dedicated some of his works. Probably Pontius was superior in 1314. On 25 Sept. of that year he was sent by King James II to his brother, Frederic II, King of Sicily, to entreat him not to give protection to the Fraticelli. On 12 Jan., 1316, and again on 25 Feb., Pontius wrote concerning the result of his mission. Finke has published several of these documents. In a calendar of Franciscan saints drawn up about 1335 at Assisi, Pontius is mentioned as "master and confessor of our holy brother Louis, Archbishop of Toulouse"; and Fr. Antony Vincente, O.P., registers him among the saints of Catalonia. He wrote commentaries on the Old and New Testament, and quotes largely from the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Several writers hold that he composed the "Catena Aurea Evang.", usually published among the writings of St. Thomas. In defence of this opinion Fr. Martin Perez de Guevara wrote in 1663 a book entitled "Juizio de Salomon etc.", but which was placed on the Index two years later. Not all his works have been published. Nine large folio volumes in Manuscript are preserved in the library of S. Juan de los Reyes at Toledo. WADDING, Annales, I, V (Rome, 1733); WADDING-SBARALEA (Rome, 1806); JOANNES A S. ANTONIO, Bibliotheca Universa Franciscana (Madrid, 1732); PISANUS, Liber Conformitatum (ed. Quaracchi, 1907); DE ALVA Y ASTORGA, Indiculus Bullarii Seraph. (Rome, 1655); FABRICIUS, Bibliotheca Med. Ævi. (Florence, 1734); COLL, Chronicon Calalonioe; SIXTUS SENENSIS, Bibliotheca (Naples, 1742); ANTONIO, Bibliotheca, Hisp. Vet. (1798); AMAT, Escrit Catal. (1836); Annalecta Bollandiana, IX (Brussels, 1890); Catalogus Sanctorum Fratrum, ed. LEMMENS (Rome, 1903); FINKE, Quellen (Berlin, 1908). GREGORY CLEARY. Pontus Pontus In ancient times, Pontus was the name of the north-eastern province of Asia Minor, a long and narrow strip of land on the southern coast of the Black Sea (Pontus Euxinus), from which the designation was later transferred to the country. Before this the province was called Cappadocia on the Pontus. The country was shut in by high and wild mountain ranges, but was exceedingly fertile in the lower parts on the coast, in the interior, and on the plateaux. It yielded fruit of all kinds, especially cherries, which Lucullus is said to have brought into Europe from Pontus 72 B. C.; also wine, grain, wood, honey, wax, etc., besides iron, steel, and salt. It was inhabited by a number of petty tribes; among these were the Chalybes or Chaldæans, held in high repute by the Greeks as the first smiths. All belonged to the Persian empire, but in Xenophon's day (about 400 b.c.) were to a considerable degree independent of the Persians. At this date, however, these different countries had no common name. Greeks settled early on the coast, and founded flourishing commercial cities, as Trapezus (Trebizond), Cerasus, Side, later called Polemonium, Cotyora, Amisus, and Apsarus. The founder of the Kingdom of Pontus was Mithradates I, son of Prince Mithradates of Cius on the Propontis, who was murdered 302 b.c. Mithradates I, taking advantage of the confusion caused by the Diadochian Wars, came to Pontus with only six horsemen and was able to assume the title of king 296 B. C.; he died in 266 after a reign of thirty-six years. He was followed by Ariobarzanes (died about 258 b.c.), Mithradates II (to about 210 b.c.), Mithradates III (to about 190 b.c.), Pharnaces (to 170 b.c.), Mithradates IV (to about 150 b.c.), Mithradates V (to 121 b.c.), and then Mithradates VI Eupator, or the Great. The kings, Persian by descent, formed relations early with Greece and from the beginning Hellenistic culture found an entrance into Pontus. The religion was a mixture of Greek worships with the old native cults. From the time of Pharnaces the kings were allied with the Romans. Mithradates VI became involved in three wars with the Romans (88-84, 83-81, 74-64), and finally his kingdom, which he had increased by the conquest of Colchis, the Crimea, Paphlagonia, and Cappadocia, was lost to the Romans (63). The territory west of the River Halys, the coast of Paphlagonia, and the valley of the Amnias became a part of Roman territory and with Bithynia were united into the double Province of Bithynia and Pontus. The other parts were made into principalities and free cities, and it was not until 7 B.C., A D. 18, and a.d. 63 that they were gradually absorbed by Rome. Under Diocletian (284-305) Pontus became a diocese of the empire. The Pontus mentioned in the Old Testament of the Vulgate in Gen., xiv, 1, 9, is a mistaken translation, according to Symmachus, for the district of Ellasar (Larsa in southern Babylonia). In Apostolic times Christianity found an entrance into Pontus. The First Epistle of Peter is addressed to the Christians in Pontus among others, showing that Christianity had spread to some extent in this province. The author in his exhortations presupposes relations between the faithful and the non-Christian population. For the years 111-13 we have the important testimony of Pliny, then Governor of Bithynia and Pontus (Ep. xcvi). Pliny did not mention the cities or villages, and it is uncertain whether Amastris, or Amasia, or Comana, was the place where Christians were tried by him. As concerns Amisus, Ramsay has proved from Christian sources that it contained Christians about the year 100. Later Amastris was the chief Christian community. Eusebius mentions (IV, xxiii) a letter written by Bishop Dionysius of Corinth (about 170) to Amastris, "and the other churches in Pontus". There was, therefore, at this era a metropolitan with several churches. About 240 Gregory Thaumaturgus was consecrated Bishop of Neo-Cæsarea by Phædimus, Bishop of Amasia. It is said that at that time there were only seventeen Christians in the city and its vicinity, and that at his death, shortly before 270, only the same number of heathens could be found in the city. The able bishop converted the people by opposing Christian to heathen miracles and by changing the old feasts into Christian festivals. In the Decian persecution he made concessions to human weakness, advised the faithful to be less aggressive, and fled himself. Comana received a bishop from Gregory. Christianity obtained a foothold also in the Greek cities of the coast of eastern Pontus before 325. In or about the year 315 a great synod was held at Neo-Cæsarea by Bishop Longinus. At the Council of Nicæa there were present among others the Bishops of Amastris, Pompejopolis, Jonopolis, Amasia, Comana, Zela, Trebizond, and Pityus. Towards the end of the fourth century Neo-Cæsarea became itself a Church-province, having as suffragans Trebizond, Cerasus, Polemonium, Comana, Rhizæum, and Pityus. MEYER, Gesch. d. Konigreiches Pontos (Leipzig, 1879); KLEFFNER, D. Briefwechsel zwischen Plinius u. Trajan (Paderborn, 1907); PAPAMICHALOPULOS, Periegesis eis ton Ponton (Athens, 1903); LE QUIEN, Oriens christianus, I (Paris, 1740), 499-520; RAMSAY, The Church in the Roman Empire (London, 1893), 211, 235; HARNACK, Die Mission u. Ausbreitung d. Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, II (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1906), 73, 157-8, 172-7. KLEMENS LÖFFLER. Pools in Scripture Pools in Scripture In the English Bibles, the word "pool" stands for three Hebrew words: (1) 'agam means properly a pond of stagnant water; in Ex., vii, 19; viii, 5, it designates probably sheets of water left in low places by the Nile from the inundation; (2) miqveh signifies originally "the gathering together" of the waters (Gen., i, 10), hence a place where waters flowing from different directions are collected together, a reservoir being usually formed by damming up the valley; (3) berekah (comp. Arab. birket) is an entirely artificial reservoir generally excavated in the rock and covered inside with a lining of masonry to prevent leaking. These three words convey a fair idea of the way the natives of Palestine and neighbouring regions have at all times secured a sufficient supply of water, a precaution by no means unimportant in countries where dry weather prevails for the greater part of the year. Natural pools of the kind described in Scripture by the name 'agam are practically unknown in Palestine. If importance be attached to the vocabulary of the sacred writers, we might be justified in supposing that most pools were wholly artificial, for all are indiscriminately styled berekah in the Hebrew Bible. Yet there can be no doubt that some were reservoirs obtained by building a dam across valleys; such was, at any rate, the Lower, or Old, Pool (Birket el-Hamra, south of Jerusalem), which, before the Upper Pool ('Ain Silwan) was constructed, was filled from the Gihon (the Virgin's Fountain) by a surface conduit, along the eastern slope of the spur of Ophel, and later was fed from the surplus water overflowing from the Upper Pool. The other pools in or about the Holy City were all entirely artificial, being excavated in the rock. Those mentioned in Scripture are: (1) the Pool of Siloe (A. V. Siloah; II Esd., iii, 15; John, ix, 7), or Upper Pool (IV Kings, xviii, 17; Is., vii, 3; xxxvi, 2), or the King's Pool (II Esd., ii, 14), built by Ezechias "between the two walls" (Is., xxii, 11), to bring into the city through an underground conduit, the Siloe tunnel, the water of Gihon; (2) the Pool of Bethsaida (A. V. Bethesda; John, v, 2); the exact location of this pool is to this day an object of dispute; commonly but quite groundlessly it is identified with the Birket Israil, north of the Temple and southwest of St. Stephen's Gate (Bab Sitti Maryam); others (Conder, Paton etc.) see it in the pool at the Fountain of Gihon ('Ain Sitti Maryam), southeast of the Haram===the berekah 'asuyah (i.e. "well made") of Neh. (II Esd.) iii, 16; others finally think it should be sought some distance north of the Birket Israil and west of St. Ann's Church and recognized there in old constructions still suggesting the form of porticoes; (3) the Berekah 'asuyah of II Esd. has just been mentioned; it was the reservoir of the intermittent spring of Gihon; (4) we should perhaps cite also the Dragon Fountain of II Esd., ii, 13, which lay between the Valley Gate (practically the modern Jaffa Gate) and the Dung Gate (about due west of the southern end of the Birket es-Sultan); probably connected with the Dragon Fountain was the Serpent's Pool mentioned by Josephus (Bell. Jud., V, iii, 2), but the site of both is now a mere matter of conjecture. Despite the historical interest attached to them, it is needless to recall here the various pools of the Holy Land more or less incidentally mentioned in Scripture: the Pool of Gabaon, which witnessed the bloody encounter of the servants of David with the defenders of Saul's dynasty; the Pools of Hesebon, and finally the pools alluded to in Eccl., ii, 6 as being the work of Solomon. These are supposed by some to be the famous Pools of Solomon (about eight miles south of Jerusalem) from which several winding aqueducts, one forty-seven miles long, brought the water into the city. BAEDEKER-BENZIGER, Palestine and Syria (Leipzig, 1906); BLISS, Excavations at Jerusalem (London, 1898); MASTERMAN, The Pool of Bethesda in Biblical World (Feb., 1905); PAL. EXPLOR. FUND, Quart. Statement (oct., 1896; Jan., 1897); IDEM, Jerusalem; PATON, The Meaning of the Expression "Between the Two Walls" in Journ. Of Biblic. Literature, I (1906); IDEM, Jerusalem in Biblical Times, particularly c. iii, The Springs and Pools of Ancient Jerusalem (Chicago, 1908); HEIDET, Bethsaide in Vig., Dict de la Bible; MAUSS, La piscine de Bethesda a Jerusalem (Paris, 1888); VINCENT, Les murs de Jerusalem d'apres Nehemie in Revue Biblique (1904), 56-74. CHARLES L. SOUVAY Poona Poona (PUNENSIS) Diocese in India, comprises that portion of the Bombay Presidency which lies on the Deccan plateau, as far north as the Tapti River, that is to say the collectorates of Poona, Ahmednagar, Nasik, Kansdeish, Sholapur, Bijapur, Satara, Dharwar, a portion of Belgaum, and the Native States of Kolhapur, Miraj, Sangli, and others of less note, but excluding Savantwadi, a portion of the collectorate of Belgaum, and the whole of North Canara, which belong to the Archdiocese of Goa. It is bounded on the east by the Dioceses of Nagpur, Hyderabad, and Madras; on the north it touches the Prefecture Apostolic of Rajputana; on the west the line of the Western ghauts divides it from the Diocese of Damaun and the Archdiocese of Goa; and on the south it is contiguous with the Diocese of Mysore. It includes one detached portion of territory at Barsi Town surrounded by the Diocese of Hyderabad, while at Poona there is one exempted church belonging to the Archdiocese of Goa. The Catholic population is numbered at 15,487 under the jurisdiction of the bishop, omitting those who are attached to the "padroado" church at Poona. There are twenty-two churches and twenty chapels served by twenty-one Fathers of the German province of the Society of Jesus and twelve secular priests assisted by the Nuns of Jesus and the Daughters of the Cross. Besides military stations (Poona, Kirkee, Ahmednagar, Deolali) and churches for railway people (Lanowli, Igatpuri, Bhusaval, Sholapur, Hubli, Dharwar) there are three mission fields: the Ahmednagar group founded in 1878 with a total of 5880 Christians; the Gadag group founded in 1868 with 300 recent converts besides other Christians of long standing; the newly established mission at Kuna near Khandalla. The bishop's residence and cathedral are at Poona. There is no diocesan seminary, candidates for the priesthood being sent to the papal seminary at Kandy, Ceylon. From 1637 to 1854 the districts comprised in the diocese formed part of the Vicariate Apostolic of the Great Mogul, which in 1720 became the Vicariate Apostolic of Bombay. But except for occasional attendance of the followers of the Sultan's Court at Bijapur, no missionary work seems to have been attempted in these parts -- the only Christian stations known to exist in the eighteenth century being those of Tumaricop in the south (ministered by Carmelite tertiaries from Goa); Poona (where a chaplain from Goa was paid by the peshwa), and its is said Bagalhot, once visited by the Jesuits of Pondicherry (?). There was also a Goan chapel at Satara in the early part of the nineteenth century, and perhaps one or two besides, but none of them worked by the Vicar Apostolic of Bombay. The gradual growth of stations for British troops in the first half of the nineteenth century, and the laying of railways later chiefly caused the growth of stations within this district. When in 1854, the Carmelites resigned the Vicariate of Bombay, the mission was divided into two halves (Bombay and Poona), and the Poona portion was taken over by the German Jesuits. In 1858, the Capuchins, who had received the Bombay portion, also resigned, and thus the whole of the Bombay-Poona district was taken over by the Jesuits and re-united into one mission. Although the two vicariates remained nominally distinct, no Vicar Apostolic of Poona was ever appointed, the administration being in the hands of the Vicar Apostolic of Bombay. In 1886, when the hierarchy was established, Poona became a diocese, suffragan to Bombay. The boundaries between the two vicariates were then readjusted, and afterwards those of Poona were curtailed by the transfer of part of the Belgaum electorate to Goa, since when the arrangement has been stable. For administrators from 1854 to 1886, see BOMBAY. The first bishop was Bernard Beider-Linden, S.J., 1886-1907; the present bishop, Henry Doering, S.J., from 1907. Among its educational institutions are: St. Vincent's High School, Poona (matriculation, Bombay), with 296 day-schoolers; St. Joseph's convent school, Poona, under eleven nuns of Jesus and Mary, with 192 pupils, also European orphanage and St. Anne's school with sixteen borders and 36 day-schoolers; convent school at Igatpuri with 76 pupils and a poor school with 47 children; also a convent school at Panchgani with 47 pupils, both under the Daughters of the Cross; English-speaking schools at Bhusaval, Igatpuri, Lanowli, Sholapur, Ahmednagar, Dharwar, and Hubli, with a total of 483 pupils. In the Ahmednagar mission districts, 80 village schools attended by 2400 children; in the Gadag mission districts 5 elementary schools with 110 children. Madras Catholic Directory (1910); church History of the Bombay-Poona Mission in The Examiner (1905 sq.). ERNEST R. HULL Care of the Poor by the Church Care of the Poor by the Church I. OBJECTS, HISTORY, AND ORGANIZATION A. The care of the poor is a branch of charity. In the narrow sense charity means any exercise of mercy towards one's fellowman rooted in the love of God. While numerous classes of persons are fit objects for charity, the chief class is constituted by the poor. By the poor are meant persons who do not possess and cannot acquire the means of supporting life, and are thus dependent on the assistance of others. In accordance with Christ's command (Matt., xxv, 40), the care of the poor is the duty of all the members of the Christian body, so that by the works of each the welfare of the whole community may be promoted. As, however, success is most readily attained by the systematic co-operation of many, we find since the earliest days of Christianity, side by side with the private exercise of charity, strictly conceded measures taken by the Church for the care of the poor. The Church's care of the poor is by no means a substitute for private efforts; on the contrary, it is intended to supplement, extend, and complete the work of individuals. Modern moralists distinguish, according to the degree of need, three kinds of poverty: (1) ordinary, such as that of the hired labourer, who lives from hand to mouth, has no property, but whose wages suffices to afford him a livelihood becoming his station; as applied to this class, the care of the poor is confined to preventive measures to keep them from falling into real poverty; (2) real want, or beggary, is the condition of those who do not possess and cannot earn sufficient means to support life, and depend on charity for what is lacking; (3) extreme want, or destitution, is a state in which the means of support are lacking to such a degree that, without extraneous aid, existence is impossible. The latter two classes are the object first of curative, and then of preventive remedies. The object of ecclesiastical provision for the poor is, first the removal of their immediate need, then the nullification of the demoralizing effects of poverty, encouragement, the fostering of a desire for work and independence, and thus the exercise of an educative influence on the soul: "the care of souls is the soul of the care of the poor". There is in addition the social object of promoting the public welfare and of procuring for the greatest possible number of persons a share in the goods of material and intellectual civilization. From this object arise the general duties of ecclesiastical relief of the poor: to prevent those able to earn their living from falling into poverty, to assist with alms the sick and the poor, to raise the religious and moral condition of the poor, and to render social life a blessing for needy mankind. The relief of the poor includes also to-day a number of important tasks arising from the injurious influences of capitalistic forms of production, the modern system of interest and usury in general, and the neglect of the moral foundations of social life based on Christianity. The Church seeks to fulfil the objects and duties of poor-relief by means of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy usually included under the name of alms. B. The object of ecclesiastical poor-relief determines its relations to social politics and state provision for the poor. Social politics and ecclesiastical relief of the poor have both for their object the removal of the material, intellectual, and moral needs of the poorer classes of the community. They are essentially distinct in three points: (1) the chief motive of social politics is justice, the chief motive of ecclesiastical relief is Christian charity; (2) social politics considers whole groups or great classes of the people; ecclesiastical relief concerns itself essentially with the needs of the individual; the object of the former is to abolish pauperism, while the latter aims at removing individual poverty; (3) social politics aims rather at prophylactic measures, seeking to prevent the continuation and increase of poverty, while ecclesiastical relief, although also prophylactic, is mainly curative, since it relieves and, as far as possible, removes existing need. Both ecclesiastical relief-work and social politics are indispensable for society; they act and react on each other. Justice without charity would lead to rigidity, and leave the bitterest cases of need uncared for; charity without justice would allow thousands to suffer destitution, and save but a few. The man who is capable of earning his own livelihood needs not alms, but work and just wages. Between State provision for the poor and ecclesiastical relief the relation is as follows: the State should by its social politics prepare the way for the development of voluntary poor-relief, and should put these politics into practice against lazy individuals; on the other hand, the provision for the really poor is in the first place the business of the private person and the Church, in the second place of the community, and in the last place also of the State. Liberal economics as represented by Adam Smith, Richard Malthus, and David Ricardo, is based on the ancient Roman view of life, and claims exclusively for the State the task of relieving the poor, since this relief does not lessen but rather increases the amount of poverty, imposes huge expenditure on the State, and inclines the lower classes to laziness. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the State should support the unalienable human rights of the helpless, and promote the common weal by uplifting the needy classes. It is therefore bound not only to interest itself in the politics of pauperism (i. e. to wage war on professional beggars and all malevolent exploitation of charity), but also in the private care or the poor, especially to-day, when the voluntary ecclesiastical and private relief of the poor cannot possibly satisfy all the demands made upon it. The Church has indeed at all times emphasized the duties of the State in promoting the welfare of the people. Leo XIII's Encyclical on the question of the working man (1891) assigns to the State tasks which come under the programme of poor-relief. The part played by the State should however be only subsidiary; the chief rôle should be regularly filled by voluntary relief and neighbourly charity, since thus alone will the principle of spontaneous generosity and individuality be retained, inasmuch as State relief rests on compulsory taxation and always remains bureaucratic. The Church therefore asserts her innate right to care for the poor together and in conjunction with the State, and condemns the agitation for a state monopoly of poor-relief as a violation of a principle of justice. The political side of pauperism does indeed pertain to the State; in the actual relief of the poor, however, Church and community should co-operate. While the institutions founded by the Church are to be administered by the ecclesiastical authorities the Church must be allowed to exercise also in State institutions her educative and moral influence. Close co-operation between ecclesiastical, public, and private poor-relief effectually prevents its exploitation by unworthy individuals. C. Ecclesiastical relief of the poor is condemned by Protestants (e. g. in recent times by Dr. Uhlhorn) who assert that it is unmethodical, uncritical, and without organization, and consequently fosters begging and exercises a harmful influence. To this we may reply: Christianity disapproves of everything irrational, and therefore also a priori of disorganized and uncritical care of the poor. But the surveillance must not be injurious or degrading to the poor. Without transgressing the boundaries of charity and respect for the dignity of man, the New Testament distinctly demands discretion in the giving of alms, and condemns professional begging (I Thess., iv, 11; I Tim., v. 13 sqq.). The whole range of ecclesiastical literature and even the greatest friends of the poor among the teachers of the Church peremptorily insist upon order and distinction being employed in relieving the poor, warn against the encouragement of lazy beggars, and declare that one may as little support laziness as immorality; unjustly received poor-relief must be restored. Ecclesiastical relief of the poor has from the very beginning been very well organized, the organization being changed in every century to suit the changing conditions of the times. Not in those places where the Church has controlled poor-relief but in those where the State or other powers have interfered with its administration, have disorder and a want of discrimination been apparent. The latest opponents of ecclesiastical poor-relief are the extreme Individualists and Socialists. Denying a future existence, professing an extreme Evolutionism and Relativism, upholding in the moral sphere the autonomy of the individual, and proclaiming war on rank (i. e. a class war), they condemn all benefactions as prejudicial to the dignity of man and to the welfare of the community. Friedrich Nietzsche, as an extreme Individualist, sees in boundless competition == a battle of all against all, which necessarily means the downfall of the weak and the poor == the means of securing the greatest possible personal welfare. Socialism, as represented by Carl Marx and Carl Kautsky, proclaims a war of the propertyless against the propertied classes, a war whose energy is paralyzed and impaired (they assert) by charitable activity. In a criticism of Nietzsche's teaching, it must be emphasized that the superman is a mere phantasy without any philosophical or historical foundation whatever. Even the strongest man is dependent on the civilization of the past and present, and on the social organization. Against the forces of nature, against the accumulated treasures of civilization, against the combination of adverse circumstances, he is powerless. Even the strongest-willed man may be in the next moment the most piteous mortal in extreme need of charity. If a man make himself the centre of all his objects, he challenges all men to battle. The theory of the rights of the strong has as its final consequence the reduction of mankind to a horde of warring barbarians. Christian morality, on the other hand, distinguishes between just love of self, which includes love of neighbour, and the self-love which it combats and condemns. In appraising the value of the socialistic theory which declares poor-relief a disgrace alike to society and the receiver of alms, we may observe: Even if we were disposed to grant that in the socialistic state of the future all moral defects and their consequences will be removed (for which there is not the least proof), the physical causes of poverty would be still present. Even in the future there will be orphans, invalids, and the helpless aged; to these no bureaucratic central authority, but sympathetic charity can afford a sufficient help. The acceptance of alms on the part of the guiltless poor is indeed for these a certain mortification, but in no way a disgrace. Otherwise it would be a disgrace to accept the gifts of nature and civilization, which we ourselves have not earned, and which form the greater part of our material and spiritual possessions. It is however a shame and bitter injustice to replace just wages by alms. This is so far from being the object of Christian relief of the poor, that Christian morality expressly condemns it as a sin against distributive justice. But all objections against ecclesiastical poor-relief will be most easily met by a glance at its history. D. The history of ecclesiastical poor-relief is difficult, because, in accordance with the command of Christ (Matt., vi, 3), it for the most part avoids publicity, deals with individuals, and is to a great extent influenced by social institutions. We will confine ourselves to brief notices of the most important historical phenomena. (1) As a natural characteristic of man, human sympathy was active even among the pagans, who, however, recognized no moral obligation to render assistance, since the knowledge of a common origin and destiny and of the equality of men before God was wanting. Isolated suggestions of the Christian doctrine of neighbourly charity are found in the writings of Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, but these writers were powerless to convert wide circles to more humane sentiments. Consequently, a public and general care of the poor existed nowhere in antiquity, but only isolated suggestions thereof. In Athens Pisistratus made provision for needy war-invalids and citizens, and the application of this provision was later extended to all residents whom infirmity rendered unable to work. Special officials, the sitarchs, were also appointed to prevent a shortage of corn. Similar institutions existed in other Greek towns. In Rome the poor regulations from the time of Julius Cæsar, and the donations of corn especially after the time of Cæsar and Augustus must be regarded as simply political measures designed to soothe the Roman proletariat clamouring for bread and games. The same may be said of the children's alimentaturia founded by Nerva and Hadrian and perfected by Trajan, of the institutions for providing for orphans in numerous towns in Italy, supported from the imperial purse, and of the later private foundations of the same kind under State supervision to be found in Italy and in the different provinces. Under the Empire the colleges of artisans were bound to provide for their impoverished colleagues. The efforts of Julian the Apostate to plant Christian poor-relief on pagan soil with the assistance of the pagan high-priest, Arsatinus, met with scant success. (2) The Mosaic Law established a preventive poor-relief, contained numerous provisions in favour of needy Jews, and expressly commands the giving of alms (Deut., xv, 11). These precepts of the Law were strongly inculcated by the prophets. The Divine command of charity towards one's neighbour is clearly expressed in the Law (Lev., xix, 18), but the Jews regarded as their neighbour only the members of their race and strangers living in their territories. The [Pharisees further intensified this narrow interpretation into scorn for heathens and hatred for personal enemies (Matt., v, 37; Luke, x, 33). Measures of preventive poor-relief were the decisions of the Law concerning the division of the land among the tribes and families, the inalienableness of landed property, the Sabbath and Jubilee year, usury, the gathering of grapes and corn, the third tithe, etc. (3) Jesus Christ compared love of neighbour with the love of God; proclaimed as its prototype the love of the Heavenly Father and His own reclaiming love for all mankind; and taught the duties of the propertied classes towards the poor. His own life of poverty and want and the principle, "As long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me", conceded to works of mercy a claim to eternal reward, and to the needy of every description the hope of kindly relief. In the doctrine and example of Jesus Christ lie the germs of all the charitable activity of the Church, which has appeared ever in new forms throughout the Christian centuries. (4) In Apostolic times poor-relief was closely connected with the Eucharist through the oblations and agapæ and through the activity of the bishops and deacons (Acts, vi, 11 sqq.). Among the Christians of Jerusalem there was voluntary community of the use of goods, though probably not community of property (Acts, iv, 37; xii, 12). The care of the poor was such that no one could be said to be in need (Acts, ii, 34, 44, 45; iv, 32 sqq.). By the institution of a common purse, administered first by the Apostles and later by the deacons, poor-relief received a public character. The public relief of the poor was to be completed by private charity (I Tim., v, 14). Private individuals had to care first for members of their own families, the neglect of whom was likened with apostasy (I Tim., v, 4, 8, 16), then for needy members of their community, then for the Christians of other communities, and finally for non-Christians (Gal., vi, 10). The Apostles proclaimed the high moral dignity and the obligation of work: "If any man will not work, neither let him eat" (II Thess., iii, 10); forbade intercourse with the lazy (loc. cit., 11), who are unworthy of the Christian community (6 sqq.); and forbade the support of lazy beggars (I Thess., ii, 9; iv, 11; Ephes., iv, 28; I Tim., v, 3, 13). Almsgiving is for the propertied persons an obligation of merciful charity; the poor, however, have no claim thereto; they should be modest and thankful (I Tim., vi, 6, 8, 10, 17). (5) In sub-Apostolic times, especially during the persecutions, the bishop continues to be the administrator of the church property and the director of poor-relief. His assistants were the deacons and deaconesses. To the office of deaconess at first only widows, but later also elderly spinsters were admitted (Rom., xvi, 1; I Cor., ix, 5; I Tim., v, 9). In addition to assisting at the Divine services and at giving instruction, they had to visit the sick and prisoners, to care for poor widows, etc. Individual provision for the poor and visitation of the poor in their houses in accordance with a special list (matricula) were strictly practised in every Christian community. Alms were given only after close examination into the conditions, and the abuse of charity by strangers was prevented by obliging newcomers to work and demanding letters of recommendation. No lazy beggar might be supported (Didache, XI, xii; Constit. Apost., II, iv; III vii 6). It was sought to make the poor independent by assigning them work, procuring them positions, giving them tools etc. Orphans and foundlings were entrusted to Christian families for adoption and education (Const. Apost., IV, i); poor boys were entrusted to master artisans for instruction (loc. cit., ii). The sources from which the Church derived its receipts for poor-relief were: the surplus of the oblations at the Offertory of the Mass, the offerings of alms (Collecta) at the beginning of the service, the alms-box, the firstlings for the support of the clergy, the tithes (Const. Apost., VIII, xxx), the yield of the money collections made regularly on fast days and also in times of special need, and finally the free contributions. (6) After the time of Constantine, who granted the Church the right to acquire property, the ecclesiastical possessions grew, thanks to the numerous gifts of land, foundations, and the tithes which gradually became established (from the sixth century) also in the West. The defects of Roman legislation in this respect, the incessant wars, the crowding of the poor into the Church made the task of relieving the poor ever more difficult. The bishop administered the church property, being assisted in the superintendence of poor-relief by the deacons and deaconesses, and in many places by special conomi or by the archpresbyters or archdeacons. In the West the division of the ecclesiastical income into four parts (for the bishop, the other clergy, church building, and poor-relief) began in the fourth century. In addition to the provision for the poor in their homes, the increasing mass of poverty demanded a new institution == the hospital. It was to serve for a special class of the needy, and was the regular completion of the general charitable activity of the district. Such institutions for the collective care of the poor were: the diaconi, great store-houses near the church, where the poor daily enjoyed meals in common; the henodochi, for strangers; the nosocomi for the sick; the orphanotrophi and brephotrophi for orphans and foundlings; the gerontocomi for the aged. Of special importance was the hospital Basilias erected by St. Basil in Cæsarea about 369 for all classes of the needy. At the end of the sixth century hospitals and poorhouses existed in great numbers in all the divisions of the ecclesiastical territories. They were all under the bishop, and managed by a special spiritual director. The sick were nursed by deaconesses, widows, and attendants under them (see HOSPITALS). (7) After Gregory the Great (d. 604), who organized poor-relief on a model basis in Rome and urged bishops and secular rulers to rational works of provision for the needy, the spread of Christianity to the country parts and to the Germanic and Anglo-Saxon nomadic tribes led to the gradual extension of the parish system, which dates from the fourth century; this movement was accompanied by the decentralization of poor-relief. The bishop retained the direction of the poor-relief of his city, and the dealing with special crises of need in his diocese; on the other hand, first in Gaul and afterwards in wider circles, the parishes were, in accordance with the decrees of the Council of Tours (567), to maintain their poor at their own cost, in order that these might not wander into other communities. Since the early Middle Ages new centres of ecclesiastical poor-relief were found in the monasteries, first those of the Benedictines, later those of the Cistercians, Præmonstratensians etc. These constituted the main factor in the preventive and curative poor-relief; gave an example of work; taught the uncivilized peoples agriculture, handicrafts, and the arts; trained the youth; erected and maintained hospices for strangers and hospitals for the sick. A mighty spur to ecclesiastical and private poor-relief was supplied by the replacing of canonical penances by prayer, fasting, and the devoting of whole or part of one's fortune to the poor, pious legacies for one's own soul or for that of another. (8) From the days of Constantine civil legislation supported ecclesiastical poor-relief by granting privileges in favour of pious foundations, legacies, hospitals etc. The State also adopted from the time of Emperors Gratian, Valentinian II, and Justinian, measures against lazy beggars. The later Merovingians diverted to some extent church property from its proper objects and disorganized poor-relief. In his capitularies Charlemagne created a state-ecclesiastical organization for providing for the poor, and strictly forbade vagabondage (806). His organization was revived by King St. Louis (d. 1270), who sought to make the communities responsible for the support of parochial poor-relief. (9) During the Middle Ages properly so-called there is an important distinction between poor-relief in the city and in the country. The feudal system, which had become established in the tenth century, threw the care of impoverished servants and serfs, and thus of the greater number of the poor of the country districts, on the lord of the manor. In addition the parish priest worked for the poor of his flock, and the monasteries and foundations for strangers and the sick. (10) Provision for the poor was splendidly developed in the cities of the Middle Ages. Its administrators were == in addition to the parish clergy, the monasteries, and the hospitals == the guilds (q. v.), corporations, and confraternities. The Hospitallers cared for the sick, the poor in their houses, and travellers; the guilds, for sick and impoverished members and their families; the distress guilds, for pilgrims and travellers. Special religious congregations cared for the sick and prepared medicines == e. g. the Humiliati, the Jesuati, the Brothers of the Holy Ghost, the Beguines and Beghards, and, since the thirteenth century, the mendicant orders, especially the Franciscans. The pawn-offices (montes pietatis) established in Italy, and the loan societies founded by Bishop Giberti of Verona (1528), served as repressive poor-relief. It is false to assert that municipal regulations in aid of the poor were a fruit of the Reformation; the medieval municipal magistrates, in conjunction with the clergy, already made extensive provision for the poor, endeavoured to stop begging by ordinances and police-regulations, supported the real poor and municipal institutions, and fostered the education of orphans, in so far as this was not provided for by relations and the guilds. In general, medieval poor-relief was in no way lacking in organization; in the country districts the organization was indeed perfect; in the towns the clergy, monasteries, magistrates, guilds, confraternities, and private individuals vied with one another in providing for the poor with such discrimination and practical adaptability that in normal times the provision satisfied all demands, extraordinary calamities alone overtaxing it. The frightful growth of beggary at the close of the Middle Ages arose, not from the failure of ecclesiastical poor-relief, but from the relative over-population of the European civilized countries and other economical conditions of the time. The lack of a central administration exercised by the bishop, after the model of the early Christian relief, constituted indeed a defect in organization. (11) The Reformation destroyed the monasteries and ecclesiastical foundations, which were for the most part applied to secular objects. The terrible wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries aggravated the misery caused by the secularization of the property which had maintained poor-relief to such an extent that poverty, begging, crime, want, and public insecurity grew unchecked. The poor-regulations of the towns were almost entirely ineffectual, and the State governments entered on a warfare with poverty and vagabondage by inflicting severe punishments, and, in England and France, the penalty of death. In opposition to the Christian tradition, the Reformers championed public relief of the poor, administered by the secular community and the State, and substituted for the principle of charitable institutions the home principle. In Germany the secularization of poor-relief began with the imperial police regulations of 1530; in France Francis II extended the compulsory obligation of the community to give and the right of the poor to claim support, decreed by Francis I for Paris, to all his territories. It was but to be expected that poor-relief should be secularized also in England (1536); this provision was followed in 1575 by the legal institution of poorhouses, and in 1601 by the celebrated Poor Law of Queen Elizabeth. This state continued until 1834, when the reform which had been found absolutely indispensable was effected. (12) The Council of Trent renewed the ancient precepts concerning the obligations of the bishops to provide for the poor, especially to supervise the hospitals (Sess. VII de Ref., cap. xv; Sess. XXV de Ref., cap. viii) and the employment of the income from ecclesiastical prebends (Sess. XXV de Ref., cap. i). In accordance with these decrees, numerous provincial synods laboured to improve ecclesiastical poor-relief. St. Charles Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan (d. 1584), worked with special zeal and great ability. Simultaneously there arose especially for the care of the poor and the sick and for the training of poor children a number of new orders and congregations == e. g.: the Order of Brothers of Mercy, the Clerics Regular of St. Camillus of Lellis, the Somaschans, the Order of St. Hippolytus in Mexico, the Bethlemites, the Hospitaller Sisters, the Piarists. Fundamental and exemplary was the activity of St. Vincent de Paul (d. 1660). In 1617 he founded the Confréie de la Charité, a women's association which, under the guidance of the parish priest, was to provide for the poor and the sick; in 1634 he founded the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy, a visiting institute under religious discipline, which has for centuries proved its efficacy in caring for the sick and in making provision for the poor; it combines centralization and strict discipline in administration with decentralization and adaptability in the relief of the poor. (13) The secularization of church property during the French Revolution and the succeeding period (1804) dealt a severe blow to ecclesiastical poor-relief. Comprehensive poor-laws were passed by several European states, but in no case were they such as to make ecclesiastical poor-relief dispensable. (14) Since the middle of the nineteenth century the development of industries, the growth of cities and freedom of emigration have reduced large numbers of the population to poverty, and necessitated gigantic expenditure on the part of the community and State. The States sought by the legal protection of labour in the form of workmen's insurance, factory laws, and commercial regulations, to prevent poverty and to render stricter and perfect the poor-regulations. Legislation is obliged to return to the old Christian principle of charitable institutions. In Germany and the neighbouring countries the "Elberfelder System" was adopted for the public care of the poor; this is based on personal contact between the almoner and the impoverished family, and combines the communal and private charitable activities. In South Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, the communities employ more than formerly private bodies in their poorhouses and orphanages, religious congregations == e. g., the Sisters of Mercy founded by Father Theodosius Florentini (1844, 1852) == being entrusted with the internal administration of such State institutions. Regulations concerning the communities and establishments for poor-relief have been inaugurated widely to-day in districts, provinces, countries, and states. (15) In addition to this state provision for the poor, ecclesiastical poor-relief has developed in recent times not merely in the parishes and religious orders, but also in an incalculable number of charitable institutions. We shall name only the crèches, schools for young children institutions for orphans, weaklings, the deaf and dumb, the blind, cripples, unprotected children, protectories, Sunday-schools, protectorates for apprentices, the International Association for the Protection of Girls, the Railway Mission, hospices for servants, workwomen, fallen women, and women exposed to danger, the provision for liberated criminals, for emigrants, and the aged; women's charitable associations (e. g., The Elizabethen == and Ludwigsvereine); the men's associations for poor-relief including the Society of St. Vincent de Paul (founded 1833), the Charitable Students' Circles, the legal bureaux, the colonies of workmen, the temperance movement, and the inebriate asylums. (16) While politico-religious Liberalism destroys ecclesiastical charitable institutions and persecutes the charitable congregations, the Christian love of neighbour continues to find new ways of providing for the poor. The necessity of securing unanimity of purpose among the various ecclesiastical institutions for the relief of the poor has called into life various diocesan and national unions for the organization of charity == e. g.: The Caritasverband für Deutschland (1897), the Austrian Reichsverband der katholischen Wohltätigskeitsorganisation (1900), the Caritasfaktion der schweizerische Katholikenveneins (1899). On the Protestant side, the ecclesiastical care of the poor is organized especially by the Home Missions. E. The organization of ecclesiastical poor-relief is necessary to-day to bind together, after the fashion of the early Christian charitable activity for the repression and prevention of poverty, all religious monastic, private, corporate, state, and communal forces aiming at this object; while the varying national and local conditions demand a great diversity in organization, in general the following must be the guiding principles: (1) For ecclesiastical poor-relief the bishop must be the soul and centre of the diocesan organization. He directs undertakings affecting the entire or a great portion of the diocese, and regulates and supervizes the general charitable activity of the parishes; (2) The local pastor is the immediate director of the ecclesiastical poor-relief of his parish. Monastic orders labouring in the parish, charitable lay associations, orphanages and institutes for the poor and sick are all under his direction. The parish-priest should endeavour to co-operate as far as possible with the secular and private poor-relief of his district, and also with the local authorities, so as to secure regular and uniform action; (3) The local provision for the poor should be as far as possible confined to the home, promoting personal contact between the helper and the poor; the assistance should be as a rule given in goods, the abuse of gifts of money being guarded against as far as practical; (4) Ecclesiastical poor-relief embraces all classes of the needy, consideration being shown for feelings of mortification and family pride. The keeping of a list of the poor is indispensable; (5) The means are to be obtained from the income from foundations, from the regular and voluntary contributions of the parishioners, and, in case of necessity, from extraordinary collections. Sometimes local poor-relief is combined with the charitable organizations of the neighbourhood; (6) Repressive provision for the poor concerns itself in the first place with those able to work, especially with: (a) children, who are placed for training either with relatives, with trustworthy families, or in orphanages. While maintenance in a family is preferable, no general rule can be laid down on this point. A new task is the charitable provision for children, who are uncared for by their parents, and who are morally unprotected (cf. The Prussian Fürsorgeerziehungsgesetz of 1897); (b) sick and decrepit persons, who are assisted either with gifts of goods, food, medicine etc. in their homes, or are placed m poor-houses or hospitals. Repressive provision for the poor is also directed towards persons able to work, who can earn their livelihood and do not do so. If this is the result of obstinate laziness, and an inclination to begging and vagabondage, the State should confine the offenders in institutions of compulsory labour, or engage them on useful works, paying them wages and supporting them. Should, however, it arise from inability to find employment, the State should interfere by inaugurating relief-works, comprehensive organization of information as to labour conditions, fostering private relief measures, workers' colonies etc. (7) Preventive poor-relief seeks to prevent the fall into poverty. This is never entirely successful, but it may become partially so by the combination of the Church, State, trade organizations, and private charitable agencies along the following lines: (a) by educating the youth to thrift, establishment of school savings banks and especially fostering economy among the working classes; (b) by state and voluntary insurance against illness; (c) by making the employer responsible for accidents befalling his employees; (d) insurance against old age and incapacitation, organized on trades union or State principles; (e) by the express inculcation of the mutual obligations of members of the same family and relatives according to the precepts of Christianity; (f) war against the passion for pleasure and a social legislation guided by Christian principles. T. J. BECK. II. IN CANADA The Church of Canada has numerous charitable institutions. As early as 1638 the Duchesse d'Aiguillon founded, at the instance of the missionaries, the Hôtel-Dieu of Quebec, where the Hospitallers of the Mercy of Jesus have since devoted themselves to the care of the sick poor. They have also care of the General Hospital of Quebec (1693), the Sacred Heart Hospital (1873), and the Hôtel-Dieu of Chicoutimi (1884). In 1642 Jeanne Mance founded the Hôtel-Dieu of Montreal, which in 1659 was confided to the Hospitallers of St. Joseph. Mgr de Saint-Vallier (who had already founded the General Hospital of Quebec, and whose will contained the words: "Forget me, but do not forget my poor") in 1697 requested the Ursulines to found a hospital at Three Rivers. This hospital was placed in charge of the Sisters of Providence in 1886. The General Hospital of Montreal (founded 1694) was entrusted in 1747 to Mme d'Youville, foundress of the Grey Nuns. This congregation, whose object is the care of foundlings, orphans, the sick, the aged, and the infirm, was the origin of other independent communities engaged in the same work, namely the Grey Nuns at St. Hyacinthe (1840), the Grey Nuns of the Cross at Ottawa (1845), the Grey Nuns of Charity at Quebec (1849), and the Grey Nuns at Nicolet (1886). These communities, which are spread throughout Canada, accomplish wonderful works of charity in behalf of the poor. More recent foundations are allied with them, among the most important being the Sisters of Providence (founded at Montreal in 1843 by Mme Gamelin), who devote themselves to the spiritual and temporal relief of the poor and sick, orphans and aged, the visitation and care of the sick in their homes, dispensaries, refuges, and workrooms. They have eighty-five establishments. At Montreal, Ottawa, and Quebec there is a society for the Protection of Young Girls, as also the Layette Society, an association of charitable women which assists poor families at the period of the birth of children. The above table, though necessarily incomplete, affords an idea of the number and variety of charitable activity in Canada. The Church carries out these undertakings, at least in the Province of Quebec, almost entirely with the assistance of private charity. In 1902 the Hôtel-Dieu of Quebec received free 1052 sick poor, whose stay at the hospital represented 30,892 days of board and treatment. The sisters receive from the Government an annual allowance of $448, but nothing from the city, and they pay the water tax. In 1910 the Sisters of Charity of Quebec had 538 old men and women and 1704 orphans; they received $1498 from the Government and paid to the city $1050 for water. In 1911 the Government of Quebec granted a subsidy of $56,875.75 to charitable institutions, Protestant as well as Catholic. In Ontario the Government pays 20 cents a day for 120 days and 7 cents a day for subsequent days for each patient admitted to a hospital; the cities also pay their quota. In 1909 the subsidies paid by the provincial Government to hospitals, infirmaries, and orphanages amounted to $257,813.53. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul was established at Quebec in 1846 by Dr. Joseph Painchaud. Conferences were formed at Montreal (1848), Toronto (1850), Ottawa (1860), and Hamilton (1866). The superior council for all Canada is located at Quebec. In 1896 it numbered 104 conferences; its receipts for the year equalled $64,000 and its expenses $53,000. During the past fifty years the Quebec conferences have expended $577,069.98 on the poor. In 1909 the society numbered 97 French conferences with 4228 members and 59 English conferences with 1039 members. The receipts equalled $162,199.46 and the expenditures $126,316.12. Relief was given to 2900 families, composed of 11,524 individuals. Besides visiting the poor in their homes, the society has organized patronages for the instruction of poor children and night shelters for the homeless, and finds homes with families for orphaned apprentices. In recent years it has been assisted by the Guignolée collection made for the poor on Christmas Eve by the Association of Commercial Travellers. In 1910 this collection amounted to more than $8000. STANISLAS-A. LORTIE. III. IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND In the British Isles two different types of organizations deal with the care of the poor: (a) public statutory bodies; (b) voluntary associations. Under the former may be included Parliament, which makes laws affecting the care of the poor and local bodies, such as county, borough, town, and district councils, and more particularly the boards of guardians which administer them. The tendency of modern legislation has been to transfer certain sections of work affecting the poor from boards of guardians to other local bodies. As education, public health, pension, and asylum authorities, municipal bodies other than boards of guardians now deal with feeding necessitous school children, medical inspection and treatment of children attending the elementary schools, the after-care of school children, scholarships, schools for defective children, inspection of laundries, workshops, common lodging houses, and houses let in tenements, the allocation of old age pensions, and the provision and management of all forms of asylums for the insane and epileptic. All public statutory bodies dealing with the care of the poor obtain their funds from taxes or rates, to which Catholic as citizens contribute either directly or indirectly. In Great Britain until recently Catholics had few organizations for securing Catholic representation upon public bodies. Within the last few years, however, the Catholic Federation movement has spread in different parts of the country. This aims at encouraging Catholics to take their share in public affairs by becoming candidates for public office (not necessarily as Catholics, but as ordinary citizens), and to safeguard Catholic interests by putting test questions to all candidates on matters affecting Catholics in order to afford guidance to Catholic voters. By these efforts, and notably by the exertions of individuals, Catholics have secured some representation upon public bodies, though not in proportion to their numbers. In the House of Commons elected in January, 1910, there were 9 Catholic members out of 495 for constituencies in England and Wales, but none out of 72 in Scotland. No figures for municipal bodies are available, but in many of the larger towns in Great Britain Catholics have representation (for example, the London County Council has 5 Catholic members out of 137). Catholics have greatest representation upon boards of guardians which exist directly for the care of the poor. This is due mainly to the efforts of the Catholic Guardians Association (founded in 1894), which forms a centre for Catholic guardians, holds an annual conference, gives legal advice, conducts negotiations with Government departments, and assists in various ways. Out of 24,000 members of boards of guardians in England and Wales 540 are Catholics. In Ireland, of course, except in a few districts in the north, a large proportion of the members of all public bodies are Catholics: out of 103 members of Parliament, for example, 74 are Catholics. In Legislation affecting the poor, Catholic members of Parliament by their influence have safeguarded Catholic interests. In acts, for example, dealing with defective children, provisions have been inserted which secure to Catholic parents the right under certain conditions to have their children sent to Catholic schools: in the recent Children's Act similar restrictions have also been inserted. Catholic members of municipal councils have in many cases secured the appointment of Catholic co-opted members upon the education committees, considerate treatment for Catholic children in the administration of the Provision of Meals (Education) Act, in the medical treatment and inspection of school children, in the work of the Children's Care Committees, and in the carrying out of the Industrial Schools Acts: they have also in many cases obtained satisfactory provision for, religious observances for Catholic inmates of lunatic asylums, remand homes, inebriate homes, and the like. The efforts of the Catholic Guardians have gained great advantages for Catholic in many districts, such as the appointment of Catholic religious instructors in workhouses and infirmaries, facilities for Mass and the sacraments for the inmates of poor law institutions either within or without these establishments, arrangements for recognized Catholic visitors to workhouses and infirmaries and the safeguarding of the faith of Catholic children by Securing their transfer to Catholic poor law schools. Indeed, beyond the benefits to their own coreligionists, to the influence of Catholic guardians may be attributed in no small degree the improved administration of the Poor Law in recent years. A striking witness to the value of their efforts in this respect may be found in the anxiety shown by those interested in the reports of the recent Royal Commission on the Poor Law to secure the support of Catholics for their particular views. Catholics influence the care of the poor through voluntary organizations, either by participating in the work of general agencies or by their own efforts on Catholic lines. The more important philanthropic bodies, such as the Charity Organization Society, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Children's Country Holiday Fund, or the public hospitals supported by voluntary funds, all include many Catholics amongst their members, with the result that these bodies usually willingly co-operate with recognized Catholic organizations, whenever Catholic applicants for relief have to be considered. In the absence of official statistics, it is difficult to estimate accurately the extent of charitable work amongst the poor by Catholics themselves as Catholics. Every Catholic mission, with a resident priest, serves as a centre for such work. Poor Catholics in distress instinctively turn to the priest, who, if he has no suitable charitable organization attached to his church, usually acts as almoner himself. Some approximate idea of the extent of such work may be gathered from the fact that in England and Wales there are 1773 churches, chapels, and stations with 3747 priests, the corresponding figures for Scotland being 394 and 555, and for Ireland 2468 and 3645. Similarly, an extraordinary amount of charitable work is regularly carried out by the religious communities, especially by those of women who devote their lives to personal service amongst the poor, such as the Sisters of Charity, the Sisters of Mercy, the Sisters of Nazareth, the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, the Little Company of Mary, and others. Almost every possible form of charitable assistance is undertaken by these communities in different parts of the three countries. Orphanages for boys and girls, poor law schools, industrial schools, homes for physically and mentally defective children, homes for the aged, night refuges for the destitute, reformatories, training homes for servants, homes for working boys and girls, hospitals, hospices for the dying, convalescent homes, holiday homes in the country and at the seaside, working girls' clubs, homes for penitents, refuges for fallen women, homes for inebriates, visiting the sick, nursing the sick poor, instructing the deaf and dumb in their religion, are all amongst the charitable works under the care of religious. Some of these have deservedly gained a national reputation for the standard of excellence reached == for example, St. Vincent's Industrial School for boys; Dartford (under the Presentation Brothers); the Home for the Aged Poor; Nazareth House, Hammersmith (under Sisters of Nazareth); and the Blind Asylum, Merrion, Dublin (under the Irish Sisters of Charity), to mention only a few. The religious communities, whose work is not directly charitable, nevertheless, are, like the clergy, regularly called upon to act the part of almoners. The number of religious houses of women, including branch houses, in the three countries must exceed 1000, but this number does not afford any criterion of the extent of the work accomplished by them. A good example, admittedly well above the average, taken from one of the largest towns, will serve as an illustration. Situated in a very poor district, with twenty sisters in the community, a Convent of Mercy, besides supplying nine sisters as teachers in two elementary schools, has charge of a night refuge for nearly 300 men, women, and children, a servants' home, a home for young working women, and a soup kitchen, and its religious regularly visit the sick in a large hospital and the Catholic poor in the district. The principal charitable voluntary organization for Catholic men is the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which flourished both in Great Britain and Ireland: in England and Wales, it has 274 local conferences with 3523 active members; in Scotland, 95 conferences with 1316 active members; in Ireland, 200 conferences with 3134 active members. By personal service amongst the Catholic poor, the society unostentatiously carries on a considerable amount of charitable work. It practises many forms of assistance, including feeding the hungry, visiting the sick in their homes and in the public infirmaries and hospitals, visiting the imprisoned, attending the children's courts to watch Catholic cases, finding employment for those out of work, acting as catechists for poor boys in Sunday schools and bringing them to Mass and the sacraments assisting in the formation and management of boys' clubs and brigades, and the like. The local conferences are grouped into councils which hold quarterly meetings of all members to discuss topics of general interest. No general society for Catholic women corresponding to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul flourishes throughout the three countries, but kindred organizations, whose objects are similar in scope, thrive in different parts, such as St. Elizabeth's Society, the Ladies of Charity, and Ladies' Settlements. All these resemble the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in aiming primarily at the personal edification of the worker, as well as at the spiritual and temporal benefit of those assisted. These organizations, however, do not confine their efforts to women and girls, but take a large part in work amongst boys. A ladies' settlement in London, for example, includes in its scheme of work visiting the sick and poor, instruction for the sacraments, mothers' meetings, a men's club, a girls' club, a clothing club, a sewing class, the provision of free meals for children, evening classes etc. One of the most striking developments of Catholic work amongst the poor in recent years, especially in England, has been the organization of rescue societies to safeguard the faith of Catholic children in danger. Mixed marriages, poverty, misfortune, neglect, evil living, are amongst the many causes which, particularly in the larger towns, contribute towards placing in jeopardy the faith of little ones. The children of a mixed marriage, in which the father is a non-Catholic, who seek admission to a poor law institution, are held at law to be of the same religion as the father. The rescue societies save such children by placing them in Catholic voluntary homes. Children of Catholic parents are sometimes by mistake entered in non-Catholic poor law schools. The rescue societies watch carefully all such cases, rectifying any mistakes made. The children of neglectful Catholic parents are not infrequently brought to the notice of non-Catholic organizations, which are willing to assist them, if Catholic societies fail to do so; in such cases the rescue societies are always too ready to proffer their aid. In Great Britain, eight dioceses have organized rescue societies, which deal with many hundreds of children each year, but every diocese has its poor law school, or its industrial school, in which Catholic children can be received. As an outcome of the work of the rescue societies, a Catholic Emigration Association has been in existence in England for some years past, which arranges for the emigration of Catholic children to Canada after leaving the rescue institutions in order to remove them completely from any danger of falling back into their early evil surroundings. This association has a receiving home in Ottawa, whence the young emigrants are placed out with Catholic farmers and their progress is watched until they come of age. Certain other Catholic societies, which flourish in some form or other in the three countries, carry on very useful social work: the Catholic Prisoners' Aid Society (with branches in London, Dublin, Glasgow, and other large towns, not necessarily connected, but working on similar lines), which assists Catholic prisoners on leaving prison, and endeavours to start them in life again; the Catholic Needlework Guild, whose members bind themselves each year to provide a certain number of useful garments for the poor; and the Catholic Boys' Brigade, whose aim is to unite Catholic boys as they leave the elementary schools, to keep them in touch with the Church and to provide in various ways for their spiritual, physical, and social well-being. The great drawback to all Catholic social efforts is, undoubtedly, the lack of intercommunication between Catholic workers in different parts. Two organizations have, however, recently been started, which as they spread will probably tend to remove this defect: the Catholic Women's League, which has already in London established a social information bureau, and has succeeded in bringing together Catholic women workers from all parts of the country; and the Catholic Social Guild, for Catholic social study, which many hope will eventually develop into a Catholic Institute of Social Service for Great Britain and Ireland, upon lines which have already proved so useful in other countries. JOHN W. GILBERT IV. IN THE UNITED STATES This description is confined to methods followed in serving the poor outside of institutions strictly so called, and does not include institutional works conducted by religious communities, which are described elsewhere under appropriate headings, nor relief given by individuals to individuals, as the spirit and method in Catholic charity come to best expression through organization. Furthermore, the need of organization and the approval of it become daily more and more pronounced. Individuals contribute with increasing generosity to organizations, and refer to them the applications for relief which they meet. A sense of responsibility toward the poor will be found in the parish, the city as such, the diocese, and the religious community whether of men or of women, and each accordingly engage in relief work. In our greater cities a tendency is found to establish central offices through which all Catholic charities may be co-ordinated. A similar movement toward co-ordination of diocesan charities is also found. General meetings of charitable organizations of all kinds for purposes of discussion and improvement of methods occur with increasing frequency. Finally, there are organizations which undertake particular works and gradually expand activity until they include representation from a large number of cities and states in their organization. The combination of all Catholic charities in the United States into one vast national conference has just been begun under the name "The National Conference of Catholic Charities's. The aims of the Conference, much like those of all similar charitable organizations, are the following: (1) to bring about exchange of views among experienced Catholic men and women who are active in the work of charity; (2) to collect and publish information concerning organization, problems, and results in Catholic charity; (3) to bring to expression a general policy toward distinctive modern questions in relief and prevention and towards methods and tendencies in them; (4) to encourage further development of a literature in which the religious and social ideals of charity shall find dignified expression. Relief problems will differ somewhat with the locality and with the character of those in need. This is particularly the case in the United States where city population is so heterogeneous. It is necessary therefore, to confine this description to typical methods, excluding those peculiar to any locality. Furthermore, no attempt is made to indicate quantities in relief work or extent in organization. The methods described are the methods actually found in Catholic circles, which are to a large extent like those followed in organized charity generally, but differ in motive and spirit and the degree in which certain principles are followed or certain factors emphasized. Information concerning the needs of the poor reaches the organization through many channels. Application may be made directly by those in want. Members of an organization while working among the poor whom they know are constantly discovering new cases. Other charitable organizations, whether secular or religious, will usually notify a Catholic society when they discover Catholics in want. Teaching sisters in parochial schools are frequently able to render most efficient service through the knowledge which they obtain of the needs of poor families. Policemen report cases of which they learn. The ministrations of the parish priest among the poor, and the prompt instinctive turning of these to the priest when distress comes, enable the latter to place information concerning every conceivable plight of the needy in the hands of the charitable organization. We thus find a fairly complete network of factors through which relief agencies are enabled to obtain early knowledge and give prompt assistance. No doubt the tendency in many poor families to hide their suffering and bear privation in silence baffles the watchfulness of all agencies, but on the whole these factors in the work of relief are extremely helpful. Once it is discovered that relief is needed an experienced member of an organization is directed to take charge of the case immediately. If an emergency is found immediate relief is given without question, otherwise such inquiry is instituted as will bring out the cause of the distress together with the kind and degree of relief needed. Relatives are sought out if there are any in position to take care of the case, former employers or even friends who might be willing to assist are looked for, and appeal is made to them. If there are no such relations discovered, the charitable organization assumes charge of the case and accepts full responsibility for it. From that moment, personal attention and service will be given to the family or individual as long as may be needed. Spirit and practice in Catholic circles strongly favour most delicate regard for the feelings and privacy of the poor. In fact, organizations usually make provision for exceptional cases by placing funds at the disposal of the priests or some officer of the society, no account of which will be rendered even to the organization itself. No knowledge of the names of those relieved or of the nature of their need is given even to any officer in the organization. The result of an inquiry into the condition of a family, full account of the relief given, and all the salient facts in the condition and history of the family or individual are made a matter of record in the minutes of the society's meetings. These minutes are accessible to the members of the organization and to no one else unless definite necessity require it. The impression that records are a matter of indifference in Catholic circles is to some extent inexact. The card index method with its elaborate details is not used as widely as in other circles, but substantial records found in the minutes, supplemented by definite personal knowledge of the poor, serve practically every purpose at which any matter of record-keeping can aim. Cases are thoroughly discussed in the regular meetings of the charitable society. Reports are made by those in charge and judgment in governing a case is based on thorough but confidential discussion. Every stage of relief-giving is made a matter of direct personal concern to a member of the society, who looks upon his work as an organic part of his religious activity. This service of the poor is associated with the work of prayer and fasting in the religious life of an individual. The bond of spiritual union in charity, which results from this commonly shared estimate of its spiritual character, paves the way for a certain degree of co-ordination which adds greatly to the efficiency of Catholic charities. We may take for illustration an average poor family and study the process of relieving it. If housing conditions are bad, they are corrected, or a new house found. If the neighbourhood contains elements of moral danger, the family is moved to a new environment in another section of the city as a first step in its reconstruction. If housing conditions are satisfactory and the family is unable to pay rent, provision is made for it. The resources of the family are studied, and for members who are capable of wage-earning activity, employment is unfailingly found. This constitutes one of the most important and helpful features of relief work. If the mother is compelled to labour, provision is made for the care of her young children, as described below. If conditions do not warrant the mother in working, she is kept at home to care for her family and provision is made for her support. The family may be able to earn part but not all of the income needed, or it may need complete relief temporarily. Whatever the condition, effort is made to adjust the kind and degree of relief to the needs and outlook of the family. At all times the primary aim is to draw out their resources, to do nothing which will stifle them, but to do everything which will lead the family to believe in itself and effect its own salvation. The standard of adequate relief cannot be a universally determined quantity. The judgment of those in immediate charge of the case is usually accepted as final, under the general policy of not doing too much nor quite all that may be needed. The family is made to realize that self-help is in all cases better than relief from outside. The relief needed may be given in money to be expended by the family or in tickets on which are described the items and the quantities to be obtained. These tickets are presented to a selected retailer or to the storekeeper of the organization itself when the latter keeps standard supplies. We find many charitable associations which make a specialty of furnishing one particular kind of relief. Thus, for instance, one society may provide shoes and books for school children; another, outfits for newly-born infants or for First Communion children; another assumes the rôle of Santa Claus and makes provision to answer the hopeful letters which the children of the poor write asking for Christmas gifts. Certain organizations, like sewing circles, will meet regularly throughout the year or during a given period to make garments for later distribution. An interesting modification in relief work which is the outgrowth of the beautiful Christmas sentiment is found in the practice of furnishing well-supplied baskets of provisions for Christmas dinners. This practice is rapidly assuming large proportions, and appears to have a high educational value. Many who appear indifferent to the needs of the poor are won over to an interest in them by the spirit of Christmas giving, and numbers remain faithful contributors to charity work from that time on. If the resources of a family are temporarily suspended, a loan rather than formal charity may be needed, or redemption from the bondage of the loan shark. In such cases the required loan is found, the loan shark forcefully dealt with, or his claims taken and carried by the charitable society. The high sense of honour frequently found among the poor in repaying such loans or even money given in charity is worthy of mention. If the family has need of legal assistance as may occur in cases of wife-desertion, non-support, cruelty, or injustice, the need is met by attorneys who are active members of a charitable organization, or by legal aid societies made up of attorneys united for the purpose of giving legal aid to the poor. If the family has sufficient income to meet its wants and its plight is due rather to mis-management than to need, efforts are made to give assistance in the management of things. Small debts are gathered up into one sum, the time and manner of paying them are agreed upon and followed out, the purchase of necessaries is studied by the friendly visitor and the mother or father, with a view to intelligent economy and protection against fraud. The most intimate details in household management are regulated. If the father has carried insurance and is then unable to pay his dues, the society makes the payments. Such services make up the work of the friendly visitor. The aim is to bring to the family the services of a real and helpful friend rendered in a natural and friendly spirit, thus introducing into the family circle the strength, intelligence, and moral support that come into normal lives through normal friendships. If the mother is a poor housekeeper, she is instructed; if she lacks intelligence in training her children, assistance is offered. There is no difficulty or defect in the whole economy of the home to which the friendly visitor will not direct attention in the hope of awakening the latent intelligence and resources of the little group. Though every poor family must be looked upon individually and should be relieved according to its individual constitution, the presence of large numbers of poor families subjected to practically the same environment and manifesting typical forms of weakness and inefficiency will present conditions which may be best dealt with collectively. The following are typical methods of collective relief: When a number of poor mothers are compelled to work, provision for the care of their young children is made in what is known as the day nursery. A central house is rented or purchased, where the mothers bring their children in the morning, and call for them after the day's work is done. The day nursery may be in charge of either religious or lay women. The children are taught, amused, fed, and clothed. The mothers are instructed as to the care of their children when occasion arises. In some cases a nominal charge of five or ten cents per day is made; in other cases there is no charge whatever. The policy is determined not from the standpoint of revenue but from that of sustaining the self-respect of the family and hindering possible abuses of the generosity of the organization. A second form of collective service is found in what is known as the social settlement. The charitable society selects a house in a poor neighbourhood and makes it a centre of social activities for the poor families about it. Hither come mothers for their club meetings, instruction in sewing, housekeeping, and care of children; boys and girls, for their club meetings, play, or evening study. Old and young find an adequate library where the whole range of their approved tastes in reading may be satisfied. At such times and in such manner as suit conditions instruction is given in religion, the elements of character, and simpler trades; particular attention is directed to the work of teaching girls to make their own clothes. The social settlement furnishes for the poor as wide a range of opportunity for inspiration and self-development as the wealthy find in their clubs. Collective relief is found also in what is known as Fresh Air Work. A home is provided in the country to which the children of the poor are taken in relatively large numbers and remain from seven to fourteen days. A well-balanced diet is given to them during their stay, and their physical condition, moral, and spiritual needs are looked into. When the fresh air home is completely equipped, all physical defects are carefully noted and cases requiring attention are referred to charitable organizations for attention after the child's return home. These homes are under the direction of either religious or lay women. A modification of this work is found in the single day excursions which are provided at frequent intervals during the summer for the children of the poor and for children in institutions. Another form of collective service is that of encouraging thrift. The typical method of doing this is to send collectors among the poor who gather their nickels and dimes which would otherwise be wasted, giving in return some form of receipt such as a stamp pasted into a book used for the purpose. The money thus collected is held to the credit of the saver and is returnable on demand. In this way, families very frequently save sufficient during the summer to make provision for times of idleness or for the severer demands of the winter. The care of the sick poor in their homes is a matter of supreme concern. Aside from the service rendered by the friendly visitor whose function extends to all the members of the family, whatever their condition, there are communities of sisters and associations of lay women which aim to nurse the sick and supply medicine, food, and clothing without remuneration of any kind. Physicians are found in fair numbers among our charitable organizations, and their services are uniformly given in the work. Religious communities thus engaged make no distinction as to creed or colour. The associations aim to supply definite needs of the sick poor. If a change of climate is required for an individual, the means and directions necessary are forthcoming; if tubercular patients require a special diet or delicate infants need a certified milk, provision is made; surgical appliances, artificial limbs, crutches, etc. are supplied whenever called for. Provision for the decent burial of the poor is found in practically all Catholic charitable organizations; traditionally, the cemetery corporations furnish lots without expense. The hospital dispensary which is found widely among Catholic hospitals provides the services of physicians in special, as well as in general, practice for every type of ailment which may be brought to notice and furnishes medicines. All types of religious communities, except those cloistered, perform every variety of service for the sick poor as conditions invite and circumstances permit. The activities of sisters in every form of relief work concurrently with those of lay organizations merit notice for their efficiency as well as their extent. Thus, for instance, a community of sisters engaged in hospital work will carry on systematically the work of giving relief to poor families, friendly visiting, conducting sewing circles, instructing children, feeding destitute adults under certain conditions, finding employment, and making provision which the exigencies of illness may require. Hospitals furnish free wards for the poor whether adults or children. Convalescent Homes make provision for the sick poor who are necessarily dismissed from hospitals before their final recovery from illness or operations. Separate homes are found for chronic and incurable cases such as those afflicted with cancer or tuberculosis. Homes for those temporarily out of employment, homes for working girls where food and lodging are obtained at a cost proportionate to income, homes for newsboys, shelters for homeless children, and industrial schools where the children of the poor may learn trades, are also found. The lay charitable organizations include in their range of normal activities the visitation of inmates in such institutions and very frequently assistance of a most valuable kind is rendered. Visitors go to these institutions for the purpose of chatting with inmates and cheering the lonely monotony which tends to develop in spite of the best will and most careful management. Reading matter is brought and the homely comfort that may be found in a piece of fancy work or supply of chewing tobacco is not deemed unworthy of the visitor's attention. We find lay men and women constituting boards of directors to act in conjunction with the management of institutions and acting on auxiliary boards for the more remote but equally necessary purpose of raising money or furthering the interests of the institutions with the public. For instance, ladies auxiliary work in conjunction with hospitals, Good Shepherd Homes, or orphan asylums, and raise money or provide linens of all kinds which are needed in the normal work of such institutions. The "linen shower" is a picturesque illustration of this method of work. Annual social events of one kind or another are inaugurated for the purposes of directing attention of the public toward institutions and to raise money for their general work. The tendency is marked to forget differences of creed in these larger events. One finds Catholics and non-Catholics working side by side in the spirit of a common purpose. Seminarians will at some time form organizations whose members devote one afternoon a week to the visiting of these institutions, doing the work of the friendly visitors or good samaritans in the spirit of Christian friendship. Various types of child life in our large cities present extremely distressing problems to the charitable society. Newsboys, half-orphans, friendless children, who are entirely neglected by their parents and wander away from home, are found in distressingly large numbers in our great cities. All such types are kept in mind and either lay or religious associations aim to discover them and to provide temporary or permanent homes for them. Usually those working in this manner act as employment agencies, and endeavour to find work for the children if they are of legal age, or to restore them to their homes and obtain for them the attention and provision to which they have a natural right. When a boy leaves an industrial school the authorities will find board and lodging without cost to him until he secures work. When work is found a representative of the school selects a safe boarding place for the boy, encourages him to save his money, and keeps in touch with him either personally or by correspondence as long as there is need. Homes for the aged under the care of sisters are numerous, though Catholics are, of course, often found in public poor-houses. The visitation of inmates of all such institutions is well-organized. Homes are found for friendless women of good character and destitute mothers with infants, where protection may be had until employment is found or provision made for whatever relief the circumstances demand: Lodging and food are furnished for friendless and destitute men during periods of enforced idleness. This is done entirely without cost or possibly on the payment of a nominal charge of ten or fifteen cents per day. Lodging-houses in the large cities contain vast numbers of men of every kind and character. The danger in these places is more or less great because of their tendency to develop an atmosphere of vulgar abandon. In the largest cities Catholic charitable societies provide halls and offer weekly entertainments exclusively to this type of friendless men. Volunteers are found who furnish musical or literary entertainment, and all are encouraged to sing. Lectures are given, usually by a priest on some moral or spiritual topic. Appeal is made gently but strongly to the better element of these homeless and friendless men, with the result that in large numbers they reform and return home or feel a renewal of spiritual vigour and helpfulness. Much temperance work is done among them, with results which are encouraging in the extreme. A notably large percentage of delinquents come from among the poor, hence the normal range of activity of Catholic charitable organizations extends to those upon whom the hand of the law has descended. The work of rescuing fallen women is notably well developed through the activity of religious. Little girls in danger of moral perversion are received by such homes where they have opportunity to learn a trade and arrive safely at maturity. Youthful offenders who come within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court are committed to reformatories or industrial schools or placed on probation. Catholic charitable societies and individual Catholics are active in co-operating with the probation feature of the court. Sometimes an association pays the salary of a Catholic probation officer who will be recognized by the court, or Catholics in a position to do so offer their services as volunteer probation officers without compensation. The organization of Catholics thus engaged is now under way in the formation of Catholic Probation Leagues. This service is rendered by both men and women. Associations provide truant officers whose duty is to follow up cases of truancy in parochial schools and report on them. The work of the big brother, in which an adult takes personal charge of a juvenile delinquent or of a poor boy and establishes informal friendly relations with him, is taking on hopeful proportions. The visiting of prisoners plays a considerable part in the life of nearly all important Catholic charitable societies. The visitors call in a friendly way, encourage the prisoners to take hopeful outlook, induce them to resume correspondence with their families, and lead them to the promise of amended life which in many cases effects striking reforms. Reform schools for boys and girls are regularly visited in the same manner. Practically all activity related to the care of defectives is concentrated in institutions. Provision for the deaf and dumb, blind, insane, epileptic, feeble-minded, and crippled is made by religious communities to such an extent as resources permit. The interests of dependents, defectives, and delinquents of the Catholic Faith who are inmates of public institutions are provided for in a general way by the public policy found throughout the United States. There are State Boards of Charity under whose jurisdiction in one way or another all such institutions fall. Much of the energy and resources of Catholic charitable associations is taken up in the work of representing and protecting the interests of Catholic inmates in public institutions. Catholics are found in numbers among the members of such boards, or they appear before boards in the interests of Catholic institutions with which the State deals, or of Catholic inmates of public institutions. It is impractical to attempt to describe within the limits of this exposition the numbers of Catholics engaged in this work or to measure it in terms of money. Practically all of the activities described are carried on by men and women who are busy at their daily occupations and who give their time, energy, and largely of their means to these works of charity, without compensation. One finds throughout this whole range of relief-giving the aim of spiritual strengthening and regenerating of the poor. This spiritual complement of modem relief is developed because of the conviction that faith is the foundation of character and the one source from which any correct attitude toward the mysteries of life may be found. Throughout the range of Catholic charities one finds a spirit of tolerance for human nature and its failings and a comprehensiveness of sympathy which reaches low enough to think of homely comforts and high enough to accompany the victim of distress to the temple of God for purposes of worship. I. DEVAS, Political Economy (London, 1892); MANNING, Sermons on Ecclesiastical Subjects (London, 1873); IDEM, The Eternal Priesthood (8th ed., London, 1883); GLEN, The Poor Law (London, 1883); RATZINGER, Gesch. der kirchl. Armenpflege (Freiburg, 1884); SCHAUB, Die kathol. Caritas u. ihre Gegner (1909); EHRLE, Beiträge zur Gesch. u. Reform der Armenpflege (Freiburg, 1881); UHLHORN, Die christl. Liebestätigkeit in der alten Kirche (2nd ed., Stuttgart, 1882); IDEM, Die christl. L. im Mittelalter (1884); IDEM, Die christl. L. seit der Reformation (1890); MÜNSTERBERG, Die Armenpflege (Berlin, 1897); POSCHER, System der Armenpflege u. Armenpolitik (3rd ed., Stuttgart, 1906); SALLEMAND, Hist. de la charité (Paris, 1902). II. Le Canada ecclésiastique (1910); Annuaire de l'Hôtel-Dieu de Québec (1909); Annuaire de l'Hôpital St-Joseph (Three Rivers, 1906-10); Report Hospitals and Charities (Ontario, 1909); Budget de La province de Québec (1911); Noces d'or de la Société St-Vincent de Paul, à Québec, 1846-96 (Quebec. 1897): Rapport général du conseil supérieur de la Société St-Vincent de Paul du Canada (1910). III. Handbook of Catholic Charitable and Social Works (London, 1910); Catholic Directory (London, 1910); Irish Catholic Directory (Dublin, 1910); Catholic Social Year Book (London, 1910). IV. Report of the First National Conference of Catholic Charities, held at the Catholic University, Washington, 1910; Reports of the National Conferences of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, held at St. Louis, 1903, Richmond, 1908, Boston, 1911; St. Vincent de Paul Quarterly (New York) files; reports of organizations and institutions, passim. WM. J. KERBY Little Sisters of the Poor Little Sisters of the Poor An active, unenclosed religious congregation founded at St Servan, Brittany, 1839, through the instrumentality of Abbé Augustin Marie Le Pailleur. To two of his penitents, in whom he discerned an unusual aptitude for spiritual things, he had given a rule of life, and had placed one of them, Marie Jamet, in the position of superior to her companion, Virginie Trédaniel. These young workwomen, at the instance of their director, added to their daily duties the personal care and support of a poor blind woman. While in search of a lodging for this aged woman the Abbé Le Pailleur formed the acquaintance of Jeanne Jugan, who was born at Cancale, 15 May, 1793. She was soon eager to share in the charitable work, and on 15 October, 1840, Marie Jamet and Virginie Trédaniel, with their charge, went to live in her house. The three young women went out daily to their work, bringing home their earnings for their common support and that of the blind woman. In course of time they were joined by Madeleine Bourges and gave shelter to other helpless old people. The zeal displayed by Jeanne Jugan in securing the means to support those in their care has caused her to be regarded as the real foundress of the order. [ Editor's Note: In 2000, the Little Sisters of the Poor offered this clarification of the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Jeanne Jugan is truly our foundress, not the priest mentioned in the article. Father Le Pailleur was in fact involved in the early phases of the work, but he was not the founder. In fact, as time went on, he removed Jeanne Jugan from the office of superior, forced her into oblivion, and then manufactured and propagated a false story about the origins of our congregation. This is the story which appears in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. In time the truth was revealed. Jeanne Jugan is now recognized as the foundress and she was beatified in 1982. We are praying most earnestly for her canonization."] The congregation is included in the class of hospitallers. Its constitutions are based on the Rule of St. Augustine, and the sisters take simple and perpetual vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, to which they add a fourth, hospitality. They receive into their houses aged men and women who have no other shelter. Sixty is the youngest age at which they are admitted, after which they are members of what is known as the "Little Family", the superior being called by all the "Good Mother". To the best of their ability they assist the sisters in the work of the home. For the support of their foundation the sisters are dependent absolutely on charity, having no fixed income or endowments, and most of what they receive they procure by begging. The constitution was definitively approved by Pius X, 7 May, 1907. The mother-house and novitiate are at La Tour St Joseph, St. Pern, Ile-et-Vilaine, France; there are also novitiates in Italy, Spain, Belgium, and the United States. The total number of foundations (1911) is 307; in France there are more than 100 houses, seven of them being in Paris; there are thirty in England, fifteen in Belgium, fifty-two in Spain, sixteen in Italy, four in Sicily, forty-nine in America, three in Australia, one in New Zealand, one in New Caledonia, etc. the order numbers more than 5400 members. On 19 January, 1911, the sisters in charge of the refuge of Campolide, Lisbon, where they cared for 329 inmates, were ordered to leave, their places to be supplied by lay attendants. In Rome the sisters have a house near S. Pietro in Vincoli. In Kimberley, South Africa, they are known as Sisters of Nazareth. [ Editor's Note: The Sisters of Nazareth are a Congregation in their own right. They were founded in London in 1851 at the request of Cardinal Wiseman, and received their approbation from the Holy See in 1888.] HEIMBUCHER, Orden und Kongregationen, III (Paderborn, 1908), 388; STEELE, Convents of Great Britain (St. Louis, 1902), 244; LEROY, Au pays de la Charité (Abbéville, 1903); Messenger of the Sacred Heart (February, 1890), 103-12; Tablet (Oct. 24, 1896), 647; RAM, Little Sisters of the Poor (London, 1894). BLANCHE M. KELLY Poor Brothers of St. Francis Seraphicus Poor Brothers of St. Francis Seraphicus A congregation of lay brothers of the Third Order of St. Francis, instituted for charitable work among orphan boys and for educating the youth of the poorer classes. The founder was Philip Hoever, born at Obersthöhe, near Cologne, Germany, 1816; a schoolmaster at Breidt and Aachen. Through the influence of Mother Frances Schervier, foundress of the Little Sisters of the Poor of St Francis, Hoever, at Christmas, 1857, dedicated himself with four others to the service of God and of the abandoned men. In 1860 the Brothers obtained a home at Aachen. In the following year (5 Jan.) Cardinal Geissel, Archbishop of Cologne approved the new congregation. When Hoever died in 1864, it had twenty-six members and some postulants. In 1869 the institution received a Catholic orphanage at Moabit, Berlin, and since 1866 it has spread in the United States (Teutopolis, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Thenville, Kentucky; and Cincinnati, Ohio). Although in the Austro-Prussian war, 1866, and in the Franco-Prussian war, 1870-71, the Poor Brothers were helpful in the field hospitals, the Prussian Kulturkampf did not spare them; in 1876-77 they had to give up all their houses in Prussia. They retired to Blyerheide on the Dutch frontier, where the new mother-house was erected. After 1888 the Brothers were allowed to return to Prussia, and different houses were founded; Hohenhof in Upper Silesia, 1891; Dormagen on the Rhine, 1902, etc.; in Belgium at Voelkerich, 1900; in Holland at Roermond, 1903. In the United States the Poor Brothers possess a house of education at Mt. Alverno near Cincinnati; and St. Vincent's in Cincinnati. In 1907 the members of the Congregation were 230, of whom 50 were in the United States. The constitutions of the Poor Brothers were approved by Pius X in 1910. Der selige P. Johannes Hoever und seine Stiftung (Aachen, 1896); HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen, II (Paderborn, 1907), s. v. Arme Brüder vom hl. Franziscus. LIVARIUS OLIGER Poor Catholics Poor Catholics ( Pauperes Catholici) A religious mendicant order, organized in 1208, to reunite the Waldenses with the Church and combat the current heresies, especially the Albigensian. The recruits were taken from the "Pauperos Lugdunenses" (original name of the Waldenses); however, to distinguish them from the latter, Innocent III gave them the name of "Pauperes Catholici". The heretical movement of the Albigenses had taken such enormous proportions in the beginning of the thirteenth century that they were justly called by Innocent III a greater peril to the Church than the Saracens. Their doctrine was dualistic. They believed and taught that the visible and invisible world emanated from two separate and distinct, coeternal principles, one essentially bad, which created the material world, and the other essentially good, author of the spiritual world. This doctrine led logically to the renunciation of all things material. Hence they rejected marriage, the use of animal food, hell, purgatory etc., and advocated a life of self-denial and renunciation of all material pleasures. The systematic teaching of these doctrines, as well as the abstemious life of the sectaries, rapidly influenced the richer classes, especially the nobility, of whom it is said that they preferred sending their children for education to the heretics rather than to Catholic schools. The Waldenses, on the other hand, formed a religious social movement among the common people, who had become dissatisfied with their economic and social conditions and estranged from religion on account of the scandalous neglect of the clergy. The latter, unfortunately, took more interest in the administration of their temporal affairs than in administering to the spiritual needs of the faithful. Innocent III complains bitterly, in a letter to the bishops, saying that the people are hungry for the Bread of Life, but that there is no one to break it for them. Public preaching, exclusively in the hands of the bishops, had become a rare event. The result was that the common people, who needed spiritual help in a time of religious and social disturbance, looked for religious support elsewhere. They began to study the Sacred Scriptures and, not having the proper religious guidance, soon regarded them as their sole authority. They practised religion according to their conception of the Gospel and preached the same openly to their fellow-men, believing this to be in conformity with the teaching of Christ. Still, they tried to live up to the laws and regulations of the Church but, being told by the pope to stop preaching until they had conferred with the proper authorities, they disobeyed continuing to preach as usual, attacking the scandalous life of the clergy, and finally becoming antagonistic to the Church itself. Although at war with the Church, they vigorously fought its most dangerous enemy, the Albigenses, whom they regarded in the beginning as equally dangerous to themselves. The position of the Church was critical, yet not hopeless. Having thus far failed in its attempts to suppress the heresy, on account of the inadequate methods of its missionaries, it now adopted a new method, which consisted in meeting the enemy with its own weapons: fearlessly preaching the word of God and leading a life of resignation and evangelical poverty. Those who already practised this life were, of course, considered the fittest men for this work. The Church saw that the Waldenses, who constituted the masses, were gradually drifting away. Its plan was to bring these still harmless but zealous workers back to the fold in reorganizing them according to their former practice of studying the Sacred Scriptures, preaching the word of God and following the rule of absolute poverty and resignation. Once reunited, they would then form a phalanx of energetic soldiers fit to oppose the Albigenses. Through the missionary activities of Bishop Diego of Osma and St. Dominic, a small group of Waldenses, under the leadership of Duran of Huesca (Spain), was won back to the Church during a religious discussion at a meeting held at Pamiers (France) towards the end of 1207. These new converts, desirous of continuing their religious activity, went the same year to Rome, where they were welcomed by Innocent III. Anxious to realize his plan, the pope gave the young band seven in number, a constitution by which they could retain their former rule of life, and which pointed out to them a definite plan they were to follow in preaching against the Albigenses. Aside from this they had to make a profession of faith which represented the doctrine of the Church relative to all current heresies, and which was intended, not only to free their minds from all heretical tendencies and subject them to the authority of the Church, but also to offer them a guide according to which they could enter upon their missionary activities with a series of formulated truths giving them a clear outline of their faith and absolute certainty in their work. After having promised allegiance to the pope and the doctrines of the Church, they entered upon their mission in the beginning of 1208. Innocent III recommended them to the bishops of Southern France and Spain. They seemed to be successful, for we soon find them busy, not only through Southern France, but even as far as Milan where they founded a school in 1209 to gather and educate recruits for their order. Three years later, 1212, a group of penitents placed themselves under their spiritual direction. Within four years of their foundation they extended their activities over the Dioceses of Béziers, Uzès, Nîmes, Carcassonne, Narbonne, Taragon, Marseilles, Barcelona, Huesca, and Milan. However, in spite of their apparent success, the undertaking of the Poor Catholics was doomed from the beginning. They became a victim of the unfavourable conditions under which they originated. After 1212 they began to disintegrate. Innocent III stood by them for four years, making concession after concession, repeatedly urging the bishops to support them, recommending them to the King of Taragon; he even went so far as to exempt them from taking the oath of allegiance, as this was contrary to the teachings of the Waldenses, and finally placed them under the protectorate of St. Peter, but all in vain. They did not show any positive results and, for this reason, the pope abandoned them in 1212 and gave his attention to the Preaching Friars of St. Dominic and the Friars Minor of St. Francis whose labours promised better results. In 1237 Gregory IX requested the provincial of the Preaching Friars to visit the provinces of Narbonne and Taragon and compel the Poor Catholics to adopt one of the approved rules, which, if we consider the similarity of purpose, justifies the supposition that the Poor Catholics in these provinces were affiliated with the friars. In Milan we find them till 1256 when, by a Decree of Innocent IV, they were united with the Augustinian Hermits. The principal causes of their failure were the organization adopted from the Waldenses and the object of their foundation. The whole enterprise was looked upon as an innovation contrary to all established rights and privileges of the clergy, and naturally called forth a severe opposition by these. Their chief occupation remained, as it was before their reconciliation, the preaching of the word of God directed against the heretics. To be successful in realizing his plan Innocent III placed himself as sole director at the head of the organization, thus replacing the majoralis, leader of the Waldenses. He gave them the name of "Pauperes Catholici", to show that they practised poverty in common with the "Pauperes Lugdunenses" but were separated from them in enjoying the benefits and sympathy of the Church. The division into "perfecti" and "credentes" remained the same, only the names were changed into "fratres" and "amici". In their activity the Waldenses were divided into three classes: the "sandaliati", who had received sacred orders and the especial office to confute the heresiarchs; the "doctores", who had charge of the instructing and training of the missionaries; and the "novellani"", whose chief work consisted in preaching to the common people. The work of the Poor Catholics had the same division; however, the names "sandaliati", "doctores", and "novellani" were changed into "doctiores", "honestiores", and "idonei". The habit, a light gray, remained unchanged except the buckles on the sandals, by which the Waldenses were known as heretics. Manual labour was forbidden as before. The only means of support were the daily offerings of the faithful. It was thought that, by giving the Poor Catholics this organization, the Waldenses could be won back easily to the Church. However, the danger existed that, with their former customs and habits they would also retain their heretical tendencies, this proved only too true and gave rise to frequent complaints by the bishops. The fact, however, that simple laymen, although they had received the tonsure and were regarded as clerics publicly preached the doctrine of the Church, and this under the protection of the supreme pontiff himself, was unheard of and looked upon as a usurpation of episcopal powers and rights and, naturally, occasioned severe opposition on the part of the higher clergy. The latter even went so far it seems as to curtail the offerings of the faithful, the only support of the Poor Catholics. Under these conditions it was impossible for them to prosper. Still, the great work of reformation was begun and, although they were sacrificed by introducing it, it was continued and successfulLy carried out by the Preaching Friars and the Friars Minor. RECONCILED LOMBARDS An article on Poor Catholics would be incomplete without some account of the Reconciled Lombards. Peter Waldes had not confined his teaching to Lyons alone, where he set the Waldensian movement on foot. When he was expelled from that city, he decided to go to Rome and make a personal plea for his cause to the pope. Going through Lombardy, he propagated his ideas. The lay people readily accepted his views on religion and formed an economic, religious body known by the name of Humiliates (humiliati). Some of them appeared in Rome with him the following year, 1179, and asked Alexander III to sanction their rule or form of life, which consisted in leading a religious life in their separate homes, abstaining from the oath, and defending the Catholic doctrine by public preaching. The pope granted them permission to lead a religious life in their homes, but forbade them to preach. Unmindful of the pontiff's answer and continuing their former life, they were excommunicated by Lucius III about the year 1184. In this state they remained until 1201, when, upon presentation of their constitution, Innocent III reconciled them with the Church, and reorganized them in conformity with their economic and religious customs, also approving of the name "Humiliati". This brought most of them back to the Church; but a number persevered in the heresy and continued their former life under the direction of the Poor of Lyons, with whom they were naturally affiliated. Economic and religious difficulties, however, aggravated long-felt dissensions between the two groups and, in 1205, these non-reconciled Humiliates separated from the Lyonese and formed a distinct group, adopting the name of Poor Lombards, "Pauperes Lombardi". In order to bring the Poor Lombards back to the Church, Innocent III founded and organized in 1210 the order of the Reconciled Lombards, under the immediate supervision of the supreme pontiff. The recruits were taken from the ranks of the Poor Lombards. Their first superior was Bernard Primus, a former Lombard leader, who, with a few followers, had given the impetus for the foundation of the order by presenting a rule of life to the pope. Innocent III did not entrust the reconciliation of the Poor Lombards to the Poor Catholics on account of their divergent views on the subject of labour. The latter had abolished all manual labour for the missionaries. The Lombards and the Humiliates on the contrary, gave manual labour the first place. Every member, irrespective of position or talent, had to learn a trade in order to make his living. This predominance of manual labour we also find a deciding factor in the reorganization of the Reconciled Lombards. Two years later, however, Innocent III gave them a new constitution, in which he retained manual labour for all the members of the order, but declared it only of secondary value for the missionaries or friars to whom he assigned the study of Holy Scripture and preaching as main occupation. He also makes a more definite division of the members into three classes, or orders, comprising respectively the missionaries or friars, the women who took the vows, and the married people. The object of this second constitution was to bring order into the chaos of social and religious agitation among the different classes of members and, at the same time, to bring the better elements to the front to train them for missionary work against the Cathari. The Reconciled Lombards, like the Poor Catholics, did not meet with the expectations of the Roman Curia; both failed for the same reasons. They succumbed in preparing and initiating the great work of reform so successfully carried out by the Dominicans and Franciscans. CASTRO, Biblioteca española, II (Madrid, 1786); DEVIC AND VAISSÈTE, Hist. gén. de Languedoc, VI (Toulouse, 1879); GUIRAUD, Questions d'hist. et d'archéol. chrét. (Paris, 1899); HURTER, Gesch. Papst Inn. III, II (Hamburg, 1834); HÉLYOT, Kloster-u. Ritterorden, III (Leipzig, 1754); LEA, A History of the Inquisition, I (New York, s. d.); MANDONNET, Les origines de l'Ordo de poenitentia (Fribourg, 1898); LUCHAIRE, Innocent III (Paris, 1905); MÜLLER, Die Waldenser u. ihre einz. Grup. (Gotha, 1886); PIERRON, Die kath. Armen (Fribourg, 1911). Sources:-INNOC. III in P. L., CCXV, CCXVI; TORELLI, Secoli Agostiniani, IV (Bologna, 1675), 545, 607; WILLIAM OF PUYLAURENT in Recueil des hist. des Gaules et de la France, XIX, 200; Peter of Vaux-Cernay, ibid., XIX, 10; Chron. Urspergense in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XXIII, 367, ad an. 1212. J. B. PIERRON. Sisters of the Poor Child Jesus Sisters of the Poor Child Jesus A congregation founded at Aachen in 1844 for the support and education of poor, orphan, and destitute children, especially girls; approved by Pius IX in 1862 and 1869, and by Leo XIII in 1881 and 1888. Clara Fey, Leocadia Startz, Wilhelmina Istas, and Aloysia Vossen were at school together at Aachen; they were the co-foundresses of the congregation. The home of Clara Fey was a rendezvous for priests and earnest-minded laity for the discussion of religious and social questions. In February, 1837, Clara and some companions rented a house, gathered together some children, fed, clothed, and taught them. Soon the old Dominican convent was secured and, with other houses, opened as schools. After seven years of rapid progress the four foundresses entered upon community life 2 Feb., 1844, under the rule and direction of Clara Fey (born 11 April, 1815; died 8 May, 1894). Fifty children were housed with the community, and several hundreds attended the day schools. In 1845 Card. Geissel of Cologne approved the rules and obtained recognition from the Holy See, whilst the Prussian Government also authorized the foundation. An old convent in Jakobstrasse became the first mother-house of the new order. The growth was rapid, and in quick succession houses were opened at Bonn, Derendorf, Düsseldorf, Neuss, Cologne, Coblenz, Landstuhl, Luxemburg, Stolberg, and Vienna. The need of providing funds for the original work of rescue, as well as the entreaties of bishops, led to other activities being undertaken, e.g. high schools for girls, training of domestics, homes for girls in business, modelling of wax figures for statues, and notably church embroidery. For the latter, designs were furnished by Pugin at the instance of Mrs. Edgar, an English resident of Aachen, and the exquisite needle-painting of the sisters became famed throughout Germany and the neighbouring countries. The house at Burtscheid (Aachen) became, and still remains, the German secretariate of the society of the Holy Childhood. In twenty years the number of houses had grown to twenty-five, with 450 sisters. Invaluable advice and assistance were afforded the order by Bishop Laurent, Vicar Apostolic of Luxemburg, and by Pastor Sartorius of Aachen, who with Father Andreas Fey, a brother of Clara, acted as spiritual director and confessor. After the Franco-Prussian war, the devotion of the sisters in nursing the sick and wounded was rewarded by an autograph letter from the emperor and decorations for many sisters. The influence of the empress delayed the expulsion of the congregation during the Kulturkampf until 1875, when steps were taken to close the houses in Prussia; but not until 1878 was the mother-house at Aachen transferred to Simpelveld, a few miles over the Dutch frontier. There Bishop Laurent, who had resigned his see, took up his residence, and remained as counsellor until his death in 1884. The exiles found refuge in Holland, Bavaria, Belgium, Luxemburg, and Austria. In England a house was established in 1876 at Southam, where an orphanage was immediately opened by the ten exiles who arrived there. This community now numbers over forty sisters with orphanage, day and boarding schools, and a school of embroidery. The relaxation of the Falk Laws enabled the congregation in 1887 to regain many of its convents. At the present time (1911) the total number of houses is 38, with over 2000 sisters engaged in a variety of charitable and educational occupations, with thousands of children of every class. The range of work is wide: seminaries for teachers as at Maastricht, Ehrenfeld, Brussels; high schools (boarding and day), Godesberg, Düsseldorf, Vienna, Roermond, Maastricht, Brussels, Borsbeeck, Antwerp, Plappeville etc.; domestic training at many houses; embroidery at Simpelveld, Aachen, Brussels, Landstuhl, Southam, Vienna (Döbling); elementary schools and orphanages at most houses. The mother general resides at Simpelveld, the mother-house and chief novitiate, with provincials for Austria and Holland. The constitutions aim at promoting a simplicity of character and joyful spirit in imitation of the Child Jesus born in poverty. The twenty-fifth of each month is a day of special devotion before the Crib, the nineteenth in honour of St. Joseph, the chief patron, Guardian of the Poor Child; and the secondary patron is St. Dominic. PFÜLF, Mutter Clara Fey Vom Armen Kinde Jesus (Freiburg, 1907); Mutter Clara (Simpelveld, 1910); HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1897). WALTER HÖFLER Poor Clares Poor Clares (POOR LADIES, SISTERS OF ST. CLARE) The Second Order of St. Francis. The subject will be treated here under the following heads: + I. Beginnings at San Damiano; + II. Rule of Ugolino; + III. Definitive Rule of St. Clare; + IV Spread of the Order; + V. Colettine Reform; + VI. In England and America; + VII. Mode of Life; + VIII. Saints and Blessed of the Order; + IX. Present Status. I. In the great Franciscan movement of the thirteenth century an important part was played by this order of religious women, which had its beginning in the convent of San Damiano, Assisi. When St. Clare (q. v.) in 1212, following the advice of St. Francis (q. v.), withdrew to San Damiano, she was soon surrounded by a number of ladies attracted by the holiness of her life. Among the first to join her were several immediate relatives, including her sister Agnes, her mother, aunt, and niece. Thus was formed the nucleus of the new order. Here St. Clare became the counsellor of St. Francis and after his death remained the supreme exponent of the Franciscan ideal of poverty. "This ideal was the exaltation of the beggar's estate into a condition of spiritual liberty, wherein man would live in conscious dependence upon the providence of God and the good will of his fellowmen" (Cuthbert, "The Life and Legend of the Lady St. Clare", p. 4). At the outset St. Clare received from St. Francis a "formula vitæ" for the growing community. This was not a formal rule, but simply a direction to practise the counsels of the Gospel (Seraphicæ legislationis textus originales, p. 62). "Vivere secundum perfectionem sancti Evangelii" was the keynote of St. Francis's message. On behalf of the sisters, St. Clare petitioned Innocent III for the "privilege" of absolute poverty, not merely for the individual members but for the community as a whole. Highly pleased with the unusual request he granted it, says the saint's biographer, with his own hand "cum hilaritate magna" ("Röm. Quartalschrift", 1902, p. 97; see, however, Robinson, "Life of St. Clare", note 114); II. In 1217 an event occurred which proved to be of first importance in the development of the new community. In that year Ugolino, Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, was sent to Tuscany as Apostolic delegate; he formed a warm attachment for St. Francis, and soon became the confidant and adviser of the seraphic doctor in all things relating to the second Order ("Analecta Franciscana", III, p. 686). Concerning the manner of life of the religious who gathered in various places imitating the example of the community at San Damiano we have only the account given by Jacques de Vitry in 1216 and the letters of Ugolino to Honorius III in 1218. The former speaks of women who dwell in hospices in community life and support themselves by their own labour. Ugolino writes that many women have renounced the world and desired to establish monasteries where they would live in total poverty with no possessions except their houses. For this purpose estates were often donated, but the administration of these presented difficulties. The pope decided that Ugolino should accept these estates in the name of the Church and that the houses established thereon should be immediately subject to the pope. About 1219 Ugolino drew up a rule for these groups of women, taking the Rule of St. Benedict as a ground work, with severe regulations having, however, no distinctively Franciscan element in them. His first foundation was the monastery of Monticello near Florence (1219). This rule was soon adopted by the monasteries at Perugia, Siena, Gattajola, and elsewhere. There is no evidence that it was ever accepted at San Damiano. It is noteworthy that it does not raise the question of the ownership of property by the various monasteries. This was a point on which St. Francis and Ugolino did not agree. The subsequent modifications which this rule underwent at the hands of Innocent IV in 1247, and of Urban IV in 1263, resulted in the triumph of Ugolino's view, while St. Francis's ideal of utter poverty found expression in a definitive rule, the confirmation of which St. Clare secured in 1253. The opening words of Ugolino's Rule, "Regulam beatissimi Benedicti vobis tradimus observandam", have been taken to indicate that the Poor Clares were an offshoot of the Benedictines. This conclusion, however, is unwarranted. The Lateran Council, a few years earlier, had decreed that new orders should adopt a rule already approved. The new order was not bound to the observance of the older rule, except in regard to the three customary vows. This was Ugolino's intention in drawing up the rule, and it is confirmed by a letter of Innocent IV to Agnes of Bohemia, in which he explains the meaning of the words in question (Sbarales, I, p. 315). After the death of St. Francis (1226) and the elevation of Ugolino to the papal chair as Gregory IX (1227), certain changes were introduced in the practical direction of conventual life. The pope offered to bestow possessions on the convent of San Damiano over which St. Clare presided. She firmly refused the offer and petitioned to be permitted to continue in the spirit of St. Francis. In response to this request, Gregory granted her (17 September, 1228) the "privilege of most high poverty", namely," ut recipere possessiones a nullo compelli possitis". The convents of Perugia and Florence followed the example of San Damiano. Other convents, however, gladly availed themselves of the possessions which the pope offered them, "propter eventus temporum et pericula sæculorum". Thus were laid the foundation of the two observances which obtain among the daughters of St. Clare. The plea of Agnes of Bohemia for a new rule was rejected by Gregory IX in 1238, and again by Innocent IV in 1243. In 1247 Innocent IV, to secure unity of observance and peace of conscience for the sisters, modified the original rule in two points. In place of the reference to the Rule of St. Benedict he inserted a reference to the Rule of St. Francis, which, in the meantime, had been approved, and he embodied in the rule regulations covering certain changes already introduced in various convents by his predecessor or by himself. Thus, the direction of the communities of the order was placed in the hands of the general and provincial of the Franciscans. The sisters were directed to recite the Divine Office according to the custom of the Friars Minor. The regulations concerning silence and abstinence were modified. The length of novitiate was fixed at one year. The most notable change is to be found in the express permission granted to every convent to hold possessions, for the administration of which a prudent procurator was to be secured by each house. In the year 1263 the original rule underwent a final modification at the hands of Urban IV. On 18 October of that year the sovereign pontiff issued the rule which is in the most general observance among the Poor Clares and which has given the name "Urbanist" to a large division of the order. It is noteworthy that in Urban's Rule the new community received for the first time the official title of "Order of St. Clare". In a few particulars the new regulations were less severe than in the rule of 1247. For instance, the abbess was empowered to dispense with the obligation of silence during certain hours of the day at her good pleasure. The sections of the rule are arranged in a new order and are divided into twenty-six chapters. For the most part the very words of the previous rule are employed. One important change must be noted. Innocent IV had left the Second Order in charge of the general and provincial of the Friars Minor. Urban IV withdrew from these officials practically all their authority over the Second Order and bestowed it on the cardinal protector. III. Meanwhile, St. Clare had secured from innocent IV the confirmation of a new rule differing widely from the original rule drawn up by Ugolino, and modified by his successors on the papal throne. For forty years she had been the living rule from which the community at San Damiano had imbibed the spirit of St. Francis. A few days before her death she placed the convent under a rule which embodied that spirit more perfectly than did Ugolino's Rule. The Bull "Solet annuere", 9 August, 1253, confirming St. Clare's Rule, was directed to the Sisters of San Damiano alone. The new rule was soon adopted by other convents and forms the basis of the second grand division of the Poor Clares. It is an adaptation of the Franciscan Rule to the needs of the Second Order. Its twelve chapters correspond substantially to those of the Franciscan Rule, and in large sections there is a verbal agreement between the two rules. In a few instances it borrows regulations from the original rule and from the modified form of that rule published by Innocent IV. The most important characteristic of St. Clare's Rule is its express declaration that the sisters are to possess no property, either as individuals or as a community. In this regulation the new rule clearly breathes the spirit of the seraphic founder. It is improbable, however, that St. Francis was the author of it or that it was approved by Gregory IX, as is sometimes asserted. With the data obtainable no categorical answer can be given to the question of authorship, though the compiler may well have been St. Clare herself (Lemmens in "Röm. Quartalschr.", I, page 118). The original Bull of Innocent IV confirming the Rule of St. Clare was discovered in 1893 in a mantle of the saint which had been preserved, among other relics, at the monastery of St. Clare at Assisi (Robinson, "Inventarium documentorum", 1908). IV. While the rule was undergoing these various modifications, the order was rapidly spreading throughout Europe. At San Damiano, St. Clare's sister, Agnes, and her aunt, Buona Guelfuccio (in religion Sister Pacifica), played a large part in its early development. In 1318 permission was obtained from the Bishop of Perugia for the establishment of a monastery in that city. The following year Agnes founded at Florence a community which became the centre of numerous new foundations, namely, those at Venice, Mantua, and Padua. Monasteries of the order were soon to be found at Todi, Volterra, Foligno, and Beziers. St. Clare's niece, Agnes, introduced the new order into Spain. The cities of Barcelona and Burgos became thriving communities. The first foundation in Belgium was effected at Bruges by Sister Ermentrude, who, after the death of St. Clare, displayed great zeal in spreading the order through Belgium and northern France. The earliest community in France, however, was planted at Reims in 1229 at the request of the archbishop of that see. The monasteries at Montpelier, Cahors, Bordeaux, Metz, and Besançon sprang from the house at Reims; and that of Marseilles was founded from Assisi in 1254. The Royal Abbey at Longchamp, which enjoyed the patronage of Bl. Isabel, daughter of Louis VIII and Blanche of Castile, is usually though with some question counted as a branch of the Poor Clares. (See article ISABEL OF FRANCE.) Among the earliest foundations in Germany was that of Strasburg, where Innocent IV's revision of the rule was accepted in 1255. In Bohemia the order had an illustrious patroness, Princess Agnes (Blessed Agnes of Prague), a cousin of St. Elizabeth of Hungary. Agnes was but one of the ladies of high rank who, attracted to the new order, put aside the vanities of their social position to embrace a life of poverty and seclusion from the world. V. For a century after the death of St. Clare comparatively few of the convents had adopted the Rule of 1253. Most of them had availed themselves of the permission to hold property in the name of the community. Moreover, in the fourteenth century the order suffered very much during the Great Western Schism, which was responsible for the general decline of discipline (Manuale Historiæ Ordinis Fratrum Minorum, p. 586). At the beginning of the fifteenth century, however, the spirit of utter poverty was revived through the instrumentality of St. Colette (died 1447) who instituted the most vigorous reform the Second Order has ever experienced. Her desire to restore or introduce the practice of absolute poverty was put on a fair way to realization when, in 1406, Benedict XIII appointed her reformer of the whole order and gave her the office of Abbess General over all convents she should establish or reform. In 1412 St. Colette established a monastery at Besançon. Before her death (1447) she had founded 17 new monasteries, to which, in addition to the Rule of St. Clare, she gave constitutions and regulations of her own. These Constitutions of St. Colette were confirmed by Pius II (Seraphicæ Legislationis Textus Originales, 99-175). After the death of St. Colette her reform continued to spread and by the end of the fifteenth century reformed convents were to be found throughout France, Flanders, Brabant, Savoy, Spain, and Portugal. The number of sisters at that time exceeded 35,000 and they were everywhere commended by the austerity of their lives (Pidoux, "Sainte Colette", p.158). From the year 1517 the spiritual direction of the Poor Clares, the Colettines not excepted, was given to the Observants. This was a return to the condition existing before the year 1263, at which time the Friars Minor, under the leadership of St. Bonaventure, at the General Chapter of Pisa sought to resign the spiritual care of the Second Order (Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, October, 1910, 664-79). The first quarter of the sixteenth century witnessed a widespread revival of the Urbanist Rule. Towards the end of the same century, though the religious wars had destroyed many monasteries, there were about six hundred houses in existence. Subsequently the order experienced a rapid growth and the external development of the Poor Clares appears to have reached its culmination about 1630 in 925 monasteries with 34,000 sisters under the direction of the minister general. If we can credit contemporary chroniclers, there were still more sisters under the direction of the bishops, making the entire number about 70,000. After the opening years of the eighteenth century the order declined and the French Revolution and the subsequent policy of secularization almost totally destroyed it, except in Spain, where the monasteries were undisturbed. VI. In 1807 a Poor Clare community of the Urbanist Observance, fleeing from the terrors of the French Revolution, took refuge in England and founded a monastery at Scorton Hall in Yorkshire. They were the first of their order to establish themselves in that country since the religious changes of the sixteenth century. Fifty years after their arrival they removed to their present home, the Monastery of St. Clare at Darlington, also in Yorkshire. Refugees from the French Revolution likewise found their way to America. In 1801 a community, presided over by Abbess Marie de La Marche, purchased property in Georgetown, D. C., and opened a school for their support. Their efforts met with little success and they returned to Europe. The suppression of the religious in Italy was the occasion of the first permanent settlement of the Poor Clares in the United States. In August, 1875, two sisters by blood as well as in religion, Maria Maddelena, and Maria Costanza Bentivoglio, from the celebrated Monastery of San Lorenzo-in-Panisperma, came to America by direction of Pius IX in response to a petition presented by Mother Ignatius Hayes of the Third Order Regulars of St. Francis. After vainly seeking to found convents in New York, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia, they went to New Orleans but soon removed to Cleveland, Ohio, where they were joined by a community of German Poor Clares to whom they relinquished the convent. The new German community remained in Cleveland and have since founded another convent in Chicago; they follow the reform of St. Colette. Meanwhile the Italian sisters found a permanent home in Omaha, thanks to the munificence of Mr. John Creighton. On 14 July, 1882, the canonical enclosure was established in the new monastery. From the monastery of St.Clare in Omaha have sprung directly, or indirectly, the foundations of the order at New Orleans; Evansville, Ind.; Boston; and Bordentown, N. J. VII. The daily life of the Poor Clares is occupied with both work and prayer. It is a life of penance and contemplation. The rule says that the sisters shall fast at all times except on the Feast of the Nativity. The constitutions explain that meat may not be used even on Christmas. The "great silence" is from Compline until after the conventual Mass. During the day there is one hour of recreation except on Friday. Meals are taken in silence. The Divine Office is recited, not sung. The Franciscan breviary is used. The habit is a loose fitting garment of gray frieze; the cord is of linen rope about one-half inch in thickness having four knots representing the four vows; the sandals are of cloth. VIII. Among the saints of the order may be mentioned: the founder, Clare of Assisi (died 1253); Agnes of Assisi (died 1253); Collette of Corbie (died 1447); Catharine of Bologna (died 1463); Veronica Giuliani (died 1727). Holzapfel enumerates seventeen Blessed of the order (Manuale, 638), of whom the following are the more important: Agnes of Bohemia (died 1280); Isabel of France (died 1270); Margaret Colonna (died 1284); Cunegundis of Hungary (died 1292); Antonia of Florence (died 1472). IX. According to the census of the Poor Clares, taken in October, 1909, the following is the present status of the order: Italy, Houses 108, Members 1816; Sardinia, H. 3, M. 40; Corsica, H. 1, M. 24; Palestine, H. 2, M. 54; Tyrol, H. 1, M. 50; Dalmatia, H. 1, M. 15; Prussia, H. 4, M. 126; Bavaria, H. 3, M. 100; Holland, H. 4, M. 112; Belgium, H. 39, M. 870; Ireland, H. 9, M. 178; England, H. 11, M. 129; France, H. 31, M. 760; Spain, H. 247, M. 5543; Portugal, H. 3, M. 40 (now dispersed); Peru, H. 1, M. 34; Columbia, H. 5, M. 136; Ecuador, H. 5, M. 155; Bolivia, H. 2, M. 36; Argentina, H. 1, M. 36; Brazil, H. 2, M. 3(?); Mexico, H. 14, M. 204; Canada, H. 1, M. 20; United States, H. 7, M. 125; total H. 505, M. 10,586. THOMAS OF CELANO, Vita S. Claroe in Acta SS., II, Aug. (ed. Paris, 1867), 754-67; ROBINSON, Life of St. Clare (Philadelphia, 1910); Seraphicoe legislationis textus originales (Quaracchi, 1897) Containing of interest to the Second Order the following documents: the Bull "Solet annuere" with the Rule of 1263 (49-76), "Privilegium seraphicæ paupertatis" granted by Gregory IX (97-8)." Textus originales Constitutionum Coletæ" in fifteen chapters, with the Bull of confirmation by Pius II (99-175), "Testamentum S. Claræ" (273), "Benedictio S. Claræ" (281), and the "Testamentum S. Coletæ" (298-301); MIGUET, Règle de Ste Claire (Chambéry, 1693); FRANÇOIS DU PUIS, La vie et légende de Madame Ste Claire (ed., Paris, 1902); CHÉRANCÉ, Ste Claire d'Assise (Paris, 1901); BALFOUR, The Life and Legend of the Lady St. Claire (London, 1910); SBARALEA, Bullarium Franciscanum, I-IV (Rome, 1759-68), Continued by Eubel, V-VII (Rome, 1898-1904); Anal. Francisc., I-IV (Quaracchi, 1885-1906); WADDING, Annales Minorum (Rome, 1731-6); DE GUBERNATIS, Orbis Seraphicus, I-IV (1682-5); Archiv. Francisc. Histor., I-III (Quaracchi, 1908-10); PIDOUX, Ste Collette (Paris, 1907); GERMAIN, Ste Collette de Corbie (Paris, 1904); UBAL Dd'ALENCON, Documents sur la Réforme de Ste Collette en France in Archiv. Francis. Hist., II, 447; LEMMENS, Die Anfänge des Klarissenordens in Röm. Quartalschr., XVI, pts. i-ii; LEMPP, Briegers Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch., XII (1893), 181; XXIII. 626; LAZZERI, Documenta controversiam inter FF. Minores et Clarissas spectantia (1262-97) in Archiv. Francis. Hist. (1910), fasc. iv; SABATIER, Speculum Perfectionis; Legenda antiquissima S. Francisci (Paris. 1898); FIEGE, Princess of Poverty (Evansville, 1900); HOLZAPFEL, Manuale historioe Ordinis Fratrum Mimorum, tr. (1909); IDEM, Handbuch der Gesch. d. Franciscanerordens (Freiburg, 1909); BÖHMER, Analekten zur Gesch. des hl. Franz (Tübingen, 1904); Hist. abrégée de l'ordre de Ste Claire d'Assise (2 vols., Lyons and Paris, 1906); WAUER, Entstehung u, Ausbreitung d. Klarissenordens, besonders in den deutschen Minoritenprovinzen (Leipzig, 1906). EDWIN V. O'HARA. Poor Handmaids of Jesus Christ Poor Handmaids of Jesus Christ A community founded by Catherine Kasper, a native of Dernbach, Germany. She was born 26 May, 1820, of humble parents, and at an early age resolved to consecrate her life to God. She was animated with the spirit of Mary and the activity of Martha and wished to combine the contemplative and active life in the service of her Master. She and two companions took vows and professed themselves Poor Handmaids of Jesus Christ, on 15 August, 1851. Sister Mary (Catherine Kasper) was chosen mother-general of the newly founded community and continued as such until her death, 2 Feb., 1898, when the community had branches throughout Germany, Austria, England, Holland, and North America. Mother Mary Kasper had first simply desired that her community be devoted to the sick and needy and especially the orphan; but it soon engaged in the work of teaching and began to conduct in Germany parochial schools, academies, boarding schools, kindergartens, and industrial schools. The Kulturkampfcompelled the sisters to abandon their parochial schools, but they continued the other works of charity. The constitution of the community was temporarily approved by Pius IX in 1870 and finally confirmed by Leo XIII. Through the Bishop Luers and Rev. Edward Koenig, pastor of St. Paul's Church at Fort Wayne, the community began to labour at Hesse Cassel in the Diocese of Fort Wayne on 3 August, 1863. From this place three sisters were called to Chicago in 1869 by the Very Rev. Peter Fischer, vicar general, to the charge of the German orphan asylum, which opened with twelve children, but now shelters more than six hundred orphans. On 9 May, 1869, the Rockhill property at Fort Wayne was purchased and converted into a hospital. To this was added a convent and chapel in 1883 at a cost of $32,000. The convent is the provincial mother-house of the community in America. The first parochial school conducted by the sisterhood in this country was St. Paul's in Fort Wayne, of which they took charge on 6 October, 1869. Now the community is represented in the Dioceses of Fort Wayne, Belleville, Alton, Superior, and in the Archdioceses of St. Paul, Chicago, Philadelphia, and St. Louis. The sisters are engaged in teaching, and nursing the sick in hospitals and private homes. Of the 3,500 members which the community now numbers, 500 labour in the United States. MOTHER M. SECUNDA Poor Laws Poor Laws Poor Laws are those legal enactments which have been made at various periods of the world's history in many countries for the relief of various forms of distress and sickness prevailing amongst the destitute. In England this is not strictly accurate, as certain laws have been enacted for the special benefit of the poor, which have not been classified as poor laws, in order to avoid classifying the recipients of relief as paupers, a name much disliked amongst the poor. A person of seventy years of age in receipt of relief from the guardians of the poor would be classed a pauper, but if the relief were granted under the Old Age Pension Act such would not be the case, as the grant would be made up, to a large extent, from imperial taxation instead of local rates and the guardians of the poor would have no control over its distribution. The English poor law system is the most comprehensive and is the result of nearly four centuries of experiment; even now it is receiving the most careful consideration with a view to further legislation in consequence of the report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws issued in 1909. This commission sat for three years, held over two hundred meetings, took evidence from over one thousand three hundred witnesses, and the commissioners made upwards of eight hundred personal visits to Unions, meetings of Boards of Guardians, and institutions in England, Scotland, and Ireland. The volume containing the report consists of one thousand two hundred and fifty folio pages, six hundred and forty of which are signed by a majority of fourteen out of eighteen of the commissioners, and over five hundred by a minority of four. The two reports are the subject of much discussion, and rival associations are formed to further their respective recommendations. That more modern European systems can show many points of improvement upon the English system as a whole is obvious. The system in Denmark is considered by many to be vastly superior to the English system, in that infinite trouble is taken to prevent any person who deserves a better fate from becoming a pauper owing to misfortune, temporary distress, illness, or accident. In England no one would ever think of applying to a poor law officer for advice, or for a loan or gift to help him over evil days, but in Denmark this is often done. At the same time those who receive poor law relief in Denmark are subject to penalties which would not be tolerated in England. In Austria and Russia great interest is taken in homes for the aged poor and the inmates always seem much brighter and happier than the average poor person in an English workhouse. In Belgium there is no poor rate, but large endowments exist. In France there are hospices civiles for indoor relief, and bureaux de bienfaisance for outdoor relief, but the relief of the poor is not compulsory except for foundlings and lunatics. The same may be said of Italy, but the charitable foundations there amount to more than thirty millions sterling. The poor laws of the United States are in many respects like the English poor laws, although not so comprehensive, and they are not universally adopted in all states. Every man is entitled by law to relief from the town of his settlement, the rate being assessed on whole towns and not on parishes. These areas bear the burden of the settled poor; the unsettled poor, including Indians, are a charge upon the state. In New York one year's residence is sufficient to constitute a settlement. In some states outdoor relief is considered more economical than relief in a workhouse. The idle and the vagrant may be committed to the workhouse and forced to labour as in a house of correction. The administration is in the hands of overseers, but the counties elect superintendents, holding office for three years, who are again responsible to a Board of Supervisors. Generally the American system is marked by a high degree of classification, variety of work, special education, and liberal treatment in the matter of diet. In Canada and Australia there are practically no poor laws, but many Catholic charitable institutions exist for dealing with the various forms of destitution and sickness. The history of the poor laws in England practically had its beginning with the abolition of the monasteries by Henry VIII. A curious act of Edward VI (1551) enacted that everyone should give alms to the collectors on Sundays, and that if any one refused the bishop should admonish him. This form of "moral suasion" was not sufficient for the congregations of the new worship; and a few years later another act directed the bishop to commit those who did not give sufficient alms to the justices, who were to levy on them whatever rate they thought fair. The establishment of an official poor fund led to the establishment of an official register of the poor; and an early act of Elizabeth caused dwellings to be built, overseers to be appointed and "stuff" to be provided to set the sturdy paupers to work. In 1604 the act of 43 Elizabeth, c. 2, crystallized the whole arrangement, leaving the main administrative power in the hands of parochial authorities, annually appointed. Among other things it provided for setting to work children of parents unable to maintain them; also for setting to work all such persons, married or unmarried, who had no ordinary daily occupation to obtain a living. It provided for the relief of the lame, impotent, and blind, and those poor who were unable to work. This and other acts were renewed in the reign of James I and made perpetual in the reign of Charles I. Each renewal saw some new development. In the eighteenth century many experimental acts were passed, some of which were completely opposite in policy. In 1772 the workhouse test was introduced and no one who refused to be lodged and kept in such houses was entitled to parochial relief. In 1782 by an act known as Gilbert's Act power was given to adjacent parishes to unite into a union and to build workhouses for combined parishes. Section 29 of this act provided that no person should be sent to the poorhouse except such as were become indigent by old age, sickness, or infirmities, and were unable to acquire a maintenance by their labour, and orphan children. For the able-bodied the guardians were ordered to find suitable employment near their own homes. Poor law expenditure was beginning to grow and by 1785 it amounted to £2,000,000. In 1796 an act (36 Geo. III, c. 23) was passed, repealing an act of 1722 which restricted out-relief. This reversal of policy encouraged out-relief to poor persons in their own homes and the cost of relief rose with frightful rapidity until it reached in 1818 the sum of £7,870,000. This was looked upon as an intolerable burden and many petitions were presented to Parliament for its alleviation. In 1832 a royal commission was appointed to investigate the working of the poor laws and the report issued by the commissioners in 1834 presents a very unsatisfactory state of things. It was reported that funds collected were applied to purposes opposed to the letter and still more to the spirit of the law, and the morals and welfare of the people were being destroyed. It was found that in many places not only the rates due from the people were being paid from poor funds, but their house rent as well; consequently paupers became a very desirable class of tenant. In many districts it was the custom to make up the earnings of a family to what was considered a living wage, which enabled employers of labour to pay low wages, knowing the earnings would be supplemented from the poor funds. To provide employment in return for relief granted was most unusual and even where any attempt to do so was made, it was of a most unsatisfactory nature. The men were usually paid at a higher rate of wage than the independent labourer and were required to work fewer hours. Wives of independent labourers were often heard regretting that their husbands were not paupers. The method of collecting rates for the poor fund was found to be as bad as its distribution. No general method existed: sometimes tradespeople would be called upon to pay the rates and in addition compelled to give employment where it was not required; at another time and place farmers would have to bear the burden. An instance is given of a farmer with five hundred acres having to pay ten per cent per acre and to employ four or five more labourers than he required, costing him another £100, to say nothing of the damage done by worthless labour. The evils existing in the workhouses were absence of classification, discipline, and employment, and the extravagance of allowances. Children were herded with older people and soon acquired their bad habits; particularly was this the case with young girls who were obliged to associate with the many women of evil repute who came in to recruit their health and then return to their trade; paupers were allowed to leave the workhouse one day a week and return intoxicated without punishment. Only in a very few instances were things found to be in the least degree satisfactory and these particular instances were due to the extraordinary energy and wisdom of a few individuals. It is not difficult to imagine the disastrous effect these abuses had upon all classes of the community. The independent labourers, the employers of labour, the owners of property, were all seriously affected. The foregoing evils were to a large extent due to the administrative machinery, upon which the commissioners were no less severe in their report. Overseers, assistant overseers, open vestries, representative vestries, self-appointed vestries, and magistrates, were the chief administrators of the poor funds. Some of these had to serve compulsorily without payment and much against their will; others were paid and were of a most illiterate class, many not being able to read or write, and a final appeal for the pauper against the overseers or vestries was with the magistrate, who not having the time nor inclination to go into the details of the cases brought to his notice would invariably give a wrong decision, against which there was no appeal. One portion of the report is not without interest to Catholics, viz., that in which the commissioners refer to the large number of Roman Catholic children who were illegitimate in consequence of the priest alone having married the parents. A magistrate said that as many as a dozen of these cases had come under his notice in a single day. The remedial measures proposed by the commissioners fill two hundred and thirty-six quarto pages of close print, and the result of their report was the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 (4 & 5 William IV, c. 76). The act consists of one hundred and ten clauses, the first fifteen of which deal with the appointment and duties of "The Poor Law Commissioners for England and Wales", three in number, afterwards called the Local Government Board. The future administration of the poor laws, power to make rules and regulations for the management of the poor, and the government of workhouses, were placed in the hands of the new commissioners. They are required to make an annual report to be placed before Parliament and to give the Secretary of State any information respecting their proceedings he may require. The succeeding sections of the act deal with the alteration and building of workhouses; the union and dissolution of unions of parishes; the number, duties, and qualifications of guardians and their elections; expenditure and assessment; qualifications, duties, and salaries of officers; making of contracts; regulation of relief to the able-bodied and their families; raising of money; audit of accounts; and apprenticeship of children. The Roman Catholic Relief Bill, passed in 1829, gave courage and hope to a certain number of Catholics, who soon began to bestir themselves in the interests of their poorer brethren in the workhouses, and the result of their efforts was seen in section 19 of the Act of 1834. This section provides that No Rules, Orders or Regulations of the said Commissioners, nor any By-Laws at present in force, or to be hereafter made, shall oblige any inmate of any workhouse to attend any religious service which may be celebrated in a mode contrary to the religious principles of such inmate, nor shall authorize the education of any child in such workhouse in any religious creed other than that professed by the parents or surviving parent of such child, and to which such parents or parent shall object, or, in the case of an orphan, to which the godfather or godmother of such orphan shall so object: provided also, that it shall and may be lawful for any licensed minister of the religious persuasion of any inmate of such workhouse, at all times in the day, on the request of such inmate, to visit such workhouse for the purpose of affording religious assistance to such inmate, and also for the purpose of instructing his child or children in the principles of their religion. Section 55 provides for masters of workhouses and overseers keeping a register of all relief given, and subsequent orders of the Poor Law Board provide for the entry in this register of the religious creed of those receiving indoor relief. Although the Act of 1834 was the beginning of religious freedom for Catholics under the poor laws, it was not without considerable difficulty, and in some cases legal action, before the Catholic clergy and the inmates were able to obtain the benefit of that act. Some Boards of Guardians refused to admit a priest into the workhouse even when an inmate had made a request for him to visit, and others would give him no facilities for finding those who were Catholics. The creed register was therefore instituted in 1868 by the Poor Law Amendment Act, 31 and 32 Vict., c. 122. Sections 16,17, and 19 provide for a separate register to be kept in every workhouse, district, or other pauper school, into which the religious creed of every inmate shall be entered: the religious creed of a child under twelve shall be entered as that of his father if it can be ascertained, if not, as that of his mother. The religious creed of an illegitimate child shall be deemed to be that of his mother. Should the father be a Protestant and wish his child educated as a Catholic, he is entitled to have his wish carried out, but the entry in the creed register must be that of the father's religion. Such register is to be opened to the inspection of any minister of any denomination, nearest the workhouse or school, or any rate-payer of any parish in the Union, at any time of the day between ten and four o'clock, except Sunday. Section 18. provides for any question as to correctness of entry being settled only by the Local Government Board. Section 20 provides for the minister visiting and instructing those who are of the same religion as himself. Although the act provides for the child being instructed according to the entry in the creed register, the act of William IV referred to above in some instances contradicts it. A child may be entered as a Roman Catholic, that being the religion of his father, but he being dead, the Protestant mother can object to the child being instructed in the Catholic Faith; Section 22 provides for a child above the age of twelve years altering his religion if the Local Government Board consider him competent to exercise a judgment upon the subject. Those for whom no religious service is provided in the workhouse are allowed by section 21 to attend a place of worship of their own denomination within a convenient distance of the workhouse. Many guardians have refused to allow inmates under sixty years of age to go out to Mass on Sundays, Good Friday, and Christmas Day, but this is not legal and can be remedied by applying to the local Government Board (Order 1847, Art. 126). This right can only be stopped if abused and then the guardians must enter the cause in the minutes. The Local Government Board have permitted the appointment of a considerable number of priests, with stipends, to attend to the spiritual interests of Catholic inmates of workhouses; they cannot be called chaplains, but are known as Roman Catholic instructors; Mass is regularly said in many workhouses and in some the Blessed Sacrament is reserved. Benediction is also given in several workhouses. By the act to provide for the maintenance and education of pauper children, 1862 (25 and 26 Vict., c. 43), guardians are empowered (section 1) to send any poor child to any school certified by the Local Government Board, and supported wholly or partially by voluntary subscriptions, and to pay out of the funds in their possession the expenses of maintenance, clothing, and education. By an act of 1882 (45 and 46 Vict;, c. 58, s. 13), the rate of payment is sanctioned by the Local Government Board and it varies from five to seven shillings a week. The amount of the payment, within this limit, will be a matter of agreement between the guardians and the school. Certified schools are inspected by the Local Government Board inspector; and guardians who have sent a child to any such school may from time to time appoint one of their body to visit and inspect; A child cannot be sent to a certified school without the consent of its parents or surviving parent, unless it be an orphan or a child deserted by its parents or surviving parent. This regulation is neither recognized by the guardians nor enforced by the Local Government Board in London; A child cannot be sent to a school conducted on the principles of a religion to which the child does not belong (25 & 26 Vict., c. 43, s. 9). Should a Board of Guardians refuse to send a child to a certified school, the course to adopt to compel them to do so is to apply to the Local Government Board. Orphan and deserted children, and children adopted by the guardians under the acts of 1889 and 1898 may be boarded out under very strict regulations compiled in the orders of 1905 and 1909, but in no case may a child be boarded out with a foster-parent of a religious creed different from that to which the child belongs. Formerly if a child were adopted and taken off the rates altogether, the jurisdiction both of the guardians and of the Local Government Board was at an end; now, however, the Poor Law Act 1899 provides that where a child maintained by guardians is with their consent adopted by any person, the guardians must, during a period of three years from the date of the adoption, cause the child to be visited at least twice in each year by some competent person appointed by them for the purpose, who is to report to them. And the guardians may, if they think fit, at any time during the three years revoke their consent to the adoption and the child must thereupon be returned to them by the person having the custody of him. Efforts are now being made to have all such children placed under the regulations of the boarding out orders. Guardians are authorized to bury Catholics in a Catholic burial ground and a Catholic priest may officiate and be paid a reasonable sum for his services. FOWLE, The Poor Law (London, 1890); GLEN, The Poor Law Orders (11th ed., London, 1900); ASCHROTT, The English Poor Law System, Past and Present, English tr. by PRESTON-THOMAS (London, 1888); MAUDE, The Poor Law Handbook (London, 1903); IDEM, The Religious Rights of the Catholic Poor (2nd ed., London, 1910); Reprint of the Poor Law Commissioners' Report of 1834 (London); Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1906-9 Report (London); SELLERS, Foreign Solutions of Poor Law Problems (London, 1904); IDEM, The Danish Poor Law Relief System (London, 1904); COWEN, The Poor Laws of the State of New York (Albany, 1887); Reports of Poor Law in Foreign Countries in Parliamentary Papers, LXV (1875). THOMAS G. KING. Sisters of the Poor of St. Francis Sisters of the Poor of St. Francis A Congregation, founded by the Venerable Mother Frances Schervier at Aachen in the year 1845, whose members observe the Rule of the Third Order of St. Francis, as given by Leo X for Tertiaries living in community, and Constitutions adapted to their special work, care of the sick poor, dependent upon charity. Foundation Frances Schervier, born in Aachen, 3 January, 1819, was the child of John Henry Caspar Schervier, proprietor of a needle manufactory and associate magistrate of the city, and Maria Louisa Migeon, descendant of a wealthy French family. Frances's education was thorough, and it was always her desire to serve the sick and poor. She began by giving them food and clothing, labouring for them, and visiting them in their homes and hospitals. In 1840 she joined a charitable society, in order to exercise this charity more actively. In 1844 she and four other young ladies (Catherine Daverkosen, Gertrude Frank, Joanna Bruchhans, and Catherine Lassen) became members of the Third Order of St. Francis. The following year, with the permission of a priest, they went to live together in a small house beyond St. James's Gate, and Frances was chosen superior of the community. The life of the sisters was conventual, and the time spent in religious exercises, household duties, and caring for the sick poor. In 1848 the community numbered thirteen members. Development In the latter part of 1848 a mild form of cholera broke out in Aachen, followed by an epidemic of small pox, and an infirmary was opened in an old Dominican building, the property of the city. The Sisters offered their services as nurses and they were authorized to take up their abode in the building (1849). New members were admitted in 1849, when they were called to take charge of an infirmary for cholera patients in Burtscheid. In 1850 they established a hospital for incurables in the old Dominican building, and the home nursing and charity kitchens in different parishes were entrusted to them. In 1850 the "Constitutions" were compiled and submitted to the Archbishop of Cologne. They were approved, and on 12 August, 1851, Mother Frances and her twenty-three associates were invested with the habit of St. Francis. On 13 June, 1850, they took charge of a hospital in Juelich (later abandoned). In 1851 a foundation was established at Bonn and also at Aachen for the care of the female prisoners in the House of Detention. When the home of the Poor Clares, before their suppression in 1803, was offered for sale in the summer of 1852, Mother Frances purchased the spacious building for a convent -- the first mother-house. The congregation grew steadily and rapidly. In 1852 two houses were founded in Cologne, and a hospital was opened at Burtscheid. Foundations were established in Ratingen, Mayence, Coblenz (1854); Kaiserswerth, Crefeld, Euskirchen (1855); Eschweiler (1858); Stolberg and Erfurt (1863), etc. The number of institutions in Europe at time of present writing (1911) is about 49. Congregation in America The year 1858 marks an important epoch in the development of the congregation, namely: the transplanting of the congregation to America. Mrs. Sarah Peter, a convert of Cincinnati, O., received a commission from the archbishop in that city to bring German Sisters to America to care for the destitute poor of German nationality, and Irish Sisters for the Irish poor. While in Rome in 1857 she submitted the plan to the Holy Father, who advised her to apply for German Sisters to some Austrian bishop. Cardinal Von Geissel, the Archbishop of Cologne, earnestly recommended the Congregation of Mother Frances for the purpose. In Ireland she succeeded in obtaining the Sisters of Mercy. Mother Frances resolved to found a house in Cincinnati, and on 24 August, 1858, the six sisters chosen by her set sail for America. Upon their arrival in Cincinnati, the Sisters of the Good Shepherd kindly gave them hospitality. Soon they received the offer of the gratuitous use of a vacated orphanage for their patients. The following year three more sisters arrived from Europe, and in March they purchased several lots at the corner of Linn and Betts Streets (the present site of St. Mary's Hospital), and began constructing a hospital. More sisters soon arrived from the mother-house, and in 1860 they were able to establish a branch-house in Covington, Ky. In the spring of 1861 Mrs. Peter offered her residence to the sisters for a novitiate, and home for the Clarisses or recluses, a contemplative branch of the congregation, for whose coming she had long been negotiating with Mother Frances. In October, 1861, three recluses came to America, and from their arrival up to the present time perpetual adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament has been carried on without interruption in this novitiate convent of St. Clara. Mrs. Peter reserved for herself the use of several rooms, wherein she lived a life of retirement until her death in Feb., 1877. The congregation owed much of its rapid progress in the New World to the influence of this noble lady. Hospitals have been founded in the following cities of the United States: Cincinnati (1858); Covington, Ky. (1860); Columbus, O. (1862); Hoboken, N. J. (1863); Jersey City, N. J. (1864); Brooklyn, N. Y. (1864); 5th St., N. Y. City (1865); Quincy, Ill. (1866); Newark, N. J. (1867); Dayton, O. (1878); N. Y. City (1882); Kansas City, Kan. (1887); Fairmount, Cin., 0. (1888); Columbus, O. (1891); 142nd St., N. Y. City (1906). In 1896 the novitiate was removed to Hartwell, O., where the congregation possesses a large convent, church, and grounds, the centre of activity of the Province in America. WILSTACH, Frances Schervier and her Poor Sisters in Catholic World Magazine, LXIII (New York), 261. SISTER ANTONIA. Poor Servants of the Mother of God Poor Servants of the Mother of God A religious congregation founded in 1808 by Mother Mary Magdalen Taylor in conjunction with Lady Georgiana Fullerton (q.v.). Mother M. Magdalen was the daughter of a Church of England clergyman. As one of Miss Nightingale's band of nurses in the Crimea she became acquainted with the Catholic Faith as manifested by many of the soldiers, and on her return to England entered the Church. Her subsequent intimacy with Lady Georgiana Fullerton led to the foundation of a congregation for work among the poor of London, then inadequately served by a single convent. At first an affiliation with the Little Sisters of Mary (Archduchy of Posen) was considered, but this was found to be impracticable, and the new order was placed under the direction of its own superior general (Mother M. Magdalen). From the first it was approved and encouraged by Cardinal Manning, its spiritual training being committed to the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, near whose church in Farm St., London, its existence began. Its Constitutions are based on the Rule of St. Augustine, and the congregation was approved by Leo XIII in 1885. The members devote themselves to visiting the poor, teaching in parochial schools, nursing, and conducting institutions of refuge and rescue for women. To the mother-house in Rome are attached two schools and the public church of St. George and the English Martyrs. In this church on Good Friday, 1887, the Three Hours was preached for the first time in English by Father Lucas, S.J. Other houses are in Florence; London (2); Brentford; Roehampton; Streatham; St. Helen's, Lancashire, where the sisters conduct the only free hospital in the town; Liverpool; Brighton; Dublin (2); Carrightowhill, Co.Cork; Youghal, Co. Cork. The congregation is under the direction of a superior general. A black habit is worn, with a blue scapular and a black veil. There are no lay sisters. TAYLOR, Inner Life of Lady G. Fullerton (London, 1899); IDEM, Memoir of Father Dignam, S. J. (London, s. d.); CRAVEN, Lady Georgiana Fullerton (Paris, 1888); STEELE, Convents of Great Britain (London, 1901); Messenger of the Sacred Heart (April 1901). BLANCHE M. KELLY Popayan, Archdiocese of Archdiocese of Popayán (POPAYANENSIS) Popayán lies approximately between 1º 20' and 3º 2' north latitude, and 78º 4' and 80º 3' east longitude. Since the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Consistory (7 July, 1910), the boundaries of the archdiocese are, on the north, the Diocese of Cali, along the Rivers Sonso and Rio Claro; on the west, the same diocese, along the mountain chain of the Cordillera Occidental; on the south, the Diocese of Pasto, along the Rivers Patía and Juanambú, and on the east, the Diocese of Garzón, along the Cordillera Central. The archdiocese comprises the entire Department of del Cauca, and portions of the Departments of Nariño and El Valle. The diocese was established by Paul III 1 Sept., 1546; the see, however, was not erected until 8 Sept., 1547, when the first bishop named to the see, Don Juan del Valle, performed the ceremony by Apostolic delegation at Aranda del Duero, in the Diocese of Osma, Spain. The diocese became a suffragan of Lima, and so remained until 1573, in which year Bogota became a metropolitan see and received Popayán among its suffragans. The Sacred Congregation of the Consistory, however, by its Decree of 20 June, 1900, made Popayán an archdiocese, with Pasto, Garzón, and Cali for suffragans, its first archbishop being Don Manuel José de Cayzedo. Among the Bishops of Popayán, special mention should be made of Agustin de la Coruña (1509-89), an Augustinian, who was a student under St. Thomas of Villanova. He suffered vexations, and even banishment, for his activity in defence of the Indians. Bishop Carlos Bermúdez (1827-86) restored the seminary, and suffered banishment through his firm defence of the rights and privileges of the Church. The Bishop Juan Buenaventura Ortiz (1840-94) wrote a history of the Diocese of Popayán (Historia de la Diócesis) and a treatise on religion for colleges (Religión para los Colegios). M. ANTONIO ARBOLIDA. Alexander Pope Alexander Pope Poet, son of Alexander Pope and his second wife, Edith Turner, b. in London, England, 22 May, 1688; d. at Twickenham, England, 30 May, 1744. His parents were both Catholics, and the son lived and died in the profession of the faith to which he was born. The poet's father was a linen merchant in Lombard Street, London, who before the end of the seventeenth century retired on a moderate fortune first to Kensington, then to Binfield, and finally to Chiswick, where he died in 1717. Soon after this event Pope with his mother removed to the villa at Twickenham, which became his permanent abode, and which, with its five acres, its gardens, and its grotto, will be forever associated with his memory. As a child he was very delicate, and he retained a constitutional weakness as well as a deformity of body all through his life, while in stature he was very diminutive. His early education was spasmodic and irregular, but before he was twelve he had picked up a smattering of Latin and Greek from various tutors and at sundry schools, and subsequently he acquired a similar knowledge of French and Italian. From his thirteenth year onward he was self-instructed and he was an extensive reader. Barred from a political and to a great extent from a professional career by the penal laws then in force against Catholics, he did not feel the restraint very acutely, for his earliest aspiration was to be a poet, and at an exceptionally youthful period he was engaged in writing verses. His first idea was to compose a great epic, the subject that presented itself being a mythological one, with Alcander, a prince of Rhodes, as hero; and perhaps he never wholly relinquished his intention of producing such a poem, for after his death there was found among his papers a plan for an epic on Brutus, the mythical great-grandson of Æneas and reputed founder of Britain. The Alcander epic, which had reached as many as 4000 lines, was laid aside and never completed. Pope's first publication was the "Pastorals"; "January and May", the latter a version of Chaucer's "Merchant's Tale"; and the "Episode of Sarpedon" from the "Iliad". These appeared in 1709 in Tonson's "Poetical Miscellanies". His "Essay on Criticism" appeared in May, 1711, and some months later was warmly, if not enthusiastically, commended by Addison in the "Spectator" (No. 253, 20 Dec., 1711). Steele was eager to get hold of the rising poet to contribute to the paper, and eventually succeeded, for practically the entire literary portion of one issue of the "Spectator" (No. 378, 14 May, 1712) is given over to Pope's "Messiah: A Sacred Eclogue". In 1712 the first edition of "The Rape of the Lock", in two cantos, came out in Lintot's "Miscellany". Later Pope extended the work to five cantos, and by introducing the supernatural machinery of sylphs and gnomes and all the light militia of the lower sky, he gave to the world in 1714 one of its airiest, most delightful, and most cherished specimens of the mock-heroic poem. In the April of the preceding year (1713), Addison's tragedy of "Cato" was produced with almost unparalleled success at Drury Lane Theatre and the prologue, a dignified and spirited composition, as Macaulay describes it, was written by Pope. It was published with the play and also in No. 33 of the "Guardian". To the "Guardian" also Pope contributed eight papers in 1713. In the same year he published his "Windsor Forest" and the "Ode on St. Cecilia's Day". "The Wife of Bath", from Chaucer, and two translations from the "Odyssey"-the "Arrival of Ulysses at Ithaca" and the "Garden of Alcinous"-came out in 1714 in a volume of miscellanies edited by Steele for Tonson, the publisher. "The Temple of Fame", in which Steele said there were a thousand beauties, was separately published in the following year, 1715. In November of 1713 a turning point was reached in Pope's fortunes. He issued proposals for the publication, by subscription, of a translation of Homer's "Iliad" into English verse, with notes. The matter was warmly taken up, and subscriptions poured in apace. His friends stood by him, Swift in particular obtaining a long list of influential patrons. Work was at once begun on the undertaking, and the first four books appeared in 1715, the remaining volumes coming out at intervals in 1716, 1717, 1718, and 1720, when the task was completed. Three years later he undertook the translation of the "Odyssey", which, with the aid of Broome and Fenton as collaborators, he completed by 1726. Pope's exact share was twelve books; the rest were by his assistants. By Homer Pope made close on £2000, which, added to what his father had left him, placed him in a position of independence for the remainder of his life. While engaged on his great translation Pope found time for other forms of literary work, and in 1717 he published two of the very best of his lyrics, namely, the "Elegy to the Memory of an Unfortunate Lady" and the "Epistle of Eloïsa to Abelard", and he joined with Gay and Arbuthnot in writing and producing the unsuccessful farce "Three Hours after Marriage". He also undertook for Tonson, the publisher, an annotated edition of Shakespeare, which appeared in 1725, a task for which Pope's powers were unequal, for he was not sufficiently versed in the literature of the Elizabethan and Jacobean period, and although the preface is very fine and many shrewd emendations were made in the text, Pope's Shakespeare was on the whole far from being a success. It was at once attacked by Theobald, who thus exposed himself to the characteristic vengeance which Pope was shortly to take by makaing him the first hero of the "Dunciad". In 1713-14 Pope, with Swift, Arbuthnot, and other leaders of the Tory Party, had formed a sort of literary society called the Scriblerus Club, and had amused themselves by burlesquing the vagaries of literature in the "Memoirs of Martinus Scriblerus", which, although included in the edition of Pope's prose works in 1741, was mainly the composition of Arbuthnot. Arising partly out of the performance of "Scriblerus", Pope and Swift published in 1727-28 three volumes of their "Miscellanies", which contained among other things Pope's "Treatise on the Bathos, or the Art of Sinking in Poetry", illustrated by examples from the inferior poets of the day. These "Miscellanies", and particularly the "Bathos", drew down upon the authors a torrent of abuse from every quill-driver and poetaster who had been in reality attacked or fancied himself ridiculed. The "Dunciad" was in turn the outcome of these invectives. This celebrated satire first appeared, in three books, in May, 1728, and an enlarged edition followed in 1729. In 1742 a further issue appeared with the addition of a fourth book, and in 1743 the poem came out in its final form with Theobald dethroned and Colley Cibber installed in his room as King of the Dunces. The publication of this swingeing satire naturally increased the fury against Pope, who was roundly abused in all the moods and tenses. Nor did he shrink from the fray. He gave back blow for blow for eight years, 1730-37, in a weekly sheet, the "Grub Street Journal", as well as paying off old scores when opportunity offered in his avowed and more ambitious publications. While thus engaged Pope came more directly than ever before under the influence of Bolingbroke, with whom he had been on intimate terms in the palmy pre-Georgian days. Bolingbroke undoubtedly indoctrinated Pope with the trends of his own system of metaphysics and natural theology, and the fruit was seen in the "Essay on Man", in four "Epistles" (1732- 34), and in the "Moral Essays", also in four "Epistles" (1731- 35). The fifth Epistle-"To Mr. Addison, occasioneed by his 'Dialogues on Medals'"-placed arbitrarily enough by Warburton in this series of "Moral Essays", was actually written in 1715, and has appeared in Tickell's edition of Addison's works in 1720. Bolingbroke, in another connexion, once said of Pope that he was "a very great wit, but a very indifferent philosopher"; and in these "Essays", especially in the "Essay on Man", he was endeavouring to expound a system of philosophy which he but imperfectly understood. The result is that the tendency of his principal theories is towards fatalism and naturalism, and the consequent reduction of man to a mere puppet. This position Pope never had the intention of taking up, and he shrank from it when it was forcibly exposed by Crousaz as logically leading to Spinozism. To clear himself of the charge of a denial of revealed religion and, in Johnson's celebrated phrase, of representing "the whole course of things as a necessary concatenation of indissoluble fatality", he wrote, in 1738, the "Universal Prayer", which is now generally appended to the "Essay on Man", but which, despite the piety it displays, is not entirely convincing. From 1732 to 1738 he was busy with the composition and publication of his "Imitations of Horace", which, in diction and versification at least, some critics consider his masterpieces. He also at this period published two of the "Satires of Dr. Donne", which he had versified earlier in life. In 1735 appeared the "Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot, or Prologue to the Satires", and in 1738 the "Epilogue to the Satires, in Two Dialogues". In 1737 he published an authorized and carefully prepared edition of his "Correspondence", which had been brought out in 1735 by Curil in what Pope alleged to be a garbled form. With the publication of the "Dunciad", in 1743, Pope's literary activity ceased. He indeed set about the collection of his works with a view to an authoritative edition; but he was obliged to abandon the attempt. His health, always poor, began rapidly to fail. He always expressed undoubting confidence in a future state, and when his end was obviously approaching he willingly yielded to the representations of a Catholic friend that he should see a priest. It was noticed by those about him that after he had received the last sacraments his frame of mind was very peaceable. He died calmly the next day, 30 May, 1744, in the fifty-seventh year of his age. He was buried near the monument which he had raised to the memory of his father and mother at Twickenham. Probably no writer, as such, ever made more enemies than Pope. Not only did he lash Bufo and Sporus, Sappho and Atosa, and scores of others by their own names or under thin disguise, but he boasted that he made a hundred smart in Timon and in Balaam. Herein indeed he over-reached himself, for the great majority of the victims of his satire would have been long ago forgotten but that he has embalmed them for all time in the "Dunciad" and elsewhere. But if he had the fatal gift of arousing enmity and the fault of vindictiveness in the persecution of those who had incurred his wrath, it must be put to the credit side of his account that scattered throughout his works there are many generous tributes to worth among his contemporaries. He possessed beyond question a deep fund of affection. He was a loving and devoted son, a loyal and constant friend. His happy relations with Arbuthnot and Swift, with Atterbury and Oxford, with Parnell and Prior, with Bolingbroke and Gay, with Warburton and Spence, and with many others of his acquaintances were interrupted only by death. His friendship with Addison, which augured so auspiciously at first, was unfortunately soon clouded over. The question of their estrangement has been so voluminously discussed by Johnson, Macaulay, Ward, and others that it is unnecessary, as it would be unprofitable, to pursue it here in detail. It will perhaps be sufficient to say that there were probably faults on both sides. If Pope was unduly suspicious, Addison was certainly too partial to the members of his own immediate little coterie. And if for real or fancied slights or wrongs Pope took an exemplary vengeance in his celebrated character of Atticus (Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot, II, 193-214), it must always be borne in mind that he has taken care in many passages to pay compliments to Addison, and not empty compliments either, but as handsome as they were well deserved. A reference, for example, to Epistle I of the Second Book of Horace, will sufficiently prove the truth of this statement. Regarding Pope's position in the literature of his country, there has been an extraordinary amount of controversy; some critics going the length of denying him the right to be called a poet at all. Opinion has fluctuated remarkably on his merits. By his contemporaries he was regarded with a sort of reverential awe. To his immediate successors he was the grand exemplar of what a poet should be. His standing was first assailed by Joseph Warton, in 1756, in his "Essay on the Genius and Writings of Pope", but Johnson gave the great weight of his authority to the other side. During the Romantic reaction of the last part of the eighteenth century he lost caste to some extent, and his reputation was very seriously jeopardized in the height of the Romantic movement from about 1820 onward. He was, however, warmly defended by Campbell, Byron, and others. Nor is he without stalwart champions in our own day. At present opinion appears to have crystallized in the direction of recognizing him as among the really great names of English literature. Johnson's criticism may, on the whole, be regarded as sound. His opinion, expressed in his biography of the poet, is that Pope had in proportions very nicely adjusted to one another all the qualities that constitute genius, invention, imagination, judgment, rare power of expression, and melody in metre; and he replies to the question that had been raised, as to whether Pope was a poet, by asking in return: If Pope be not a poet, where is poetry to be found? To treat this subject fully would lead to a discussion of two very vexed questions, namely what poetry really is, and what the proper subjects of poetry are. It will perhaps serve the purpose if the opinion be indicated that, when detraction has done its worst, Pope will still stand out, not perhaps as a master-genius, but as the typical man of letters and as the great representative English poet of the first half of the eighteenth century. Dennis, Reflections upon a late Rhapsody called an Essay upon Cricticism (London, 1711); Idem, True Character of Mr. Pope (London, 1716); Idem, Remarks upon Mr. Pope's Translation of Homer, with the Letters concerning Windsor Forest and the Temple of Fame (London, 1717); Spence, An Essay on Pope's Translation of Homer's Odyssey (London, 1727); Idem, Anecdotes, Observations, and Characters of Books and Men, collected from the Conversation of Mr. Pope and others (London, 1820); Ayre, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Alexander Pope (London, 1745); Warton, Essay on the Genius and Writings of Pope, I (London, 1756), II (London, 1782); Johnson, Life of Pope (London, 1781); Earl of Carlisle, Two Lectures on the Poetry of Pope (London, 1851); Ward, Introductory Memoir prefixed to the Globe ed. of The Poetical Works of Alexander Pope (London, 1869); Edwin Abbott, A Concordance to the Works of Alexander Pope, with an Introduction by E. A. Abbott (London, 1875); Stephen, Alexander Pope in "English Men of Letters" series (London and New York, 1880); Emily Morse Symonds, Mr. Pope, His Life and Times (London, 1909); eds. of Pope's Works by Warburton (London, 1751, reprinted 1769, with Life by Ruffhead); Bowles, with Life (London, 1806, new ed. 1847); Roscoe, with Life (London, 1824, new ed., 1847); Carruthers, with Life (London, 1853, second ed. of the Life, 1846); and Edwin and Courthope, with Life by Courthope (London, 1871-1889). P.J. Lennox The Pope The Pope (Ecclesial Latin papa from Gr. papas, a variant of pappas father, in classical Latin pappas -- Juvenal, "Satires" 6:633). The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth. Besides the bishopric of the Roman Diocese, certain other dignities are held by the pope as well as the supreme and universal pastorate: he is Archbishop of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy and the adjacent islands, and sole Patriarch of the Western Church. The Church's doctrine as to the pope was authoritatively declared in the Vatican Council in the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus". The four chapters of that Constitution deal respectively with the office of Supreme Head conferred on St. Peter, the perpetuity of this office in the person of the Roman pontiff, the pope's jurisdiction over the faithful, and his supreme authority to define in all questions of faith and morals. This last point has been sufficiently discussed in the article INFALLIBILITY, and will be only incidentally touched on here. The present article is divided as follows: I. Institution of a Supreme Head by Christ II. Primacy of the Roman See III. Nature and Extent of the Papal Power IV. Jurisdictional Rights and Prerogatives of the Pope V. Primacy of Honour: Titles and Insignia I. INSTITUTION OF A SUPREME HEAD BY CHRIST The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17. In Matthew 16:17-19, the office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession of faith in the Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:. "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter. His profession of faith was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in the name of the other Apostles. This is evident from the words of Christ. He pronounces on the Apostle, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a special revelation granted to him by the Father (cf. Matthew 11:27). He further proceeds to recompense this confession of His Divinity by bestowing upon him a reward proper to himself: "Thou art Peter [Cepha, transliterated also Kipha] and upon this rock [Cepha] I will build my Church." The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church. The term ecclesia (ekklesia) here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew qahal, the name which denoted the Hebrew nation viewed as God's Church (see CHURCH, THE, I). Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter. The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Osee 8:1; 9:15; 1 Cor. 3:9-17, Eph. 2:20-2; 1 Tim. 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; I Peter 2:5). Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house. He is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the Church; of stability, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshaken by the storms which buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation. It is through her union with Peter, Christ continues, that the Church will prove the victor in her long contest with the Evil One: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." There can be but one explanation of this striking metaphor. The only manner in which a man can stand in such a relation to any corporate body is by possessing authority over it. The supreme head of a body, in dependence on whom all subordinate authorities hold their power, and he alone, can be said to be the principle of stability, unity, and increase. The promise acquires additional solemnity when we remember that both Old Testament prophecy (Isiah 28:16) and Christ's own words (Matthew 7:24) had attributed this office of foundation of the Church to Himself. He is therefore assigning to Peter, of course in a secondary degree, a prerogative which is His own, and thereby associating the Apostle with Himself in an altogether singular manner. In the following verse (Matthew 16:19) He promises to bestow on Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The words refer evidently to Isaiah 22:22, where God declares that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of the worthless Sobna: "And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open." In all countries the key is the symbol of authority. Thus, Christ's words are a promise that He will confer on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place. Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It is a power to "bind" and to "loose" -- words which, as is shown below, denote the grant of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure. Whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, his act will receive the Divine ratification. The meaning of this passage does not seem to have been challenged by any writer until the rise of the sixteenth-century heresies. Since then a great variety of interpretations have been put forward by Protestant controversialists. These agree in little save in the rejection of the plain sense of Christ's words. Some Anglican controversy tends to the view that the reward promised to St. Peter consisted in the prominent part taken by him in the initial activities of the Church, but that he was never more than primus inter pares among the Apostles. It is manifest that this is quite insufficient as an explanation of the terms of Christ's promise. The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfilment after the Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock -- the sheep and the lambs alike -- in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, "Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep" indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Sept.): "Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron". The scene stands in striking parallelism with that of Matthew 16. As there the reward was given to Peter after a profession of faith which singled him out from the other eleven, so here Christ demands a similar protestation, but this time of a yet higher virtue: "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these"? Here, too, as there, He bestows on the Apostle an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone. There Christ had promised to make Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes him the shepherd of God's flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd. The passage receives an admirable comment from St. Chrysostom: "He saith to him, 'Feed my sheep'. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?', I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world" ["Hom. 88 (87) in Joan.", 1. Cf. Origen, "In Ep. ad Rom.", 5:10; Ephraem Syrus "Hymn. in B. Petr." in "Bibl. Orient. Assemani", 1:95; Leo I, "Serm. iv de natal.", 2]. Even certain Protestant commentators frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter. But other scholars, relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria ("In Joan." 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter in the Apostolic commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in Scripture or in patristic tradition to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening of the Resurrection he received the same Apostolic powers as the others of the eleven. The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic authority for the other view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text. The position of St. Peter after the Ascension, as shown in the Acts of the Apostles, realizes to the full the great commission bestowed upon him. He is from the first the chief of the Apostolic band -- not primus inter pares, but the undisputed head of the Church (see CHURCH, THE, III). If then Christ, as we have seen, established His Church as a society subordinated to a single supreme head, it follows from the very nature of the case that this office is perpetual, and cannot have been a mere transitory feature of ecclesiastical life. For the Church must endure to the end the very same organization which Christ established. But in an organized society it is precisely the constitution which is the essential feature. A change in constitution transforms it into a society of a different kind. If then the Church should adopt a constitution other than Christ gave it, it would no longer be His handiwork. It would no longer be the Divine kingdom established by Him. As a society it would have passed through essential modifications, and thereby would have become a human, not a Divine institution. None who believe that Christ came on earth to found a Church, an organized society destined to endure for ever, can admit the possibility of a change in the organization given to it by its Founder. The same conclusion also follows from a consideration of the end which, by Christ's declaration, the supremacy of Peter was intended to effect. He was to give the Church strength to resist her foes, so that the gates of hell should not prevail against her. The contest with the powers of evil does not belong to the Apostolic age alone. It is a permanent feature of the Church's life. Hence, throughout the centuries the office of Peter must be realized in the Church, in order that she may prevail in her age-long struggle. Thus an analysis of Christ's words shows us that the perpetuity of the office of supreme head is to be reckoned among the truths revealed in Scripture. His promise to Peter conveyed not merely a personal prerogative, but established a permanent office in the Church. And in this sense, as will appear in the next section, His words were understood by Latin and Greek Fathers alike. II. PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE We have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of chief pastor, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right to the Roman See. The proof will fall into two parts: (a) that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and (b) that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship. (a) that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome It is no longer denied by any writer of weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom there (Harnack, "Chronol.", I, 244, n. 2). Some, however, of those who admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny that he was ever bishop of the city e.g. Lightfoot, "Clement of Rome", II, 501; Harnack, op. cit., I, 703. It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well attested as to be historically certain. In considering this point, it will be well to begin with the third century, when references to it become frequent, and work backwards from this point. In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has succeeded to "the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter" (Ep 55:8; cf. 59:14). Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian, Ep. 75:17). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted by those best able to know the truth, not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa and of Asia Minor. In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (De Pud. 21) mentions Callistus's claim that Peter's power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop. About the same period, Hippolytus (for Lightfoot is surely right in holding him to be the author of the first part of the "Liberian Catalogue" -- "Clement of Rome", 1:259) reckons Peter in the list of Roman bishops. We have moreover a poem, "Adversus Marcionem", written apparently at the same period, in which Peter is said to have passed on to Linus "the chair on which he himself had sat" (P.L., II 1077). These witnesses bring us to the beginning of the third century. In the second century we cannot look for much evidence. With the exception of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Alexandria, all the writers whose works we possess are apologists against either Jews or pagans. In works of such a character there was no reason to refer to such a matter as Peter's Roman episcopate. Irenaeus, however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Adv. haer. 1:27:1, and 3:4:3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop of Rome, thus employing an enumeration which involves the inclusion of Peter as first bishop (Lightfoot was undoubtedly wrong in supposing that there was any doubt as to the correctness of the reading in the first of these passages. In 3:4:3, the Latin version, it is true, gives "octavus"; but the Greek text as cited by Eusebius reads enatos. Irenaeus we know visited Rome in 177. At this date, scarcely more than a century after the death of St. Peter, he may well have come in contact with men whose fathers had themselves spoken to the Apostle. The tradition thus supported must be regarded as beyond all legitimate doubt. Lightfoot's suggestion (Clement 1:64), that it had its origin in the Clementine romance, has proved singularly unfortunate. For it is now recognized that this work belongs not to the second, but to the fourth century. Nor is there the slightest ground for the assertion that the language of Irenaeus, 3:3:3, implies that Peter and Paul enjoyed a divided episcopate at Rome -- an arrangement utterly unknown to the Church at any period. He does, it is true, speak of the two Apostles as together handing on the episcopate to Linus. But this expression is explained by the purpose of his argument, which is to vindicate against the Gnostics the validity of the doctrine taught in the Roman Church. Hence he is naturally led to lay stress on the fact that that Church inherited the teaching of both the great Apostles. Epiphanius ("Haer." 27:6) would indeed seem to suggest the divided episcopate; but he has apparently merely misunderstood the words of Irenaeus. (b) that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded by the first three centuries. The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. "If any man", he says, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger" (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them "render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit". The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as" the first step towards papal domination (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head. A few years later (about 107) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the Roman Church, refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses it as "presiding over the brotherhood of love [prokathemene tes agapes] The expression, as Funk rightly notes, is grammatically incompatible with the translation advocated by some non-Catholic writers, "pre-eminent in works of love". The same century gives us the witness of St. Irenaeus -- a man who stands in the closest connexion with the age of the Apostles, since he was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who had been appointed. Bishop of Smyrna by St. John. In his work "Adversus Haereses" (3:3:2) he brings against the Gnostic sects of his day the argument that their doctrines have no support in the Apostolic tradition faithfully preserved by the Churches, which could trace the succession of their bishops back to the Twelve. He writes: " Because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree -- that is the faithful everywhere -- in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere [Ad hanc enim eoclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quâ est ab apostolis traditio]". He then proceeds to enumerate the Roman succession from Linus to Eleutherius, the twelfth after the Apostles, who then occupied the see. Non-Catholic writers have sought to rob the passage of its importance by translating the word convenire "to resort to", and thus understanding it to mean no more than that the faithful from every side (undique) resorted to Rome, so that thus the stream of doctrine in that Church was kept immune from error. Such a rendering, however, is excluded by the construction of the argument, which is based entirely on the contention that the Roman doctrine is pure by reason of its derivation from the two great Apostolic founders of the Church, Sts. Peter and Paul. The frequent visits made to Rome by members of other Christian Churches could contribute nothing to this. On the other hand the traditional rendering is postulated by the context, and, though the object of innumerable attacks, none other possessing any real degree of probability has been suggested in its place (see Dom. J. Chapman in "Revue Benedictine", 1895, p. 48). During the pontificate of St. Victor (189-98) we have the most explicit assertion of the supremacy of the Roman See in regard to other Churches. A difference of practice between the Churches of Asia Minor and the rest of the Christian world in regard to the day of the Paschal festival led the pope to take action. There is some ground for supposing that the Montanist heretics maintained the Asiatic (or Quartodeciman) practice to be the true one: in this case it would be undesirable that any body of Catholic Christians should appear to support them. But, under any circumstances, such a diversity in the ecclesiastical life of different countries may well have constituted a regrettable feature in the Church, whose very purpose it was to bear witness by her unity to the oneness of God (John 17:21). Victor bade the Asiatic Churches conform to the custom of the remainder of the Church, but was met with determined resistance by Polycrates of Ephesus, who claimed that their custom derived from St. John himself. Victor replied by an excommunication. St. Irenaeus, however, intervened, exhorting Victor not to cut off whole Churches on account of a point which was not a matter of faith. He assumes that the nope can exercise the power, but urges him not to do so. Similarly the resistance of the Asiatic bishops involved no denial of the supremacy of Rome. It indicates solely that the bishops believed St. Victor to be abusing his power in bidding them renounce a custom for which they had Apostolic authority. It was indeed inevitable that, as the Church spread and developed, new problems should present themselves, and that questions should arise as to whether the supreme authority could be legitimately exercised in this or that case. St. Victor, seeing that more harm than good would come from insistence, withdrew the imposed penalty. Not many years since a new and important piece of evidence was brought to light in Asia Minor dating from this period. The sepulchral inscription of Abercius, Bishop of Hieropolis (d. about 200), contains an account of his travels couched in allegorical language. He speaks thus of the Roman Church: "To Rome He [Christ] sent me to contemplate majesty: and to see a queen golden-robed and golden-sandalled." It is difficult not to recognize in this description a testimony to the supreme position of the Roman See. Tertullian's bitter polemic, "De Pudicitia" (about 220), was called forth by an exercise of papal prerogative. Pope Callistus had decided that the rigid discipline which had hitherto prevailed in many Churches must be in large measure relaxed. Tertullian, now lapsed into heresy, fiercely attacks "the peremptory edict", which "the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops", has sent forth. The words are intended as sarcasm: but none the less they indicate clearly the position of authority claimed by Rome. And the opposition comes, not from a Catholic bishop, but from a Montanist heretic. The views of St. Cyprian (d. 258) in regard to papal authority have given rise to much discussion. He undoubtedly entertained exaggerated views as to the independence of individual bishops, which eventually led him into serious conflict with Rome. Yet on the fundamental principle his position is clear. He attributed an effective primacy to the pope as the successor of Peter. He makes communion with the See of Rome essential to Catholic communion, speaking of it as "the principal Church whence episcopal unity had its rise" (ad Petri cathedram et ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est). The force of this expression becomes clear when viewed in the light of his doctrine as to the unity of the Church. This was he teaches, established by Christ when He founded His Church upon Peter. By this act the unity of the Apostolic college was ensured through the unity of the foundation. The bishops through all time form a similar college, and are bound in a like indivisible unity. Of this unity the Chair of Peter is the source. It fulfils the very office as principle of union which Peter fulfilled in his lifetime. Hence to communicate with an antipope such as Novatian would be schism (Ep. 68:1). He holds, also, that the pope has authority to depose an heretical bishop. When Marcian of Arles fell into heresy, Cyprian, at the request of the bishops of the province, wrote to urge Pope Stephen "to send letters by which, Marcian having been excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place" (Ep. 68:3). It is manifest that one who regarded the Roman See in this light believed that the pope possessed a real and effective Primacy. At the same time it is not to be denied that his views as to the right of the pope to interfere in the government of a diocese already subject to a legitimate and orthodox bishop were inadequate. In the rebaptism controversy his language in regard to St. Stephen was bitter and intemperate. His error on this point does not, however, detract from the fact that he admitted a primacy, not merely of honour but of jurisdiction. Nor should his mistake occasion too much surprise. It is as true in the Church as in merely human institutions that the full implications of a general principle are only realized gradually. The claim to apply it in a particular case is often contested at first, though later ages may wonder that such opposition was possible. Contemporary with St. Cyprian was St. Dionysius of Alexandria. Two incidents bearing on the present question are related of him. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 7:9) gives us a letter addressed by him to St. Xystus II regarding the case of a man who, as it appeared, had been invalidly baptized by heretics, but who for many years had been frequenting the sacraments of the Church. In it he says that he needs St. Xystus's advice and begs for his decision (gnomen), that he may not fall into error (dedios me hara sphallomai). Again, some years later, the same patriarch occasioned anxiety to some of the brethren by making use of some expressions which appeared hardly compatible with a full belief in the Divinity of Christ. They promptly had recourse to the Holy See and accused him to his namesake, St. Dionysius of Rome, of heretical leanings. The pope replied by laying down authoritatively the true doctrine on the subject. Both events are instructive as showing us how Rome was recognized by the second see in Christendom as empowered to speak with authority on matters of doctrine. (St. Athanasius, "De sententia Dionysii" in P. G., XXV, 500). Equally noteworthy is the action of Emperor Aurelian in 270. A synod of bishops had condemned Paul of Samosata, Patriarch of Alexandria, on a charge of heresy, and had elected Domnus bishop in his place. Paul refused to withdraw, and appeal was made to the civil power. The emperor decreed that he who was acknowledged by the bishops of Italy and the Bishop of Rome, must be recognized as rightful occupant of the see. The incident proves that even the pagans themselves knew well that communion with the Roman See was the essential mark of all Christian Churches. That the imperial Government was well aware of the position of the pope among Christians derives additional confirmation from the saying of St. Cyprian that Decius would have sooner heard of the proclamation of a rival emperor than of the election of a new pope to fill the place of the martyred Fabian (Ep. 55:9). The limits of the present article prevent us from carrying the historical argument further than the year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do so. From the beginning of the fourth century the supremacy of Rome is writ large upon the page of history. It is only in regard to the first age of the Church that any question can arise. But the facts we have recounted are entirely sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced mind that the supremacy was exercised and acknowledged from the days of the Apostles. It was not of course exercised in the same way as in later times. The Church was as yet in her infancy: and it would be irrational to look for a fully developed procedure governing the relations of the supreme pontiff to the bishops of other sees. To establish such a system was the work of time, and it was only gradually embodied in the canons. There would, moreover, be little call for frequent intervention when the Apostolic tradition was still fresh and vigorous in every part of Christendom. Hence the papal prerogatives came into play but rarely. But when the Faith was threatened, or the vital welfare of souls demanded action, then Rome intervened. Such were the causes which led to the intervention of St. Dionysius, St. Stephen, St. Callistus, St. Victor, and St. Clement, and their claim to supremacy as the occupants of the Chair of Peter was not disputed. In view of the purposes with which, and with which alone, these early popes employed their supreme power, the contention, so stoutly maintained by Protestant controversialists, that the Roman primacy had its origin in papal ambition, disappears. The motive which inspired these men was not earthly ambition, but zeal for the Faith and the consciousness that to them had been committed the responsibility of its guardianship. The controversialists in question even claim that they are justified in refusing to admit as evidence for the papal primacy any pronouncement emanating from a Roman source, on the ground that, where the personal interests of anyone are concerned, his statements should not be admitted as evidence. Such an objection is utterly fallacious. We are dealing here, not with the statements of an individual, but with the tradition of a Church -- of that Church which, even from the earliest times, was known for the purity of its doctrine, and which had had for its founders and instructors the two chief Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul. That tradition, moreover, is absolutely unbroken, as the pronouncements of the long series of popes bear witness. Nor does it stand alone. The utterances, in which the popes assert their claims to the obedience of all Christian Churches, form part and parcel of a great body of testimony to the Petrine privileges, issuing not merely from the Western Fathers but from those of Greece, Syria, and Egypt. The claim to reject the evidence which comes to us from Rome may be skilful as a piece of special pleading, but it can claim no other value. The first to employ this argument were some of the Gallicans. But it is deservedly repudiated as fallacious and unworthy by Bossuet in his "Defensio cleri gallicani" (II, 1. XI, c. vi). The primacy of St. Peter and the perpetuity of that primacy in the Roman See are dogmatically defined in the canons attached to the first two chapters of the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus": + "If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of honour only: let him be anathema." + "If any one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right that Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy over the universal Church: OF that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy. -- let him be anathema" (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 1823, 1825). A question may be raised as to the precise dogmatic value of the clause of the second canon in which it is asserted that the Roman pontiff is Peter's successor. The truth is infallibly defined. But the Church has authority to define not merely those truths which form part of the original deposit of revelation, but also such as are necessarily connected with this deposit. The former are held fide divina, the latter fide infallibili. Although Christ established the perpetual office of supreme head, Scripture does not tell us that He fixed the law according to which the headship should descend. Granting that He left this to Peter to determine, it is plain that the Apostle need not have attached the primacy to his own see: he might have attached it to another. Some have thought that the law establishing the succession in the Roman episcopate became known to the Apostolic Church as an historic fact. In this case the dogma that the Roman pontiff is at all times the Church's chief pastor would be the conclusion from two premises -- the revealed truth that the Church must ever have a supreme head, and the historic fact that St. Peter attached that office to the Roman See. This conclusion, while necessarily connected with revelation, is not part of revelation, and is accepted fide infallibili. According to other theologians the proposition in question is part of the deposit of faith itself. In this case the Apostles must have known the law determining the succession to the Bishop of Rome, not merely on human testimony, but also by Divine revelation, and they must have taught it as a revealed truth to their disciples. It is this view which is commonly adopted. The definition of the Vatican to the effect that the successor of St. Peter is ever to be found in the Roman pontiff is almost universally held to be a truth revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and by them transmitted to the Church. III. NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PAPAL POWER This section is divided as follows : 1. the pope's universal coercive jurisdiction 2. the pope's immediate and ordinary jurisdiction in regard of all the faithful, whether singly or collectively 3. the right of entertaining appeals in all ecclesiastical causes. The relation of the pope's authority to that of ecumenical councils, and to the civil power, are discussed in separate articles (see GENERAL COUNCILS; CIVIL ALLEGIANCE). (1) The Pope's Universal Coercive Jurisdiction Not only did Christ constitute St. Peter head of the Church, but in the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed in heaven," He indicated the scope of this headship. The expressions binding and loosing here employed are derived from the current terminology of the Rabbinic schools. A doctor who declared a thing to be prohibited by the law was said to bind, for thereby he imposed an obligation on the conscience. He who declared it to be lawful was said to loose). In this way the terms had come respectively to signify official commands and permissions in general. The words of Christ, therefore, as understood by His hearers, conveyed the promise to St. Peter of legislative authority within the kingdom over which He had just set him, and legislative authority carries with it as its necessary accompaniment judicial authority. Moreover, the powers conferred in these regards are plenary. This is plainly indicated by the generality of the terms employed: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind . . . Whatsoever thou shalt loose"; nothing is withheld. Further, Peter's authority is subordinated to no earthly superior. The sentences which he gives are to be forthwith ratified in heaven. They do not need the antecedent approval of any other tribunal. He is independent of all save the Master who appointed him. The words as to the power of binding and loosing are, therefore, elucidatory of the promise of the keys which immediately precedes. They explain in what sense Peter is governor and head of Christ's kingdom, the Church, by promising him legislative and judicial authority in the fullest sense. In other words, Peter and his successors have power to impose laws both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise to grant dispensation from these laws, and, when needful, to annul them. It is theirs to judge offences against the laws, to impose and to remit penalties. This judicial authority will even include the power to pardon sin. For sin is a breach of the laws of the supernatural kingdom, and falls under the cognizance of its constituted judges. The gift of this particular power, however, is not expressed with full clearness in this passage. It needed Christ's words (John 20:23) to remove all ambiguity. Further, since the Church is the kingdom of the truth, so that an essential note in all her members is the act of submission by which they accept the doctrine of Christ in its entirety, supreme power in this kingdom carries with it a supreme magisterium -- authority to declare that doctrine and to prescribe a rule of faith obligatory on all. Here, too, Peter is subordinated to none save his Master alone; he is the supreme teacher as he is the supreme ruler. However, the tremendous powers thus conferred are limited in their scope by their reference to the ends of the kingdom and to them only. The authority of Peter and his successors does not extend beyond this sphere. With matters that are altogether extrinsic to the Church they are not concerned. Protestant controversialists contend strenuously that the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind etc.", confer no special prerogative on Peter, since precisely the same gift, they allege, is conferred on all the Apostles (Matthew 18:18). It is, of course, the case that in that passage the same words are used in regard of all the Twelve. Yet there is a manifest difference between the gift to Peter and that bestowed on the others. In his case the gift is connected with the power of the keys, and this power, as we have seen, signified the supreme authority over the whole kingdom. That gift was not bestowed on the other eleven: and the gift Christ bestowed on them in Matthew 18:18, was received by them as members of the kingdom, and as subject to the authority of him who should be Christ's vicegerent on earth. There is in fact a striking parallelism between Matthew 16:19, and the words employed in reference to Christ Himself in Apocalypse 3:7: "He that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth." In both cases the second clause declares the meaning of the first, and the power signified in the first clause by the metaphor of the keys is supreme. It is worthy of note that to no one else save to Christ and His chosen vicegerent does Holy Scripture attribute the power of the keys. Certain patristic passages are further adduced by non-Catholics as adverse to the meaning given by the Church to Matthew 16:19. St. Augustine in several places tells us that Peter received the keys as representing the Church -- e.g. "In Joan.", tr. 1:12: "Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est, non facit hoc Ecclesia . . .; si hoc ergo in Ecclesia fit, Petrus quando claves accepit, Ecclesiam sanctam significavit' (If this was said to Peter alone, the Church cannot exercise this power . . .; if this power is exercised in the Church, then when Peter received the keys, he signified the Holy Church); cf. tr. 124:5; Serm. 295. It is argued that, according to Augustine, the power denoted by the keys resides primarily not in Peter, but in the whole Church. Christ's gift to His people was merely bestowed on Peter as representing the whole body of the faithful. The right to forgive sins, to exclude from communion, to exercise any other acts of authority, is really the prerogative of the whole Christian congregation. If the minister performs these acts he does so as delegate of the people. The argument, which was formerly employed by Gallican controversialists (cf. Febronius, "De statu eccl.", 1:76), however, rests on a misunderstanding of the passages. Augustine is controverting the Novatian heretics, who affirmed that the power to remit sins was a purely Personal gift to Peter alone, and had disappeared with him. He therefore asserts that Peter received it that it might remain for ever in the Church and be used for its benefit. It is in that sense alone that he says that Peter represented the Church. There is no foundation whatever for saying that he desired to affirm that the Church was the true recipient of the power conferred. Such a view would be contrary to the whole patristic tradition, and is expressly reprobated in the Vatican Decree, cap. 1. It appears from what has been said that, when the popes legislate for the faithful, when they try offenders by juridical process, and enforce their sentences by censures and excommunications, they are employing powers conceded to them by Christ. Their authority to exercise jurisdiction in this way is not founded on the grant of any civil ruler. Indeed the Church has claimed and exercised these powers from the very first. When the Apostles, after the Council of Jerusalem, sent out their decree as vested with Divine authority (Acts 15:28), they were imposing a law on the faithful. When St. Paul bids Timothy not receive an accusation against a presbyter unless it be supported by two or three witnesses, he clearly supposes him to be empowered to judge him in foro externo. This claim to exercise coercive jurisdiction has, as might be expected been denied by various heterodox writers. Thus Marsilius Patavinus (Defensor Pacis 2:4), Antonius de Dominis (De rep. eccl. 4:6-7, 9), Richer (De eccl. et pol. potestate, 11-12), and later the Synod of Pistoia, all alike maintained that coercive jurisdiction of every kind belongs to the civil power alone, and sought to restrict the Church to the use of moral means. This error has always been condemned by the Holy See. Thus, in the Bull "Auctorem Fidei", Pius VI makes the following pronouncement regarding one of the Pistoian propositions: "[The aforesaid proposition] in respect of its insinuation that the Church does not possess authority to exact subjection to her decrees otherwise than by means dependent on persuasion: so far as this signifies that the Church 'has not received from God power, not merely to direct by counsel and persuasion but further to command by laws, and to coerce and compel the delinquent and contumacious by external and salutary penalties' [from the brief 'Ad assiduas' (1755) of Benedict XIV], leads to a system already condemned as heretical. " Nor may it be held that the pope's laws must exclusively concern spiritual objects, and their penalties be exclusively of a spiritual character. The Church is a perfect society (see CHURCH XIII). She is not dependent on the permission of the State for her existence, but holds her charter from God. As a perfect society she has a right to all those means which are necessary for the attaining of her end. These, however, will include far more than spiritual objects and spiritual penalties alone: for the Church requires certain material possessions, such, for example, as churches, schools, seminaries, together with the endowments necessary for their sustentation. The administration and the due protection of these goods will require legislation other than what is limited to the spiritual sphere. A large body of canon law must inevitably be formed to determine the conditions of their management. Indeed, there is a fallacy in the assertion that the Church is a spiritual society; it is spiritual as regards the ultimate end to which all its activities are directed, but not as regards its present constitution nor as regards the means at its disposal. The question has been raised whether it be lawful for the Church, not merely to sentence a delinquent to physical penalties, but itself to inflict these penalties. As to this, it is sufficient to note that the right of the Church to invoke the aid of the civil power to execute her sentences is expressly asserted by Boniface VIII in the Bull "Unam Sanctam" This declaration, even if it be not one of those portions of the Bull in which the pope is defining a point of faith, is so clearly connected with the parts expressly stated to possess such character that it is held by theologians to be theologically certain (Palmieri, "De Romano Pontifice", thes. 21). The question is of theoretical, rather than of practical importance, since civil Governments have long ceased to own the obligation of enforcing the decisions of any ecclesiastical authority. This indeed became inevitable when large sections of the population ceased to be Catholic. The state of things supposed could only exist when a whole nation was thoroughly Catholic in spirit, and the force of papal decisions was recognized by all as binding in conscience. (2) The Pope's Immediate and Ordinary Jurisdiction In the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus", cap. 3, the pope is declared to possess ordinary, immediate, and episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful: "We teach, moreover, and declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church possesses supreme ordinary authority over all Churches, and that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is true episcopal jurisdiction is immediate in its character" (Enchir., n. 1827). It is further added that this authority extends to all alike, both pastors and faithful, whether singly or collectively. An ordinary jurisdiction is one which is exercised by the holder, not by reason of any delegation, but in virtue of the office which he himself holds. All who acknowledge in the pope any primacy of jurisdiction acknowledge that jurisdiction to be ordinary. This point, therefore, does not call for discussion. That the papal authority is likewise immediate has, however, been called in question. Jurisdiction is immediate when its possessor stands in direct relation to those with whose oversight he is charged. If, on the other hand, the supreme authority can only deal directly with the proximate superiors, and not with the subjects save through their intervention, his power is not Immediate but mediate. That the pope's jurisdiction is not thus restricted appears from the analysis already given of Christ's words to St. Peter. It has been shown that He conferred on him a primacy over the Church, which is universal in its scope, extending to all the Church's members, and which needs the support of no other power. A primacy such as this manifestly gives to him and to his successors a direct authority over all the faithful. This is also implied in the words of the pastoral commission, " Feed my sheep ". The shepherd exercises immediate authority over all the sheep of his flock. Every member of the Church has been thus committed to Peter and those who follow him. This immediate authority has been always claimed by the Holy See. It was, however, denied by Febronius (op. cit., 7:7). That writer contended that the duty of the pope was to exercise a general oversight over the Church and to direct the bishops by his counsel; in case of necessity, where the legitimate pastor was guilty of grave wrong, he could pronounce sentence of excommunication against him and proceed against him according to the canons, but he could not on his own authority depose him (op. cit., 2:4:9). The Febronian doctrines, though devoid of any historical foundation, yet, through their appeal to the spirit of nationalism, exerted a powerful influence for harm on Catholic life in Germany during the eighteenth and part of the nineteenth century. Thus it was imperative that the error should be definitively condemned. That the pope's power is truly episcopal needs no proof. It follows from the fact that he enjoys an ordinary pastoral authority, both legislative and judicial, and immediate in relation to its subjects. Moreover, since this power regards the pastors as well as the faithful, the pope is rightly termed Pastor pastorum, and Episcopus episcoporum. It is frequently objected by writers of the Anglican school that, by declaring the pope to possess an immediate episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful, the Vatican Council destroyed the authority of the diocesan episcopate. It is further pointed out that St. Gregory the Great expressly repudiated this title (Ep. 7:27; 8:30). To this it is replied that no difficulty is involved in the exercise of immediate jurisdiction over the same subjects by two rulers, provided only that these rulers stand in subordination, the one to the other. We constantly see the system at work. In an army the regimental officer and the general both possess immediate authority over the soldiers; yet no one maintains that the inferior authority is thereby annulled. The objection lacks all weight. The Vatican Council says most justly (cap. iii): "This power of the supreme pontiff in no way derogates from the ordinary immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, in virtue of which the bishops, who, appointed by the Holy Spirit [Acts 20:28], have succeeded to the place of the Apostles as true pastors, feed and rule their several flocks, each the one which has been assigned to him: that power is rather maintained, confirmed and defended by the supreme pastor" (Enchir., n. 1828). It is without doubt true that St. Gregory repudiated in strong terms the title of universal bishop, and relates that St. Leo rejected it when it was offered him by the fathers of Chalcedon. But, as he used it, it has a different signification from that with which it was employed in the Vatican Council. St. Gregory understood it as involving the denial of the authority of the local diocesan (Ep. 5:21). No one, he maintains, has a right so to term himself universal bishop as to usurp that apostolically constituted power. But he was himself a strenuous asserter of that immediate jurisdiction over all the faithful which is signified by this title as used in the Vatican Decree. Thus he reverses (Ep. 6:15) a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Ep. 9:12). The title of universal bishop occurs as early as the eighth century; and in 1413 the faculty of Paris rejected the proposition of John Hus that the pope was not universal bishop (Natalis Alexander, 'Hist. eccl.", saec. XV and XVI, c. ii, art. 3, n. 6) (3) The Right of Entertaining Appeals in All Ecclesiastical Causes The Council goes on to affirm that the pope is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that to him appeal may be made in all ecclesiastical causes. The right of appeal follows as a necessary corollary from the doctrine of the primacy. If the pope really possesses a supreme jurisdiction over the Church, every other authority, whether episcopal or synodal, being subject to him, there must of necessity be an appeal to him from all inferior tribunals. This question, however, has been the subject of much controversy. The Gallican divines de Marca and Quesnel, and in Germany Febronius, sought to show that the right of appeal to the pope was a mere concession derived from ecclesiastical canons, and that the influence of the pseudo-Isidorean decretals had led to many unjustifiable exaggerations in the papal claims. The arguments of these writers are at the present day employed by frankly anti-Catholic controversialists with a view to showing that the whole primacy is a merely human institution. It is contended that the right of appeal was first granted at Sardica (343), and that each step of its subsequent development can be traced. History, however, renders it abundantly clear that the right of appeal had been known from primitive times, and that the purpose of the Sardican canons was merely to give conciliar ratification to an already existing usage. It will be convenient to speak first of the Sardican question, and then to examine the evidence as regards previous practice. In the years immediately preceding Sardica, St. Athanasius had appealed to Rome against the decision of the Council of Tyre (335). Pope Julius had annulled the action of that council, and had restored Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra to their sees. The Eusebians, however, had contested his right to call a conciliar decision in question. The fathers who met at Sardica, and who included the most eminent of the orthodox party from East and West alike, desired by their decrees to affirm this right, and to establish a canonical mode of procedure for such appeals. The principal provisions of the canons which deal with this matter are: + that a bishop condemned by the bishops of his province may appeal to the pope either on his own initiative or through his judges; + that if the pope entertains the appeal he shall appoint a court of second instance drawn from the bishops of the neighbouring provinces; he may, if he thinks fit, send judges to sit with the bishops. There is nothing whatever to suggest that new privileges are being conferred. St. Julius had recently, not merely exercised the right of hearing appeals in the most formal manner, but had severely censured the Eusebians for neglecting to respect the supreme judicial rights of the Roman See: "for", he writes, "if they [Athanasius and Marcellus] really did some wrong, as you say, the judgment ought to have been given according to the ecclesiastical canon and not thus.... Do you not know that this has been the custom first to write to us, and then for that which is just to be defined from hence?" (Athanasius, "Apol." 35) . Nor is there the smallest ground for the assertion that the pope's action is hedged in within narrow limits, on the ground that no more is permitted than that he should order a re-hearing to take place on the spot. The fathers in no way disputed the pope's right to hear the case at Rome. But their object was to deprive the Eusebians of the facile excuse that it was idle for appeals to be carried to Rome, since there the requisite evidence could not be forthcoming. They therefore provided a canonical procedure which should not be open to that objection. Having thus shown that there is no ground for the assertion that the right of appeal was first granted at Sardica, we may now consider the evidence for its existence in earlier times. The records of the second century are so scanty as to throw but little light on the subject. Yet it would seem that Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla appealed to Rome against the decision of the Phrygian bishops. Tertullian (Con. Prax. 1), tells us that the pope at first acknowledged the genuineness of their prophecies, and that thus "he was giving peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia", when further information led him to recall the letters of peace which he had issued. The fact that the pope's decision had weight to decide the whole question of their orthodoxy is sufficiently significant. But in St Cyprian's correspondence we find clear and unmistakable evidence of a system of appeals. Basilides and Martial, the bishops of Leon and Merida in Spain, had in the persecution accepted certificates of idolatry. They confessed their guilt, and were in consequence deposed, other bishops being appointed to the sees. In the hope of having themselves reinstated they appealed to Rome, and succeeded, by misrepresenting the facts, in imposing on St. Stephen, who ordered their restoration. It has been objected to the evidence drawn from this incident, that St. Cyprian did not acknowledge the validity of the papal decision, but exhorted the people of Leon and Merida to hold fast to the sentence of deposition (Ep. 67:6). But the objection misses the point of St. Cyprian's letter. In the case in question there was no room for a legitimate appeal, since the two bishops had confessed. An acquittal obtained after spontaneous confession could not be valid. It has further been urged that, in the case of Fortunatus (Ep. 59:10), Cyprian denies his right of appeal to Rome, and asserts the sufficiency of the African tribunal. But here too the objection rests upon a misunderstanding. Fortunatus had procured consecration as Bishop of Carthage from a heretical bishop, and St. Cyprian asserts the competency of the local synod in his case on the ground that he is no true bishop -- a mere pseudo-episcopus. Juridically considered he is merely an insubordinate presbyter, and he must submit himself to his own bishop. At that period the established custom denied the right of appeal to the inferior clergy. On the other hand, the action of Fortunatus indicates that he based his claim to bring the question of his status before the pope on the ground that he was a legitimate bishop. Privatus of Lambese, the heretical consecrator of Fortunatus who had previously been himself condemned by a synod of ninety bishops (Ep. 59:10), had appealed to Rome without success (Ep. 36:4). The difficulties at Carthage which led to the Donatist schism provide us with another instance. When the seventy Numidian bishops, who had condemned Caecilian, invoked the aid of the emperor, the latter referred them to Rome, that the case might be decided by Pope Miltiades (313). St. Augustine makes frequent mention of the circumstances, and indicates plainly that he holds it to have been Caecilian's undoubted right to claim a trial before the pope. He says that Secundus should never have dared to condemn Caecilian when he declined to submit his case to the African bishops, since he had the right "to reserve his whole case to the judgment of other colleagues, especially to that of Apostolical Churches" (Ep. 43:7). A little later (367) a council, held at Tyana in Asia Minor, restored to his see Eustathius, bishop of that city, on no other ground than that of a successful appeal to Rome. St. Basil (Ep. 263:3) tells us that they did not know what test of orthodoxy Liberius had required. He brought a letter from the pope demanding his restoration, and this was accepted as decisive by the council It should be observed that there can be no question here of the pope employing prerogatives conferred on him at Sardica, for he did not follow the procedure there indicated. Indeed there is no good reason to believe that the Sardican procedure ever came into use in either East or West. In 378 the appellate jurisdiction of the pope received civil sanction from Emperor Gratian. Any charge against a metropolitan was to come before the pope himself or a court of bishops nominated by him, while all (Western) bishops had the right of appeal from - their provincial synod to the pope (Mansi, III, 624). Similarly Valentinian III in 445 assigned to the pope the right of evoking to Rome any cause he should think fit (Cod. Theod. Novell., tit. 24, De episcoporum ordin.). These ordinances were not, however, in any sense the source of the pope's jurisdiction, which rested on Divine institution; they were civil sanctions enabling the pope to avail himself of the civil machinery of the empire in discharging the duties of his office. What Pope Nicholas I said of the synodal declarations regarding the privileges of the Holy See holds good here also: "Ista privilegia huic sanctae Ecclesiae a Christo donata, a synodis non donata, sed jam solummodo venerata et celebrata" (These privileges bestowed by Christ on this Holy Church have not been granted her by synods, but merely proclaimed and honoured by them) ("Ep. ad Michaelem Imp." in P. L., CXIX, 948). Much has been made by anti-Catholic writers of the famous letter "Optaremus", addressed in 426 by the African bishops to Pope St. Celestine at the close of the incident relating to the priest Apiarius. As the point is discussed in a special article (APIARIUS OF SICCA), a brief reference will suffice here. Protestant controversialists maintain that in this letter the African bishops positively repudiate the claim of Rome to an appellate jurisdiction, the repudiation being consequent on the fact that they had in 419 satisfied themselves that Pope Zosimus was mistaken in claiming the authority of Nicaea for the Sardican canons. This is an error. The letter, it is true, urges with some display of irritation that it would be both more reasonable and more in harmony with the fifth Nicene canon regarding the inferior clergy and the laity, if even episcopal cases were left to the decision of the African synod. The pope's authority is nowhere denied, but the sufficiency of the local tribunals is asserted. Indeed the right of the pope to deal with episcopal cases was freely acknowledged by the African Church even after it had been shown that the Sardican canons did not emanate from Nicaea. Antony, Bishop of Fussala, prosecuted an appeal to Rome against St. Augustine in 423, the appeal being supported by the Primate of Numidia (Ep. ccix). Moreover, St. Augustine in his letter to Pope Celestine on this subject urges that previous popes have dealt with similar cases in the same manner, sometimes by independent decisions and sometimes by confirmation of the decisions locally given (ipsa sede apostolica judicante vel aliorum judicata firmante), and that he could cite examples either from ancient or from more recent times (Ep. 209:8). These facts appear to be absolutely conclusive as to the traditional African practice. That the letter "Optaremus" did not result in any change is evinced by a letter of St. Leo's in 446, directing what is to be done in the case of a certain Lupicinus who had appealed to him (Ep. 12:13). It is occasionally argued that if the pope really possessed jure divino a supreme jurisdiction, the African bishops would neither have raised any question in 419 as to whether the alleged canons were authentic, nor again have in 426 requested the pope to take the Nicene canon as the norm of his action. Those who reason in this way fail to see that, where canons have been established prescribing the mode of procedure to be followed in the Church, right reason demands that the supreme authority should not alter them except for some grave cause, and, as long as they remain the recognized law of the Church should observe them. The pope as God's vicar must govern according to reason, not arbitrarily nor capriciously. This, however, is a very different thing from saying, as did the Gallican divines, that the pope is subject to the canons. He is not subject to them, because he is competent to modify or to annul them when he holds this to be best for the Church. IV. JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS AND PREROGATIVES OF THE POPE In virtue of his office as supreme teacher and ruler of the faithful, the chief control of every department of the Church's life belongs to the pope. In this section the rights and duties which thus fall to his lot will be briefly enumerated. It will appear that, in regard to a considerable number of points, not merely the supreme control, but the whole exercise of power is reserved to the Holy See, and is only granted to others by express delegation. This system of reservation is possible, since the pope is the universal source. of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence it rests with him to determine in what measure he will confer jurisdiction on bishops and other prelates. (1) As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith, the following are the rights which pertain to the pope: + it is his to set forth creeds, and to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of faith shall be made (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 24, cc. 1 and 12); + it is his to prescribe and to command books for the religious instruction of the faithful; thus, for example, Clement XIII has recommended the Roman Catechism to all the bishops. + The pope alone can establish a university, possessing the status and privileges of a canonically erected Catholic university; + to him also belongs the direction of Catholic missions throughout the world; this charge is fulfilled through the Congregation of the Propaganda. + It is his to prohibit the reading of such books as are injurious to faith or morals, and to determine the conditions on which certain classes of books may be issued by Catholics; + his is the condemnation of given propositions as being either heretical or deserving of some minor degree of censure, and lastly + he has the right to interpret authentically the natural law. Thus, it is his to say what is lawful or unlawful in regard to social and family life, in regard to the practice of usury, etc. (2) With the pope's office of supreme teacher are closely connected his rights in regard to the worship of God: for it is the law of prayer that fixes the law of belief. In this sphere very much has been reserved to the sole regulation of the Holy See. Thus + the pope alone can prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church. If a doubt should occur in regard to the ceremonial of the liturgy, a bishop may not settle the point on his own authority, but must have recourse to Rome. The Holy See likewise prescribes rules in regard to the devotions used by the faithful, and in this way checks the growth of what is novel and unauthorized. + At the present day the institution and abrogation of festivals which was till a comparatively recent time free to all bishops as regards their own dioceses, is reserved to Rome. + The solemn canonization of a saint is proper to the pope. Indeed it is commonly held that this is an exercise of the papal infallibility. Beatification and every permission for the public veneration of any of the servants of God is likewise reserved to his decision. + He alone gives to anyone the privilege of a private chapel where Mass may be said. + He dispenses the treasury of the Church, and the grant of plenary indulgences is reserved to him. While he has no authority in regard to the substantial rites of the sacraments, and is bound to preserve them as they were given to the Church by Christ and His Apostles, certain powers in their regard belong to him; + he can give to simple priests the Power to confirm, and to bless the oil of the sick and the oil of catechumens, and + he can establish diriment and impedient impediments to matrimony. (3) The legislative power of the pope carries with it the following rights: + he can legislate for the whole Church, with or without the assistance of a general council; + if he legislates with the aid of a council it is his to convoke it, to preside, to direct its deliberations, to confirm its acts. + He has full authority to interpret, alter, and abrogate both his own laws and those established by his predecessors. He has the same plenitude of power as they enjoyed, and stands in the same relation to their laws as to those which he himself has decreed; + he can dispense individuals from the obligation of all purely ecclesiastical laws, and can grant privileges and exemptions in their regard. In this connexion may be mentioned + his power to dispense from vows where the greater glory of God renders it desirable. Considerable powers of dispensation are granted to bishops, and, in a restricted measure, also to priests; but there are some vows reserved altogether to the Holy See. (4) In virtue of his supreme judicial authority + causae majores are reserved to him. By this term are signified cases dealing with matters of great moment, or those in which personages of eminent dignity are concerned. + His appellate jurisdiction has been discussed in the previous section. It should, however, be noted + that the pope has full right, should he see fit, to deal even with causae minores in the first instance, and not merely by reason of an appeal (Trent, Sess. XXIV; cap. 20). In what concerns punishment, + he can inflict censures either by judicial sentence or by general laws which operate without need of such sentence. + He further reserves certain cases to his own tribunal. All cases of heresy come before the Congregation of the Inquisition. A similar reservation covers the cases in which a bishop or a reigning prince is the accused party. (5) As the supreme governor of the Church the pope has authority over all appointments to its public offices. Thus + it is his to nominate to bishoprics, or, where the nomination has been conceded to others, to give confirmation. Further, he alone can translate bishops from one see to another, can accept their resignation, and can, where grave cause exists, sentence to deprivation. + He can establish dioceses, and can annul a previously existing arrangement in favour of a new one. Similarly, he alone can erect cathedral and collegiate chapters. + He can approve new religious orders, and can, if he sees fit, exempt them from the authority of local ordinaries. + Since his office of supreme ruler imposes on him the duty of enforcing the canons, it is requisite that he should be kept informed as to the state of the various dioceses. He may obtain this information by legates or by summoning the bishops to Rome. At the present day this jus relationum is exercised through the triennial visit ad limina required of all bishops. This system was introduced by Sixtus V in 1585 (Constitution, "Rom. Pontifex"), and confirmed by Benedict XIV in 1740 (Constitution, "Quod Sancta") . + It is to be further observed that the pope's office of chief ruler of the Church carries with it jure divino the right to free intercourse with the pastors and the faithful. The placitum regium, by which this intercourse was limited and impeded, was therefore an infringement of a sacred right, and as such was solemnly condemned by the Vatican Council (Constitution, "Pastor Aeternus", cap. iii). To the pope likewise belongs the supreme administration of the goods of the Church. + He alone can, where there is just cause, alienate any considerable quantity of such property. Thus, e.g., Julius III, at the time of the restoration of religion in England under Queen Mary validated the title of those laymen who had acquired Church lands during the spoliations of the previous reigns. + The pope has further the right to impose taxes on the clergy and the faithful for ecclesiastical purposes (cf. Trent, Sess. XXI, cap. iv de Ref.). Though the power of the pope, as we have described it, is very great, it does not follow that it is arbitrary and unrestricted. "The pope", as Cardinal Hergenröther well says, "is circumscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficent use of the duties attached to his privileges....He is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy -- to 'feed' -- and finally by the respect indispensable in a spiritual power towards the spirit and mind of nations" ("Cath. Church and Christian State", tr., I, 197). V. PRIMACY OF HONOUR: TITLES AND INSIGNIA Certain titles and distinctive marks of honour are assigned to the pope alone; these constitute what is termed his primacy of honour. These prerogatives are not, as are his jurisdictional rights, attached jure divino to his office. They have grown up in the course of history, and are consecrated by the usage of centuries; yet they are not incapable of modification. (1) Titles The most noteworthy of the titles are Papa, Summus Pontifex, Pontifex Maximus, Servus servorum Dei. The title pope (papa) was, as has been stated, at one time employed with far more latitude. In the East it has always been used to designate simple priests. In the Western Church, however, it seems from the beginning to have been restricted to bishops (Tertullian, "De Pud." 13). It was apparently in the fourth century that it began to become a distinctive title of the Roman Pontiff. Pope Siricius (d. 398) seems so to use it (Ep. vi in P. L., XIII, 1164), and Ennodius of Pavia (d. 473) employs it still more clearly in this sense in a letter to Pope Symmachus (P. L., LXIII, 69). Yet as late as the seventh century St. Gall (d. 640) addresses Desiderius of Cahors as papa (P. L., LXXXVII, 265). Gregory VII finally prescribed that it should be confined to the successors of Peter. The terms Pontifex Maximus, Summus Pontifex, were doubtless originally employed with reference to the Jewish high-priest, whose place the Christian bishops were regarded as holding each in his own diocese (I Clement 40). As regards the title Pontifex Maximus, especially in its application to the pope, there was further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome. Tertullian, as has already been said, uses the phrase of Pope Callistus. Though his words are ironical, they probably indicate that Catholics already applied it to the pope. But here too the terms were once less narrowly restricted in their use. Pontifex summus was used of the bishop of some notable see in relation to those of less importance. Hilary of Arles (d. 449) is so styled by Eucherius of Lyons (P. L., L, 773), and Lanfranc is termed "primas et pontifex summus" by his biographer, Milo Crispin (P. L., CL, 10). Pope Nicholas I is termed "summus pontifex et universalis papa" by his legate Arsenius (Hardouin, "Conc.", V, 280), and subsequent examples are common. After the eleventh century it appears to be only used of the popes. The phrase Servus servorum Dei is now so entirely a papal title that a Bull in which it should be wanting would be reckoned unauthentic. Yet this designation also was once applied to others. Augustine (Ep. 217 a. d. Vitalem) entitles himself "servus Christi et per Ipsum servus servorum Ipsius". Desiderius of Cahors made use of it (Thomassin, "Ecclesiae nov. et vet. disc.", pt. I, I. I, c. iv, n. 4): so also did St. Boniface (740), the apostle of Germany (P. L., LXXIX, 700). The first of the popes to adopt it was seemingly Gregory I; he appears to have done co in contrast to the claim put forward by the Patriarch of Constantinople to the title of universal bishop (P. L., LXXV, 87). The restriction of the term to the pope alone began in the ninth century. (2) Insignia and Marks of Honour The pope is distinguished by the use of the tiara or triple crown. At what date the custom of crowning the pope was introduced is unknown. It was certainly previous to the forged donation of Constantine, which dates from the commencement of the ninth century, for mention is there made of the pope's coronation. The triple crown is of much later origin. The pope moreover does not, like ordinary bishops, use the bent pastoral staff, but only the erect cross. This custom was introduced before the reign of Innocent III (1198-1216) (cap. un. X de sacra unctione, I, 15). He further uses the pallium at all ecclesiastical functions, and not under the same restrictions as do the archbishops on whom he has conferred it. The kissing of the pope's foot -- the characteristic act of reverence by which all the faithful do honour to him as the vicar of Christ -- is found as early as the eighth century. We read that Emperor Justinian II paid this respect to Pope Constantine (708-16) (Anastasius Bibl. in P. L., CXXVIII 949). Even at an earlier date Emperor Justin had prostrated himself before Pope John I (523-6; op. cit., 515), and Justinian I before Agapetus (535-6; op. cit., 551). The pope, it may be added, ranks as the first of Christian princes, and in Catholic countries his ambassadors have precedence over other members of the diplomatic body. (For the full list of men who have held this office, see LIST OF POPES.) G. H. JOYCE Election of the Popes Election of the Popes [ NOTE: For current procedures regarding the election of the pope, see Pope John Paul II's 1996 Apostolic Constitution UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS. See also PAPAL ELECTIONS and CONCLAVE.] The supreme headship of the Church is, we have seen, annexed to the office of Roman bishop. The pope becomes chief pastor because he is Bishop of Rome: he does not become Bishop of Rome because he has been chosen to be head of the universal Church. Thus, an election to the papacy is, properly speaking, primarily an election to the local bishopric. The right to elect their bishop has ever belonged to the members of the Roman Church. They possess the prerogative of giving to the universal Church her chief pastor; they do not receive their bishop in virtue of his election by the universal Church. This is not to say that the election should be by popular vote of the Romans. In ecclesiastical affairs it is always for the hierarchy to guide the decisions of the flock. The choice of a bishop belongs to the clergy: it may be confined to the leading members of the clergy. It is so in the Roman Church at present. The electoral college of cardinals exercise their office because they are the chief of the Roman clergy. Should the college of cardinals ever become extinct, the duty of choosing a supreme pastor would fall, not on the bishops assembled in council, but upon the remaining Roman clergy. At the time of the Council of Trent Pius IV, thinking it possible that in the event of his death the council might lay some claim to the right, insisted on this point in a consistorial allocution. It is thus plain that a pope cannot nominate his successor. History tells us of one pope -- Benedict II (530) -- who meditated adopting this course. But he recognized that it would be a false step, and burnt the document which he had drawn up for the purpose. On the other hand the Church's canon law (10 D. 79) supposes that the pope may make provision for the needs of the Church by suggesting to the cardinals some one whom he regards as fitted for the office: and we know that Gregory VII secured in this way the election of Victor III. Such a step, however, does not in any way fetter the action of the cardinals. The pope can, further, legislate regarding the mode in which the subsequent election shall be carried out, determining the composition of the electoral college, and the conditions requisite for a definitive choice. The method at present followed is the result of a series of enactments on this subject. A brief historical review will show how the principle of election by the Roman Church has been maintained through all the vicissitudes of papal elections. St. Cyprian tells us in regard to the election of Pope St. Cornelius (251) that the comprovincial bishops, the clergy, and the people all took part in it: "He was made bishop by the decree of God and of His Church, by the testimony of nearly all the clergy, by the college of aged bishops [sacerdotum], and of good men"(Ep. Iv ad Anton., n. 8). And a precisely similar ground is alleged by the Roman priests in their letter to Emperor Honorius regarding the validity of the election of Boniface I (A. D. 418; P. L., XX, 750). Previous to the fall of the Western Empire interference by the civil power seems to have been inconsiderable. Constantius, it is true, endeavoured to set up an antipope, Felix II (355), but the act was universally regarded as heretical. Honorius on the occasion of the contested election of 418 decreed that, when the election was dubious, neither party should hold the papacy, but that a new election should take place. This method was applied at the elections of Conon (686) and Sergius I (687). The law is found in the Church's code (c. 8, d. LXXIX), though Gratian declares it void of force as having emanated from civil and not ecclesiastical authority (d. XCVI, proem.; d. XCVII, proem.). After the barbarian conquest of Italy, the Church's rights were less carefully observed. Basilius, the prefect of Odoacer, claimed the right of supervising the election of 483 in the name of his master, alleging that Pope Simplicius had himself requested him to do so (Hard., II, 977). The disturbances which occurred at the disputed election of Symmachus (498) led that pope to hold a council and to decree the severest penalties on all who should be guilty of canvassing or bribery in order to attain the pontificate. It was moreover decided that the majority of votes should decide the election. Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who at this period ruled Italy, became in his later years a persecutor of the Church. He even went so far as to appoint Felix III (IV) in 526 as the successor of Pope John I, whose death was due to the incarceration to which the king had condemned him. Felix, however, was personally worthy of the office, and the appointment was confirmed by a subsequent election. The precedent of interference set by Theodoric was fruitful of evil to the Church. After the destruction of the Gothic monarchy (537), the Byzantine emperors went even farther than the heretical Ostrogoth in encroaching on ecclesiastical rights. Vigilius (540) and Pelagius I (553) were forced on the Church at imperial dictation. In the case of the latter there seems to have been no election: his title was validated solely through his recognition as bishop by clergy and people. The formalities of election at this time were as follows (Lib. Diurnus Rom. Pont., 2, in P. L., CV, 27). After the pope's death, the archpriest, the archdeacon and the primicerius of the notaries sent an official notification to the exarch at Ravenna. On the third day after the decease the new pope was elected, being invariably chosen from among the presbyters or deacons of the Roman Church (cf. op. cit., 2, titt. 2, 3 5), and an embassy was despatched to Constantinople to request the official confirmation of the election. Not until this had been received did the consecration take place. The Church acquired greater freedom after the Lombard invasion of 568 had destroyed the prestige of Byzantine power in Italy. Pelagius II (,578) and Gregory I (590) were the spontaneous choice of the electors. And in 684, owing to the long delays involved in the journey to Constantinople, Constantine IV (Pogonatus) acceded to Benedict II's request that in future it should not be necessary to wait for confirmation, but that a mere notification of the election would suffice. The 1088 of the exarchate and the iconoclastic heresy of the Byzantine court completed the severance between Rome and the Eastern Empire, and Pope Zacharias (741) dispensed altogether with the customary notice to Constantinople. In 769 a council was held under Stephen III to rectify the confusion caused by the intrusion of the antipope Constantine. This usurper was a layman hurriedly raised to priest's orders to render his nomination to the pontificate possible. To make a repetition of the scandal impossible it was decreed that only members of the sacred college were eligible for election. The part of the laity was, moreover, reduced to a mere right of acclamation. Under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious the Church retained her freedom. Lothair, however, claimed more ample rights for the civil power. In 824 he exacted an oath from the Romans that none should be consecrated pope without the permission and the presence of his ambassadors. This was, in fact, done at most of the elections during the ninth century, and in 898 the riots which ensued upon the death of Pope Stephen V led John IX to give ecclesiastical sanction to this system of imperial control. In a council held at Rome in that year he decreed that the election should be made by bishops (cardinal) and clergy, regard being had to the wishes of the people, but that no consecration should take place except in the presence of the imperial legate (Mansi XVIII, 225). The due formalities at least of election appear to have been observed through the wild disorders which followed the collapse of the Carlovingian Empire: and the same is true as regards the times of Otto the Great and his son. Under the restored empire, however, the electors enjoyed no freedom of choice. Otto I even compelled the Romans to swear that they would never elect or ordain a pope without his or his son's consent (963; cf. Liutprand, "Hist. Ott.", viii). In 1046 the scandals of the preceding elections, in which the supreme pontificate had become a prize for rival factions entirely regardless of what means they employed, led clergy and people to leave the nomination to Henry III. Three popes were chosen in this manner. But Leo IX insisted that the Church was free in the choice of her pastors, and, until he was duly elected at Rome, declined to assume any of the state of his office. The party of reform, of which Hildebrand was the moving spirit, were eager for some measure which should restore an independent choice to the Church. This was carried out by Nicholas II. In 1059 he held a council in the Lateran and issued the Decree "In Nomine". This document is found in two recensions, a papal and an imperial, both of early date. There is however little doubt that the papal recension embodied in the "Decretum Gratiani" (c. 1. d. XXIII) is genuine, and that the other was altered in the interest of the antipope Guibert. The right of election is confined to the cardinals, the effective choice being placed in the hands of the cardinal bishops: clergy and people have a right of acclamation only. The right of confirmation is granted to the Emperor Henry IV and to such of his successors as should personally request and receive the privilege. The pope need not necessarily be taken from the number of cardinals, though this should be the case if possible. This decree formed the basis of the present legislation on the papal election, though the system underwent considerable development. The first important modification was the Constitution "Licet de Vitanda" [c. vi, X, "De elect." (I, 6)] of Alexander III, the first of the decrees passed by the Third Oecumenical Council of the Lateran (1179). To prevent the evils of a disputed election it was established by this law that no one should be held to be elected until two thirds of the cardinals should have given their votes for him. In this decree no distinction is made between the rights of the cardinal bishops and those of the rest of the Sacred College. The imperial privilege of confirming the election had already become obsolete owing to the breach between the Church and the Empire under Henry IV and Frederick I. Between the death of Clement IV (1268) and the coronation of Gregory X (1272) an interregnum of nearly three years intervened. To prevent a repetition of so great a misfortune the pope in the Council of Lyons (1179) issued the Decree "Ubi periculum" [c. iii, "De elect.", in 60 (I, 6)], by which it was ordained that during the election of a pontiff the cardinals should be secluded from the world under exceedingly stringent regulations, and that the seclusion should continue till they had fulfilled their duty of providing the Church with a supreme pastor. To this electoral session was given the name of the Conclave. This system prevails at the present day. G. H. JOYCE Chronological Lists of Popes Chronological Lists of Popes The historical lists of the popes, from those drawn up in the second century to those of the present day, form in themselves a considerable body of literature. It would be beyond the scope of the article to enter upon a discussion of these catalogues. For an account of the most famous of them all, the article LIBER PONTIFICALIS may be consulted. It appears, however, desirable to indicate very briefly what are our authorities for the names and the durations in office of the popes for the first two centuries of the Church's existence. St. Irenaeus, writing between 175 and 190, not many years after his Roman sojourn, enumerates the series from Peter to Eleutherius (Adv. Haer. 3:3:3; Eusebius, "Hist. eccl." 5:6) . His object, as we have already seen, was to establish the orthodoxy of the traditional doctrine, as opposed to heretical novelties, by showing that the bishop was the natural inheritor of the Apostolic teaching. He gives us the names alone, not the length of the various episcopates. This need is supplied by other witnesses. Most important evidence is furnished by the document entitled the " Liberian Catalogue " -- so called from the Pope whose name ends the list. The collection of tracts of which this forms a part was edited (apparently by one Furius Dionysius Philocalus) in 354. The catalogue consists of a list of the Roman bishops from Peter to Liberius, with the length of their respective episcopates, the consular dates, the name of the reigning emperor, and in many cases other details. There is the strongest ground for believing that the earlier part of the catalogue, as far as Pontian (230-35), is the work of Hippolytus of Portus. It is manifest that up to this point the fourth century compiler was making use of a different authority from that which he employs for the subsequent popes: and there is evidence rendering it almost certain that Hippolytus's work "Chronica" contained such a list. The reign of Pontian, moreover, would be the point at which that list would have stopped: for Hippolytus and he were condemned to servitude in the Sardinian mines -- a fact which the chronographer makes mention when speaking of Pontian's episcopate. Lightfoot has argued that this list originally contained nothing but the names of the bishops and the duration of their episcopates, the remaining notes being additions by a later hand. The list of popes is identical with that of Irenaeus, save that Anacletus is doubled into Cletus and Anacletus, while Clement appears before, instead of after, these two names. The order of Popes Pius and Anicetus has also been interchanged. There is every reason to regard; these differences as due to the errors of copyists. Another witness is Eusebius. The names and episcopal years of the bishops can be gathered alike from his "History" and his "Chronicle". The notices in the two works; can be shown to be m agreement, notwithstanding certain corruptions in many texts of the "Chronicle". This Eastern list in the hands of Eusebius is seen to have been identical with the Western list of Hippolytus, except that in the East the name of Linus's successor seems to have been given as Anencletus, in the original Western list as Cletus. The two authorities presuppose the following list: (1) Peter, xxv; (2) Linus, xii; (3) Anencletus [Cletus], xii; (4) Clement, ix; (5) Evarestus, viii; (6) Alexander, x; (7) Sixtus, x; (8) Telesophorus, xi; (9) Hyginus, iv; (10) Pius, xv; (11) Anicetus, xi;, (12) Soter, viii; (13) Eleutherius, xv; (14) Victor, x; (15) Zephyrinus, xviii; (16) Callistus, v; (17) Urban, viii; (18) Pontian, v (Harnack, "Chronologie", I, 152). We learn from Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4:22) that in the middle of the second century Hegesippus, the Hebrew Christian, visited Rome and that he drew up a list of bishops as far as Anicetus, the then pope. Eusebius does not quote his catalogue, but Lightfoot sees ground for holding that we possess it in a passage of Epiphanius (Haer. 27:6), in which the bishops as far as Anicetus are enumerated. This list of Hegesippus, drawn up less than a century after the martyrdom of St. Peter, was he believes, the foundation alike of the Eusebian and Hippolytan catalogues (Clement of Rome I, 325 so.). His view has been accepted by many scholars. Even those who, like Harnack (Chronologie, I, 184 sq.), do not admit that this list is really that of Hegesippus, recognize it as a catalogue of Roman origin and of very early date, furnishing testimony independent alike of the Eusebian and Liberian lists. The "Liber Pontificalis", long accepted as an authority of the highest value, is now acknowledged to have been originally composed at the beginning of the fifth century, and, as regards the early popes, to be dependent on the "Liberian Catalogue". In the numbering of the successors of St. Peter, certain differences appear in various lists. The two forms Anacletus and Cletus, as we hare seen, very early occasioned the third pope to be reckoned twice. There are some few cases, also, in which it is still doubted whether particular individuals should be accounted genuine popes or intruders, and, according to the view taken by the compiler of the list, they will be included or excluded. In the accompanying list the Stephen immediately following Zacharias (752) is not numbered, since, though duly elected, he died before his consecration. At that period the papal dignity was held to be conferred at consecration, and hence he is excluded from all the early lists. Leo VIII (963) is included, as the resignation of Benedict V, though enforced, may have been genuine. Boniface VII is also ranked as a pope, since, in 984 at least, he would seem to have been accepted as such by the Roman Church. The claim of Benedict X (1058) is likewise recognized. It cannot be affirmed that his title was certainly invalid, and his name, though now sometimes excluded, appears in the older catalogues. It should be observed that there is no John XX in the catalogue. This is due to the fact that, in the " Liber Pontificalis ", two dates are given in connexion with the life of John XIV (983). This introduced confusion into some of the papal catalogues, and a separate pope was assigned to each of these dates. Thus three popes named John were made to appear between Benedict VII and Gregory V. The error led the pope of the thirteenth century who should have been called John XX to style himself John XXI (Duchesne, "Lib. Pont." 2:17). Some only of the antipopes find mention in the list. No useful purpose would be served by giving the name of every such claimant. Many of them possess no historical importance whatever. From Gregory VII onward not merely the years but the precise days are assigned on which the respective reigns commenced and closed. Ancient authorities furnish these details in the case of most of the foregoing popes also: but, previously to the middle of the eleventh century, the information is of uncertain value. With Gregory VII a new method of reckoning came in. The papal dignity was held to be conferred by the election, and not as previously by the coronation, and the commencement of the reign was computed from the day of election. This point seems therefore a convenient one at which to introduce the more detailed indications. For the full list of men who have held this office, see LIST OF POPES. G.H. JOYCE List of Popes The List of Popes 1. St. Peter (32-67) 2. St. Linus (67-76) 3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88) 4. St. Clement I (88-97) 5. St. Evaristus (97-105) 6. St. Alexander I (105-115) 7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I 8. St. Telesphorus (125-136) 9. St. Hyginus (136-140) 10. St. Pius I (140-155) 11. St. Anicetus (155-166) 12. St. Soter (166-175) 13. St. Eleutherius (175-189) 14. St. Victor I (189-199) 15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217) 16. St. Callistus I (217-22) 17. St. Urban I (222-30) 18. St. Pontain (230-35) 19. St. Anterus (235-36) 20. St. Fabian (236-50) 21. St. Cornelius (251-53) 22. St. Lucius I (253-54) 23. St. Stephen I (254-257) 24. St. Sixtus II (257-258) 25. St. Dionysius (260-268) 26. St. Felix I (269-274) 27. St. Eutychian (275-283) 28. St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius 29. St. Marcellinus (296-304) 30. St. Marcellus I (308-309) 31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310) 32. St. Miltiades (311-14) 33. St. Sylvester I (314-35) 34. St. Marcus (336) 35. St. Julius I (337-52) 36. Liberius (352-66) 37. St. Damasus I (366-83) 38. St. Siricius (384-99) 39. St. Anastasius I (399-401) 40. St. Innocent I (401-17) 41. St. Zosimus (417-18) 42. St. Boniface I (418-22) 43. St. Celestine I (422-32) 44. St. Sixtus III (432-40) 45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61) 46. St. Hilarius (461-68) 47. St. Simplicius (468-83) 48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92) 49. St. Gelasius I (492-96) 50. Anastasius II (496-98) 51. St. Symmachus (498-514) 52. St. Hormisdas (514-23) 53. St. John I (523-26) 54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30) 55. Boniface II (530-32) 56. John II (533-35) 57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) -- also called Agapitus I 58. St. Silverius (536-37) 59. Vigilius (537-55) 60. Pelagius I (556-61) 61. John III (561-74) 62. Benedict I (575-79) 63. Pelagius II (579-90) 64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604) 65. Sabinian (604-606) 66. Boniface III (607) 67. St. Boniface IV (608-15) 68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18) 69. Boniface V (619-25) 70. Honorius I (625-38) 71. Severinus (640) 72. John IV (640-42) 73. Theodore I (642-49) 74. St. Martin I (649-55) 75. St. Eugene I (655-57) 76. St. Vitalian (657-72) 77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76) 78. Donus (676-78) 79. St. Agatho (678-81) 80. St. Leo II (682-83) 81. St. Benedict II (684-85) 82. John V (685-86) 83. Conon (686-87) 84. St. Sergius I (687-701) 85. John VI (701-05) 86. John VII (705-07) 87. Sisinnius (708) 88. Constantine (708-15) 89. St. Gregory II (715-31) 90. St. Gregory III (731-41) 91. St. Zachary (741-52) 92. Stephen II (752) 93. Stephen III (752-57) 94. St. Paul I (757-67) 95. Stephen IV (767-72) 96. Adrian I (772-95) 97. St. Leo III (795-816) 98. Stephen V (816-17) 99. St. Paschal I (817-24) 100. Eugene II (824-27) 101. Valentine (827) 102. Gregory IV (827-44) 103. Sergius II (844-47) 104. St. Leo IV (847-55) 105. Benedict III (855-58) 106. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67) 107. Adrian II (867-72) 108. John VIII (872-82) 109. Marinus I (882-84) 110. St. Adrian III (884-85) 111. Stephen VI (885-91) 112. Formosus (891-96) 113. Boniface VI (896) 114. Stephen VII (896-97) 115. Romanus (897) 116. Theodore II (897) 117. John IX (898-900) 118. Benedict IV (900-03) 119. Leo V (903) 120. Sergius III (904-11) 121. Anastasius III (911-13) 122. Lando (913-14) 123. John X (914-28) 124. Leo VI (928) 125. Stephen VIII (929-31) 126. John XI (931-35) 127. Leo VII (936-39) 128. Stephen IX (939-42) 129. Marinus II (942-46) 130. Agapetus II (946-55) 131. John XII (955-63) 132. Leo VIII (963-64) 133. Benedict V (964) 134. John XIII (965-72) 135. Benedict VI (973-74) 136. Benedict VII (974-83) 137. John XIV (983-84) 138. John XV (985-96) 139. Gregory V (996-99) 140. Sylvester II (999-1003) 141. John XVII (1003) 142. John XVIII (1003-09) 143. Sergius IV (1009-12) 144. Benedict VIII (1012-24) 145. John XIX (1024-32) 146. Benedict IX (1032-45) 147. Sylvester III (1045) 148. Benedict IX (1045) 149. Gregory VI (1045-46) 150. Clement II (1046-47) 151. Benedict IX (1047-48) 152. Damasus II (1048) 153. St. Leo IX (1049-54) 154. Victor II (1055-57) 155. Stephen X (1057-58) 156. Nicholas II (1058-61) 157. Alexander II (1061-73) 158. St. Gregory VII (1073-85) 159. Blessed Victor III (1086-87) 160. Blessed Urban II (1088-99) 161. Paschal II (1099-1118) 162. Gelasius II (1118-19) 163. Callistus II (1119-24) 164. Honorius II (1124-30) 165. Innocent II (1130-43) 166. Celestine II (1143-44) 167. Lucius II (1144-45) 168. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53) 169. Anastasius IV (1153-54) 170. Adrian IV (1154-59) 171. Alexander III (1159-81) 172. Lucius III (1181-85) 173. Urban III (1185-87) 174. Gregory VIII (1187) 175. Clement III (1187-91) 176. Celestine III (1191-98) 177. Innocent III (1198-1216) 178. Honorius III (1216-27) 179. Gregory IX (1227-41) 180. Celestine IV (1241) 181. Innocent IV (1243-54) 182. Alexander IV (1254-61) 183. Urban IV (1261-64) 184. Clement IV (1265-68) 185. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76) 186. Blessed Innocent V (1276) 187. Adrian V (1276) 188. John XXI (1276-77) 189. Nicholas III (1277-80) 190. Martin IV (1281-85) 191. Honorius IV (1285-87) 192. Nicholas IV (1288-92) 193. St. Celestine V (1294) 194. Boniface VIII (1294-1303) 195. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04) 196. Clement V (1305-14) 197. John XXII (1316-34) 198. Benedict XII (1334-42) 199. Clement VI (1342-52) 200. Innocent VI (1352-62) 201. Blessed Urban V (1362-70) 202. Gregory XI (1370-78) 203. Urban VI (1378-89) 204. Boniface IX (1389-1404) 205. Innocent VII (1404-06) 206. Gregory XII (1406-15) 207. Martin V (1417-31) 208. Eugene IV (1431-47) 209. Nicholas V (1447-55) 210. Callistus III (1455-58) 211. Pius II (1458-64) 212. Paul II (1464-71) 213. Sixtus IV (1471-84) 214. Innocent VIII (1484-92) 215. Alexander VI (1492-1503) 216. Pius III (1503) 217. Julius II (1503-13) 218. Leo X (1513-21) 219. Adrian VI (1522-23) 220. Clement VII (1523-34) 221. Paul III (1534-49) 222. Julius III (1550-55) 223. Marcellus II (1555) 224. Paul IV (1555-59) 225. Pius IV (1559-65) 226. St. Pius V (1566-72) 227. Gregory XIII (1572-85) 228. Sixtus V (1585-90) 229. Urban VII (1590) 230. Gregory XIV (1590-91) 231. Innocent IX (1591) 232. Clement VIII (1592-1605) 233. Leo XI (1605) 234. Paul V (1605-21) 235. Gregory XV (1621-23) 236. Urban VIII (1623-44) 237. Innocent X (1644-55) 238. Alexander VII (1655-67) 239. Clement IX (1667-69) 240. Clement X (1670-76) 241. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89) 242. Alexander VIII (1689-91) 243. Innocent XII (1691-1700) 244. Clement XI (1700-21) 245. Innocent XIII (1721-24) 246. Benedict XIII (1724-30) 247. Clement XII (1730-40) 248. Benedict XIV (1740-58) 249. Clement XIII (1758-69) 250. Clement XIV (1769-74) 251. Pius VI (1775-99) 252. Pius VII (1800-23) 253. Leo XII (1823-29) 254. Pius VIII (1829-30) 255. Gregory XVI (1831-46) 256. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78) 257. Leo XIII (1878-1903) 258. St. Pius X (1903-14) 259. Benedict XV (1914-22) 260. Pius XI (1922-39) 261. Pius XII (1939-58) 262. Blessed John XXIII (1958-63) 263. Paul VI (1963-78) 264. John Paul I (1978) 265. John Paul II (1978--) St. Poppo St. Poppo Abbot, born 977; died at Marchiennes, 25 January, 1048. He belonged to a noble family of Flanders; his parents were Tizekinus and Adalwif. About the year 1000 he made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land with two others of his countrymen. Soon after this he also went on a pilgrimage to Rome. He was about to marry a lady of noble family, when an impressive experience led him to seek another mode of life. As he was journeying late at night a flame burst forth over his head and his lance radiated a brilliant light. He believed this to be an illumination of the Holy Spirit, and soon after, 1005, he entered the monastery of St. Thierry at Reims. About 1008 Abbot Richard of St. Vannes at Verdun, who was a zealous reformer of monasteries in the spirit of the reform of Cluny, took Poppo with him to his monastery. Richard made Poppo prior of St. Vaast d'Arras, in the Diocese of Cambrai, about 1013. Here Poppo proved himself to be the right man for the position, reclaimed the lands of the monastery from the rapacious vassals, and secured the possession of the monastery by deeds. Before 1016 he was appointed to the same position at Vasloges (Beloacum, Beaulieu) in the Diocese of Verdun. In 1020 the Emperor Henry II, who had become acquainted with Poppo in 1016, made him abbot of the royal Abbeys of Stablo (in Lower Lorraine, now Belgium) and Malmedy. Richard was very unwilling to lose him. Poppo also received in 1023 the Abbey of St. Maximin at Trier, and his importance became still greater during the reign of Conrad II. From St. Maximin the Cluniac reform now found its way into the German monasteries. The emperor placed one royal monastery after another under Poppo's control or supervision, as Limburg an der Hardt, Echternach, St. Gislen, Weissenburg, St. Gall, Hersfeld, Waulsort, and Hostières. In the third decade of the century Poppo gave these positions as abbot to his pupils. The bishops and laymen who had founded monasteries placed a series of other monasteries under his care, as St. Laurence at Liège, St. Vincent at Metz, St. Eucharius at Trier, Hohorst, Brauweiler, St. Vaast, Marchiennes, etc. However, the Cluniac reform had at the time no permanent success in Germany, because the monks were accustomed to a more independent and individual way of action and raised opposition. After 1038 the German court no longer supported the reform. Personally Poppo practised the most severe asceticism. He had no interest in literary affairs, and also lacked the powers of organization and centralization. Neither was he particularly prominent in politics, and in the reign of Henry III he was no longer a person of importance. Death overtook him while he was on a journey on behalf of his efforts at monastic reform. His funeral took place in the presence of a great concourse of people at Stablo. KLEMENS LÖFFLER Popular Devotions Popular Devotions Devotion, in the language of ascetical writers, denotes a certain ardour of affection in the things of God, and even without any qualifying prefix it generally implies that this ardour is of a sensible character. On the other hand, by the term "devotions" in the plural, or "popular devotions", we commonly understand those external practices of piety by which the devotion of the faithful finds life and expression. The efficacy of these practices in eliciting feelings of devotion is derived from four principal sources, either 1. by the strong appeal which they make to man's emotional instincts, or 2. by the simplicity of form which puts them within the reach of all, or 3. by the stimulus of association with many others in the same good work, or 4. by their derivation from the example of pious persons who are venerated for their holiness. No doubt other reasons besides these might be found why this or that exercise brings with it a certain spiritual unction which stimulates and comforts the soul in the practice of virtue, but the points just mentioned are the most noteworthy, and in the more familiar of our popular devotions all these four influences will be found united. Historically speaking, our best known devotions have nearly all originated from the imitation of some practice peculiar to the religious orders or to a specially privileged class, and consequently owe most of their vogue to the fourth of the influences just mentioned. The Rosary, for instance, is admitted by all to have been known in its earliest form as "Our Lady's Psalter". At a time when the recitation of the whole hundred and fifty Psalms was a practice inculcated upon the religious orders and upon persons of education, simpler folk, unable to read, or wanting the necessary leisure, recited instead of the Psalms a hundred and fifty Pater nosters or supplied their place more expeditiously still by a hundred and fifty Hail Marys said as salutations of Our Lady. The Rosary is thus a miniature Psalter. Again, at a time when the most ardent desires of Christendom centred in the Holy Land, and when lovers of the Crucified gladly faced all hardships in the attempt to visit the scenes of the Saviour's Passion, those unable to accomplish such a journey strove to find an equivalent by following Christ's footsteps to Calvary at least in spirit. The exercise of the Stations of the Cross thus formed a miniature pilgrimage. Similarly, the wearing of a scapular or a girdle was a form of investiture for people living in the world, by which they might put on the livery of a particular religious institute; in other words, it was a miniature habit. Or again, those who coveted the merits attaching to the recitation of the day and night hours of the clergy and the monks supplied their place by various miniature Offices of devotion, of which the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin and the Hours of the Passion were the most familiar. Even devotions which at first sight suggest nothing of imitation prove on closer scrutiny to be illustrations of the same principle. The triple Hail Mary of the Angelus probably owes its actual form to the Tres preces said by the monastic orders at Prime and Complin as far back as the eleventh century, while our familiar Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament has almost certainly developed out of an imitation of the musical rendering of the antiphons of Our Lady, notably the Salve Regina, which to the popular taste were the most attractive feature of the monastic office. To classify these practices of piety, and especially those others which concern the observance of special times and seasons, for example, the consecration of the month of May to Our Lady, or of the month of June to the Sacred Heart, is not easy; for the pious ingenuity of the faithful is fertile in new devices, and it is difficult to decide what degree of acceptance warrants us in regarding a new devotion as legitimately established. The dedication of May and June just referred to, and that of November to the Holy Souls, is recognized everywhere, but there is far less unanimity about the consecration of October, for example, to the honour of the Guardian Angels. This devotion is no doubt indicated in many prayer books, but it has been in a measure obscured of late years by the special papal commendation of the Rosary in October, while Indulgences are also granted for the novena and other exercises in honour of St. Francis of Assisi during the same month. We may note that the consecration of March to St. Joseph, of September to the Seven Dolours, and, less directly, that of July to the Precious Blood, are also recognized by the grant of indulgences. Again, there are other devotions whose popularity has been limited to certain periods or certain localities. For example, the various sets of "Little Offices" (e.g. of the Passion or of the Blessed Trinity), which occupy so much space in the printed Horæ and Primers of the early sixteenth century, are hardly heard of at present. The "Seven Blood-Sheddings" or the "Seven Falls" of our Blessed Lord, once so much honoured, have now passed out of recollection. Similarly the exercise of the Jesus Psalter, which was incredibly dear to our ancestors in the old penal days, seems never to have spread beyond English-speaking countries and has never been indulgenced. On the other hand, the prevalence of more frequent Communion since the sixteenth century has introduced many new practices of devotion unknown in the Middle Ages. The Six Sundays of St. Aloysius, the Five Sundays of St. Francis's Stigmata, the Seven Sundays of the Immaculate Conception, the Seven Sundays of St. Joseph, the Ten Sundays of St. Francis Xavier, the Ten Sundays of St. Ignatius Loyola, and especially the nine Fridays in honour of the Sacred Heart are all in various degrees authorized and familiar. And, as these last examples suggest, there is everywhere a tendency to multiply imitations. We have now not one Rosary, but many rosaries or chaplets (of which imitations perhaps the best known is the Rosary of the Seven Dolours), not one scapular but many scapulars, not one "miraculous medal" but several. Neither must we always expect to find consistency. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Seven Dolours and Seven Joys of Our Lady were commonly Five Dolours and Five Joys (see "Analecta Bollandiana", 1893, p. 333), while this last reckoning probably owed much to the great popularity of the devotion to the Five Wounds. On the other hand, indulgences, which may be found in the Raccolta, have been granted to certain prayers in honour of the Seven Sorrows and Seven Joys of St. Joseph. It must not, however, be supposed that devotional extravagances are suffered to multiply unchecked. Although the Holy See as a rule refrains from intervention, except when abuses are directly denounced to it (the practice being in such matters to leave the repression of what is unseemly or fantastic to the local ordinary), still, every now and again, where some theological principle is involved, action is taken by one of the Roman Congregations, and some objectionable practice is prohibited. Not very long since, for example, the propagation of a particular form of prayer was forbidden in connexion with the so-called "Brief of St. Anthony". The history of the slow recognition by the Church of the devotion to the Sacred Heart might very well serve as an illustration of the caution with which the Holy See proceeds in matters where there is question of any theological principle. The precise number of Christ's blood-sheddings, or of Mary's joys, the fashion or colour of scapulars, medals, or badges, the veneration of Our Lady under one particular invocation rather than another, are obviously matters of subordinate importance in which no great harm can result if some measure of freedom is allowed to the pious imagination of the faithful. No good purpose would be served by attempting a catalogue of approved Catholic devotions. It may be sufficient to note that the list of indulgenced prayers and practices provided in the Raccolta or in the larger works of Beringer and Mocchegiani afford a sufficient practical indication of the measure in which such practices are recognized and recommended by the Church. Most of the principal devotions are dealt with separately in THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, whether we regard different objects and motives of devotion==such as the Blessed Sacrament (See EUCHARIST), the Passion, the Five Wounds, the Sacred Heart, the Seven Dolours, and, in a word, the principal mysteries and festivals==or, again, devotional practices==e.g., the Angelus, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, the Rosary, the Stations of the Cross==or, again, confraternities and associations identified with particular forms of devotion==e.g., the Confraternity of the Bon Mors or that of the Holy Family. There seems to be no authoritative general work on popular devotions, but for the Indulgences and some historical details connected with them see MOCCHEGIANI, Collectio Indulgentiarum (Quaracchi, 1897); BERINGER, Die Ablässe (many editions and a French and Italian translation); LÉPICIER, Indulgences, tr. (London, 1906). Several of the more familiar popular devotions have been treated historically by the present writer in The Month (1900 and 1901). HERBERT THURSTON Overpopulation Theories Theories of Population Down to the end of the eighteenth century, very little attention was given to the relation between increase of population and increase of subsistence. Plato (De republica, V) and Aristotle (De republica, II, vi) maintained, indeed, that in a communistic society marriage and the birth of children ought to be regulated and restricted by law, lest the means of support should be insufficient for all the citizens; and in some of the city-states of ancient Greece, abortion, unnatural love, and infanticide were deliberately recommended and practised for the same general end. As a rule, however, the nations of antiquity as well as those of the medieval period regarded the indefinite increase of the population as a public good, since it multiplied the number of the country's fighting men. In the words of Frederick the Great, "the number of the population constitutes the wealth of the State". Before his time over-population had not occurred in any civilized country, or at least in had not been recognized as such. It was prevented or disguised by disease, plagues, wars, and various forms of economic hardship; by fixed and simple standards of living; and by customs which adjusted the marriage rate, and consequently the rate of reproduction, to the contemporary planes of living and supplies of food. The Mercantilists, whose opinions on economic matters were widely accepted in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, agreed with the military statesmen that increase of population was an unqualified blessing; while the Physiocrats of the eighteenth century were less confident, some of them insisting that shortage of food was a possibility that ought to be taken into account by a nation, none of them conceived the problem as of pressing importance, or dealt with it in an extended and systematic way. Several other writers, such as Montesquieu, Hume, Steuart,Wallace, Arthur Young, and Julius Möser, who had recognized the existence and general nature of the problem, likewise failed to discuss it thoroughly. This was true even of Adam Smith. Although he noted the fact that increase of population among the poorer classes is checked by scarcity of subsistence ("Wealth of Nations", London, 1776, I, viii), he did not develop the thought or draw any practical conclusions therefrom. Writing when the great industrial inventions were just beginning to indicate an enlargement of the means of living, when the new political and economic freedom seemed to promise the release and expansion of an immense amount of productive energy, and under the influence of a philosophical theory which held that the "unseen hand" of Providence would so direct the new powers and aspirations that all classes would have abundant sustenance, Smith was an unqualified optimist. He believed that the pressure of population upon subsistence had become a thing of the past. The first author to deal systematically with the problem was Gianmaria Ortes, a Venetian friar, in a work entitled, "Reflessioni sulla populazione per rapporto all' economia nazionale." It appeared in 1790, eight years before the first edition of Malthus's famous work. According to Nitti: "Some pages of Ortes seem quite similar to those of Malthus; he comprehended the entire question, the geometrical progression of the population, the arithmetical progression of the means of subsistence, the preventive action of man, and the repressive action of nature" (Population and the Social System, p. 8). However, his book lacked the confident tone and the statistical arguments of Malthus; consequently it was soon overshadowed by the latter's production, and the Anglican divine instead of the Venetian friar became the sponsor of the world's best-known and most pessimistic theory of population. THE THEORY OF MALTHUS In the twenty-two years that had intervened between the appearance of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" and the "Essay on the Principle of Population" (London, 1798) of the Rev. Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), the French Revolution had caused the downfall of the old social system, without improving the condition of the French people; a succession of bad harvests had impoverished the agricultural districts of England, while her credit had become so impaired by the recent wars as to render very difficult the importation of supplies from abroad. On the other hand, the rapid development of the textile and other industries through the recent mechanical inventions had called new towns into existence, and greatly stimulated the increase of population; the system of public allowances of money to all pauper children encouraged improvident marriages among the poorer classes. Although there had been a considerable increase in the national wealth as a whole, the working classes had received none of the benefit. Increased production seemed to mean a disproportionate increase in population, and a decrease in the subsistence of the poor. The obvious objection, that this condition was attributable to bad distribution rather than to insufficient production, had indeed come to the attention of Malthus. In some degree his book was an answer to that very objection. William Godwin, a disciple of the French revolutionary philosophers, chiefly in his work "Political Justice", had been defending the theory that all the evils of society arose from defective social institutions, and that there was more than enough wealth for all, if it were only distributed equally. Malthus replied to this position with his "Essay on the Principle of Population". His thesis was that population constantly tends to outrun subsistence, but that it is held in check by vice===abortion, infanticide, prostitution, and by misery in the form of war, plague, famine, and unnecessary disease. If all persons were provided with sufficient sustenance, and these checks removed, the relief would be only temporary; for the increase of marriages and births would soon produce a population far in excess of the food supply. The first edition of Malthus's work had, therefore, a definite polemical purpose, the refutation of a communistic scheme of society. Its arguments were general and popular rather than systematic or scientific. They were based upon facts easily observed, and upon what the average man would expect to happen if vice and misery ceased to operate as checks to population. As a popular refutation of the theories of Godwin, the book was a success, but its author soon began a deeper inquiry into the facts from which he had drawn his conclusions. The result of his labours was the appearance in 1803 of a second edition of the "Essay", which differed so much in size and content from the first as to constitute, in the words of Malthus himself, "a new work". In the first chapter of the new edition he declared that "the constant tendency of all animated life to increase beyond the nourishment prepared for it" (p. 2) had not hitherto received sufficient attention. Before attempting to prove the existence of this tendency, he inquired what would be "the natural increase of population if left to exert itself in perfect freedom...under the most favourable circumstances of human industry" (p. 4). On the basis of the history of North America during the century and a half preceding 1800, and from the opinions of some economists, he concluded that "population when unchecked goes on doubling itself every 25 years, or increases in a geometrical ratio" (p. 6). A brief examination of the possibilities of food increase convinced him that this could never be "faster than in an arithmetical ratio" (p. 10). Applying these conclusions to England with its 11,000,000 inhabitants in 1800, he found that the natural result at the end of the nineteenth century would be a population of 176,000,000, and subsistence for only 55,000,000 (ibid.). The remainder of the first volume is occupied with an account of the positive checks, that is, vice and misery, which had hitherto concealed this disastrous discrepancy between population and subsistence in the various countries of the world. In the second volume he discusses the means which have been proposed to prevent an undue increase of population, and, therefore, to render unnecessary the action of the positive checks. Some of the means that he recommended were abstention from public provision for the encouragement of population increase and for the relief of the poor, and abolition of existing laws of this kind, especially the Poor Law of England. But his chief recommendation was the practice of what he called "moral restraint". That is, persons who were unable to maintain a family properly should live in chaste celibacy until such time as they had overcome this economic disability (bk. IV, passim). In the new edition of his work, consequently, Malthus not merely pointed out a new check to population, but advocated it, in order to prevent and forestall the operation of the cruel and immoral checks automatically set in motion by vice and misery. Criticism of the Malthusian Theory The theory may be briefly characterized thus: In its most extreme and abstract form it is false; in its more moderate form it never has been and never can be demonstrated; even if true, it is so hypothetical, and subject to so many disturbing factors, that it is of no practical value or importance. It is, of course, abstractly or theoretically possible that population may exceed subsistence, either temporarily and locally, or permanently and universally. This possibility has been frequently realized among savage peoples, and occasionally among civilized peoples, as in the case of famine. But the theory of Malthus implies something more than an abstract possibility or a temporary and local actuality. It asserts that population shows a constant tendency to outrun the food supply, a tendency, therefore, that is always about to pass into a reality if it is not counteracted. In all the six editions of his work that appeared during Malthus's lifetime, this tendency is described in the formula that population tends to increase in geometrical progression, as, 2, 4, 8, etc., while the utmost increase in subsistence that can be expected is according to an arithmetical ratio, as, 2, 3, 4, etc. So far as we know, population has never increased in geometrical ratio through any considerable period; but we cannot show that such an increase, by natural means, is physiologically impossible. All that it implies is that every married couple should have on the average four children, who would themselves marry and have the same number of children to each couple, and that this ratio should be kept up indefinitely. It is not, however, true that the means of living can be increased only in an arithmetical ratio. During the nineteenth century this ratio was considerably exceeded in many countries (cf. Wells, "Recent Economic Changes"). Malthus's view on this point was based upon a rather limited knowledge of what had been happening before his time. He did not foresee the great improvements in production and transportation which, a few years later, so greatly augmented the means of subsistence in every civilized country. In other words he compared the potential fecundity of man, the limits of which were fairly well known, with the potential fertility of the earth and the potential achievements of human invention, neither of which was known even approximately. This was a bad method, and its outcome in the hands of Malthus was a false theory. Even if we discard the mathematical formulation of the theory, and examine it in its more moderate form, as merely asserting that population tends to outrun subsistence, we find that the theory cannot be proved. The facts adduced by Malthus in support of his contention related to the insufficiency of the food supply in many countries at many different times. Now it is true that barbarous peoples and peoples dependent upon fishing and hunting for a living have frequently lacked subsistence, especially when they were unable or unwilling to emigrate; but such has not often been the case for any considerable time among civilized nations. Want of food among the latter has usually been due to a bad industrial organization and a bad distribution, rather than to the poverty of nature, or the unproductiveness of man. Even today a large proportion of the inhabitants of every country is insufficiently nourished, but no intelligent person attributes this condition to an absolute excess of population over subsistence or productiveness. Since Malthus did not give sufficient attention to the evils of distribution, he failed to prove that his theory was generally true, even of the time before he wrote; since he did not suspect the great improvements in production that were soon to take place, he was still less able to show that it would be universally valid. While admitting the weakness of his argument, some of his later followers insist that the theory is true in a general way. Population, if unchecked by a prudential regulation of marriages and births, can and in all probability often will outrun subsistence, owing to the law of diminishing returns (cf. Hadley, "Economics"). Although Malthus seems to have had some knowledge of this law, he did not use it as the basis of his conclusions. Now the "law of diminishing returns" is simply the phrase by which economists describe the well-known fact that a man cannot go on indefinitely increasing the amount of capital and labour that he expends upon a piece of land, and continue to get profitable returns. Sooner or later a point is reached where the product of the latest increment of expenditure is less than the expenditure itself. This point has already been reached in many regions, whence a part of the population is compelled to move to other land. When it has been reached everywhere, population will universally exceed subsistence. Stated in this form, Malthusianism seems to be irrefutable. Nevertheless the law of diminishing returns, like all economic laws, is true only in certain conditions. Change the conditions, in this case, the methods of production, and the law is no longer operative. With new productive processes, further expenditures of labour and capital become profitable, and the point of diminishing returns is moved farther away. This fact has received frequent illustration in the history of agriculture and mining. While it is true that new methods are not always discovered as soon as they are needed, and that men often find it more profitable to expend their additional resources upon new lands than upon the old, it is also true that we can set no definite limits to the inventive power of man, nor to the potential fertility of nature. Absolutely speaking, no one is warranted in asserting that these two forces will not be able to modify indefinitely the conditions in which the law of diminishing returns operates, so that subsistence will keep pace with population as long as men have standing room upon the earth. On the other hand, we cannot prove that if population were to increase up to the full limit of its physiological possibilities, it would always be sufficiently provided for by the fertility of nature and the inventiveness of man. We are dealing here with three unknown quantities. Upon such a basis it is impossible either to establish a social law, or conclusively to refute any particular generalization that may be set up. In the third place, the Malthusian theory, even if true, is of no practical use. The assurance that population, if unchecked, will inevitably press upon subsistence does not terrify us, when we realize that it always has been checked, by celibacy, late marriages, war, natural calamities, and other forces which are not due to scarcity of subsistence. The practical question for any people is whether these non-scarcity checks are likely to keep population within the limits of that people's productive resources. So far as the nations of the Western world are concerned, this question may be answered in the affirmative. The use of preventive checks, such as postponement of marriage, abortion, and artificial sterility have become so common that the birth-rate has almost everywhere decreased within the last half-century, and there is no indication of a reaction in the near future. During the same period the rate of food production has considerably increased. Moreover, the decline in the birth-rate has been most pronounced among those classes whose subsistence is most ample, thus suggesting the probability that it will become equally prevalent among the poorer classes as soon as their plane of living is raised. The contingency that men may some day become so careless of the higher standards of comfort as to give up the present methods of restriction is too remote to justify anxiety on the part of this generation. Let us assume, however, that, under the influence of religion and moral teaching, all the immoral preventives of population were discarded. Even so, we have no reason to doubt that the lawful checks, such as virtuous celibacy both temporary and permanent, and the decrease of fecundity that seems to be a necessary incident of modern life, particularly in cities, would be sufficient to keep the world's inhabitants well within the bounds of its productive powers. So far as we can see at present, the Malthusian theory, even if true in the abstract and hypothetically, is so hypothetical, assumes the absence of so many factors which are always likely to be present, that it is not deserving of serious attention, except as a means of intellectual exercise. As a law of population, it is about as valuable as many of the other laws handed down by the classical economists. It is about as remote from reality as the "economic man". And yet, this theory met with immediate and almost universal acceptance. The book in which it was expounded went through six editions while Malthus was living, and exerted a remarkable influence upon economics, sociology, and legislation during the first half of the nineteenth century. Aside from a section of the Socialists, the most important group of writers rejecting the Malthusian theory have been Catholic economists, such as Liberatore, Devas, Pesch, Antoine (cf. Pesch, "Lehrbuch der Nationalökonomie", II, 598). Being pessimistic and individualistic, the teaching of Malthus agreed thoroughly with the temper and ideas of his time. Distress was deep and general, and the political and economic theories of the day favoured the policy of laissez faire. To him perhaps more than to any other writer is due the evil repute of the orthodox economists, as opponents of legislation in the interests of the poorer classes. In the words of Devas, "Malthusianism in practice has been a grave discouragement to all works of social reform and humane legislation, which appeared as foolish sentiment defeating its kind aims by encouraging population" (Political Economy, 2nd ed., p. 198). Malthus declared that the poor created their own poverty by marrying improvidently, and that any general system of poor relief only increased and prolonged the root evil, overpopulation, from which they suffered (Essay bk. IV, passim). Although he had a genuine sympathy for the poor, and believed that the practice of "moral restraint" in postponing or foregoing marriage was the one means of bettering their condition permanently, his teaching received the cordial approbation of the wealthier classes, because it tended to relieve them of "responsibility for the condition of the working classes, by showing that the latter had chiefly themselves to blame, and not either the negligence of their superiors or the institutions of the country" (Ingram, "History of Political Economy", p. 121). His more recent followers among the economists realize that an improvement in the condition of the masses is apt to encourage a lower birth-rate, consequently they are not opposed to all measures for improvement by legislation. Many of them, however, have exaggerated the social and moral benefits of a low birth-rate, and have implicitly approved the immoral and destructive practices upon which it depends. The irony of the situation is that preventive checks, moral and immoral, have been adopted for the most part by the rich and comfortable classes, who, in the opinion of Malthus, were not called upon to make any personal contribution to the limitation of population. The most notable results of the work and teaching of Malthus may be summed up as follows: he contributed absolutely nothing of value to human knowledge or welfare. The facts which he described and the remedies which he proposed had long been sufficiently obvious and sufficiently known. While he emphasized and in a striking way drew attention to the possibility of general overpopulation he greatly exaggerated it, and thus misled and misdirected public opinion. Had he been better informed, and seen the facts of population in their true relations, he would have realized that the proper remedies were to be sought in better social and industrial arrangements, a better distribution of wealth, and improved moral and religious education. As things have happened, his teaching has directly or indirectly led to a vast amount of social error, negligence, suffering, and immorality. Neo-Malthusianism In a sense this system is the extreme logical outcome of Malthusianism proper. While Malthus would have turned in horror from the practices of the newer theory, his own recommendations were much less effective as a means to the common end of both systems. The Neo-Malthusians realize better than he did, that if population is to be deliberately restricted to the desired extent, other methods than chaste abstention from or postponement of marriage are necessary. Hence they urge married couples to use artificial and immoral devices for preventing conception. Some of the most prominent leaders of this movement were Robert Dale Owen, John Stuart Mill, Charles Bradlaugh, and Annie Besant. With them deserve to be associated many economists and sociologists who implicitly advocate the same practices, inasmuch as they glorify an indefinitely expanding standard of comfort, and urge limitation of offspring as the one certain means whereby the labour of the poorest paid workers may be made scarce and dear. Some of the Neo-Malthusian leaders in England maintained that they were merely recommending to the poor what the rich denounced but secretly practiced. In common with the older theory from which it derives its name, Neo-Malthusianism assumes that population if unchecked will exceed subsistence, but by subsistence it means a liberal, or even a progressively rising, standard of comfort. In all probability this contention is correct, at least, in the latter form; for all the indications are against the supposition that the earth can furnish an indefinitely rising standard of comfort for a population that continues to increase up to the full measure of its physiological capacity. On the other hand, the practices and the consequences of the system are far more futile, deceptive, and disastrous than those of Malthusianism. The practices are intrinsically immoral, implying as they do either foeticide, or the perversion of natural faculties and functions, to say nothing of their injurious effect upon physical health. The condition aimed at, namely, the small family or no children at all, fosters a degree of egotism and enervating self-indulgence which lessens very considerably the capacity for social service, altruism, and every form of industrial and intellectual achievement. Hence the economists, sociologists, and physicians of France condemn the low birth-rate and the small family as a grave national and social evil. On the industrial side, Neo-Malthusianism soon defeats its own end; for increased selfishness and decreased stimulus to labour are naturally followed by a smaller output of product. If the restriction of offspring were confined to the poorer classes, their labour would indeed become scarce relatively to the higher kinds of labour, and their wages would rise, provided that their productivity were not diminished through deterioration of character. As a fact, however, the comfortable classes adopt the method much more generally than do the poor, with the result that the excessive supply of unskilled labour is increased rather than diminished. Where all classes are addicted to the practice, the oversupply of unskilled labour remains relatively unchanged. The wages of all classes in France are lower than in Germany, England, or the United States (cf. Fifteenth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labour). Finally, a constantly rising standard of comfort secured by the practices and in the moral atmosphere of Neo-Malthusianism means not a higher but a lower plane of life; not more genuine culture or loftier morals, but more abundant physical enjoyments and a more refined materialism. OTHER THEORIES OF POPULATION Rodbertus, Marx, Engels, Bebel, and possibly a majority of the Socialists who have considered the problem, either deny a general tendency to excessive population, or maintain that it is realized only in capitalistic society. Under Socialism there would be ample sustenance for the greatest possible increase in population, or, at any rate, for whatever increase that form of society would decide to have. Now it is quite unlikely that a Socialistic organization of production, with its lessened incentives to inventive and productive energy, would be able to provide means of living adequate to the full capacity of human fecundity; and a universally and continuously rising standard of comfort would be subject to all the physical, moral, and intellectual hindrances and consequences which beset the suicidal system of Neo-Malthusianism. A respectable minority of economists (in this connection frequently known as "optimists") have rejected the Malthusian theory from the beginning. Among the most prominent are, Bastiat in France, List (1789-1846) in Germany, and Henry C. Carey in America. In a general way they all maintained that in proper social and industrial arrangements population will never exceed subsistence. This was likewise the position of Henry George, whose attack upon the theory of Malthus is probably more familiar to Americans than that of any other writer (cf. Progress and Poverty). Carey, whose father, Matthew Carey, the Philadelphia publisher, was a Catholic, based his view partly upon his belief in Providence, and partly upon the assumption that in every country the richest lands and land powers remain undeveloped longest; List pointed out that thickly-populated lands are frequently more prosperous than those with relatively few inhabitants, and that we have no good reason to set limits to the capacity of the earth, which could undoubtedly support many times its present population; and Bastiat, who had already observed the artificial restriction of the birth-rate in his own country, seems to have concluded that the same thing would happen in other countries whenever subsistence tended to fall below the existing standards of living. Although there is some exaggeration and uncertainty in all these positions, they are undoubtedly nearer the truth than the assumptions of Malthus. What may be called the evolutionist theory of population was originated and incompletely stated by Charles Darwin, and developed by Herbert Spencer. In the latter form it has been adopted substantially by many biologists and sociologists. Although it was a chance reading of Malthus's work that suggested to Darwin the idea of the struggle for existence, the Spencerian theory of population is on the whole opposed to the Malthusian. According to Spencer, the process of natural selection, which involves the destruction of a large proportion of the lower organisms, increases individuality and decreases fecundity in the more developed species, especially in man. At length, population becomes automatically adjusted to subsistence at that level which is consonant with the highest progress. With regard to the future, this theory is extremely optimistic, but it is not more probable or any more capable of proof than his prophecy concerning the future identification of egoism and altruism. On the basis of painstaking research and abundant statistics, M. Arsène Dumont concluded that Malthusianism is theoretically false and practically worthless, and that the only valuable generalizations about the relation of population to subsistence are those which concern a particular country, epoch, civilization, or form of society (cf. Nitti, op. cit.). In a democratic society, he says, the real danger is excessive limitation of the birth-rate by all classes, even the lowest. When privileged classes and social stratifications have disappeared, the members of every class strive to raise themselves above their present condition by restricting the number of their offspring. So far as it goes, this theory is a correct explanation of certain existing tendencies, but, as Father Pesch observes in reply to P. Leroy-Beaulieu, the true remedy for the French conditions is not monarchy but the Christian religion and moral teaching (op. cit., II, 639). The theory of Nitti has a considerable similarity to that of Spencer, but the Italian sociologist expects the deliberate action of man, rather than any decrease in human fecundity, to conform population to subsistence in any society in which wealth is justly distributed, individuality strongly developed, and individual activity maintained at a high level of efficiency (op. cit.). He repudiates, however, the egotistic and socially demoralizing "prudence" which is so generally practised today for the limitation of the size of families. Nevertheless, it is utterly unlikely that the sane regulation which he desires will be obtained without the active and universal influence of religion. With this condition added, his theory seems to be the most reasonable of all those considered in this article, and does not greatly differ from that of the Catholic economists. The latter, as we have already noted, reject the Malthusian theory and the interpretation of social facts upon which it is founded. Taking as typical the views of Devas in England, Antoine in France, Perin in Belgium, Liberatore in Italy, and Pesch in Germany (see works cited below) we may describe their views in the following terms. Where production is effectively organized, and wealth justly distributed; where the morals of the people render them industrious, frugal, averse to debilitating comforts, and willing to refrain from all immoral practices in the conjugal relation; where a considerable proportion of the people embrace the condition of religious celibacy, others live chastely and yet defer marriage for a longer or shorter period, and many emigrate whenever the population of any region becomes congested===undue pressure of population upon subsistence will never occur except locally and temporarily. Probably this is as comprehensive, and at the same time as correct a generalization as can be formulated. It may be reduced to the summary statement of Father Pesch: "Where the quality of a people is safeguarded, there need be no fear for its quantity" (op. cit., II, 624). Take care of the quality, says the learned Jesuit, and the quantity will take care of itself. Be anxious about the quantity, say the Malthusians and all the advocates of the small family, lest the quality deteriorate. It is less than eighty years since Malthus died, and a considerably shorter time has elapsed since the restriction of births became in any sense general; yet the number is rapidly increasing everywhere of thoughtful men who see that the Western world is confronted by "a problem not of excessive fecundity, but of race suicide" (Seligman, "Principles of Economics", 65). MALTHUS, An Essay on the Principle of Population (London, 1826); NITTI, Population and the Social System (tr. London, 1894); INGRAM, A History of Political Economy (New York, 1894); DEVAS, Political Economy (London, 1901); HADLEY, Economics (New York, 1898); SELIGMAN, Principles of Economics (New York, 1905); LIBERATORE, Principles of Political Economy (tr. London, 1891); ANTOINE, Cours d'économie sociale (Paris, 1899); PERIN, Premiers principes d'économie politique (Paris, 1896); PESCH, Lehrbuch der Nationalökonomie (Freiburg, 1909); FAHLBECK, Neomalthusianismus in Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft, VI (1903). JOHN A. RYAN Giovanni Antonio Pordenone Giovanni Antonio Pordenone Italian painter, b. at Pordenone, 1483; d. at Ferrara, January, 1539. He is occasionally referred to by his family name Licinio, at times as Regillo, but usually as Pordenone, from his birthplace, and by that name some of his works are signed. He is believed to have been a pupil of Pellegrino da San Daniello. Most of the information respecting him is derived from Carlo Ridolfi, who states that Pordenone's first commission was given him by a grocer in his native town, to try his boast that he could paint a picture as the priest commenced High Mass, and complete it by the time Mass was over. He is said to have executed the given commission in the required time. Most of his early work is to be found in the form of fresco decoration in the churches around Pordenone, where he spent most of his time. There he married twice. His work was in great demand in Mantua, Cremona, Treviso, and Spilimbergo, where his rich and elaborate fresco work, as well as decorations for the fronts of organs, and altar-pieces, are found. About 1529 he went to Venice, but little of his work remains in that city, save the two panels representing St. Christopher and St. Martin in the church of Saint Rocco. He then journeyed to Piacenza, Genoa, Ferrara, and other places, doing fresco decoration, and receiving warm welcome at each place. Returning to his native city, he received the honour of knighthood from King John of Hungary, and from that time was frequently styled "Regillo". In 1536 he was again in Venice, carrying out some commissions for the Council of Ten, and decorating the ceilings of three of their halls. These works were so thoroughly approved that further commissions were given him by the Senate, but unfortunately everything carried out by Pordenone at that time has perished. From Venice he went to Ferrara, to execute certain commissions for Ercole II, Duke of Ferrara, but he was there a short time when he died. Rumours were that he had been poisoned by one of the Ferrarese artists, who was jealous of his reputation, but other reports state that he caught a severe chill after eating, and a third statement says that he died from an epidemic at that time raging in the city. A contemporary artist, however, gives his family name as Cuticello and not Licinio. He states definitely that the artist was poisoned by Ferrarese artists at the Angel Inn, Ferrara. His tomb is in the church of San Paolo in Ferrara. Better than most of his contemporaries, he was acquainted with the laws of perspective, and his fresco work is always well drawn, learned, agreeable, and pleasant. He possessed great facility and considerable power of originality, and being a man of strong and very determined religious opinions, devoted himself heartily to church decoration, and carried it out with exceedingly fine results. There was a strong competition between him and Titian in Venice, and there are statements in Venetian MSS. of the time which imply that certain works of Pordenone's were intentionally destroyed by persons who were jealous of the honour and position of Titian. At the present day, to understand his painting, it is necessary to visit the various churches round Pordenone, as the quality of his workmanship cannot be appreciated from the few frescoes which remain in Venice, nor from the small number of easel pictures which can be attributed to him with any definite authority. He had many pupils who copied his work cleverly, and who probably did most of the smaller pictures attributed to him. Perhaps his finest are those in the cathedrals of San Daniele, Spilimbergo, Treviso, and Cremona; in Munich there is a portrait of himself with his pupils, and there is another of himself in a private gallery in Rome. He appears to have founded his ideas in Venice very much on those of Giorgione and Titian, but in the cathedrals already mentioned his work is more natural and original. RIDOLFI, Le Maraviglie dell'Arte (Venice, 1648), and the Mottensi MS., in the Venice Library. GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Odoric of Pordenone Odoric of Pordenone A Franciscan missionary of a Czech family named Mattiussi, born at Villanova near Pordenone, Friuli, Italy, about 1286; died at Udine, 14 Jan., 1331. About 1300 he entered the Franciscan Order at Udine. Towards the middle of the thirteenth century the Franciscans were commissioned by the Holy See to undertake missionary work in the interior of Asia. Among the missionaries sent there were John Piano Carpini, William Rubruquis, and John of Montecorvino. Odoric was called to follow them, and in April, 1318, started from Padua, crossed the Black Sea to Trebizond, went through Persia by way of the Tauris, Sultaniah, where in 1318 John XXII had erected an archbishopric, Kasham, Yezd, and Persepolis; he also visited Farsistan, Khuzistan, and Chaldea, and then went back to the Persian Gull. From Hormuz he went to Tana on the Island of Salsette, north of Bombay. Here he gathered the remains of Thomas of Tolentino, Jacopo of Padua, Pietro of Siena, and Demetrius of Tiflis, Franciscans who, a short time before, had suffered martyrdom, and took them with him so as to bury them in China. From Salsette he went to Malabar, Fondaraina (Flandrina) that lies north of Calicut, then to Cranganore that is south of Calicut, along the Coromandel Coast, then to Meliapur (Madras) and Ceylon. He then passed the Nicobar Islands on his way to Lamori, a kingdom of Sumoltra (Sumatra); he also visited Java, Banjarmasin on the southern coast of Borneo, and Tsiompa (Champa) in the southern part of Cochin China, and finally reached Canton in China. From Canton he travelled to Zaitoum, the largest Chinese seaport in the Middle Ages, and Che-kiang, and went overland by way of Fu-cheu, the capital of the province of Fokien, to Quinsay (Hangcheufu), celebrated by Marco Polo. He remained in China and went to Nanking, Yangchufu, and finally travelled by the great canal and the Hwangho River to Khan-balig or Peking, the capital of the Great Khan. At that time the aged Montecorvino was still archbishop in Peking, where Odoric remained three years. On his return journey he went overland by way of Chan-si through Tibet, from there apparently by way of Badachschan to the Tauris and Armenia, reaching home in 1330. In May, 1330, at the request of his superior, Guidotto, Odoric dictated an account of his travels to Brother William of Solagna while at the monastery of St. Anthony at Padua. According to another version Henry of Glatz, who was at that time staying at the papal court at Avignon, made notes of the accounts given by Odoric's travelling companions and wrote them out at Prague in 1340. Unfortunately Odoric accepted many fabulous stories and for a long period it was doubted whether he had really seen all the places and regions he described. His narrative, though, is veracious, and he is the first European traveller from whom are learned many peculiarities of the Chinese people and country which Marco Polo did not mention, because he had grown accustomed to them. It is to be regretted that he does not give a more detailed account of Tibet and Lhasa, the capital of the Dalai-Lama, which he was the first European to enter. The account of his travels was widely spread by Mandeville's plagiarisms from them, Mandeville's work being exceedingly popular in the later Middle Ages and much used as a manual by geographers of that period. Numerous manuscripts of Odoric's travels were current in Italy, France, Germany, and England. They were first printed at Pesaro. A Latin version appeared in Marcellino da Civezza's "Storia universale delle missioni Francescane", III (Rome, 1859), 739-81; an English translation was made by Yule in his work "Cathay and the Way Thither", I (London, 1866), 1-162; a French version with very good notes was made by Henri Cordier "Les voyages en Asie au XIV ^e siècle du bienheureux frère Odoric de Pordenone" (Paris, 1891). Besides the editions already given may be mentioned: ASQUINI, Vita e viaggi del B. Odorico da Udine (Udine, 1737); KUNSTMANN. Die Missionen in Indien u. China in XIV. Jahrh. in Histor.-polit. Blätter, XXXVIII (Munich, 1856), 507-37; RICHTHOFEN, China, I (Berlin, 1877), 617-8; DOMENICHELLI, Sopra la vitae e i viaggi del beato Odorico da Pordenone dell' ordine de' Minori (Prato, 1881); GNAUCK, Odorich von Pordenone, ein Orientreisender d. XIV. Jahrh. (Leipzig, 1895). OTTO HARTIG. Ven. Thomas Pormort Ven. Thomas Pormort English martyr, b. at Hull about 1559; d. at St. Paul's Churchyard, 20 Feb., 1592. He was probably related to the family of Pormort of Great Grimsby and Saltfletby, Lincoln shire. George Pormort, Mayor of Grimsby in 1565, had a second son Thomas baptized, 7 February, 1566, but this can hardly be the martyr. After receiving some education at Cambridge, he went to Rheims, 15 January, 1581, and thence, 20 March following, to Rome, where he was ordained priest in 1587. He entered the household of Owen Lewis, Bishop of Cassano, 6 March, 1587. On 25 April, 1590, Pormort became prefect of studies in the Swiss college at Milan. He was relieved of this office, and started for England, 15 September, without waiting for his faculties. Crossing the St. Gotthard Pass, he reached Brussels before 29 November. There he became man servant to Mrs. Geoffrey Pole, under the name of Whitgift, the Protestant archbishop being his godfather. With her he went to Antwerp, intending to proceed to Flushing, and thence to England. He was arrested in London on St. James's Day (25 July), 1591, but he managed to escape. In August or September, 1591, he was again taken, and committed to Bridewell, whence he was removed to Topcliffe's house. He was repeatedly racked and sustained a rupture in consequence. On 8 February following he was convicted of high treason for being a seminary priest, and for reconciling John Barwys, or Burrows, haberdasher. He pleaded that he had no faculties; but he was found guilty. At the bar he accused Topcliffe of having boasted to him of indecent familiarities with the queen. Hence Topcliffe obtained a mandamus to the sheriff to proceed with the execution, though Archbishop Whitgift endeavoured to delay it and make his godson conform, and though (it is said) Pormort would have admitted conference with Protestant ministers. The gibbet was erected over against the haberdasher's shop, and the martyr was kept standing two hours in his shirt upon the ladder on a very cold day, while Topcliffe vainly urged him to withdraw his accusation. POLLEN, English Martyrs 1584-1603 (London, 1908), 187-190, 200-2, 208-10, 292; Acts of the English Martyrs (London, 1891), 118-20; CHALLONER, Missionary Priests, I, no. 95; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; Harleian Society Publications, LII (London, 1904), 790; KNOX, Douay Diaries (London, 1878), 174-7. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Porphyreon Porphyreon Titular see, suffragan of Tyre in Phoenicia Prima. It is described in the "Notitia Episcopatuum" of Antioch as belonging to the sixth century (Echos d'Orient, X, 1907, 145), but does not appear in that of the tenth century (op. cit., 97). Lequien (Oriens christ., II, 829 32) mentions five of its bishops: Thomas, 451; Alexander, at the end of the fifth century; Theodore, 518; Christophorus, 536; and Paul (contemporary of Justinian II), 565 78. There were two Porphyreons in this province, one, described by Scylax (civ, ed. Muller) north of Sidon and also by Palerin of Bordeaux (Itinera hierosolymitana, ed. Geyer, 18) eight miles from Sidon, is now the village of E1 Djiyeh, in the midst of the beautiful gardens between Saida and Beirut, near the Khan en Nebi Yunès; a second Porphyreon, according to the Pseudo Antoninus (Itinera hierosolymitana, 161), may be located six or seven miles north of Carmel. Historians of the Crusades (William of Tyre and James of Vitry) confound this town with the modern Caipha. The latter corresponds to our see. In fact Saint Simeon Stylite the Young, contemporary of Paul Bishop of Porphyreon, affirms (Mansi, "Conciliorum collectio", XIII, p. 160) that the episcopal town may be found near Castra, a place inhabited by the Samaritans. Now, in the same epoch the Pseudo Antoninus (op. cit., 160) locates the "Castra Samaritanorum a Sucamina (Caipha) milliario subtus monte Carmelo" south of Porphyreon. The identification is therefore incontestible. The church of Porphyreon, dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, was not built by Justinian II but by Justinian I (Procopius, "De Aedificiis", V, ix; "Historia arcana", xxx). The ruins of Porphyreon should be found near Belus, the Nahr Namein, in the sands of which may still be seen the murex brandaris and the murex trunculus (thorny shell fish), from which is extracted the famous purple dye of Tyre, and which has given its name to Porphyreon. S. VAILHÉ St. Porphyrius St. Porphyrius Bishop of Gaza in Palestine, b. at Thessalonica about 347; d. at Gaza, 26 February, 420. After five years in the Egyptian desert of Scete he lived five years in a cave near the Jordan. In spite of his impaired health, he frequently visited the scene of the Resurrection. Here he met the Asiatic Mark, at a later date a deacon of his church and his biographer. To effect the sale of the property still owned by Porphyrius in his native city, Mark set out for Thessalonica and, upon his return, the proceeds were distributed among the monasteries of Egypt and among the necessitous in and around Jerusalem. In 392 Porphyrius was ordained to the priesthood, and the relic of the Holy Cross was intrusted to his care. In 395 he became Bishop of Gaza, a stronghold of paganism, with an insignificant Christian community. The attitude of the pagan population was hostile so that the bishop appealed to the emperor for protection and pleaded repeatedly for the destruction of pagan temples. He finally obtained an imperial rescript ordering the destruction of pagan sanctuaries at Gaza. A Christian church was erected on the site of the temple of Marnas. In 415 Porphyrius attended the Council of Diospolis. The "Vita S. Porphyrii" of Mark the Deacon, formerly known only in a Latin translation, was published in 1874 by M. Haupt in its original Greek text; a new edition was issued in 1895 by the Bonn Philological Society. Acta SS., Feb., III (Paris, 1865), 649-66; NUTH, De Marci diaconi vita Porphyrii episcopi Gazensis quaestiones historicae et grammaticae (Bonn, 1897); Butler, Lives of the Saints, 26 Feb. N.A. WEBER Serafino Porrecta Serafino Porrecta Family name Capponi, called a Porrecta from the place of birth, theologian, b. 1536; d. at Bologna, 2 Jan., 1614. He joined the Dominican Order at Bologna in 1552. His life was devoted entirely to study, teaching, writing, and preaching. He is best known as a commentator on the "Summa" of St. Thomas; he also wrote valuable commentaries on the books of the Old and New Testaments. His duties as a professor prepared him well for work of this kind, for he taught philosophy, theology (dogmatic and moral), and Sacred Scripture. In 1606, Father Capponi was invited to teach theology and Sacred Scipture to the Carthusians in a monastery near Bologna. He accepted the invitation, but two years later he was recalled to Bologna, where he died. Fr. Michele Pio, who wrote his life, states that on the last day of his life Porrecta completed his explanation on the last verse of the Psalms. The people of Bologna venerated him as a saint; miracles, attested by the ordinary, are said to have been wrought through his intercession and his body was taken (1615) from the community burying-ground to be deposited in the Dominican church. It is almost universally admitted that, until the Leonine edition of St. Thomas's works appeared, there were no editions more highly prized or more helpful to students of the "Summa" than those which contained the Porrecta-Cajetan commentaries. The distinguishing features of these commentaries are well set forth in the title of the Venice edition of 1612. His principal works are: "Elucidationes formales in summam theologicam S. Thomae de Aquino" (Venice, 1588, 1596); "Summa totius theologiae D. Thomae . . . cum elucidationibus formalibus . . ." (Venice, 1612; Padua, 1698; Rome, 1773). To the first volume were added: (a) De altitudine doctrinae Thomisticae; Regulae ad lectorem; (c) Five indices. Echard censures the addition of Fr. Javelli's "Expositio in primam partem" and "Tractatus de praescientia et praedestinationa"; "Veritates aureae supra totam legem veterem . . ." (Venice, 1590); "Commentaries on St. Mattew" (Venice, 1602); "St. John" (Venice, 1604); those on St. Mark and St. Luke were not published; "Scholia super comp. Theologicae veritatis Alberti Magni" (Venice, 1588, 1590). Echard says the compendium was not by Albertus Magnus (I, p. 176); "Tota theologia S. Th. Aquin. In compendium redacta" (Venice, 1597); "Commentarii in psalmos" (one volume published, Bologna, 1692). Quetif and Echard, Script. Ord. Proed., II (Paris, 1721), 392; Michele Pio, Vita e morte del ven. P. M. Fr. Serafino della Porrecta (Bologna, 1615). D.J. KENNEDY Carlo Porta Carlo Porta Poet, b. at Milan in 1775; d. there 5 January, 1821; educated by the Jesuits at Monza and in the seminary at Milan. Finding uncongenial the mercantile pursuits for which his family had destined him, he obtained posts in the treasury department first at Venice and later at Milan. He served under the government of the Cisalpine Republic and, without ceasing to be an Italian patriot, welcomed the return of the Austrian rule, since it seemed to promise peace and prosperity. At Milan he enjoyed the companionship of noted men of letters, among them Foscolo and Monti. His fame is based upon his felicitous use of the Milanese dialect for poetical purposes. He was a Romanticist and argued in favour of the doctrines of his friends Manzoni and Grossi in the cantica "El Romanticism", the "Dodges Sonitt al'abaa Giavan" (i.e. Giordani), the "Meneghin Classegh", and others. Some of his views are opposed to the French, who had brought so much misery into Italy. He is most successful in humorous compositions, in which he truly delineates Milanese types, especially in "Le desgrazi de Giovannin Bongee" and "Le olter desgrazi de Giovannin Bongee". In his use of dialect Porta evinces the greatest skill; his language is the language of the people adapted in a most masterly way to the purposes of literary expression. Barriera, Poesie edite, inedite e rare, scelte e illustrate (Florence, 1887); Poesie rivedute sugli originali (Milan, 1887, with a bibliography by Robecchi); Lettembrini, Il Meli, il Cardone il Porta in Morandi, Antologia; D'Ovidio and Sailer, Porta e il Manzoni in Discussioni Manzoniane (Citta di Castello, 1886). J.D.M. FORD Giacomo Della Porta Giacomo della Porta Architect and sculptor, b. at Porlizza on Lake Lugano 1541; d. 1604. He was a pupil of Michelangelo and succeeded Vignola as architect of St. Peter's. Here he removed the temporary choir built by Bramante and with the aid of Domenico Fontana finished the dome and lantern by 1590 or 1592. He completed the plan of Il Gesu, the ground-plan and other chief architectural features of which are the work of Vignola, departing somewhat from his predecessor. Della Porta's façade was, in connection with Vignola's work, an authoritative model for large numbers of buildings in the Baroque style. The façade, fairly simple in design, is built in two stories, is topped by a gable, and is divided by half-pillars and pilasters, panels and niches. It can hardly be said to possess a clearly defined ecclesiastical character; the windows and entrances recall rather the style of a palace. In Santa Maria ai monti, he followed the ground-plan of the church of Il Gesu. He made the façade of San Luigi de' francesi a piece of decorative work entirely independent of the body of the structure, a method much copied later. Another architectural work is Santa Catarina de' funari at Roma. With Carlo Maderna he built the church of San Giovanni de' Fiorentini from the designs of Sansovino. Sometimes the Sapienza at Rome is ascribed to Michelangelo; however, della Porta had charge of the erection and work on the interior of the building although he did not complete it. In constructing an addition to Maria Maggiore he altered the plans of Michelangelo. He had something of the spirit of this great master, although he had neither the ability nor the desire to follow him in everything; yet he did not fall into the uncouth exaggerations of the later period. In the Palazzo Farnese his work is associated with that of Sangallo and Michelangelo. The Villa Aldobrandini with its superb gardens shows what beautiful work della Porta could construct when free to follow his own ideas. At Genoa he built the Annuziata, not with pilasters, a method much admired in the Baroque style, but as a columned basilica, without, however, infringing on the spacious width customary in this style. This is one of the most beautiful churches of the period. This is one of the most beautiful churches of the period. As a sculptor della Porta worked on the Certosa of Pavia. He has left some fine groups for fountains, especially the fountains at the Capitol and on the Piazza Mattei. In sculpture his teacher was il Gobbo. Becker, Kunst u. Kunstler d. 16., 17. U. 18. Jahrh. (Leipzig, 1863-65); Burckhardt, Cicerone, 7th ed., Bode (Leipzig, 1898); Quatremere de Quincy, Hist. des architectes (Paris, 1830); Gurlitt, Gesch. D. Barockstils in Italien (Stuttgart, 1887). G. GIETMANN Portalegre Portalegre Suffragan diocese of Lisbon, Portugal, established by Pope Julius III in 1550. Its first bishop was Julian d'Alva, a Spaniard, who was transferred to Miranda in 1557. On 17 July, 1560, Andiz' de Noronha succeeded to the diocese, but he was promoted to Placencia in 1581. Frei Amador Arraes, the next bishop, was the author of a celebrated book of "Dialogues"; he resigned in 1582, and retired to the college of his order in Coimbra, where he remained till his death. Lopo Soares de Albergaria and Frei Manoel de Gouveia died before receiving the Bulls confirming their nomination. Diego Conra, nephew of the Venerable Bartholomew of the Martyrs and Bishop of Ceuta, became bishop in 1598, and died on 9 October, 1614. Among the bishops of Portalegre during the seventeenth century was Ricardo Russell, an Englishman, who took possession of the see on 17 September, 1671, and was subsequently transferred to Vizeu. The present bishop is Antonio Mutinho, transferred from Caboverde in 1909. The diocese contains 197,343 Catholics, 16 Protestants, 148 parishes, 286 priests, 447 churches and chapels. Port Augusta, Diocese of Diocese of Port Augusta (PORTAUGUSTANA) This diocese is a suffragan of Adelaide, South Australia, created in 1887. Its boundaries are: north, the twenty-fifth degree of S. latitude; east, the States of Queensland and New South Wales; west, the State of West Australia; south, the counties Musgrave, Jervois, Daly, Stanley, Light, Eyre, and the River Murray. As the limits originally fixed were found insufficient, the counties of Victoria and Burra were added. At its inception the diocese was heavily burdened with debt and the Catholic population, numbering about 11,000, became much diminished owing to the periodical droughts to which a large portion of the diocese is subject. The town of Port Augusta commands a splendid position at the head of Spencer's Gulf, overlooking which is the cathedral, a fine stone edifice. Its Catholic population is still small, but is bound to increase when the great overland railways to West Australia and to Port Darwin in the far Northern Territory become linked together. Right Rev. John O'Reily, D.D. (to-day Archbishop of Adelaide), consecrated by Cardinal Moran at Sydney 1 May, 1888, was the first Bishop of Port Augusta. His chief work was liquidating the diocesan debts, especially that of the cathedral. He introduced the Sisters of the Good Samaritan from Sydney to Port Pirie in 1890. On 5 January, 1895, he was transferred to Adelaide as archbishop. The second bishop, Right Rev. James Maher, D.D. (died at Pekina, 20 December, 1905), first vicar-general, then administrator sede vacante, was consecrated at Adelaide, 26 April, 1896. His episcopate was marked by a succession of fully nine years of drought, which extended over the larger portion of the diocese. Owing to this disaster it was impossible to make much material progress, but the finances of the see were kept steadily in view. The third bishop and present occupant of the see, Right Rev. John Henry Norton, D.D. (born at Ballarat, Victoria, 31 Dec., 1855), was consecrated at Adelaide, 9 December, 1906. He is the first native of Ballarat to be ordained priest, the first Victorian, and the third Australian, native to be raised to the episcopate. He received his early education in that city and afterwards engaged in the study and practice of architecture for four years. In 1872 he entered St. Patrick's College, Melbourne, became an undergraduate of Melbourne University, and on 10 June, 1876, received minor orders from Archbishop Goold. Early in 1878 he became affiliated to the then Diocese of Adelaide under Right Rev. C. A. Reynolds, D.D., and was sent by him to Europe to finish his studies. After a year at St. Kieran's College, Kilkenny, Ireland, he was admitted to Propaganda College, Rome, and was ordained by Cardinal Monaco la Valetta in St. John Lateran's, 8 April, 1882. Returning to Adelaide, February, 1883, he was engaged at the cathedral until January, 1884, when he was appointed first resident priest of the new district of Petersburg, where he has resided ever since. He was made diocesan consultor in 1894, vicar-general under Dr. Maher, 2 May, 1896, administrator sede vacante on the latter's death, and appointed bishop, 18 August, 1906. He was consecrated in St. Francis Xavier's Cathedral, Adelaide, by Most Rev. Michael Kelly, D.D., Coadjutor Archbishop of Sydney on 9 December, 1906. As parish priest he erected a church, presbytery, school, and convent at Petersburg, also churches at Dawson, Nackara, Lancelot, Yongala, Teetulpa, Renmark, Farina, and other places. He published three "Reports on the liabilities of the Diocese". He has recently completed a successful campaign for the final liquidation of the cathedral and Kooringa church debts. During his episcopate churches have been erected at Warnertown, Hammond, and Wilmington, and convents at Caltowie, Jamestown, and Georgetown. The diocese is divided into nine districts (not including the West Coast from Talia to West Australia, which is visited from Port Lincoln in the archdiocese), namely, Port Augusta, Carrieton, Hawker, Georgetown, Jamestown, Kooringa, Pekina, Petersburg, and Port Pirie. There are 10 diocesan priests, 34 churches, two religious orders of women -- the Sisters of St. Joseph, numbering 33, and the Sisters of the Good Samaritan, numbering 9. The former have convents and primary schools in Port Augusta, Gladstone, Jamestown, Caltowie, Kooringa, Pekina, Quorn, Georgetown, and Petersburg; the latter are established at Port Pirie only, where they manage two primary schools, including a boarding and select school. The children in these thirteen schools number 754. The Society of Jesus had resident missionary priests at Port Pirie, Kooringa, Georgetown, and Jamestown, long before the formation of the territory into a new diocese. As circumstances permitted, they relinquished Port Pirie in November, 1890, Kooringa in September, 1899, and Jamestown and Georgetown in September, 1900. Schools are maintained in 24 different places, the aggregate cost of salaries and general maintenance being estimated at £27,500 in the last twenty years, the original cost of the buildings at £18,250, or a total expenditure of £45,750 by the Catholic population, which, according to the census of 1901, is estimated at 11,953. Australasian Catholic Directory; O'REILY, MAHER, NORTON, Reports on the liabilities of the Diocese of Port Augusta (published between 1889-1907). JOHN H. NORTON. Port-Au-Prince Archdiocese of Port-au-Prince (PORTUS PRINCIPIS) This archdiocese comprises the western part of the Republic of Haiti. Its population numbers about 668,700, mostly Catholics, the greater part of whom have but a slight knowledge of their religion, and are scattered over a surface of about 3080 sq. miles. The archdiocese was created by the Bull of 3 June, 1861, and has ever since had a clergy almost exclusively French. In the eighteenth century the territory of the present archdiocese was served by the Dominicans, and after the French Revolution was left in the hands of unworthy clergy, who were driven out after the Concordat of 1860. The archdiocese has had five archbishops: Mgrs, Testard du Cosquer (1863-69); Guilloux (1870-85); Hillion (1886-90); Tonti (1894-1902); Conan (1903). In January, 1906, Most Rev. Julian Conan held the first provincial council of Haiti whose acts were approved by the Congregation of the Council, 3 August, 1907. Fourteen diocesan synods have also been held and their acts and statutes have regularly been published. The seminary for senior students is in France (St. Jacques, Finistère), and there is a seminary-college at Port-au-Prince directed by the Fathers of the Holy Ghost with 500 pupils. About an equal number of boys receive their instruction at the Institution St. Louis de Gonzague, kept by the Brothers of Christian Instruction. There are two secondary establishments for girls: Ste Rose de Lima directed by the Sisters of St. Joseph de Cluny, and Notre Dame du Sacré-Coeur, directed by the Filles de la Sagesse. The province has a monthly religious bulletin published at Port-au-Prince. Archbishop Guilloux has left a valuable work for the history of the archdiocese and of the province, "Le Concordat d'Haiti, ses résultats", a pamphlet of twenty-eight pages relating to the origin of the different diocesan works. The metropolitan church has honorary canons, not constituting a chapter, and named by the archbishop. The archdiocese (1911) has 24 parishes, 140 rural chapels; priests, 55 secular, 42 regular; 67 Brothers of Instruction; 192 sisters. A. CABOR. Porter (Doorkeeper) Porter, doorkeeper (ostiarius, Lat. ostium, a door.) Denoted among the Romans the slave whose duty it was to guard the entrance of the house. In the Roman period all houses of the better class had an ostiarius, or ostiary, whose duties were considered very inferior. When, from the end of the second century the Christian communities began to own houses for holding church services and for purposes of administration, church ostiaries are soon mentioned, at least for the larger cities. They are first referred to in the letter of Pope Cornelius to Bishop Fabius of Antioch written in 251 (Eusebius, "H.E.", VI, 43), where it is said that there were then at Rome 46 priests, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, and 52 exorcists, lectors, and ostiaries, or doorkeepers. According to the statement, of the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 155) an ostiary named Romanus suffered martyrdom in 258 at the same time as St. Lawrence. In Western Europe the office of the ostiary was the lowest grade of the minor clergy. In a law of 377 of the Codex Theodosianus (Lib. XVI, tit. II, num. XXIV; ed. Gothofredi, VI, I, 57) intended for the Vicariate of Italy, the ostiaries are also mentioned among the clergy who have a right to personal immunity. In his letter of 11 March, 494, to the bishops of southern Italy and Sicily Pope Gelasius says that for admission into the clergy it was necessary that the candidate could read (must, therefore, have a certain amount of education), for without this prerequisite an applicant could, at the most, only fill the office of an ostiary (P.L., LVI, 691). In Rome itself this office attained to no particular development, as a large part of these duties, namely the actual work necessary in the church building, what is now probably the duty of the sexton, was at Rome performed by the mansionarii. The clergy of the three lower grades (minor orders) were united at Rome into the Schola cantorum and as such took part in the church ceremonies. There are no special prayers or ceremonies for the ordination of the lower clergy in the oldest liturgical books of the Roman Church. For the Gallican Rite, short statements concerning the ordination of the lower orders, among them that of the ostiaries, are found in the "Statuta ecclesiæ antiqua" a collection of canons which appeared at Arles about the beginning of the sixth century (Maassen, "Quellen des Kirchenrechts", I, 382). The "Sacramentarium Gelasianum" and the "Missale Francorum" contain the same rite with the prayers used on this occasion. According to these the ostiaries are first instructed in their duties by the archdeacon; after this he brings them before the bishop who takes the keys of the church from the altar and hands them to the candidate for ordination with the words: "Fulfil thine office to show that thou knowest that thou wilt give account to God concerning the things that are locked away under these keys." Then follows a prayer for the candidate and a prayer for the occasion that the bishop pronounces over him. This ceremony was also at a later date adopted by the Roman Church in its liturgy and has continued with slight changes in the formulæ until now. In Latin Western Europe, outside of Rome, in the late Roman era and the one following, the ostiaries were still actually employed as guardians of the church buildings and of their contents. This is shown by the epitaph of one Ursatius, an ostiary of Trier (Corpus inscr. latin., XIII, 3789). An ostiary of the church of Salona is also mentioned in an epitaph (Corpus inscr. Iatin., III, 13142). Later, however, in the Latin Church the office of ostiary universally remained only one of the degrees of ordination and the actual work of the ostiary was transferred to the laity, (sacristans, sextons, etc.). In the ordination of ostiaries at the present day their duties are thus enumerated in the Pontifical: "Percutere cymbalum et campanam, aperire ecclesiam et sacrarium, et librum ei aperire qui prædicat" (to ring the bell, to open the church and sacristy, to open the book for the preacher). The forms of prayer for the ordination are similar to those in the old Gallican Rite. In the East there were also doorkeepers in the service of the Church. They are enumerated as ecclesiastical persons by the Council of Laodicea (343-81). Like the acolytes and exorcists, they were only appointed to serve the church, but received no actual ordination and were not regarded as belonging to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. According to the "Apostolic Constitutions" belonging to the end of the fourth century the guarding of the door of the church during the service was the duty of the deacons and subdeacons. Thus the doorkeepers exercised their office only when service was not being held. DUCHESNE, Origines du culte chrétien (5th ed., Paris, 1909). 349 sq.; WIELAND, D. genetische Entwicklung d. sogen. Ordines minores in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten (Rome, 1897), 54 sqq., 161 sqq.; THOMASSINUS, Vetus et nova ecclesiæ disciplina circa beneficia et beneficiarios, pt. i, lib. I, cap. xxx-xxxiii, I (Lyons, ed. 1706), 319 sqq. J.P. KIRSCH George Porter George Porter Archbishop of Bombay, b. 1825 at Exeter, England; d. at Bombay, 28 September, 1889. Of Scottish descent, he was educated at Stonyhurst and joined the Society of Jesus in 1841. After making his novitiate at Hodder, and devoting three years to philosophy at Stonyhurst, he was employed in teaching at Stonyhurst, and at St. Francis Xavier's College, Liverpool, becoming prefect of studies at the former college in 1849. In 1853 he went to St. Beuno's College, North Wales, for theology, and in 1856 was ordained priest. His theological studies were completed in Rome under Passaglia and Schrader. After two years more spent at Stonyhurst and a year Liesse, near Laon, Father Porter returned to St. Beuno's, where for four years he occupied the chair of dogmatic theology. He was then appointed rector at Liverpool, but was moved to London in 1871, becoming master of novices two year later. In 1881 he was appointed rector of Farm Street, London, but was soon called to Fiesole as assistant to the general. In December, 1886, he was made Archbishop of Bombay (q.v.). Father Porter's collected "Letters" (1891) reveal the versatility of his mind, and his skill in direction. He translated or wrote prefaces for a number of spiritual books and compiled "The Priest's Manual for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" (Liverpool, 1858). Some of his meditations and considerations have been printed for private circulation. GILLOW, Bibl. Dic. Eng. Cath. s. v. CHARLES PLATTER Portiuncula Portiuncula (PORZIONCULA or PORZIUNCOLA). A town and parish situated about three-quarters of a mile from Assisi. The town, numbering about 2000 inhabitants and officially known as Santa Maria degli Angeli, has grown up around the church (basilica) of Our Lady of the Angels and the adjoining Franciscan monastery. It was here that on 24 Feb., 1208, St. Francis of Assisi recognized his vocation; here was for the most part his permanent abode, after the Benedictines (of the Cluny Congregation from about 1200) had presented him (about 1211) with the little chapel Portiuncula, i.e. a little portion (of land); here also he died on Saturday, 3 October, 1226. According to a legend, the existence of which can be traced back with certainty only to 1645, the little chapel of Portiuncula was erected under Pope Liberius (352-66) by hermits from the Valley of Josaphat, who had brought thither relics from the grave of the Blessed Virgin. The same legend relates that the chapel passed into the possession of St. Benedict in 516. It was known as Our Lady of the Valley of Josaphat or of the Angels == the latter title referring, according to some, to Our Lady's ascent into heaven accompanied by angels (Assumption B.M.V.); a better founded opinion attributes the name to the singing of angels which had been frequently heard there. However this may be, here or in this neighbourhood was the cradle of the Franciscan Order, and on his death-bed St. Francis recommended the chapel to the faithful protection and care of his brethren. Concerning the form and plan of the first monastery built near the chapel we have no information, nor is the exact form of the loggia or platforms built round the chapel itself, or of the choir for the brothers built behind it, known. Shortly after 1290, the chapel, which measured only about twenty-two feet by thirteen and a half, became entirely inadequate to accommodate the throngs of pilgrims. The altar piece, an Annunciation, was painted by the priest, Hilarius of Viterbo, in 1393. The monastery was at most the residence, only for a short time, of the ministers-general of the order after St. Francis. In 1415 it first became associated with the Regular Observance, in the care of which it remains to the present day. The buildings, which had been gradually added to, around the shrine were taken down by order of Pius V (1566-72), except the cell in which St. Francis had died, and were replaced by a large basilica in contemporary style. The new edifice was erected over the cell just mentioned and over the Portiuncula chapel, which is situated immediately under the cupola. The basilica, which has three naves and a circle of chapels extending along the entire length of the aisles, was completed (1569-78) according to the plans of Jacob Barozzi, named Vignola (1507-73), assisted by Alessi Galeazzo (1512-72). The Doric order was chosen. The basilica forms a Latin cross 416 feet long by 210 feet wide; above the middle of the transept rises the magnificent cupola, flanked by a single side-tower, the second never having been finished. In the night of 15 March, 1832, the arch of the three naves and of the choir fell in, in consequence of an earthquake, but the cupola escaped with a big crack. Gregory XVI had all restored (1836-40), and on 8 Sept., 1840, the basilica was reconsecrated by Cardinal Lambruschini. By Brief of 11 April, 1909, Pius X raised it to a "patriarchal basilica and papal chapel". The high altar was therefore immediately rebuilt at the expense of the Franciscan province of the Holy Cross (also known as the Saxon province), and a papal throne added. The new altar was solemnly consecrated by Cardinal De Lai on 7 Dec., 1910. Under the bay of the choir, resting against the columns of the cupola, is still preserved the cell in which St. Francis died, while, a little behind the sacristy, is the spot where the saint, during a temptation, is said to have rolled in a briar-bush, which was then changed into thornless roses. During this same night the saint received the Portiuncula Indulgence. The representation of the reception of this Indulgence on the facade of the Portiuncula chapel, the work of Fr. Overbeck (1829), enjoys great celebrity. The Portiuncula Indulgence could at first be gained only in the Portiuncula chapel between the afternoon of 1 Aug. and sunset on 2 Aug. On 5 Aug., 1480 (or 1481), Sixtus IV extended it to all churches of the first and second orders of St. Francis for Franciscans; on 4 July, 1622, this privilege was further extended by Gregory XV to all the faithful, who, after confession and the reception of Holy Communion, visited such churches on the appointed day. On 12 Oct., 1622, Gregory granted the same privilege to all the churches of the Capuchins; Urban VIII granted it for all churches of the regular Third Order on 13 Jan., 1643, and Clement X for all churches of the Conventuals on 3 Oct., 1670. Later popes extended the privilege to all churches pertaining in any way to the Franciscan Order, even to churches in which the Third Order held its meetings (even parish churches, etc.), provided that there was no Franciscan church in the district, and that such a church was distant over an Italian mile (1000 paces, about 1640 yards). Some districts and countries have been granted special privileges. On 9 July, 1910, Pius X (only, however, for that year) granted the privilege that bishops could appoint any public churches whatsoever for the gaining of the Portiuncula Indulgence, whether on 2 Aug. or the Sunday following (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, II, 1910, 443 sq.; Acta Ord. Frat. Min., XXIX, 1910, 226). This privilege has been renewed for an indefinite time by a decree of the S. Cong. of Indul., 26 March, 1911 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, III, 1911, 233-4). The Indulgence is toties-quoties, that is, it may be gained as often as one wishes (i.e. visits the church); it is also applicable to the souls in purgatory. While the declarations of the popes have rendered the Portiuncula Indulgence certain and indisputable from the juridico-canonistic standpoint, its historical authenticity (sc. origin from St. Francis) is still a subject of dispute. The controversy arises from the fact that none of the old legends of St. Francis mentions the Indulgence, and no contemporary document or mention of it has down to us. The oldest document dealing with the Indulgence is a notary's deed of 31 October, 1277, in which Blessed Benedict of Arezzo, whom St. Francis himself received into the order, testifies that he had been informed by Brother Masseo, a companion of St. Francis, of the granting of the Indulgence by Honorius III at Perugia. Then follow other testimonies, for example, those of Jacob Cappoli concerning Brother Leo, of Fr. Oddo of Aquasparta, Peter Zalfani, Peter John Olivi (d. 1298, who wrote a scholastic tract in defence of this indulgence about 1279), Blessed John of Laverna (Fermo; d. 1322), Ubertinus of Casale (d. after 1335), Blessed Francis of Fabriano (d. 1322), whose testimony goes back to the year 1268, etc. In addition to these rather curt and concise testimonies there are others which relate all details in connection with the granting of the Indulgence, and were reproduced in numberless books: e.g. the testimony of Michael Bernardi, the letters of Bishop Theobald of Assisi (1296-1329) and of his successor Conrad Andreae (1329-37). All the testimonies were collected by Fr. Francesco Bartholi della Rossa in a special work, "Tractatus de Indulgentia S. Mariae de Portiuncula" (ed. Sabatier, Paris, 1900). In his edition of this work, Sabatier defends the Indulgence, although in his world-famous "Vie de S. Francois" (Paris, 1894), he had denied its historicity (412 sqq.); he explains the silence of St. Francis and his companions and biographers as due to reasons of discretion etc. Others seek to accord more weight to the later testimonies by accentuating their connection with the first generation of the order; others again find allusions to the Indulgence in the old legends of St. Francis. On the other hand, the opponents regard the gap between 1216 and 1277 as unbridgable, and hold that the grounds brought forward by the defenders to explain this silence had vanished long before the latter date. No new documents have been found recently in favour of the authenticity of the Indulgence. [Note: The norms and grants of indulgences were completely reformed by Pope Paul VI after the Second Vatican Council in his Apostolic Constitution "Indulgentiarum Doctrina" (1967), and the Portiuncula Indulgence was again confirmed at that time. According to the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, the Catholic faithful may gain a plenary indulgence on 2 August (the Portiuncula) or on such other day as designated by the local ordinary for the advantage of the faithful, under the usual conditions (sacramental Confession, Holy Communion, and prayer for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff), by devoutly visiting the parish church, and there reciting at least the Lord's Prayer and the Creed. The Indulgence applies to the cathedral church of the diocese, and to the co-cathedral church (if there is one), even if they are not parochial, and also to quasi-parochial churches. To gain this, as any plenary indulgence, the faithful must be free from any attachment to sin, even venial sin. Where this entire detachment is wanting, the indulgence is partial.] VITALIS, Paradisus seraphicus: Portiuncula sacra (Milan, 1645); GROWELS, Hist. crit. sacrae indulgentiae B. Mariae Angelorum (Antwerp, 1726); Acta SS., II, Oct., 545 sqq.; ANNIBALI DE LATERA, Dissertationes critico-historicae (Rome, 1784); AMEDEO DA SOLERO, Gloria della sacra Porziuncula, ossia compendio storico di S. Maria degli Angeli (Perugia, 1858); BARNABE D'ALSACE (MEISTERMANN), La Portioncule ou hist. de Ste-Marie des Anges (Foligno, 1884), Ital. tr. (Foligno, 1884); German tr. (Rixheim, Alsace, 1884); new Ital. ed. Sta Maria degli Angeli (1895); SABATIER, Etude critique sur la concession de l'Indulgence de la Port. in Revue hist., LXII (Paris, 1896), 282-318 (for the authenticity of the origin of the Indulgence); PAULUS, Die Bewilligung des Portiuncula-Ablasses in Die Katholik, I (Mainz, 1899), 97-125 (for); IDEM, Ibid., II (1901), 185-7 (against the authenticity of the origin of the Indulgence); SATURNINO (MENCHERINI) DA CAPRESE, L'addio di S. Francesco alla Verna etc. (Prato, 1901), with documents; D'ALENCON in Etudes francisc., XI (Paris, 1903), 585 sqq.; FALOCI, Gli storici della Porziuncula in Misc. francesc., X (Foligno, 1906), 65 sqq., 97 sqq., 129 sqq., 161 sqq.; KIRSCH, Die Portiuncula-Ablass in Theolog. Quartalschr., LXXXVIII (Tubingen, 1906), 81-101; 211- 91, published separately (Tubingen, 1906), against; IDEM, Litt. Beilage d. Koln. Volkztg., LXIX, n. 10 (5 March, 1908), against; VAN ORTROY in Anal. Bolland., XXI (1902), 372-80, doubtful; XXVI (1907), 140-1, against; LEMMENS, Die altesten Zeugnisse fur d. Portiunkulaablass in Die Katholik, I (1908), 169-84, 253-67, for; HOLZAPPEL, Die Entstehung d. Port. Ablasses in Archiv. francisc. hist., I (Quaracchi, 1908), 31-45, for; BIHL in Archiv. francisc. hist., I, 653 sqq.; FIERENS, De Geschiedkundige Oorsprong van het Aflaat van Portiunkula (Ghent, 1910), re-edited critically all desirable documents, for. See also bibliography, FRANCIS OF ASSISI, SAINT. MICHAEL BIHL Portland, Maine Portland Diocese in the State of Maine; suffragan of Boston; established by Pius IX, 8 Dec., 1854. When erected it included the territorial limits of the present States of Maine and New Hampshire. Previous to that time it was under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Baltimore and later of the Bishop of Boston. In 1884 the diocese was divided, New Hampshire being made a separate diocese and the episcopal see located at Manchester (q.v.). The present Diocese of Portland includes all the State of Maine. It has an area of 29,895 square miles, and a Catholic population of 125,000, or one-sixth of the total population. The diocese is organized in the form of a corporation sole, the title of which is "Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland". EARLY HISTORY The earliest attempts at Catholic colonization in the north or east of what is known as the United States took place in Southern Maine. In 1604, sixteen years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, Henry IV, King of France, gave authority to Pierre du Gaust, Sieur de Monts, to establish colonies between the 40th and 46th degrees of north latitude. He landed at Cape La Heve, on the southern part of the Nova Scotian coast, and after making several expeditions to the north in the vicinity of the St. Lawrence, sailed south and discovered and named the River St. John, thence south to an island which he named Ste-Croix, or Holy Cross, and now called De Monts Island. The Ste-Croix River derived its name from this island, and to-day flows by the easternmost part of the United States. A colony was established on this island, and in their chapel in July, 1604, Holy Mass was offered for the first time in New England by the Rev. Nicholas Aubray of Paris. The hardships of the severe winter were such that seventy-nine of the colonists died before the opening of spring. From Ste-Croix Island on 12 September, 1605, Champlain set out on a voyage of discovery. He sailed west along the coast as far as the Penobscot River, which he ascended to the mouth of the Kenduskeag Stream, the present site of Bangor. The falls, a mile above, prevented further progress. Descending the Penobscot River, Champlain sailed west to the mouth of the Kennebec and then returned to the Island of Holy Cross. No doubt Holy Mass was offered up on this voyage. This was the first foothold of France and Catholicism in the North. Potrincourt who succeeded De Mont, after receiving a blessing on his labours from the pope, applied himself to the work of colonization and Christianizing the natives. Two Jesuits, Fathers Peter Biard and Enemond Masse, who were sent to him after some work among the Micmacs of Nova Scotia, came to Maine, and began their very successful labours among the Abenaki. In a vessel under the command of La Saussaye, having on board also Fathers Quentin and Lalemant, and the lay brother Du Thet, who had lately come from France, they sailed to the west and came to Mt. Desert Island, where they landed, and having erected a cross, set up an altar, and, after offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, founded a settlement which they called St. Sauveur, or Holy Redeemer. This settlement was destroyed by Argall, who came from Virginia. The Fathers were taken prisoners, and after many hardships were finally returned to France. Brother Du Thet was killed and buried on this island. Some Capuchins were afterwards stationed along the coast in the French posts, and had a convent at Castine, and some settlements along the Kennebec. In 1646, Father Gabriel Druillettes was sent to the Kennebec and established the mission of the Assumption among the Abenaki, obtaining wonderful results from this docile people. In 1652, he returned to Canada, but in 1656 and 1657, came again and continued his work. Rev. Laurent Molin, a Franciscan, laboured at Pentagoet. In 1667, Father Morain was successful with the Penobscots and Passamaquoddy Indians. In 1667, Father Thury, a secular priest, came to the Penobscots and laboured successfully among them to the close of his life. In 1668, he established the mission at Panawaniski, at Oldtown. He was succeeded by Fathers Gaudin and Rageot, who remained among the Penobscots until 1703. In 1668, Father Bigot erected a chapel at Narantsouac, now Norridgewock, restoring the mission. The Jesuits, Fathers Joseph de la Chasse, Julian Binneteau, Joseph Aubery, Sebastian Rasle, Sebastian Lauvergat and Loyard, laboured in turn. Of these Father Rasle is the best known. He came to Norridgewock in 1695. There he founded a chapel and had the Indians instructed. In 1705, the English destroyed the chapel and village. They were rebuilt in 1722, were once more destroyed, and Father Rasle's treasures were carried off, including his dictionary of the Abenaki language, now in Harvard College. Father Rasle was murdered and scalped on 23 August, 1724, and his scalp carried to Boston. His body was buried on the spot where the altar had stood. Father James de Sirenne restored the mission at Norridgewock in 1730. For a long period during the wars the Indians were without missionaries, yet they remained faithful. Numbers of the Abenaki fought for the Colonies during the War of Independence. After the war, when Bishop Carroll was consecrated first Bishop of the United States, the Indians sent a deputation to him for a priest. Father Ciquard, a priest of St. Sulpice, was sent in answer to this appeal and remained for ten years, until 1794. In 1797, the Rev. John Cheverus, then a missionary at Boston, came to visit the Indians and remained three months, and while priest and first Bishop of Boston, visited them every year until 1804, built them a church and gave them Father Romagne as their pastor. The latter devoted himself for twenty years to the Penobscots and Passamaquoddys and to the scattered Catholic missions. Bishop Fenwick was consecrated in 1825, and continued the work. Father Ffrench, a Dominican, was stationed at Eastport, and from that place visited the Indian missions. In July, 1827, Bishop Fenwick visited them and at intervals later. In 1833, 109 years after the destruction of the mission at Norridgewock, Bishop Fenwick erected a monument to the memory of Father Rasle. Father Demilier continued the work until his death 23 July, 1843. Bishop Fitzpatrick, the successor to Bishop Fenwick, gave over the Abenaki mission to the Society of Jesus, and, in 1848, Father John Bapst was sent to Oldtown and became a zealous missionary to both whites and Indians. The Indians of Maine are, as a result of the careful teaching and self-sacrificing labours of the missionaries, Catholics. In the latter part of the eighteenth century, some immigrants from Ireland came to Maine and settled in the towns of Newcastle, Damariscotta, and Nobleboro. Seven Catholic families had settled at Damariscotta Bridge, and for them Father Cheverus said Mass in the barn of Matthew Cottrill. Later Mr. James Kavanaugh, a merchant of the town, had fitted up a neat chapel and Mass was celebrated there on the visitations of the priest. In 1800, Mr. Kavanaugh and his partner, Mr. Cottrill, subscribed $1000 each for the new church, which was dedicated 17 July, 1808, Father Cheverus officiating. This was the second Catholic church in New England, and the first built by English-speaking Catholics in Maine. In 1822, Bishop Cheverus came to Portland at the request of some Catholics, and said the first Mass in Portland. Bishop Fenwick succeeded Bishop Cheverus and ruled the New England province from 1825 to 1845. The work of Bishop Cheverus among the Indians was continued by Bishop Fenwick, and he established in July, 1834, the Catholic colony at Benedicta in Northern Maine and to-day all the inhabitants of the township are Catholics. In 1853 the Holy See divided the Diocese of Boston and erected a new see at Portland, and named its first bishop, David William Bacon. James Augustine Healy, second bishop, b. at Macon, Ga., 6 April, 1830. He entered Holy Cross College, 1844, and graduated, 1849. His theological education was received at the Grand Seminary, Montreal, where he spent three years, then two years at St-Sulpice, Paris. He was ordained in the Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris, by Archbishop Sibour, 10 June, 1854. He began his priestly labours in Boston as Secretary to Bishop Fitzpatrick, and became the first chancellor of the diocese. In March, 1866, he was named pastor of St. James' Church by Bishop Williams. A papal bull dated 12 Feb., 1875, designated him as second Bishop of Portland. He was consecrated in the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Portland, 2 June, 1875. When he assumed the cares of the diocese he found the Church well established in the cities of Maine and New Hampshire. In the small towns, however, little was known of Catholic doctrine. Bishop Healy established many missions and new parishes and the Catholic name became known in all parts of the state. He introduced the Dominicans and Marists and some religious orders of women, and was instrumental in establishing the hospital and Healy Asylum in Lewiston. In February, 1877, the school begun in Portland by Bishop Bacon was completed at a cost of $23,0000. It is named the Kavanaugh School in honour of Miss Kavanaugh, a sister of Governor Edward Kavanaugh. In 1881, Bishop Healy purchased a splendid estate in Deering, then a separate town, but now a part of Portland, and opened a boarding school for girls, under the care of the Sisters of Mercy. It is known as St. Joseph's Academy, and has an enrollment of about 100 pupils. He also caused to be built on the same grounds a home for aged women, and a neat chapel to serve the needs of the Catholics in the vicinity. In 1887, St. Elizabeth's Orphan Asylum, which had been transferred to North Whitefield, shortly after his accession, was re-established in Portland. The Sacred Heart School for boys was established by him in 1893. Bishop Healy died 5 August, 1900, respected and beloved by priests and people, as a scholar, a master of oratory, and a man of sanctity. The third Bishop of Portland was William Henry O'Connell (see Boston). Louis Sebastian Walsh, fourth bishop, b. at Salem, Mass., 22 Jan., 1858, son of Patrick Walsh and Honora Foley. He was educated for the priesthood at the Grand Seminary, Montreal, and St-Sulpice Seminary, Paris, and later made profounder studies of canon law and theology at Rome. Ordained in St. John Lateran, Rome, 23 Dec., 1882, by Cardinal La Valletta, he was appointed assistant pastor at St. Joseph's Church, Boston, and professor and director at St. Joseph's Seminary, Brighton, at its opening in 1884, where for thirteen years he taught church history, canon law, and liturgy. In Sept., 1897, he was appointed supervisor of Catholic schools in the archdiocese. He was one of the founders of the "New England Catholic Historical Society", also of the "Catholic Educational Association". He was appointed Bishop of Portland in Aug., 1906, and consecrated in the cathedral at Portland on 18 Oct., 1906, by Rt. Rev. Matthew Harkins of Providence. New parishes and schools were soon established, and the mother-house of the Diocesan Sisters of Mercy was erected in the Deering district of Portland. Bishop Walsh opened in Sept., 1909, the Catholic Institute in the former mother-house of the Sisters of Mercy, wherein are taught 200 boys, also the Holy Innocents Home for Infants and St. Anthony's Guild for Working Girls. At Damariscotta in Aug., 1908, a celebration was arranged to commemorate the hundredth anniversary of the dedication of the parish church, and on this occasion was formed the "Maine Catholic Historical Society". At Norridgewock the monument erected by Bishop Fenwick to the memory of Father Rasle, S.J., was replaced and re-dedicated. On Mt. Desert Island in the town of Bar Harbor the arrival of the first missionaries, in 1604, was commemorated; and a beautiful church dedicated under the name given to the island by them, that of St-Sauveur or Holy Redeemer, was erected. The charities of the diocese have been arranged on a permanent basis. In general it may be said that there is a splendid advance in all that pertains to the Church. STATISTICS Within the limits of the diocese, comprising the State of Maine, there are (1911) 125,000 Catholics. They are cared for by 125 seculars and 22 priests of religious orders. There are 70 churches with resident pastors and 49 mission churches, 36 chapels and 67 stations. There is one college, St. Mary's, Van Buren, conducted by the Marist Fathers. Nine academies have an enrollment of 500 pupils. St. Joseph's Academy of Maine, conducted by the Sisters of Mercy, is the largest and best, and furnishes instruction to 100 pupils. There are two schools for Indians caring for 132 pupils; three Catholic hospitals and one home for aged women. The orphans under Catholic care number 415. Total of young people under Catholic care, 12,274. RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES The Dominican Fathers are established in Lewiston and the Marists at Van Buren and Lower Grand Isle. The Diocesan Sisters of Mercy have their mother-house in Portland and number 185. The following Sisters and congregations are engaged in various parts of the state: The Sisters of Charity; Grey Nuns; Dominican Sisters; Little Sisters of the Holy Family; Little Franciscan Sisters of Mary; Sisters of the Holy Rosary; Congregation of Notre Dame; Sister Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary; Daughters of Wisdom; Sisters of the Presentation; Ursuline Sisters; Sisters of St. Joseph. CLARKE, Deceased Bishops (New York, 1872); SHEA, History of the Catholic Ch. in U. S. (New York, 1888); YOUNG, Diocese of Portland (Boston, 1899); WILTZIUS, Official Directory, 1910. JOHN W. HOULIHAN Diocese of Port Louis Diocese of Port Louis (PORTUS LUDOVICI) This diocese comprises the islands of Mauritius, Rodriguez, Chagos, and Diego Garcia. The Island of Mauritius was discovered by the Portuguese about 1507, but no settlement was formed. The Dutch who visited it in 1598 called it Mauritius in honour of the Stadtholder, Maurice of Nassau; they sent a colony there in 1644 but abandoned the island in 1710 or 1712. When the French took possession in 1715 they changed the name to Ile de France. It was long a French trading centre, and in 1789 became the seat of the French Government in the East. It was captured by the English in 1810, being formally ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris in 1814. The French language and law have been preserved, but the ancient name was restored by the British Government. Port Louis, the capital, on the north-west coast, is the seat of the Catholic and Anglican bishoprics, and also the residence of the colonial governor, at present (1911) Sir Cavendish Boyle, K. C. M. G. The census of 1901 gave the total population of the island as 373,336, of whom 113,244 were Catholics, and that of the town of Port Louis as 52,740. There are Government schools and denominational schools aided by the State; Catholics constitute 64.71 per cent of the pupils. In 1712 a prefecture Apostolic, including the islands of Madagascar, Réunion (then Bourbon), Mauritius etc., was established in the Indian Ocean and confided to the Congregation of St. Vincent de Paul. By a Brief of 6 October, 1740, Benedict XIV made the mission dependent on the Archdiocese of Paris. After the British occupation of Mauritius a vicariate Apostolic was established which, by a Decree of 21 January, 1819, was confided to Rt. Rev. Edward Bede Slater, Vicar Apostolic of the Cape of Good Hope and the Island of Madagascar; shortly afterwards the region of New Holland was annexed to the vicariate. In 1829 the Island of Madagascar was separated from the vicariate, and in 1834 the district of New Holland was suppressed. The Cape of Good Hope, the Island of St. Helena, and the Seychelles Islands were cut off from the mission of Mauritius in 1837, 1851, and 1852 respectively, the Diocese of Port Louis having been erected by a Decree of 1 December, 1847. The present bishop, Rt. Rev. James R. Bilsborrow, elected to the see on 13 Sept., 1910, succeeded the Rt. Rev. Peter Augustus O'Neill (born at Liverpool 22 Dec., 1841; made his profession as a Benedictine at Douai 10 Dec., 1861; was ordained 6 April, 1867; elevated to the episcopate 22 May, 1896, consecrated 29 June of that year). The present Catholic population of the diocese is 119,000; there are 52 priests, 27 churches, and 40 chapels. Religious orders include Jesuits and Fathers of the Holy Ghost, Loreto Sisters, Sisters of Charity of Perpetual Help, and the Daughters of Mary. MISSIONES CATHOLICÆ; Annuaire pontif. (1911); KELLER, Madagascar, Mauritius, and other East African Islands (London). BLANCHE M. KELLY. Porto Alegre Archdiocese of Porto Alegre (PORTALEGRENSIS) Located in Eastern Brazil. Porto Alegre, the capital and chief port of the State of Rio Grande do Sul, is built on the northern extremity of Lagoa dos Patos and on the eastern shore of the estuary called Rio Guahyba. It was founded in 1742 by a colony of immigrants from the Azores, and was first known as Porto dos Cazaes. In 1770 Governor Jose Marcellino de Figuereido selected it as his official residence, and in 1773 the town received its present name. Raised to the rank of a city in 1822, it was given in 1841 in recognition of its loyalty the title "leal e valorosa". The city is the chief commercial centre of the state, and has a harbour accessible to vessels of not more than ten feet draught. The principal industry of the state is stock-raising, which was first organized by the Jesuit missionaries in the seventeenth century. The municipio has an area of 931 sq. miles; the latest census returns assign the city (including several districts not within the municipal boundaries) a population of 73,574 inhabitants, for the most part of German and Italian extraction. The climate, while cool and bracing in winter, is intensely hot during the summer; the average annual rainfall exceeds thirty inches. Porto Alegre has four newspapers, including the Catholic "Deutsches Volksblatt"; the state institutions include the municipal palace, the governor's palace, the school of engineering, the military college, school of medicine, and four general schools. Christianity was first introduced into the country by the Jesuits in the early part of the seventeenth century, after the Indian slave hunters of São Paulo had forced them to abandon their missions in Upper Paraná. In 1848 the state, which has an area of about 91,300 sq. miles, was formed into the Diocese of São Pedro do Rio Grande do Sul. On 4 March, 1910, Pius X divided the territory of the state between this see (which he raised to metropolitan rank with the title of Porto Alegre, now appointed its seat), and its newly created suffragans, Pelotas, Santa Maria, Uruguayana, and Florianopolis. The religious statistics at the time of the division were: 1,400,000 Catholics, 115,000 Protestants (including 5,000 Methodists), 134 parishes and parochial charges, 245 priests (including 225 regular), 68 brothers, 58 seminarians, nearly 400 sisters, 6 g ymnasiums, 2 normal schools, 1 agricultural school, and more than 500 schools and colleges. The principal religious orders of the archdiocese are the Jesuits (St. Joseph's Church, gymnasium etc.), the Pallottini Fathers, the Sisters of St. Francis, the Sisters of St. Catherine, the Sisters of St. Joseph, the Evangelical School Brothers, the Capuchins (who have charge of the episcopal seminary). Nearly all the hospitals are managed by nuns. The chief churches are the Cathedral of Our Lady Madre de Deus, the church of Nossa Senhora des Dores, and the (Jesuit) church of St. Joseph. The present archbishop is the Most Reverend Claoudi Jose Gonçalves Ponce de Leão (born 21 Feb., 1841), transferred from the Diocese of Goyaz to the former Diocese of Rio Grande on 13 May, 1881. On 21 February, 1906, Mgr João Antonio Pimenta, titular Bishop of Pentacomia, was appointed coadjutor with right of succession. See list of general works in bibliography of article on BRAZIL. Annuaire pontif. Cathol. (Paris, 1911). MOIRA K. COYLE. Port Alegre, Diocese of Diocese of Porto Alegre (PORTALEGREN) Porto Alegre comprises the southern part of the State of Minas Geraes, and part of the State of São Paulo, Republic of Brazil. It was created a bishopric by Brief of 4 August, 1900; the see is located at the city of Porto Alegre, State of Minas Geraes. The first bishop was Mgr G. Bathista Correa Nery, succeeded by Mgr Antonio Augusto de Assis. The diocese proper has 62 parishes with 120 secular priests and 6 regular priests and a total Catholic population of 800,000 souls. For the education of young men in the ecclesiastical career there is in Porto Alegre a theological seminary, founded in August, 1902, by Mgr Correa Nery. There is also an excellent high school known as the Diocesan College of San José, and founded in 1899 by Mgr de Andrade. For the conversion of infidels there are the Diocesan Missionaries of the Heart of Mary, an order founded in 1902 by Mgr. Correa Nery, and composed of six priests under a superior. The official organ of the diocese is the "Mensageiro Ecclesiastico", a monthly review of about 32 pages, whose present editor is Father Octavia Chagas de Miranda. There is besides another Catholic publication, "O Estudo", issued by the College of San José. Annuaire Pontifical Catholique (Paris, 1911), s. v. Pouso-Alegre. JULIAN MORENO-LACALLE. Porto and Santa-Rufina Diocese of Porto and Santa-Rufina (PORTUENSIS ET SANCTÆ RUFINÆ) This diocese was formed from the union of two suburbicarian sees. Porto, now a wretched village, was in ancient times the chief harbour of Rome. It owes its origin to the port built by Claudius on the right of the Tiber, opposite Ostia; Trajan enlarged the basin, and in a short time there grew around it a city which soon became independent of Ostia. It was near Porto that Julius Nepos compelled Emperor Glycerius to abdicate (474). During the Gothic War the town served the Goths (537 and 549) and the Byzantines (546-52) as a base of operations against Rome. In the ninth and tenth centuries it was sacked on several occasions by the Saracens. In 849 Leo IV fortified it and established there a colony of Corsicans for the defence of the coast and the neighbouring territory; but the city continued to decay. Naturally Christianity was early established there. Several martyrs of Porto are known, including Herculanus, Hyacinthus, Martialis, Saturninus Epictetus, Maprilis and Felix. The place was also famous as the probable see of St. Hippolytus (q. v.). In 314 Gregorius was bishop. The great xenodochium, or hospice, of Pammachius was built about 370. Among the other bishops should be mentioned Donatus (date uncertain), who built the basilica of St. Eutropius; Felix, a contemporary of St. Gregory the Great; Joannes, legate to the Sixth General Council (680); Gregorius, who accompanied Pope Constantine to Constantinople (710); Gregorius II (743-61); Citonatus, present at the consecration of the antipope Constantine (767); Radoaldus, who acted contrary to his instructions on the occasion of the difficulties with Photius at Constantinople (862), and who was deposed for having prevaricated in connexion with the divorce of Lothair II of Lorraine; Formosus, who became pope (891); Benedictus (963), who consecrated the antipope Leo VIII; Gregorio (c. 991), who built the irrigation system of the territory of the diocese; Benedict VIII and Benedict IX were bishops of Porto; Mauritius (1097), sent by Paschal II to establish order in religious affairs in the Holy Land; Callistus II (1119-24), who united to the See of Porto the other suburbicarian See of Silva Candida or Santa Rufina. Santa Rufina grew up around the basilica of the Holy Martyrs Sts. Rufina and Secunda on the Via Aurelia, fourteen miles from Rome; the basilica is said to have been begun by Julius I, and was finished by Saint Damasus. In the ninth century this town was destroyed by the Saracens, and the efforts of Leo IV and Sergius III were unable to save it from total ruin: all that remains are the remnants of the ancient basilica and a chapel. The first notice of it as an episcopal see dates from the fifth century, when its bishop Adeodatus was present at the councils held by Pope Symmachus; its bishop St. Valentinus, Vicar of Rome during the absence of Vigilius, had his hands cut off by Totila. Among its other bishops mention should be made of Tiberius (594), Ursus (680), Nicetas (710), Hildebrand (906), and Peter (1026), whose jurisdiction over the Leonine City, the Trastevere, and the Insula Tiberina (island in the Tiber) was confirmed. The residence of the bishops of Silva Candida was on the Insula Tiberina beside the church of Sts. Adalbert and Paulinus, while that of the bishops of Porto was on the same island near the church of San Giovanni. The bishops of Silva Candida, moreover, enjoyed great prerogatives in relation with the ceremonies of the basilica of St. Peter. The most famous of these prelates was Cardinal Humbertus, who accompanied Leo IX from Burgundy to Rome; he was appointed Bishop of Sicily by that pope, but, having been prevented by the Normans from landing on the island, he received the See of Silva Candida, and later was sent to Constantinople to settle the controversies aroused by Michael Cærularius. He wrote against the errors of the Greeks and against Berengarius (1051-63). The last Bishop was Mainardus. Historically, therefore, the Bishop of Porto became the second cardinal, Ostia being the first, and officiated on Mondays in the Lateran Basilica; he obtained, moreover, the other rights of the Bishop of Santa Rufina, but lost jurisdiction over the Leonine City and its environs, when they were united to the city of Rome. Among its better known cardinal-bishops are: Peter (1119), a partisan of Anacletus II; Theodevinus (1133), a German, sent on many missions to Germany and to the Holy Land; Bernardus (1159), who exerted himself to bring about peace between Adrian IV and Barbarossa; Theodinus (1177), who examined the cause of St. Thomas à Becket; Cencio Savelli (1219); Conrad (1219), a Cistercian; Romano Bonaventura (1227), who obtained the confirmation of all the rights of his see; Ottone Candido (1243), of the house of the marchesi di Monferrato, sent on several occasions as legate by Innocent IV to Frederick II; Robert Kilwardby, formerly Archbishop of Canterbury, poisoned at Viterbo (1280); Matteo da Acquasparta (1290), a former general of the Franciscans and a renowned theologian; Giovanni Minio (1302), a general of the Franciscans; Giacomo Arnaldo d'Euse (1312), who became Pope John XXII; Pietro Corsini (1374), who adhered, later, to the Western Schism; Louis, Duke of Berry, created in 1412 by John XXIII. During the incumbency of Francesco Condulmer, Nicholas V separated the sees of Porto and Silva Candida, and gave the latter to John Kemp, Archbishop of Canterbury, at whose death (1445) the sees were reunited. Then came Guillaume d'Estouteville(1455); Rodrigo Borgia (1476), who became Pope Alexander VI; Raffæle Riaria (1508); Gian Pietro Carafa (1553), who became Pope Paul IV; Giovanni Morone (1565); Cristoforo Madruzzi (1570); Alessandro Farnese (1578); Fulvio Corneo (1580); Francesco M. Brancati (1666); Ulderico Carpegna (1675), who left a legacy to defray the expenses of quadrennial missions; Carlo Rossetti (1680); Alderano Cibo (1683); Pietro Ottoboni (1687), who became Pope Alexander VIII; Flavio Chigi (1693), who enlarged the cathedral and richly furnished it; Nicoló Acciaiuolo (1700); Vicenzo M. Orsini (1715), who became Pope Benedict XIII; Giulio della Somaglia (1818); Bartolommeo Pacca (1821). In 1826, Civitavecchia was separated from the Diocese of Viterbo and Toscanella and united with that of Porto, but in 1854, with Corneto, it was made an independent see. Mention should be made of the Cardinal Bishop of Porto Luigi, Lambruschini (1847), who restored the cathedral and the episcopal palace. From the sixteenth century, the incumbency of prelates of this see was, as a rule, of short duration, because most of the cardinal-bishops preferred the See of Ostia and Velletri, which they exchanged for their own as soon as possible. The Diocese of Cære, now Cervetri, has been united with that of Porto since the twelfth century. Cære was an ancient city, called at first Agylla, where the sanctuaries of Rome and the Vestals were hidden during the invasion of the Gauls; the Etruscan tombs scattered about its territory are important archleologically. Cervetri had bishops of its own until the eleventh century; the first was Adeodatus (499), assuming that he was not the Adeodatus who signed himself Bishop of Silva-Candida in the third synod of Pope Symmachus (501). The last known was Benedictus, referred to in 1015 and 1029. The Diocese of Porto and Santa Rufina has 18 parishes, with 4600 inhabitants. PIAZZA, Gerarchia cardinalizia; CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, I; DE ROSSI in Bullettino d'archeologia crist. (1866), 37; TOMMASSETTI in Archivio della Soc. Rom. di Storia Patria, XXIII (1900), 143; BATTANDIER, Annuaire Pontifical Catholique (Paris, 1910). U. BENIGNI. Port of Spain, Archdiocese of Archdiocese of Port of Spain (PORTUS HISPANIÆ) An archiepiscopal and metropolitan see, including the Islands of Trinidad, Tobago, Grenada, the Grenadines, St. Vincent, and St. Lucia. The Catholic population is about 200,000. Christianity was introduced by the Spanish discoverers and missions established in those islands where permanent settlements were effected. The first preachers of the Faith in Trinidad were Fathers Francisco de Cordova and Juan Garcés, both Dominicans, who died at the hands of the Indians in 1513. The Franciscans arrived in 1596, and maintained their connexion with Trinidad until the British occupation in the beginning of the nineteenth century. Fathers Esteban de San Felix, Marco de Vique, and a lay-brother, Ramon de Figuerola, Franciscans, were slaughtered by the natives in 1699. Their bodies were interred in the parish church of San José de Oruña, then the chief town of the colony, and they were venerated as martyrs of the Faith. The Governor of the colony, Don José de Leon, and a Dominican, Father Juan de Mosin Sotomayor, lost their lives defending them. The Dominicans and other religious laboured in Grenada and the other islands, but as these colonies fell into British hands they were replaced by the secular clergy. When in 1797 Trinidad was surrerdered to Great Britain the status of the Catholic religion underwent no change, as stipulated in the terms of capitulation granted by Sir Ralph Abercrombie. The new authorities undertook to contribute to the maintenance of the clergy and continue to do so. In 1820 at the instance of Governor Sir Ralph Woodford, the Trinidad Catholics were withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Guayana, Venezuela, and Mgr. James Buckley was appointed the first bishop. The cathedral of Port of Spain was built during his administration. He was succeeded by Mgr. McDonnell, whose successor was Mgr. Richard Smith, the first archbishop. Mgr. Vincent Spaccapietra, his successor, is held in veneration for his heroic exertions during an epidemic of cholera. On Mgr. Spaccapietra's transfer to the See of Smyrna, Mgr. Ferdinand English was appointed to Port of Spain. He was succeeded by Mgr. J. L. Gonin, O.P., who requested the Dominicans to resume in Trinidad the work begun by their predecessors in early Spanish days. A small number arrived in 1864; their number increased under Mgr. Patrick Vincent Flood, O.P., and their work extended to Grenada. On Mgr. Flood's death in 1907, during an extended vacancy of the see, the name of a Canadian Dominican, Father Albert Knapp, unaccountably appeared as Archbishop of Port of Spain in many newspapers and a year book. The Holy See appointed the present archbishop, Mgr. Dowling, born in County Kilkenny, Ireland, in 1886, consecrated 1909. Before his elevation to the episcopate he held important offices in his order, having been professor, novice-master, and previous to his coming to Trinidad as vicar-general of the archdiocese, rector of the well-known College of San Clemente, Rome. Most of the clergy are from France, England, and Ireland, only a few are natives of the diocese. English is taught exclusively in the schools and most generally spoken, though Creole patois is widely used by the lower classes except in Tobago and St. Vincent. Spanish is spoken in some parishes of Trinidad and by Venezuelan residents of Port of Spain. There are also many Portuguese. Confessors with a knowledge of these languages are provided and sermons preached in English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. Work amongst the East Indian immigrants makes a knowledge of the dialects of Hindustan needful. Number of parishes, 48; secular clergy, 20; Order of Preachers, 40; Congregation of the Holy Ghost, 15; Fathers of Mary Immaculate, 20; and a few members of the Order of St. Augustine. Higher schools for boys, 2, for girls, 4; 1 orphanage and 2 alms-houses. The Leper Asylum and the municipal alms-house are under the care of the Sisters of St. Dominic, and many of the elementary schools under that of the Sisters of St. Joseph. BORDE, Histoire de l'île de la Trinidad (Paris, 1882); COTHONAY, Trinidad (Paris, 1893); FRASER, History of Trinidad (Port of Spain, 1891); GUMILLA, El Orinoco ilustrado (Barcelona, 1882). MICHAEL O'BYRNE. Porto Rico Porto Rico (PUERTO RICO) The smallest and most easterly of the Greater Antilles, rectangular in shape, with an area of 3670 square miles, and the most densely inhabited country in America, having a population of 1,118,012, over 304 to the square mile, according to the census of 1910; a growth of 125,769 the last ten years. On 16 Nov., 1493, on his second voyage, the mountain El Yunque, on the north-east coast of the island then known as Boriquen, was seen by Columbus, whose fleet anchored in the port near Aguadilla. A monument erected in the fourth century of the discovery marks the site between Aguada and Aguadilla, where presumably the admiral took possession of the newly discovered territory in the name of his sovereign. The island was named San Juan in honour of St. John the Baptist. Among those who accompanied Columbus was Vincent Yañez, the younger of the brothers Pinzon, who had commanded the ill-fated "Niña" on the voyage of the year previous. In 1499 a royal permit was granted him to fit out a fleet to explore the region south of the lands discovered by Columbus. After coasting along the shores of Brazil and advancing up the River Amazon, then called Marañon, he returned by way of Hispaniola, to be driven for refuge from storm into the port of Aguada. From the natives, who received him kindly, it was learned that there was considerable gold in the island. On his return to Spain, Pinzon sought to obtain certain privileges to colonize San Juan de Boriquen. It was only after the death of Isabella that he obtained a royal permit from Ferdinand the Catholic, dated 24 April, 1505, authorizing him to colonize the island of San Juan de Boriquen, without intervention on the part of Columbus, on condition that he would secure means of transportation within one year. Failing to do so his permit was without effect. The colonizer and first governor of the island was another companion of Columbus, Juan Ponce, surnamed de Leon after his birth-place in Spain. The eastern portion of the Island of Hispaniola (Haiti), separated from Porto Rico by the Mono Channel, was at this time under his command. In 1508 he secured permission to leave his command in the province of Higuey, in Hispaniola, and to explore San Juan de Boriquen. With fifty chosen followers, he crossed the channel, landing in Porto Rico 12 Aug., 1508, and was received by a friendly native cacique, who informed him of the existence of the harbour of San Juan on the north coast, then unknown to Europeans, which de Leon named "Puerto Rico" on account of the strategic and commercial advantages it offered for the colonization and civilization of the island. Having explored its interior, de Leon returned to his command in Hispaniola, now the eastern portion of Santo Domingo, to arrange with King Ferdinand and Orando to lead an expedition for the conquest and colonization of Boriquen. He made special request to have a body of priests assigned for his assistance. In March, 1509, he sailed direct to the north coast for the harbour which he had named Puerto Rico, now known as San Juan. Anchoring about one mile from the entrance he established the first European settlement at a place then known as Caparra, now Pueblo Viejo, which remained capital of the island until it was officially transferred to the present site of San Juan in 1519. ERECTION OF THE FIRST DIOCESES IN THE NEW WORLD On 15 Nov., 1504, Julius II by Bull "Illius fulciti" erected in the Island of Hispaniola the first ecclesiastical province in the New World, comprising the archiepiscopal See of Hyaguata, dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, under the title of Our Lady of the Annunciation, with two suffragans of Magua and Bayuna. This Bull, however, remained without effect, on account of inconveniences attending the sites selected, and of the opposition of King Ferdinand, who objected to the concession to the first prelates of the New World the right to participate in the diezmos (tithes) upon gold, silver, and precious stones then being discovered within the territory. This rendered the Bull inoperative, because in 1501 Alexander VI had granted to the Crown of Spain in perpetuity the right of collecting diezmos in her transoceanic colonies. Seven years later, 8 Aug., 1511, the same pope by the Bull "Pontifex Romanus" declared as suppressed and extinguished in perpetuity the aforementioned ecclesiastical province, with the three sees comprised therein, and by the same Bull erected three new dioceses: two in Hispaniola (Santo Domingo and Concepcion de la Vega); the third was in the Island of San Juan, the name now given solely to the chief city of Porto Rico, but which then applied to the whole island. The new dioceses were made suffragans of the Province of Seville, Spain, and the three prelates previously designated to rule the extinct sees of 1504 were assigned by this later Bull to the new dioceses without the right, however, of sharing the diezmos upon any gold, silver, or precious stones that might be discovered within the limits of their jurisdiction. Father Alonso Manso, Canon of the cathedral of Salamanca, who had been elected Bishop of the See of Magua, was transferred by the Bull of 1511 to the newly-erected See of San Juan, of which he took possession two years later in 1513, arriving at a time when the island possessed only two European settlements, some two hundred white people and about five hundred native Christians. According to a letter which this prelate addressed later to the Spanish monarch, he was the first bishop to reach the New World, a statement, however, that is at variance with the opinion that Father Bartholomew de las Casas had been ordained priest in 1510 in Santo Domingo, though it may be that he only sang his first Mass in America, as there is no record of the presence of any bishop there to ordain him at that early date. Bishop Manso was the first Inquisitor General of the Indies, appointed in 1519 by Cardinal Adrian de Utrecht, afterwards Pope Adrian VI (1522). The cardinal made this appointment in the name of the Regent of Castile, whom he represented while Bishop of Tortosa. Juan de Quevedo, Bishop of Darien, is credited with having planted the Inquisition in America in 1515, but Bishop Manso was the first to be entitled "General Inquisitor of the Indies, Islands and the Mainland", with authority to act outside the jurisdiction of his diocese in union with the Vice-Provincial of the Dominicans, Pedro de Cordoba, who resided in Santo Domingo, until the establishment in 1522 of the Convent of St. Thomas Aquinas, the first religious community in Porto Rico. There is no evidence that this tribunal interfered in matters appertaining to the Holy Office outside the Diocese of San Juan. At least it did not interfere with the various bishops in their respective dioceses, who either sui juris or as delegates of the Holy Office exercised their functions in this regard. It also has been stated that to the bishop, Manso, was assigned a number of Indians in the repartimiento made by the Crown, and that successive bishops had retained a number of natives as Encomiendas to care for the cathedral; but the aborigines in Porto Rico were always well treated by the early missionaries, who included Las Casas. In fact Paul III, as early as 1537, declared excommunicated all who dared to enslave the Indians in the newly-discovered lands, deprive them uf their lands or fortunes, or disturb their tranquillity on the pretext that they were heathens. In 1519, at the request of Bishop Manso, who complained that the revenue derived from San Juan was insufficient for his support, the Crown obtained from the Holy See an extension of territory for the diocese, so as to include all the Windward Islands of the Lesser Antilles from Santa Cruz to Dominica, thus rendering the jurisdiction of the bishop coextensive with the civil and military sway of the first governor and colonizer, Juan Ponce de Leon. The Islands of Margarita and Cubagua were also added to the diocese during the episcopate of Rodrigo de Bastidas, who was transferred in the Consistory of 6 July, 1541, from the See of Coro, Venezuela, to succeed Manso. On the appointment of Nicolas Ramos, 12 Feb., 1588, fifth Bishop of San Juan, the diocese was further extended to embrace the Island of Trinidad, and that tract of mainland in Venezuela which comprises Cumana and the region between the Amazon and the Upper Orinoco reaching almost to the present city of Bogota. Gradually the various islands were severed from the Spanish Crown and were made independent of the See of San Juan, which, on the erection of the Diocese of Guyana in Venezuela (1791), was restricted wholly to the limits of the Island of Porto Rico. At present the two small islands of Vieques and Culebra (the latter now a United States naval station) remain part of the See of Porto Rico. Over this ancient diocese, now within the territory of the United States, fifty prelates have ruled, several of whom were born in the New World, one in the city of San Juan itself, Arizmendi, co-founder of the conciliar seminary, who died on one of the arduous visitations of his diocese. The first church was erected in 1511 at Caparra, and by order of King Ferdinand was dedicated to St. John the Baptist. The edifice was a temporary structure, which fell into ruin on the transfer of the capital. In 1512 a like structure was erected for the inhabitants on the southern coast at a point known as San German, some distance from the actual site of the town of that name. For many years the Diocese of Porto Rico had only these two centres of worship, with little increase in population, owing to the larger opportunities then found in Mexico and South America. The location of the actual cathedral of San Juan marks the site of the first church there erected in 1520 or 1521 by Bishop Manso. This wooden structure was replaced by Bishop Bastidas, who began the work in 1543, and in the year following informed the king that the building was still unfinished for lack of funds; that he "was assisted by the new dean, by four beneficiaries, some clerics, parish priests, chaplains, and an able provisor". Again in 1549 the bishop informed the same sovereign that the cathedral, upon which had already been spent more than six thousand castellanos, was still unfinished; that he had celebrated a synod, and that the diezmos amounted to six thousand pesos payable every four years on instalments. Successive structures have been destroyed by cyclones, earthquakes, and foreign invaders, to be replaced by others, each surpassing in beauty the former and continuing for four centuries on this spot the hallowed sanctuary of the mother church of the diocese. The present cathedral, which is comparatively modern in its principal part, dates back to the early part of the eighteenth century. The rear portion, however, gives evidence of a distinct style of architecture of a much more remote period. On 12 August, 1908, the remains of Don Juan Ponce de Leon were solemnly conveyed from the church of San José to the cathedral, where a suitable monument now marks the resting place of the intrepid soldier and Christian cavalier. CHURCH AND STATE On the withdrawal of Spain from Porto Rico, and the assumption by the United States of control over the island, many problems arose affecting the welfare of the Catholic Church. For four centuries the civil and religious authorities had been intimately associated, first by reason of the right of patronage over the Church of the Indies conferred on the kings of Spain by Julius II in 1508, and then by reason of the existing concordat. Three distinct concordats or solemn agreements between the Holy See and the kings of Spain had been drawn up at various times relative to the mutual interests of Church and State in Porto Rico. The first was dated 13 May, 1418, between Martin V and John II of Castile. The second, between Philip V and Innocent XIII, may be regarded as the forerunner of the agreement made 2 January, 1753, by Benedict XIV and Ferdinand VI, which remained the basis of the union of Church and State in Spain and her colonies until the death of Ferdinand VII in 1833. That concordat recognized in a solemn manner the right of patronage as appertaining to the Crown, the Church in consequence reserving to itself fifty-two benefices for its own appointment without any intervention of the State. On the accession of Isabella II her adherents seemed to assume that Rome was unfavourable to the new dynasty, and, together with a vast portion of the Spanish clergy, was leaning towards the pretender Don Carlos. Eventually there followed a complete rupture with the Holy See. In the subsequent civil war opportunity was afforded the Isabellists to despoil the Church of her rights and suspend the allowances guaranteed by the Crown for the maintenance of religion. Porto Rico felt in a very special manner the effects of this. In 1833 the saintly Bishop Pedro Gutierrez de Cos had died, leaving the diocese vacant until the nomination in 1846 of Bishop Francisco de La Puente, O.S.D. During this interval the Church was subjected to violent measures on the part of the governors of the island, who, taking advantage of its unsettled condition and of the Laws of Confiscation (applicable only to Spain), despoiled the Church of much property and disbanded the only two communities of religious men, the Dominicans and Franciscans, appropriating to the State their convents and properties. On 8 May, 1849, the Cortes authorized the Government to conclude a new concordat with the Holy See. This was done, 17 Oct., 1851, and, with modifications duly admitted in amendments (1859, 1867), was the law of Porto Rico at the time when it passed under American rule. The Spanish captain-general, besides being civil and military governor of the island, was also vice patron of the Catholic Church. The question of the patronage previously exercised by the Crown of Spain seemed to offer little difficulty; on the part of the United States, there was no disposition to avail itself of this privilege, nor did the Church desire to have the civil or military government intervene in matters spiritual. The continuance of the concordat as to the support of Divine worship and its ministers was not claimed by the Church from the new government. It was tacitly admitted by both parties that the nature of the American Government made such continuance impossible. With this understanding the Catholic Church, through its Apostolic Delegate, Archbishop Chapelle, proceeded. But ït was urged that the new government, in extending its authority over Porto Rico, should fulfil all obligations of justice towards the Catholic Church. The maintenance of religion and its ministers in Spain and her colonies was not an act of mere piety or generosity towards the Church, but a partial and meagre compensation to the Church for repeated spoliations, particularly during the last century. On the acceptance by the Spanish Government of its obligation to support religion and its ministers, the popes, particularly Pius IX, had condoned many past acts of spoliation. In view of this act of the pope the Church in Porto Rico could not reclaim anything from the American Government, But there were certain church properties, particularly the former possessions of the now suppressed communities of religious men, which, by the distinct agreement between the Holy See and the Crown, should have been surrendered to the diocese; these, however, still remain in possession of the government. Both in Cuba and in Porto Rico claims were made for properties which in every sense of law and justice belonged to the Church, though administered by the government, which was repeatedly pledged by the terms of the concordat to restore the same to the Church. The support of religion was the only title whereby in the past usufruct of these properties by the Crown of Spain could have been condoned; the failure of the American Government to assume this obligation deprived it of all title or pretext to these holdings. Hence the Apostolic Delegate, Archbishop Chapelle, and the then Bishop of Porto Rico, Right Rev. James H. Blenk, made claim to the United States Government for the devolution of these properties or their equivalent, together with a rental of the edifices from the date of the American occupation of Porto Rico, as well as a small amount of censos. The United States military government in Cuba had speedily adjusted a similar claim involving a much larger amount, through the appointment of a commission. The prompt establishment of civil government in Porto Rico obliged Bishop Blenk to appeal to the civil tribunals on account of a special act of the legislature (12 March, 1904) conferring original jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court of the island to determine all questions at issue with the bishop of the diocese. This measure immediately led to a series of civil suits which involved the claim here mentioned as well as the ownership of the properties of the diocese, the episcopal residence, the seminary building, the cathedral, several parish churches, and the hospital. By the people of Porto Rico the claims of the Church were not disputed, except the properties formerly belonging to the suppressed communities, which Spain had held for the last half century, allowing the suits in other cases to pass by default in favour of the Church. The Church property question was therefore duly brought before the Supreme Court of the island, which, after a long delay, handed down a decision by a vote of three to two, sustaining in principle the claims of the Church. From this decision an appeal was made to the Supreme Court of the United States. Meanwhile the municipality of Ponce, unwilling to be guided by the policy of the insular Government, insisted upon laying claim to the two parish churches of that city, alleging that a goodly portion of the cost of the said edifices had been paid for with its funds. This suit was presented to the Supreme Court of the island, where judgment was given in favour of the bishop, and then carried immediately to Washington for a final decision. The importance of this matter was far in excess of the value of the properties at issue, for it involved not only ownership of nearly every church in the island, but also was bound largely to determine the outcome of the suit still pending before the same court in reference to all other church properties. The question of the bearing of the Concordat of 1851 upon the actual situation was most serious, involving the future security of the Church in the island. In June, 1908, Chief Justice Fuller handed down a decision confirming the sentence obtained by the Catholic Church before the Supreme Court of the island against the municipality of Ponce, which was greatly enhanced by the luminous declaration contained in his opinion, upholding the force of the Concordat as an ancient law of the island and establishing beyond doubt the judicial personality of the head of the Catholic Church in Porto Rico, without being required to register under the laws governing business corporations. This decision was accepted by the Porto Rican Government as a forerunner of a favourable outcome for the Church in its appeal then pending before the same court in reference to the properties in question. As the United States Government, both at Washington and in Porto Rico, was concerned in this decision, it was agreed by all parties interested to abide by the sentence of a commission appointed by President Roosevelt, composed of two members for the United States, two for the Church, and two for the Porto Rican Government. Under the presidency of Robert Bacon, then assistant secretary of state, an agreement was speedily reached by the commission in August, 1908, by which the settlement of eleven claims at issue between the Catholic Church on one side and the United States and Porto Rican Government on the other was made on a basis of equity, whereby the Church was assured the sum of about $300,000 for the release to the State of the properties involved in litigation. More than one-half this sum was paid from insular funds, for which the approval of the Porto Rican Government was obtained in the following month. The part of the total sum that was apportioned to the Federal Government for properties utilized by the United States Army was likewise ratified by Congress in the following session, and approved by the President of the United States, thus terminating in an amicable manner a vexed question agitated for more than ten years and involving the only available income for the impoverished diocese. The Diocese of Porto Rico at present is comprised of 78 parishes, which with few exceptions have resident clergy, a large number of whom are members of the religious bodies. The Lazarists, Augustinians, and Capuchins from Spain, the Dominicans from Holland, the Redemptorists from Baltimore, are each doing invaluable service for the preservation of the Faith. The people are poor and unaccustomed to contribute to the support of their religion and its ministers. The amount received from the Government is invested so as to provide a limited annuity for aiding priests in the poorer missions, and assisting in the support of educational and charitable institutions. About 300 women belonging to the different religious communities are located in the diocese, engaged chiefly in the schools and hospitals. The Carmelite nuns, Sisters of Charity, Religious of the Sacred Heart, and Servants of Mary were established in Spanish times; since the American occupation the Mission Helpers of the Sacred Heart have erected an asylum for the deaf and dumb, and taken charge of the chapel of Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament; the Sisters of St. Francis, from Buffalo, New York, have founded two parish schools and a novitiate for the reception of postulants. The Sisters of St. Dominic, of Brooklyn, New York, are in charge of the parish school at Bayamon, having been sent to the island by the Bishop of Brooklyn at the personal request of Pius X. By the Brief Actum Præclaræ of 20 Feb., 1903, the Diocese of Porto Rico was severed from the province of Santiago de Cuba, and made immediately subject to the Holy See, the two islands still continuing under the direction of the one Apostolic delegate. On 8 Aug., 1911, the Diocese of San Juan will have completed the fourth centenary of its foundation. Extensive plans are devised for the proper celebration of this event. Apart from the contemplated renovation of the cathedral, it is hoped to establish a beneficent institution which will include a manual training school for both boys and girls. Bull Illius fulciti in Archivo de Indias (Seville); Bull Pontifex Romanus in Archivo de Simancas; documents in Episcopal Archives, San Juan and Porto Rico; BRAU, La Colonización de Puerto Rico (San Juan, 1907); ANGULO in PERUJO, Diccionario de Ciencias Eclesiásticas; America in Consistorial Congregation's Acta, Records Amer. Cath. Hist. Soc. (Philadelphia, 1889-90), X, XI; U. S. Census Report for Porto Rico (1910). W. A. JONES Portoviejo Portoviejo (PORTUS VETERIS). A suffragan see of the Archdiocese of Quito, Republic of Ecuador. It was erected in 1871 and its jurisdiction extends over the political provinces of Manabi and Esmeraldas, with a Catholic population (1909) of 78,000 souls, and forty-six parishes. Besides the secular priests of the diocese, there are the following religious orders: Capuchins, in charge of the missions in the northern section of the Province of Esmeraldas; Oblates of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, engaged in secondary instruction. The religious orders of women are: Benedictines, Franciscans, and Sisters of Charity, all devoted to the education of girls. The Seminario Mayor is situtated at Portoviejo, the see of the diocese, and was organized in 1888. There are also several schools and colleges, prominent among which is the College of San José, conducted by the Oblates of the Sacred Heart. The present bishop is Mgr Juan Maria Riesa, a Dominican, whose consecration took place 19 Dec., 1907. Annuaire Pontifical Catholique (Paris, 1911), s.v. JULIAN MORENO-LACALLE Portraits of the Apostles Portraits of the Apostles The earliest fresco representing Christ surrounded by the Apostles dates from the beginning of the fourth century. It was discovered in the cemetery of Domitilla, under a thick covering of stalactites. Christ is seated on a throne, His feet resting on a footstool, and His right hand raised in the oratorical gesture. Six other frescoes of this subject, Christ instructing the Apostles, have been found in the Roman catacombs. Besides these groups, showing the entire Apostolic college, portions of two other frescoes which originally represented only the two chief Apostles, St Peter and St. Paul, on either side of Christ, have been discovered. In one of these frescoes the figure of St. Peter and a small portion of Christ's are preserved; no trace of St. Paul remains. The second fresco, on the other hand, preserves St. Paul's figure entire. A third fresco of particular interest, in the cemetery of Priscilla, exhibits a subject frequently represented on sculptured sarcophagi, namely, Christ giving the law to St. Peter. Christ is standing on the globe, His right hand raised and extended, while, with His left, He is handing to St. Peter a roll which the Apostle receives with veiled hands. The author of this scene, which dates from about the middle of the fourth century, evidently regarded the Prince of the Apostles as holding an office under the New Law the counterpart of that of Moses under the Old. A fresco of the cemetery Ad duas lauros, dating from the middle of the third century, appears to have been inspired by the same idea: St. Peter is represented, seated on a low chair, with an open roll which he is carefully studying. Such are the earliest painted representations of the Apostles still in existence. With the exception of St. Peter and St. Paul, according to Wilpert, the Apostles show no specially individualistic traits, some are portrayed with beard, some without, but merely for the sake of variety. The two chief Apostles, on the other hand, are always easily recognized and are of marked individuality. St. Peter appears as a man of great energy, with a short, thick beard, and close cut, curly hair, which in the earlier frescoes is partly, in the later wholly, gray. St. Paul is represented as the Apostle of intellect, bald, and with long, pointed beard, dark brown in colour. With slight changes this type of the two Apostles was always represented in cemeterial frescoes, mosaics, and sculptured sarcophagi, and in fact persists to the present day. Indeed so familiar were Roman Christians with the conventional appearances of their favourite Apostles that, save in a few cases, the artists never thought it necessary to inscribe their names underneath their pictures, even when represented with other saints whose names are given. From this persistence of type Wilpert regards it as probable that, if the Romans did not actually possess portraits of Sts. Peter and Paul, at least a tradition existed as to their general appearance, and that catacomb representations of them conform to this tradition. The historian Eusebius informs us that he had heard of "likenesses of the Apostles Peter and Paul" as well as of Our Lord, being preserved in paintings (Hist. eccl., VII, xvi). The most perfect of the ancient representations of St. Peter and St. Paul are those of the well-known bronze medal, dating from the second century, discovered by Boldetti in the catacomb of Domitilla and now in the Christian museum of the Vatican. The types of the catacomb frescoes are here readily recognized: the close cut, curly hair and short beard of St. Peter, and the longer beard and fine head of St. Paul. Portraits of St. Peter and St. Paul exist also on a number of the gold glasses found in the catacombs; on these the familiar type is reproduced, but the workmanship is of inferior order. Allusions to the office of St. Peter as head of the Church, besides the traditio legis pictures mentioned above, are seen in those monuments in which Peter takes the place of Moses as the miracle-worker striking the rock in the wilderness, and also in several parallel scenes on sarcophagi contrasting Moses with Peter. In catacomb frescoes of the third and fourth centuries Christ is frequently represented performing miracles by means of a wand. Peter is the only Apostle, in early Christian monuments, who is shown with a staff or wand, apparently as a symbol of his superior position. The keys are seen for the first time on sarcophagi of the fifth century; from this date on these attributes of St. Peter appear with increasing frequency on the monuments, until, from the end of the sixth century, they become the rule. The oldest fresco of the giving of the keys to the Prince of the Apostles is in the crypt of Sts. Felix and Adauctus; it is attributed to the beginning of the sixth century. The famous bronze statue of St. Peter in the basilica of this Apostle in Rome is by some regarded as a work of the fifth or sixth century, by others as pertaining to the thirteenth. The latter date is adopted by Kraus and Kaufmann among others; Lowrie, however, maintains that "no statue of the Renaissance can be compared with this for genuine understanding of the classic dress", and, therefore, this writer holds for the more ancient date. The marble statue of St. Peter taken from the old basilica, now in the crypt of the Vatican, was originally, in all probability, an ancient consular statue which was transformed into a representation of the Prince of Apostles. The now familiar symbol of St. Paul, the sword, made its first appearance in Christian art in the tenth century. St. Peter and St. Paul quite naturally appear much more frequently in Roman and western monuments than the other Apostles; as founders of the Roman Church, and one of them as head of the universal church, their memory was revered in the centre of Christianity. In all representations also they occupy the place of honour, to the right and left of Christ. Curiously enough, St. Paul is generally, though not invariably, on the right and St. Peter on the left. De Rossi, however, regards this arrangement as a matter of no particular moment, and points out that in some classic representations Juno, the wife of Jupiter and queen of the gods, appears on the left of her spouse, while Minerva occupies the right. Wilpert, Malereien der Katacomben Roms (Freiburg, 1903); Kraus in Realencyklopadie f. Christl. Alterthumer s.v. Petrus u. Paulus (Freiburg, 1896); Krull, ibid., s. v. Apostel; Kaufmann, Handbuch der christlichen Archaologie (Paderborn, 1905); Lowrie, Monuments of the Early Church (New York, 1901). MAURICE M. HASSETT Port-Royal Port-Royal A celebrated Benedictine abbey which profoundly influenced the religious and literary life of France during the seventeenth century. It was founded in 1204 by Mathilde de Garlande, wife of Mathieu de Montmorency, in the valley of Chevreuse, six leagues [between sixteen and seventeen miles] from Paris, where the village of Maguy-les-Hamaux, in Seine-et-Oise, now stands. Subject first to the Rule of St. Benedict and then to that of Cîteau, it suffered greatly during the English invasions and the wars of religion. At the beginning of the seventeenth century its discipline was completely relaxed, but in 1608 it was reformed by Mère Angélique Arnauld, aided by the advice and encouragement of St. Francis de Sales. Nuns trained at Port-Royal then spread all over France, working for the reform of the other monasteries. In 1626 Port-Royal, besides being very unhealthful, no longer afforded adequate accommodation, and the community migrated to Paris, settling in the Faubourg St-Jacques. Renouncing the ancient privileges granted by the popes, the new abbey placed itself under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Paris; the nuns, devoted henceforth to the worship of the Holy Eucharist, took the name of Daughters of the Blessed Sacrament. In 1636 the Abbé de St-Cyran became the spiritual director of the monastery, which he soon made a hotbed of Jansenism. He gathered around him the Abbé Singlin, the two brothers of Mère Angélique, Arnauld d'Andilly and Antoine, the great Arnauld, their three nephews, Antoine Lemaître, Lemaître de Lacy, and Lemaître de Séricourt, Nicole, Lancelot, Hamon, Le Nain de Tillemont, and others, who, urged by a desire for solitude and study, withdrew to the monastery "of the fields".-There was then a Port-Royal of Paris, and a Port- Royal "of the fields".-In 1638 they opened what they called the petite écoles, in which Lancelot, Nicole, Guyot, and M. de Selles taught the nephews of St-Cyran and some other children. They were transferred to Paris in 1647, then brought back to the country to Les Granges, near Port-Royal, to Trous, at the home of M. de Bagnols, to Le Chesnay, at the residence of M. de Bunières. The Jansenist dispute was then being vigorously waged. In 1639 St-Cyran had been arrested by Richelieu's order and cast into prison, from which he was not set free till 1643, dying a little later. In 1640 the "Augustinus" of Jansenius had appeared, and in 1643 Arnauld's work, "La fréquente communion", which gave rise to violent discussions. Port-Royal was then the heart and soul of the opposition. The women there were as stubborn as the men, and all the partisans of the new teaching in Paris and in France turned towards the monastery for light and support. Solitaries and nuns flocked thither. The convent in Paris, in its turn, became too small to contain their numbers, and a multitude settled once more in the country. Unfortunately, in 1653 and 1656, five propositions extracted from the "Augustinus", which, though not found in it verbatim, were, according to Bossuet, "the soul of the book", were condemned by the Sorbonne, the bishops, and two papal Bulls. From that time began the persecution of Port-Royal which the pleading of Arnauld, the famous distinction of fact and law, and the "Provinciales" of Pascal only increased. Port- Royal, having refused to subscribe to the formulary drawn up by the Assembly of the Clergy in 1657, all the petites écoles were successively closed, the novices were driven out from the abbey, and the confessors expelled. But in vain; the doctors, even the Archbishop of Paris, Hardouin de Péréfixe, endeavoured by their learning and their patience to bring the recalcitrants to reason. "They are as pure as angels", said the latter, "but proud as demons." Only a few consented to sign; the more obstinate were finally sent to the country or dispersed in different communities. In 1666 the director, Lemaître de Lacy, was imprisoned in the Bastille. At length, after interminable negotiations, in 1669, what was called "The Peace of the Church" was signed; Port-Royal became again for some years an intellectual and religious centre, shining on all that was most intelligent and noble in the city and at the Court. But the fire was smouldering beneath the ashes. In 1670 Arnauld was obliged to fly to the Low Countries, and Louis XIV, who had begun to suspect and hate the stubborn Port-Royal community, resolved to subdue them. In 1702 the quarrel broke out anew on the condemnation by the Sorbonne of a celebrated "case of conscience". In 1704 Port-Royal des Champs (Port-Royal of the Fields) was suppressed by a Bull of Clement IX. In 1709 the last twenty-five nuns were expelled by the public authorities. Finally, in 1710, to blot out all traces of the centre of revolt, the buildings of Port-Royal were razed, the site of the chapel turned into a marsh, and even the ashes of the dead were dispersed. Port-Royal was destroyed, but its spirit lived on, especially in the Parliament and the University, and during almost all the eighteenth century France was distracted by the ever-recurring struggle between its heirs and its adversaries. (See Jansenius and Jansenism.) By the rigour of its moral code, which carried the Christian ideal to extremes, by the intense effort which it demanded of the human will, by the example with which it illustrated its teaching, by the writings which it issued or inspired-St-Cyran's and Mè Angélique's "Lettres spirituelles", Arnauld's "Fréquente communion", Le Nain de Tillemont's "Histooire ecclésiastique", Pascal's "Provinciales" and "Pensées"; the "Logique"-Port-Royal produced a great impression on the seventeenth century. Almost all the great writers felt its influence. Two were its direct product: Racine, its pupil, and Pascal, its most distinguished champion. The others were more or less indebted to it. Boileau remained till the end united in heart and soul with it (cf. "Epître sur l'amour de Dieu"). Mme de Sévigné was passionately fond of Nicole's "Essais". La Rochefoucauld's pessimism is closely related to theirs, as is that of the gentler LaBruyère; St-Simon is devoted to them, and Bossuet himself is not altogether a stranger to their influence. What contributed most to the power of their "Messieurs" was the petites écoles and their pedagogy. Their educational principle was: that human knowledge, science itself, is not an end, but a means; it should serve only to open and develop the mind, and raise it above the matter of teaching. In teaching they adopted an openly Cartesian and rationalistic method; they strove to cultivate the intellect and the reasoning faculty much more than the memory, and they appealed constantly to personal reflection. Breaking with the traditions of the Jesuits and the University, who taught in Latin, they taught in French. The child learned the alphabet in French, and was instructed in the mother tongue before studying the dead languages. He wrote in French before writing in Latin. He had to compose short dialogues, stories, letters, the subject of which he chose from among the things he had read. Translation, and especially verbal translation, took precedence over written themes. Finally, Greek, of which they were unrivalled teachers, received more attention and a more important place. Even in matters of discipline they introduced reforms: they endeavoured to combine severity with gentleness. Punishment was reduced to a minimum, and the school was likened to the home as far as possible. They suppressed in the pupil the desire to surpass a fellow-pupil, and developed in him only that natural attraction of the interest presented by the subjects. These admirable teachers and educationists have left us several school books of the highest merit, some of which have remained classics for nearly two centuries-the "Grammaire", edited by Lancelot, but in reality the work of Arnauld; the "Logique" of Arnauld and Nicole; the "Jardin des racines greques" of Lancelot; the "Méthodes" for learning Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, etc. Not everything in their books or in their system of education is worthy of admiration, but it is incontestable that they contributed to the progress of pedagogy against the older Scholastic methods. ClÉmencet, Histoire générale du Port- Royal (Amsterdam, 1765); Racine, Abrégé de l'histoire de Port-Royal (Paris, 1747); Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire de Port-Royal (Utrecht, 1742); Gerberon, Histoire du Jansénisme (Amsterdam, 1700); Ste Beuve, Port-Royal (Paris, 1840-46) (the most important work on the subject); Fuzet, Les Jansénistes et leur dernier historien (Paris, 1876); Hallats, Pélerinage à Port-Royal (Paris, 1908); Romanes, Story of Port-Royal (London, 1907); Cadet, Port-Royal Education, tr. (New York, 1898). J. LATASTE Diocese of Portsmouth Diocese of Portsmouth (PORTUS MAGNUS, or PORTEMUTHENSIS) This diocese was created by a Brief of Leo XIII, dated 19 May, 1882, and was formed out of the western portion of the Diocese of Southwark as constituted at the re-establishment of the English Hierarchy in 1850. It comprises the Counties of Hampshire and Berkshire, on the mainland, the Isle of Wight, and the Channel Islands, and is thus almost coterminous with the limits of the old Catholic See of Winchester. However, according to its consistent policy in England, the Holy See avoided the old centre of government and fixed upon Portsmouth -- the great naval port -- as the cathedral city for the new diocese. John Virtue (1826-1900) was named its first bishop, and upon him devolved the task of organizing the new diocese. He had about seventy priests and forty missions. In Portsmouth there was a portion of a large church, newly built, which would serve as a cathedral. With this he made a start, and the eighteen years of his episcopate was a slow and steady growth in every department of diocesan life -- the founding of new missions, the establishment of religious communities, and the gradual increase in the ranks of the clergy. He enlarged the cathedral and completed its interior decorations. He built an episcopal residence and a large hall adjoining, which, with the cathedral, form a group of buildings artistic in design, and architecturally, the most noteworthy structure, among the ecclesiastical buildings in the Borough of Portsmouth. The Diocesan college at Woolhampton was extended as regards accommodation, and the buildings reconstructed through the generosity of a benefactress. The bishop's influence in Portsmouth was great. He was well known in all branches of public life, and at his death the esteem in which he was held by the people of the borough, was attested by their liberal subscriptions to his memorial chapel in the cathedral. He was succeeded by his auxiliary bishop and vicar-general, John Baptist Cahill (1841-1910), a man of exceptional administrative ability. Bishop Cahill had been Rector of Ryde since 1868, and vicar-general of the diocese since its foundation, he was consecrated coadjutor (titular of Thagora) only three weeks before the death of Bishop Virtue. The ten years of his episcopate were marked by the same steady progress that characterized his predecessor's. He completed the cathedral by adding the west front, and carried out several important changes in the interior. His episcopate was particularly marked by the influx of religious communities, owing to the French persecutions. It was thus that the diocese was enriched by the presence of such congregations as the Benedictines of Solesmes, both monks and nuns. Five Abbeys (Douai, Quarr, Farnborough, Ryde, and East Cowes) have been founded in the diocese. The good which they and the other exiled religious are doing should alone suffice to perpetuate the memory of Bishop Cahill. He died 2 August, 1910, and was succeeded by his friend and auxiliary, William Timothy Cotter (1866) who was educated at Maynooth for the Diocese of Cloyne (Ireland), but afterwards came to the English Mission. He was consecrated auxiliary to Bishop Cahill, 19 March, 1905, as titular Bishop of Clazomenæ, and was transferred to Portsmouth, 24 November, 1910. The statistics of 1910 were: churches, 100; secular clergy, 70; regulars, 203; communities of men, 21; of women, 43. The estimated Catholic population, 45,000. JOHN HENRY KING Portugal Portugal I. GEOGRAPHY AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Portugal is situated on the west of the Iberian Peninsula, being bounded on the north and east by Spain and on the west and south by the Atlantic Ocean. It lies between latitudes 37 and 42 north, and longitudes 6 1/4 and 9 1/2 west of Greenwich. The form is approximately rectangular, with a maximum length of 362 miles, a maximum breadth of 140 miles, and an area of 35,490 square miles. For purposes of administration it is officially divided into districts, but the old division into provinces (which originated in the differences of soil, climate, and character of the population) has not lost its meaning and is still employed in common parlance. The names of these provinces are Entre-Douro-e-Minho, Traz-os-Montes, Beira, Estremadura, Alemtejo, and Algarve. The island groups of Madeira with Porto Santo and the Azores are considered as part of Continental Portugal, the other possessions being colonies. Excluding these islands, Portugal has a sea-board of nearly 500 miles and a land frontier of about 620 miles, the greater part of which is marked by rivers or mountains. But though only a small portion of this frontier is conventional, Portugal and Spain are not separated by a strongly marked natural boundary such as divides some countries; indeed they are geographically one. As regards the nature of the soil, Portugal may be roughly divided into three zones: (1) the northern, which is mountainous and rises from 1800 to 5000 feet, including the Serra do Gerez, notable for its vegetation and thermal springs; (2) the central, a zone of extensive plains divided by mountain ranges, among the latter being the Serra da Estrella (6540 feet), the highest and largest in the country; (3) the southern, the most extensive of the three, almost entirely composed of low-lying plains and plateaus of small altitude. In all these regions the mountains are usually prolongations of Spanish systems. The only independent range of importance is the Serra de Monchique. Briefly, in the north, Portugal has many chains of mountains, plateaus of considerable height, and deep narrow valleys; in the centre, together with high and extensive mountains, we find broad valleys and large plains. Lastly, south of the Tagus, the country is one of plains throughout the Alemtejo, but in the Algarve it again becomes hilly, though the altitudes are rarely considerable. The chief rivers are: (a) the Minho, which forms the northern frontier; (b) the Douro, which rises in Spain and enters the sea near Oporto, about one-third of its course being in Portugal; (c) the Mondego, the largest river rising in Portugal, which enters the sea at Figueira after a course of 140 miles; (d) the Tagus, which rises in Spain, forms above Lisbon a gulf more than eight miles wide, and enters the sea below that city, after a total course of nearly 500 miles, about one-third in Portugal; (e) the Sado, which flows out in a large estuary at Setubal; (f) the Guadiana, which serves in part as frontier between the two countries. The Tagus is navigable for small vessels as far as Santarem; the Guadiana, as far as Mertola. There are no lakes worthy of mention, the ria at Aveiro connecting with the sea. Portugal has few good natural harbours. That of Lisbon is the best, and indeed one of the largest in Europe, and is of easy access at all times. The bar of the Douro is shallow and difficult; a fine artificial port has therefore been built at Leixões to serve Oporto. Setubal is a fair harbour, as is Villa Real de S. Antonio, in the Algarve, while Lagos Bay, in the same province, affords a secure anchorage for a numerous fleet. The other ports are only suitable for small craft and are continually being blocked by sand. Portugal is rich in metalliferous deposits, including antimony, copper, manganese, uranium, lead, tin and iron. Coal is scarce and of poor quality. The country has more than a hundred mineral springs, of which the most important are Gerez and Vizella (Minho), Vidago, Pedras Salgadas, and Moledo (Traz-os-Montes), S. Pedro do Sul and Felgueira (Beira Alta), Caldas da Rainha (Estremadura), Moura (Alemtejo), and Monchique (Algarve). A branch of Gulf Stream runs down the West Coast and the climate is temperate, but it differs from province to province according to soil, distance from the sea, etc.; while equable on the coasts, it is subject to sudden changes inland. The plateaux of Traz-os-Montes and Beira are cold and harsh, while the Algarve littoral is hot, but even where the temperature is most extreme, the thermometer rarely rises to 3 Fahrenheit or descends to 2 below freezing. Snow only falls in winter in the high mountains and in north. The rainfall is more abundant in the north. The rainfall is more abundant in the winter than the South, and on the littoral than inland. The humidity produces fogs which render the coasts dangerous to shipping. The most usual winds are north-west, north, and north-east, but in winter south-west winds prevail, accompanied by storms. The nortada and the east wind are dry and disagreeable. Generally speaking, the climate is healthy, the mean temperature being 61 Fahrenheit. In the eighteenth century Lisbon was much recommended by English physicians as a health resort, and Mont' Estoril, on the sea outside the estuary of Tagus, is now increasing in favour as a winter residence. The vegetation is rich, including nearly all the vegetable species of temperate climates and a large number of those found in hot countries. Among trees the pine is the most characteristic, but it does not grow south of the Sado. The pinhal of Leiria planted by King Denis is the largest forest and the mato of Busaco is famous for the size and variety of its trees. Fruit trees abound, especially on the Upper Douro, and in Beira. Olives and oranges are everywhere, the Algarve produces figs, and Traz-os-Montes almonds. The vine is universal and forms Portugal's principal wealth. The chief wines are port, which comes from the Douro region, and the wines of Beira and the Peninsula of Lisbon (Collares and Carcavellos), but the largest vineyard is found just south of the Tagus and is a recent creation. The cereals most grown are wheat, maize (Indian corn), and rye, but Portugal still has to depend on foreign countries for a portion of its bread supply. Wine, oil, fruit, vegetables, cattle, and cork are exported in large quantities, and the chief manufactures are cotton wool, gold and silver work, lace, and pottery. The fisheries are the main occupation of the coast population, and the sardine industry at Setubal is a flourishing one. II. HISTORY The lifework of Alfonso Henriques first King of Portugal (1128-85) consisted in his assertion, by fighting and diplomacy, of the political independence of the country, and in his enlargement of its boundaries by conquests from the Moors who occupied more than half the present kingdom when he began to rule. Though he had assumed the government in 1128, it was only after a period of fifteen years, during which he suffered a series of reverses, that he was able to obtain recognition of his kingship from Alfonso VII of Leon, to which kingdom the territory of Portugal had formerly belonged. Alfonso Henriques early resolved to protect himself against the claims of his powerful neighbour and overlord, and in 1142 he offered his kingdom to the Church, declared himself the pope's vassal, and promised, for himself and his successors, to pay an annual feudal tribute of four ounces of gold. Lucius II ratified the agreement, taking Portugal under his protection and recognizing its independence, and in 1179 another pope, Alexander III, confirmed Alfonso Henriques in his royal dignity. The later now gave up all idea of extending his dominions, beyond the Minho and the Douro, which rivers formed its boundaries to the north and the east, and endeavoured to increase them to the south. He carried on a persistent warfare against the infidel by sudden incursions into Moorish territory and by midnight assaults on Moorish towns, and on the whole he was successful. In 1147 he took the almost impregnable city of Santarem. In the same year, after a four months' siege, the great city of Lisbon, containing "154,000 men, besides women and children", fell to his arms assisted by a Northern fleet of 164 ships which was on its way to the Second Crusade. The king thereupon moved his capital to the Tagus, appointed Gilbert, an Englishman, its bishop, transported the body of St. Vincent to the cathedral, and perpetuated the saint's memory in the arms he gave to Lisbon, viz., a ship and two crows, in allusion to the manner in which the relics were transported from Cape St. Vincent and to the birds which were said to have accompanied them during the whole journey. The reduction of the neighbouring strongholds followed, but the king had to wait for the arrival of another crusading fleet before he could take Alcacer do Sol, in 1158. The cities of Evora and Beja fell into his hands soon afterwards, but he could not hold so extensive a territory, and the country south of the Tagus was retaken more than once. At the end of his life an unwarrantable attack on Badajoz placed him in the power of King Ferdinand of Leon, and his last years were full of defeats and humiliations. Nevertheless, when he died the independence of Portugal had been secured, its area doubled, and the name of the little realm was famous throughout Europe for its persistent struggle against the enemies of the Cross. A rough warrior, an astute politician, and a loose liver, Alfonso Henriques was yet a man of strong faith. He corresponded with St. Bernard and put his country under the protection of the Blessed Virgin, decreeing that an annual tribute should be paid to the abbey of Clairvaux. For the Cistercian Order, to whose prayers he attributed the capture of Santarem, he founded the great monastery of Alcobaça, the most famous in Portugal, and endowed it handsomely, so that its lands stretched to the ocean and contained thirteen towns in which the monks exercised authority and levied taxes. They corresponded to such generosity by reducing that great territory to cultivation, and Allocable became the mother of numerous daughter monasteries, while its chartulary server in early times as that of the kingdom. The Abbot of Allocable had the post of chief almoner and sat in the Royal Council and the Cortes with the honours of a bishop. Furthermore, Alfonso Henriques, in 1132, established for the Augustinian Canons the monastery of Santa Cruz at Coimbra, which rivalled Allocable in its wealth and social mission, and for the same order he built S. Vicente in Lisbon, which is now the residence of the Patriarch. Sancho I (1185-1211) continued the work of reconquest and a large part of the Algarve fell into his hands, but a fresh invading wave of Moors from Africa ultimately pushed the Christian frontier back to the Tagus. In the intervals of peace allowed him, the king was active in building towns and settling his territory, thus deserving his name of "The Peopler", and, being a thrifty man, he amassed a large treasure. On his accession, he asked and obtained the papal confirmation of his title, which protected him against his Christian neighbours, and after some delay paid the tribute to the Holy See. This was continued by his immediate successors, but afterwards fell into abeyance. Sancho imitated his father's liberality to the Church and gave further endowments to bishoprics and abbeys; he likewise favoured the military Orders of the Temple of Hospitallers of Aviz, and of S. Thiago, which, besides their pious works, supplied the best disciplined soldiers for the war against the Moors and garrisoned the frontier towns and castles. But he was a man of irascible temperament, and his superstition led him to keep a "wise woman" in his company whom he used to consult on his enterprises. His disputes with the clergy and the violent measures he dealt out to them are explained partly by his character and partly by the influence of his chancellor Julian, who had studied Roman Law at Bologna and aimed at increasing the royal authority. Sancho intervened in a question between the Bishop of Oporto and the citizens and ignored the interdict with which Innocent III punished his high-handed proceedings. He also came in conflict with the Bishop of Coimbra, whom he imprisoned and treated with great cruelty. Sancho persisted in invading the rights of the Church and in particular refused to recognize the ecclesiastical forum and clerical immunity from military service. Though he made some concessions before his death, the conflict he had opened lasted through the next two reigns, and for nearly a century the clergy and the Crown were involved in a struggle over the limits of their respective powers. All the early kings were wont to reward services by extensive grants of lands, and in these lands they gave up royal jurisdiction. In time, so large a part of the country was held in mortmain, or had passed into the hands of the nobles, that the rest did not produce enough revenue to meet the increasing expenses of government. The monarchs then tried to overcome the difficulty by a revocation of grants, which naturally met with resistance from the nobility and clergy. Denis, though so generally favourable to the Church, employed a more equitable remedy by prohibiting, in 1286, the purchase of real estate by clerics, but this and a stricter law of 1291 were found too severe and had to be modified. The evil was a great and growing one and, had there been no other cause of discord, would have sufficed to set the Crown and landowning classes at issue. Alfonso II (1211-23) took care to obtain the confirmation of his title from the Holy See, and at the Cortes of Coimbra he sanctioned the concessions made by his father to the Church, whose help he hoped to have when he came to annul the large bequests of land which Sancho had made to his children. In this he was disappointed, for the pope intervened as arbiter, and Alfonso's sisters got their legacies, but they and they all took the veil, and his brothers never obtained the estates which had been left to them. This was a victory for the king, who now, on the advice of his chancellor, sent a commission of enquiry through the kingdom to ascertain the titles to land and either confirm or revoke them, as seemed to him just. So far he had kept on good terms with the clergy, but Alfonso's determination to increase the power of the Crown and fill his treasury affected their immunities, and his action in a dispute between the Bishop of Lisbon and his dean showed that the king's attitude towards the Church had changed. By 1221 the old differences had appeared again, and in an acute form: Alfonso had seized church property, compelled ecclesiastics to plead before secular justices and to serve in the wars. The learned and holy Archbishop of Braga convoked an assembly of prelates in which he accused the king of his breaches of faith and scandalous life. The latter met this by confiscating the goods of the prelate, who fled to Rome. Honorius dispatched three Spanish bishops to remonstrate with Alfonso, and, as this had no effect, they excommunicated him a year later. The pope then threatened to absolve the king's subjects from their allegiance and hand over the realm to any prince who cared to take it. A further papal Brief, in 1222, insisting on reparation, together with an attack of leprosy induced Alfonso to enter into negotiations of peace, and these were in progress when he died. The reign of this excommunicated king witnessed a religious revival which was rendered necessary by the general laxity of both clergy and laity. The Franciscans were introduced by the king's sister and, although they soon won the affection of the people, they were received with little cordiality on the part of the secular clergy and the other orders, who saw their pecuniary interest damaged. In a Bull of Gregory IX (1233) the pope complains of the hostility shown to the friars by bishops and clergy. At Oporto the bishop ordered them out of the city, sacked their convent, and burned it, but the citizens sided with them, and in the end they were able to return. The order soon spread over the country, convents were built for them, members of the royal family chose their churches as burial places, and the popes bestowed bishoprics on friars and charged them with delicate missions. It was the custom for testators to leave a part of their property to the Church, and Bishop Sueiro of Lisbon promulgated a statute that one-third should be so bequeathed under pain of refusal of the sacraments and canonical burial. The citizens appealed to the pope against this violence, and Honorius condemned it, and charged the superiors of the Dominicans and Franciscans to see that the practice was discontinued. The Dominicans had entered Portugal between 1217 and 1222, and, by virtue of their austere morals, poverty, and humility, they obtained a welcome second only to that given the Franciscans. Sancho II (1223-48) was still only a boy when he succeeded his father. His ministers bound him to make satisfaction for the material losses inflicted on the Church by Alfonso II, and to punish the guilty parties. They also promised that ecclesiastical privileges should be respected, but those responsible for the outrages of the last reign remained in power, and the king had small control over them. The bishops showed as little desire for peace as the nobles, and vied with them in vexing the monasteries by their monetary exactions. With each succeeding year a state of anarchy increased over the kingdom. The bellicose Bishop of Oporto, Martinho Rodrigues, presented to the pope a long list of accusations against the monarch, in reply to which Cardinal John de Abavila was dispatched to Portugal on a reforming mission, but though he did much good he was unable to end the discords. Bishop Sueiro then put himself at the head of the malcontents and painted in dark colours the condition of the Church. The clergy were blackmailed and deprived of their property, the king and the nobles despised ecclesiastical censures, public offices were given to Jews, and so on. Pope Gregory thereupon sent a commission to require the king to correct abuses under threat of penalties, but at first there were some difficulties in the way of reform. The bishops too often abused their immunities, they admitted men to orders who were only anxious to evade military service, and sometimes to avoid answering to the secular courts for their crimes. The pope remedied these evils, but the Government failed to repress those which were charged against it. Yet the Holy See was averse to extreme measures, because it appreciated Sancho's crusading energy -- for, though a bad man and an indolent administrator, he was a bold soldier. An ancient dispute between bishop and citizens as to the jurisdiction over the City of Oporto revived again, and bishop and king were soon at issue. Furthermore, the latter roused strong opposition by refusing to allow ecclesiastical bodies or individuals to accept gifts of land, or to purchase it, and, not content with robbing and profaning churches, he slew some priests. He brought matters to a climax when he intervened in a disputed succession to the bishopric of Lisbon and used the most brutal methods to enforce his will and Gregory IX, who had previously threatened, now confirmed a sentence of interdict. Sancho gave way for the moment, and peace was made, the king turning his arms against the Moors, but in an interval between his successful campaigns he became enamoured of a widow, Dona Mercia Lopes de Haro, whom he met during a visit to the Court of Castile, and under her influence his character deteriorated. The bishops renewed their complains of the disorders in Portugal, and in 1245, by the Bull "grandi non immerito", Innocent IV committed the government to Sancho's brother Alfonso who was living in France. The latter undertook to remedy the ills of the kingdom and grievances of the Church, and on his arrival the greater part of the country accepted him for regent in accordance with the papal directions. Sancho, finding resistance hopeless, passed into Spain, where he died a year later. In the reign of Alfonso III (1248-79) Portugal attained its farthest European limits by the conquest of The Algarve from the Moors, but Alfonso X of Castile claimed the kingdom, and the Portuguese king was forced to recognize Castilian suzerainty and, though already married, to further purchase his possessions by agreeing to wed Beatrice, his brother monarch's illegitimate daughter. Fortunately, the first wife of Alfonso III died shortly afterwards, and the king's bigamous union with Beatrice and their issue were legitimated by Urban IV at the request of the bishops. So far there had been peace between the king and the clergy, but the former did not intend to keep the promises on the strength of which he had ascended the throne, and the latter would not abate their claims. In 1258 Alfonso sent a commission of inquiry through the kingdom to determine the royal rights and fiscal obligations of his subjects, and as result he revoked, in 1265, many of the crown grants of land. Seven of the bishops took up the challenge, and in 1267 appealed to Clement IV. They alleged that the king, besides seizing their possessions, deprived them of their liberty of action, refused to pay tithes, exacted forced loans, compelled ladies to marry men of no birth, and men of family to wed low women, or those of Moorish or Jewish race. The abuses of civil administration were dealt with in five articles, ecclesiastical grievances occupied forty-three. The charges were true in the main, but the king met them by presenting to the pope a petition signed by all the concelhos in favour of his rule, and, to defeat the bishops by a policy of delay, he took the Cross for a crusade led by St. Louis, but never went. Moreover, the pope and some of the protesting bishops died, while certain abuses were remedied. Relying on his good fortune he became more oppressive than ever, usurping the revenues of four sees, and in 1273 Gregory X ordered the heads of the Franciscan and Dominican Orders in Lisbon to remonstrate with the king. It was long before Alfonso would see them and then he assembled the cortes at Santarem and had a committee appointed to correct everything done "without reason". This committee was composed of his friends so that the concession was illusory. On hearing of the king's duplicity, the pope sent him a strongly-worded Bull, dated 4 Sept., 1275, reminding him of what he owed the Church and requiring him to keep the agreement made in Paris under pain of censure and, in the last resort, of losing the realm. Again, however, time favoured the king, for Gregory and his two successors all died in 1276, and, though the Portuguese John XXI took the matter up, the king would do nothing until the terms of Gregory's Bull, which he called ordinatio diabolica, were softened. An interdict was therefore pronounced on the realm, and Alfonso's subjects were absolved from their allegiance, but without effect, for the king had a stronger position than Sancho II. However, he relented when death approached; he promised restitution to the Church and made his heir swear to perform what he himself had promised. His understanding with the municipalities enabled Alfonso III to consolidate the power of the Crown by limiting that of the nobility, both lay and clerical, and even to brave the censures of the Church, which by constant repetition had lost some of their effect. Denis (1279-1325), a cultured man, abstained from foreign wars and developed himself to developing the resources of the country, his care to agriculture winning him the title of "the Cultivator". He favoured commerce, founded the royal navy, and above all gave peace to the Church. After long negotiations a concordat of forty articles was signed in 1289, and this was followed by two others. The beneplacitum regium was abandoned, the property seized by Alfonso III was restored, and the king bound himself to respect ecclesiastical privileges and immunities, and to observe the old laws and customs of the realm. The free election of bishops was secured, and the extortions practised by lay patrons of churches and monasteries were prohibited. The long struggle between Church and Crown terminated; but if the first gained most of the points contended for, its commanding position ceased. With the increasing weakness of the papacy, the clergy became more dependent on the monarch. Moreover, the complete nationalization of the military orders effected by Denis also tended to increase the central power, and it was of him "that he did all he wished". On the initiative and at the expense of the Priors of Santa Cruz at Coimbra, S. Vicente at Lisbon, and Santa Maria at Guimaraens and the Abbot of Alcobaca, a university was established at Lisbon and confirmed, in 1290, by papal Bull, with faculties of arts, canon and civil law, and medicine, but not theology, which was studied in the monasteries. The king showed great liberality to the new foundation, which was subsequently, by papal permission, moved to Coimbra. When the Templars were suppressed, John XXII allowed their property to go to the new Order of Christ established in 1319. If Denis proved a wise and just ruler, some of the credit is due to his wife, St. Isabel. She intervened successfully more than once to end the rebellions of his son. Alfonso IV, (1325-57) continued his father's policy. He lived on good terms with the other peninsular sovereigns, but when his daughter was illtreated by her husband, Alfonso XI, he invaded Castile. Once more St. Isabel intervened. Leaving her convent of Poor Clares at Coimbra, she came between the opposing armies at Estremoz, and settled the dispute so effectually that when, in 1340, the King of Morocco crossed into Spain to aid the King of Granada against the Christians, Alfonso IV obeyed the papal summons and led a contingent which helped Alfonso XI to win the great battle of Salado. His later years were clouded by the Black Death and the rebellion of son Pedro, who, though married, had become enamoured of the beautiful Dona Ines de Castro. To end this infatuation, Alfonso was unfortunately persuaded to consent to her assassination, whereupon the prince rose in arms against his father and devastated the country. Benedict XII exacted the payment of the tribute promised by Alfonso Henriques and took measures against the incontinency of the clergy (a recurring evil in Portuguese history), while Clement VI answered the complaints of the Kings of Portugal and Castile as the appointment of foreigners to ecclesiastical benefices. The chief characteristic of Pedro I (1357-67), was the pleasure he took in seeking out and punishing lawbreakers, whether laymen or clerics; hence his title, "the Doer of Justice". Allying himself with Pedro the Cruel of Castile, he took summary vengeance on the murderers of his mistress. He repressed the violence of the nobles and the usury of the Jews, and this with his generosity earned him the respect of the people, savage despot though he was. It is noteworthy that an especial avenger of adulteries, as well as of witchcraft, he lived an immoral life and had several bastards, one of whom became King John I. The chief ecclesiastical interest this uneventful reign centered in the Cortes of Elvas, in which the clergy submitted a list of thirty-three grievances, some of which received attention. As regards the admission of papal letters, the king promised to see them and order their publication in so far as was right. It was a shuffling reaffirmation of the beneplacitum regium. Ferdinand (1367-83) had his father's generosity without his strength, and, though he deserves the credit for wise laws encouraging navigation and agriculture, and for the fortification of Lisbon, he fell a victim to animal passion and foolish ambition. His first attempt to win the Throne of Castile against Henry of Tratamara failed, and in 1371 the Peace of Alcoutim was made under the auspices of Gregory XI, Ferdinand agreeing to marry Henry's daughter. But he could never keep a treaty, and, having fallen in love with Dona Leonor Telles, the wife of one of his nobles, he married her, notwithstanding the angry protest of the citizens of Lisbon. Moreover he entered into an agreement to assist John of Gaunt, who claimed the crown of Castile. Henry thereupon invaded Portugal, in 1373, and would have captured Lisbon, had not Cardinal Guy de Bologne, the papal legate, forced him to retire and make peace with Ferdinand at Vallada. Leonor now entirely dominated her vacillating and indolent husband, and by obtaining honors and lands for her kinsfolk and friends provided against the time when he should die. Losing all scruples, she engineered the murder of her own sister, and betrayed the king by an intrigue with the Galician noble, Andeiro, whom she persuaded him to create Count of Ourem. A few years later Lisbon was again besieged unsuccessfully by a Castilian army, and in 1381 Ferdinand undertook a war of revenge with the help of an English force under the Duke of Cambridge. He invaded Castile, but when in the presence of the enemy took fright and made peace with King John, one of the terms being that the latter should wed Ferdinand's heiress Beatrice, which would have led to the union of Portugal and Castile. At the beginning of the Great Schism it was only the firmness of the bishops that kept Portugal true to Urban VI and prevented the king from offering his obedience to the antipope, Clement VII. The resistance of Lisbon to two Castilian sieges had saved Portuguese independence, and by a Bull of Boniface IX its see was raised to metropolitan rank. The people would not submit to a foreign king, and shortly after Ferdinand's death the citizens of Lisbon rose against Leonor; Andeiro and the archbishop were slain, and John, Grand Master of Aviz, illegitimate son of Pedro I, became defender of the realm. The King of Castile laid seige to Lisbon, but a pestilence compelled him to retire, and in April, 1385, thanks to the eloquence of the great lawyer John das Regras, the Grand Master of Aviz was elected king (1385-1433) at the Cortes of Coimbra. On 14 August he totally defeated the Castilians at Aljubarrota, and this, together with the victories gained by Nuno Alvares Pereira, "the Holy Constable", secured Portuguese independence. The king erected on the field of battle the great monastery of Batalha and there he and his sons were buried. On 9 May, 1388, he made the Treaty of Windsor with England and, though a cleric, sealed the alliance by wedding Philippa, daughter of John of Gaunt. In 1391 Boniface IX legitimated the marriage. Portugal now turned her face to the ocean and prepared to become a great maritime power. The oversea conquest began with the capture of Ceuta, in 1415, and under the auspices of Prince Henry the Navigator the voyages were organized which ultimately led to the discovery of the road to India round the Cape of Good Hope. The pope encouraged these efforts, which had for their object the spread of Christianity as well as of commerce, and, by a Bull of 4 April, 1418, confirmed to the king all the lands he should take from the Moors. In the previous year Ceuta had been created a diocese, and it was the first of many sees erected in non-Christian countries where the Portuguese carried their faith and flag. John made two concordats with the Church, the first at the Cortes of Elvas, the second, in 1427, at the Cortes of Santarem, but he did not abandon the beneplacitum regium. He had been compelled to make large grants to the nobles as the price of their support in the War of Independence. One of the first acts of his son Edward (in Portuguese Duarte-1433-38) was to promulgate the "Lei Mental" which enacted that these properties should only descend in the direct male line of the grantee, on the failure of which they reverted to the Crown. The ill result of the expedition against Tangier, which was undertaken against the advice of Eugenius IV and ended in the captivity of the Infanta Ferdinand, hastened the end of the crowned philosopher, and Alfonso V (1438-81) succeeded to the throne in childhood. The people would not accept his mother, Queen Leonor, as regent, and that office was conferred on the Infanta Pedro, Edward's brother. The queen and her party never forgave this act; they stirred up Alfonso against his uncle, who was defeated and slain at the battle of Alfarroeira. The authors of this tragedy were excommunicated by the pope, and relations between Portugal and Rome ceased, but were reestablished in 1451, and from 1452 onwards became very close. Alfonso, a typical medieval knight, full of the crusading spirit, was bent on fighting the Moors, and he received every encouragement. Nicholas V, by a Bull of 8 January, 1454, conceded to him all conquests in Africa from Cape Non to Guinea, with power to build churches the patronage of which should be his, and prohibited any vessels from sailing to those parts without leave from the King of Portugal. By another Bull of the same date the pope extended Portuguese dominion over all the seas from Africa to India. A subsequent Bull granted to the Order of Christ authority in spirituals over the peoples subdued by the Portuguese as far as India, and provided that no one but the King of Portugal should be entitled to send expeditions of discovery to those parts. Finally, in 1481, Sixtus IV confirmed to the kings of Portugal all islands and territories discovered now or in the future from Cape Non to India. The voyages continued during Alfonso's reign, and the equator was passed in 1471. But the king thought more of land conquests in North Africa, where he made three successful expeditions, and continued to covet the throne of the neighbouring country until he was defeated, in 1476, at the battle of Toro. His reign was rendered notable by the publication, in 1446 of the Alfonsine Code. John II (1481-95) showed great energy in the work of discovery, which had been somewhat neglected since the death of Prince Henry, and under his auspices Bartholomew Diaz passed the Cape of Good Hope in 1486, and in 1498 Vasco da Gama reached India. A firm believer in absolute government and a man of inflexible will, John broke the power of the nobility, which had become enormous through the unwise liberality of his father, following on the donations of John I. He deprived them of their right to administer justice on their estates, and when they resisted, led by the Duke of Braganza, the king had him arrested and beheaded, and completed his work by himself stabbing the Duke of Viseu and ordering the execution of the Bishop of Evora and others. A great confiscation of estates followed and enriched the Crown, which now became the one power of the realm. John maintained good relations with Castile and, in 1494, made the Treaty of Tordesillas, confirmed by the Bull of Alexander VI, by which the limits of the possessions of Spain and Portugal in the regions discovered by their seamen were fixed by an imaginary line drawn at 360 leagues west of Cape Verde, the Spaniards acquiring the right to all lands lying to the west and the Portuguese getting those to the east. Under this division of the world most of the coastline of Brazil found in 1500 fell to Portugal, and the rest of America and West Indies to Spain. Provincial and diocesan synods had become less frequent with each succeeding century (in the fifteenth century not one provincial synod was held) with the result that ecclesiastical discipline declined. The bishops of the best-endowed sees were almost invariably chosen from noble families and some of them lived away from their diocese. This was the case with Ceuta and Tangier. By a Brief of 13 October, 1501, issued at the instance of King Emanuel, the bishops were ordered to fulfil their duty of visitation, which they seem to have generally neglected. From the beginning, the monastic orders and the chapters had attracted the best talents, and the parochial clergy were usually as ignorant as they were poor. Innocent VIII had to issue a Bull in 1485, providing that no one unable to construe Latin well should be ordained. The prevailing laxity had affected the monasteries, but the orders themselves responded to the desires of the king and the Holy See. A reform of the Dominican monasteries began at Bemfica and spread to the other houses. The zeal of the Franciscans was equally marked, no less than twenty-three convents of Observants were founded within a century, and these despite the opposition of the Conventuals, restored the order to its pristine purity. King Emanuel (1495-1521) reaped the harvest sown by his predecessors, and every year of his reign witnessed some new discovery, some great deed. The genius of Alburquerque gave him the maritime keys of Asia, and the monopoly of the Eastern trade made him the richest king in Christendom. In 1514 the monarch sent his splendid embassy to Rome to offer the tribute of India at the feet of Leo X, to urge the pope to proceed with the reform of the Church, and to secure a league of Christian princes against the Turks. Though these objects failed, the king obtained many personal favours, including the amplification of the Padroado, or right of patronage over churches in non-Christian countries. The pope received the submission of the Abyssinian Church through Emanuel and, recognizing the king as the chief protector and propagator of the Faith, twice sent him the Golden Rose. Emanuel was especially anxious to add Castile to his world-wide dominions, and he made three marriages to that end, but all in vain. It was a condition of his first marriage (to the eldest daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella) that he should expel the Jews and unconverted Moors. The Jews had enjoyed the protection of previous kings and had supplied them with trusted servants, but, as both the clergy and the people hated them for their usury, and envied their talents and wealth, Emanuel sacrificed them, against the protests of some of his best councillors. They were given the choice of conversion or exile, and naturally, from worldly motives, the greater part accepted the former alternative and became known as "new Christians", intermarrying with old Christians. Many of these converts went back to Judaism and became the victims of bitter and continual persecution, when the Inquisition was established. King Emanuel and his son, John III, were great builders; the former erected the Hieronymite church and monastery at Belem, to commemorate Vasco da Gama's discovery, and the later made great additions to the superb convent of Christ at Tomar. Though the Golden Age apparently continued, Portugal began to decline in the reign of John III (1521-57). Emigration drained the best blood of the country; the East corrupted, while it enriched, its conquerors; the cultivation of the soil was left to slaves; commerce was blighted by the Inquisition, which drove capital abroad. The Government could not make both ends meet, and the wealth of the Hebrews invited their spoliation. The king, a serious, conscientious man, but of small education, satisfied the complaints of the people against that race by petitioning the Holy See in 1531 to establish the Inquisition. After a twenty years' struggle at Rome with the Hebrews, marked by disgraceful bribery on both sides, John forced the pope's consent in 1547, and the bigoted Infanta Henry, afterwards king, became chief inquisitor. The tribunal was popular and practically destroyed Judaism, but its methods divided the nation into spies and victims, encouraged blackmail and false denunciations, and contributed to undermine the national character. It put a new weapon into the hands of the monarch, who now had no check on his rule, for the Cortes had lost their power by the end of the preceding century. In 1540 the first Jesuits came, and the king became a warm patron of their early missionary labours in the East. In addition to the ministry of the confessional and the pulpit, the Society devoted itself to teaching and opened colleges which were crowded by youths of the better classes. The university, which since its foundation had moved to and fro between Lisbon and Coimbra, was fixed at the latter place in 1537, and distinguished professors, Portuguese and foreign, raised its intellectual level. Experience proved however that their learning was superior to their orthodoxy and morals, and they were replaced by the Jesuits, who by degrees obtained that control of higher education which they held for two centuries. John deserves credit for his policy of peace abroad and for the colonization of Brazil, in which he had the assistance of the Jesuits, who civilized the natives and protected them from the European settlers. A number of the new colonial dioceses were founded in this reign, and Portuguese theologians among them Ven. Bartholomew of the Martyrs, took a prominent part in the Council of Trent. On John's death, his widow became regent for her grandson Sebastian (1557-78), who was a minor. The latter grew up an exalted mystic and knight errant of the Cross, without interest in the work of government. Though pressed by St. Pius V, he refused to marry and obstinately insisted on attempting to conquer North Africa without sufficient men or money. His rout and death at the battle of Alcacer decided the fate of Portugal, for Cardinal Henry (1578-80) lived less than two years, and in 1580 Philip II of Spain claimed the throne as next heir. Partly by force and partly by bribery, he secured election as Philip I of Portugal (1580-98) at the Cortes of Thomar in 1581, and for sixty years the Crowns of Portugal and Spain were united. If Philip I and II (1598-1621) ruled well, the period was none the less a disastrous one from a religious, as from a political point of view, and Portugal suffered heavily in the duel between the Protestant Powers and Spain. Her Eastern possessions fell into the hands of the English and Dutch, and the latter seized a large part of the coastline of Brazil. The monetary exactions of Philip III (1621-40) and the determination of his minister Olivares, to destroy the liberties of Portugal, aroused in all classes a fierce hostility to foreign rule. The lower clergy and religious orders embraced the popular cause. The tolerance shown to the Jews, who were permitted to return, and the expulsion of the papal nuncio, Castracani, outraged their feelings, and the increasing burden of taxation pressed them hard, so that they encouraged their flocks to look for a deliverer in the Duke of Braganza and greatly contributed to issue. The revolution of 1640 raised John IV (1540-56) to the throne, and liberated Portugal and her remaining possessions from a foreign yoke, but it led to an exhausting war with Spain which lasted twenty-eight years. Moreover, owing to Spanish pressure, the popes refused to recognize the new monarch; see after see fell vacant and remained so, and ecclesiastical discipline became relaxed. These evils continued during the reign of Alfonso VI (1656-83), an imbecile youth of criminal tastes, who was deposed in 1667, his brother Pedro becoming regent and, on Alfonso's death, ascending the throne. The reign of Pedro (1683-1706) is marked by the discovery of gold in Brazil, by the signature of the Methuen Treaty with England, and by the participation of Portugal in the War of the Spanish Succession, when an Anglo-Portuguese army entered Madrid. Though the Portuguese had lost most of their possessions in the East, their missionaries continued to spread the Faith in pagan countries and actually defended remote possessions like Timor against the Dutch. In 1690 the Bishoprics of Pekin and Nankin were established by Alexander VIII, and, after a conflict with the Propaganda, the claim of Portugal to nominate prelates for all sees in the East was allowed. In 1691 the Cortes met for the last time previous to the Revolution of 1820. The leading ecclesiastical figure of the age was Father Antonio Vieira, preacher, protector of the Indians of Brazil, and confidential agent of John IV. The relations between the Jesuits and the Inquisition had never been cordial, and the tribunal, aware of Vieira's sympathy for the converted Jews, and anxious to humble the Society, condemned certain propositions taken from his writings, sentenced him to seclusion in a college, and deprived him of the right to preach. Thereupon Vieira went to Rome and presented a memorial to the pope, who ordered an inquiry into the methods of the Inquisition and suspended it until reforms should be introduced. It submitted after a struggle, and, when Innocent XI revoked the suspension in 1681, the tribunal had to adopt a milder procedure. The gold and diamonds of Brazil enabled John V (1706-50) to imitate Louis XIV in magnificence. To licentious habits he united a taste for ecclesiastical pomp. He displayed his piety by building an enormous pile, church, and palace in one, at Mafra, by providing the large sums required in connection with the canonization of various saints, and by obtaining from the pope the elevation of the Archbishopric of Lisbon to the dignity of a patriarchate, together with the title, for himself and his successors, of "Most Faithful Magesty". Except in the case of the Lisbon aqueduct, the country reaped small benefit from the vast sums expended by the artistic, pleasure-loving monarch; and if religion was outwardly honoured, the bad example set by John helped to lower the already impaired national standard of morals. The nobility had by this time ceased to visit their estates and degenerated into a race of mere courtiers. The interests of the common people were neglected by the Government, almost their only friends being the religious orders. At the pope's bidding, John sent a fleet against the Turks which helped to win the battle of Matapan in 1717. The reign of Joseph (1750-77) is made famous by the administration of the Marquess of Pombal, the real ruler of Portugal for over twenty years. The energy he displayed at the time of the great earthquaque of 1755 confirmed his hold over the king, and with royal support he was able to use the alleged "Tavora Conspiracy" to humble the nobility and to continue the campaign he was directing against the Jesuits, whom he was determined to master. His accusations against them of seditious conduct in the missions and of illicit trading were merely pretexts. He had already dismissed them from Court, delated them to Rome and secured the appointment of a friend of his, Cardinal Saldanha, as their reformer, and when an attempt was made on the king's life he attributed it to Jesuit machinations, confiscated the property of the company in the Portuguese dominions and expelled the Portuguese Jesuits, retaining the foreigners in prison. The pope refused to incriminate the whole company for the faults of individuals, and Pombal's reply was to dismiss the nuncio and break off relations with Rome. Henceforth the real head of the Church in Portugal was the Minister. He heaped ignominy on the Jesuits by securing the burning of Father Malagrida by the Inquisition, and his work was completed when, under pressure from the Catholic Powers, Clement XIV suppressed the Society in 1773. Pombal's ruin of the Foreign Missions was perhaps his greatest crime and was by no means compensated for by his abolition of slavery and of the distinction between old and new Christians. He undoubtedly made great and necessary reforms in internal administration and freed Portugal for the time from its subservience to England, but his commercial policy was a failure, and the harm he did far outweighed the good. Above all he forged those fetters for the Church which still paralyse her action. The death of Joseph brought about the fall of the minister, but the new sovereigns Pedro and Maria (1777-1816), while opening the prisons which Pombal had filled with his opponents, left much of his work untouched. The king died early, the queen lost her reason, and their son John, a sympathetic but weak man, was named regent. French ideas == those of the Encyclopedists and of the Revolution == were kept out of the country as long as possible, but the ambition of Napoleon gave little hope of security to a small kingdom which was regarded as the dependent of England. The Treaty of Fontainebleau divided the country between France and Spain; the famous proclamation was issued, stating that the House of Braganza had ceased to reign, and Junot with a French army occupied Lisbon in 1807. The royal family fled to Brazil, and Portugal was governed from there until 1820. Queen Maria died at the close of the Peninsular War, which led to the overthrow of Napoleonic power, and John VI (1816-26) came to the throne. The Revolution of 1820 forced him to return home, and he had to accept a constitution of a most radical character, for which the country was entirely unfitted. One calamity succeeded another. The opening of the ports of Brazil to foreign ships ruined Portuguese commerce, the separation of the colony diminished the prestige of the mother country, which was reduced to a miserable plight by the long war, and internal feuds were added to external troubles. On the death of John, his son Pedro IV gave a new constitution, called "the Charter", and then resigned the throne in favour of his infant daughter Maria II, naming his brother Miguel regent. The Conservatives, or Absolutist Party, however, who hated the Charter as the work of Liberals and Freemasons, desired him as king, and he summoned a Cortes of the old type which placed him on the throne in 1828. The Radicals and Chartists at once organized resistance to what they called the usurpation and, after a long civil war, were successful. By the Convention of Evora Monte, Miguel had to abandon his claims and leave the country. The victorious Liberals initiated an era of persecution and robbery of the Church, the effects of which are still felt. The religious orders were the first to go. The orders of men were suppressed, and their property confiscated, nominally to enrich the treasury, but private individuals reaped the benefit. The orders of women were allowed to die out, further professions being prohibited. The people, deprived of the monks and friars, who were their teachers, preachers, and confessors, gradually lost their knowledge of religious truths, because the secular clergy were unprepared to take the place of the orders; besides which, the bishops and clergy were bound hand and foot to the State. The last half-century of the Portuguese Monarchy, embracing the reigns of Pedro V (1853-61), Louis I (1861-89), and Charles I (1889-1908), was one of internal peace and increasing material prosperity. But only in the last few years have Portuguese Catholics begun to emerge from a state of lethargy. Modern Portuguese statesmen, usually Catholic only in name, have interested themselves in ecclesiastical affairs to preserve old privileges, such as the Padroado in the East, but hardly ever assist the Church in the performance of her Divine mission. The concordat of 1886 regulated many of the questions in dispute with the State and Hintze Ribeiro's decree of 1896 authorized the existence of religious orders under certain conditions. The prospect of better conditions for the Church vanished, however, with the coming of the Revolution in 1910, which drove the Braganza dynasty from the throne, and delivered Portugal into the hands of the Radicals, whose hostility to the Catholic religion was made evident by the adverse course of the Provisional Government set up by the Revolutionists. On 1 February, 1908, King Charles and the Crown Prince were assassinated in the streets of Lisbon. The murder was perpetrated by a man named Buica and several associates, and was applauded by the Republican press. The succession devolved on the second son, who ascended the throne as Emanuel II. His reign was, however, brief. On 3 October, 1910, a revolution, which had been arranged for 10 October, broke out prematurely, and Emanuel fled the capital to Gilbratar, where he shortly afterwards embarked for England. A provisional government, republican in form, was proclaimed, with Theophilus Braga, a native of the Azores, as President. He immediately set to work to carry out the radical measures of the republican programme, the first of which was the summary and violent expulsion of the religious congregations, the seizure of their property by the State, the abolition of the Senate and all hereditary privileges and titles. The separation of the Church and State was also arbitrarily decreed by the provisional government. On 20 April, 1911, a second decree, in 196 articles, was promulgated, regulating in detail the previously sweeping enactments. Article 38 of this decree prohibits any minister of religion, under the penalties of article 137 of the Criminal Code and the loss of the material benefits (pensions) of the State, from criticizing "in the exercise of his ministry and on the occasion of any act of worship, in sermons or in public writings, the public authority or any of its acts, or the form of the government or the laws of the Republic, or denying or calling into question the rights of the State embodied in this decree or in other legislation relative to the Churches". Chapter iv devotes twenty-seven articles to the ownership and administration of church buildings and property. Churches, chapels, lands, and chattels, hitherto applied to the public worship of the Catholic religion are declared property of the State, unless bona fide ownership by some private individual or corporation can be proved. Chapter v, in twenty-four articles, provides for boards of laymen (after the manner of the French Law of Associations) to take charge of and administer the temporalities needed for Catholic worship. This arrangement is, however, revocable at the pleasure of the grantor (the State). Buildings intended for religious purposes, but not yet utilized, whether in course of construction or completed; buildings which for a year have not been used for religious purposes and such as by 31 December, 1912, shall have no board of laymen to administer them, shall be taken by the State for some social purpose. Only Portuguese citizens who have made their theological studies in Portugal may officiate. Chapter vi deals with the question of pensions for the ministers of the Catholic religion, and permits them to marry. Articles 175, chapter vii, stipulates that "ministers of religion enjoy no privileges and are authorized to correspond officially by mail with the public authorities only, and not with one another. A Constituent Assembly, elected early in the summer of 1911, on 19 June of that year formally decreed the abolition of the Portuguese monarchy. III. ACTUAL CONDITIONS A. Ecclesiastical Organization By the Constitutional Charter Catholiscism was, prior to the Republic, the religion of the State, but all other religions were tolerated, so long as they were not practised in a building having the exterior form of a church. Continental Portugal is divided ecclesiastically into three metropolitan provinces, containing twelve dioceses (nine suffragan). The Patriarchate of Lisbon has for suffragan sees Guarda and Portalegre; the Archbishopric of Braga has those of Braganca, Lamego, Coimbra, Oporto, and Viseu; the Archbishopric of Evora, those of Beja and Faro. The Patriarch of Lisbon is considered to be entitled to a cardinal's hat, and the archbishop of Braga bears the title of "Primate of the Spains", an honour which, however, is disputed by Toledo. The Azores and Madeira each contain an episcopal see and the colonial sees include those of Cape Verde, Angola, Goa (a patriarchate), Damão, Cochin, Mylapur, Macão, Mozambique, and St. Thomas (S. Thomé). According to the Concordat of 1886, bishops were nominated by the Government, appointed by the pope, and paid by the State. Parish priests were appointed by the minister of justice, after information as to their fitness supplied by the bishops, so that they were State functionaries, and often owed their positions to political influence. To qualify for any ecclesiastical post, they had to obtain a government licence before taking orders. In the Islands the parish priests were paid by the State, but on the Continent their income was derived partly from a fund called Congrua, which consisted of contributions levied on the parishioners, and partly from stole fees. There were twelve seminaries for the education of the clergy on the Continent, two in the Islands, and four in other colonies. There is also a Portuguese College in Rome and one for Foreign Missionaries in Portugal. The seminaries were supported partly by their own funds and partly by the Junta Geral da Bulla da Cruzada, an ancient institution which derived its income from offerings made for dispensations. The clergy were exempt from military and jury service, and were ineligible for any administrative position, except the Parish Council (Junta da Parochia), of which the parish priest is the president. These councils administered the property of the parish church and taxed the parishioners for the construction and repair of church and presbytery, the expenses of worship, church ornaments and vestments, etc. The confrarias and irmandades, which numbered about 9000, were independent bodies, ruled by their own statutes. B. Religious Orders How the Jesuits were expelled by Pombal, and how, in 1834, the religious orders of men were suppressed and their property seized by the State, has been told above. At the same time the orders of women were prohibited from taking novices and were allowed to die out, after which their convents passed to the State, but by the Decree of 18 April, 1901, religious congregations were permitted to exist when they were dedicated exclusively to instruction or good works, or to spread Christianity and civilization in the colonies. Long before this decree, the Jesuits had returned and opened colleges for the education of youth, and a number of orders and religious institutions were eventually established in Portugal. These included Missionaries of the Holy Ghost, Benedictines, Franciscans, Irish Dominicans, Little Sisters of the Poor, Sisters of the Third Order of St. Dominic, Franciscan Sisters, Servite Sisters, Dorotheans, Sisters of the Missions, Salesians, Sisters of St. John of God, Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny, Marist Sisters, Sisters of St. Vicent de Paul, and Portuguese Sisters of Charity (Trinas). C. Statistics of Population The population of Portugal, according to the census of 1900, was 5,423,123, the greater portion (68 per cent) being rural. The North is more thickly populated than the South, the maximum of density being reached between the rivers Douro and Ave. Emigration is increasing. In 1907, 45,000 individuals left their homes, 24,000 of those for Brazil and 6000 for North America. D. Education The first modern law providing for the general instruction of the people was that of the Marquess of Pombal, dated 6 November, 1772. But this law remained a dead letter, and, though the Constitutional Charter guaranteed free primary instruction to all citizens, and a multitude of statutes dealing with the question have been subsequently passed, at least 70 per cent of the population can neither read nor write. The direction of primary education was formerly exercised by the University of Coimbra, but it now belongs to the Home Office, the cost being borne partly by the Concelhos, partly by the State. At the end of 1904 there were 4968 primary schools on the Continent and the adjacent islands, 2953 being for boys, 1549 for girls and 466 mixed, but some of these only exist on paper, and some hundreds of parishes have no school. Moreover, the conditions of large proportion of the schools are not good, while the teachers are ill-prepared and ill-paid. The backward condition of Portugal is largely attributable to its lack of instruction, and in view of the want of interest shown by the Government in non-political questions, private societies are endeavoring to apply the remedy. Among these are the Moveable Schools which teach according to the methods of the poet João de Deus, the recently formed National League of Instruction and other bodies, most of which are Freethinking in character. Before the Revolution the Republicans had identified themselves with a movement for lay-teaching, and their various centres had free schools attached, for the instruction of the children of their members. Secondary instruction is given in lyceos, which are found in all the principal towns, and in technical schools; but the boys of the better classes, prior to the Republic, were largely confided to the care of the Jesuits, and the girls to one of the many educational convents which then existed. There are also many private schools, some conducted by foreigners, where an ordinary business education can be had. The religious instruction of the people was far from satisfactory, and since the advent of the Republic is less so. Catechism used to be included in the curriculum of the government primary schools, but under the Republican regime is altogether excluded. There is no religious teaching in the lyceos, which are day schools, without proper discipline or any attempt at the formation of character. Higher education is given in the University of Coimbra (with about 1450 students) and in various establishments of a special character, such as the Curso Superior das Letras, the Medical, Army, Navy, and Polytechnic Schools, in Lisbon and Oporto. The university has a theological faculty, with but very few students, owing to its unorthodox character. Ignorance of religion and of church history, and the reading of bad literature go far to explain the anti-clerical feeling which prevails among the people generally in the towns, and especially in the capital. The Press is intellectually of little account, and its moral tone is low, especially in the case of the Republican organs, some of the most circulated of which are not fit for perusal by women. The Catholic organs, "Portugal" of Lisbon and "Palavra" of Oporto, before they were suppressed by the Republic, enjoyed an increasing circulation, but an avowedly religious is suspected by the great majority of educated Catholics, who fear to be dubbed reactionary. It is the commonest ambition to be considered Liberal, though the word is a misnomer in Portugal, where it stands for many ideas and aspirations essentially illiberal. The Republicans, though many of them profess Catholicism have always been an anti-clerical party. They aim to defend the native secular clergy against religious orders who are mostly composed of foreigners, and especially against the Jesuits. They generally favour civil marriage, a divorce law, the abolition of religious processions in the streets etc. The Socialists go further and are frankly godless. D. Laws Affecting Religion Previous to the Revolution of 1910, a testator might only dispose freely of a third part of his property by will; this is called the terça. The remaining two-thirds go to form the legitima of his heirs in the ascending and descending line. A testator may not bequeath more than a third of his terça to be spent in prayers and masses for his soul, and ecclesiastical corporations may not benefit under his will to an amount exceeding the third of his terça. The testamentary dispositions of a sick person in favour of his confessor, except such as are merely remunerative, are void if he dies of the illness during which he made them. Professed religious women cannot make wills until they become secularized or their communities are suppressed, nor can they acquire anything by will, except by way of aliment, or money legacy, or other moveables. The Civil Code makes no mention of men bound by religious vows, because the law does not know them. There was, under the Monarchy, no divorce law in Portugal, but a marriage could be declared null for reasons allowed by the Church. The canonical impediments were recognized by the Code. Civil marriage and interment were permitted, but made small headway, and the parish registers continued to be almost universally used, though there was a civil register of births, marriages, and deaths. The courts could decree separation of persons and goods (1) in case of adultery by the wife, (2) in case of adultery and desertion by the husband, or public scandal; (3) when one of the parties had been guity of outrageous cruelty to the other. Children born out of wedlock were legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents, when the latter formally recognized them, or when the children themselves obtained a judicial sentence in their favour. Cemeteries were provided and controlled by the municipalities in the chief places of each district. Outside of these, they were established at the expense of the parishioners by the parish council, to which they belonged. The death penalty has long been abolished in Portugal, which may account in part for the large number of murders. Criminals sentenced to long terms of imprisonment were sent to the Penitenciaria in Lisbon and there are casas de correcção, or reformatories, for small boys and girls. Good Shepherd homes for fallen women existed at Lisbon and Oporto, but were suppressed by the Provisional Government at the time of the Revolution. Charitable institutions abounded, and Portugal had, under the Monarchy, some 370 Misericordias and hospitals. In the various districts of Lisbon, the cozinhas economicas, an institution founded and largely supported by the late Duchess of Palmella, provided cheap meals for the poor, and Queen Amelia's crusade against tuberculosis led to the establishment of free consulting hospitals and sanatoria in different parts of the country. As a result of the encyclicals of Leo XIII on Christian democracy, the movement for the establishment of Catholic circles for workingmen was inaugurated in Portugal, and these mutual-aid societies existed in the principal centres of population, furnished education to the workmen and their children, and kept them together by conferences, concerts, and excursions. The associations of Catholic youth in Lisbon and Oporto also deserve mention. But the sweeping measures inaugurated by the Republican Government effected a complete rupture of the former relations between Church and State, and the status of the various Catholic organizations, aside from the religious congregations (which were immediately dissolved), has become very uncertain. Crawfurd, Portugal, Old and New (London, 1880); Idem, Round the Calendar in Portugal (London, 1890); Stephens, Portugal (London,1908); Oliveira Martins, Historia de Portugal, ath ed. (Lisbon, 1894); Idem, Portugal Contemporaneo (Lisbon, 1881); Herculano, Historia de Portugal (Lisbon); De Souza, Historia Genealogica da Casa Real Portuguesa (Lisbon, 1735-48); De Almeida, Historia da Igreja em Portugal I (Coimbra, 1910); De Andrade, Portugal Economico (Lisbon, 1902); Da Costa and De Castro, Le Portugal au point de vue agricole (Lisbon, 1900); Notas sobre Portugal (published by the Rio de Janeiro National Exposition of 1908, Lisbon, 1908); Codigo Civil; Codigo Administrativo. EDGAR PRESTAGE Portuguese Literature Portuguese Literature The Portuguese language was developed gradually from the lingua rustica spoken in the countries which formed part of the Roman Empire and, both in morphology and syntax, it represents an organic transformation of Latin without the direct intervention of any foreign tongue. The sounds, grammatical forms, and syntactical types, with a few exceptions, are derived from Latin, but the vocabulary has absorbed a number of Germanic and Arabic words, and a few have Celtic or Iberian origin. Before the close of the middle ages the language threatened to become almost as abbreviated as French, but learned writers, in their passion for antiquity, re-approximated the vocabulary to Latin. The Renaissance commenced a separation between literary men and the people, between the written and spoken tongue, which with some exceptions lasted until the beginning of the nineteenth century. Then the Romanticists went back to tradition and drew on the poetry and every day speech of the people, and, thanks to the writings of such men as Almeida-Garrett and Camillo Castello Branco, the literary language became national once again. I. EARLY VERSE An indigenous popular poetry existed at the beginning of Portuguese history, but the first literary activity came from Provence. It was quickened by the accession of King Alfonso III, who had been educated in France, and the productions of his time are preserved in the "Cancioneiro de Ajuda", the oldest collection of peninsular verse. But the most brilliant period of Court poetry, represented in the "Cancioneiro da Vaticana", coincided with the reign of King Denis, a cultivated man, who welcomed singers from all parts and himself wrote a large number of erotic songs, charming ballads, and pastorals. This thirteenth century Court poetry, which deals mainly with love and satire, is usually copied from Provencal models and conventional, but, where it has a popular form and origin, it gains in sincerity what it loses in culture. By the middle of the fourteenth century troubadour verse was practically dead, but the names of some few bards have survived, among them Vasco Peres de Camoens, ancestor of the great epic poet, and Macias "the enamoured". Meanwhile the people were elaborating a ballad poetry of their own, the body of which is known as the Romanceiro. It consists of lyrico-narrative poems treating of war, chivalry, adventure, religious legends, and the sea, many of which have great beauty and contain traces of the varied civilizations which have existed in the peninsula. When the Court poets had exhausted the artifices of Provencal lyricism, they imitated the poetry of the people, giving it a certain vogue which lasted until the Classical Renaissance. It was then thrust into the background, and though cultivated by a few, it remained unknown to men of letters until the nineteenth century, when Almeida-Garrett began his literary revival and collected folk poems from the mouths of the peasantry. II. EARLY PROSE Prose developed later than verse and first appeared in the fourteenth century in the shape of short chronicles, lives of saints, and genealogical treatises called "Livros de Linhagens". Portugal did not elaborate her own chansones de gestes, but gave prose form to foreign medieval poems of romantic adventure; for example, the "History of the Holy Grail" and "Amadis of Gaul". The first three books of the latter probably received their present shape from João Lobeira, a troubadour of the end of the thirteenth century, though this original has been lost and only the Spanish version remains. The "Book of Aesop" also belongs to this period. Though the cultivated taste of the Renaissance affected to despise the medieval stories, it adopted them with alterations as a homage to classical antiquity. Hence came the cycle of the "Palmerins" and the "Chronica do Emperador Clarimundo" of João de Barros. The medieval romance of chivalry gave place to the pastoral novel, the first example of which is the "Saudades" of Bernardim Ribeiro, followed by the "Diana" of Jorge de Montemôr, which had a numerous progeny. Later in the sixteenth century Goncalo Fernandes Trancoso, a fascinating storyteller, produced his "Historias de Proveito e Exemplo". III. FIFTEENTH CENTURY A. Prose A new epoch in literature dates from the Revolution of 1383-5. King John wrote a book of the chase, his sons, King Duarte and D. Pedro, composed moral treatises, and an anonymous scribe told with charming naivete the story of the heroic Nuno Alvares Pereira in the "Chronica do Condestavel". The line of the chroniclers which is one of the boasts of Portuguese literature began with Fernão Lopes, who compiled the chronicles of the reigns of Kings Pedro, Fernando, and John I. He combined a passion for accurate statement with a especial talent for descriptive writing and portraiture, and with him a new epoch dawns. Azurara, who succeeded him in the post of official chronicler, and wrote the "Chronicle of Guinea" and chronicles of the African wars, is an equally reliable historian, whose style is marred by pedantry and moralizing. His successor, Ruy de Pina, avoids these defects and, though not an artist like Lopes, gives a useful record of the reigns of Kings Duarte, Alfonso V, and John II. His history of the latter monarch was appropriated by the poet Garcia da Resende, who adorned it, adding many anecdotes he had learned during his intimacy with John, and issued it under his own name. B. Poetry The introduction of Italian poetry, especially that of Petrarch, into the peninsula led to a revival of Spanish verse which, owing to the superiority of its cultivators, dominated Portugal throughout the fifteenth century. Constable Dom Pedro, friend of Marquis de Santillana, wrote almost entirely in Castilian and is the first representative of the Spanish influence imported from Italy the love of allegory and reverence for classical antiquity. The court poetry of some three hundred knights and gentlemen of the time of Alfonso V and John II is contained in the "Cancioneiro Geral", compiled by Resende and inspired by Juan de Mena, Jorge Manrique, and other Spaniards. The subjects of these mostly artificial verses are love and satire. Among the few that reveal special talent and genuine poetical feeling are Resende's lines on the death of D. Ignez de Castro, the "Fingimento de Amores" of Diogo Brandão, and the "Coplas" of D. Pedro. Three names appear in the "Cancioneiro" which were destined to create a literary revolution, those of Bernardin Ribeiro, Gil Vicente, and Sá de Miranda. IV. EARLY SIXTEENTH CENTURY A. Pastoral Poetry Portuguese pastoral poetry is more natural and sincere than that of the other nations because Ribeiro, the founder of the bucolic school, sought inspiration in the national serranilhas, but his eclogues, despite their feeling and rhythmic harmony, are surpassed by the "Crisfal" of Christovão Falcão. These and the eclogues and sententious "Cartas" of Sá de Miranda are written in versos de arte mayor, and the popular medida velha (as the national metre was afterwards called to distinguish it from the Italian endecasyllable), continued to be used by Camoens in his so-called minor works, by Bandarra for his prophecies, and by Gil Vicente. B. Drama Though Gil Vicente did not originate dramatic representations, he is the father of the Portuguese stage. Of his forty-four pieces, fourteen are in Portuguese, eleven in Castilian, the remainder bilingual, and they consist of autos, or devotional works, tragicomedies, and farces. Beginning in 1502 with religious pieces, conspicuous among them being "Auto da Alma" and the famous trilogy of the "Barcas", he soon introduces the comic and satirical element by way of relief and for moral ends, and, before the close of his career in 1536, has arrived at pure comedy, as in "Ignez Pereira" and the "Floresta de Enganos", and developed the study of character. The plots are simple, the dialogue spirited, the lyrics often of finished beauty, and while Gil Vicente appeared too early to be a great dramatist, his plays mirror to perfection the types, customs, language, and daily life of all classes. The playwrights who followed him had neither superior talents nor court patronage and, attacked by the classical school for their lack of culture and by the Inquisition for their grossness, they were reduced to entertaining the lower class at country fairs and festivals. V. THE RENAISSANCE The Renaissance produced a pleiad of distinguished poets, historians, critics, antiquaries, theologians, and moralists which made the sixteenth century a golden age. A. Lyric and epic poetry Sá de Miranda introduced Italian forms of verse and raised the tone of poetry. He was followed by Antonio Ferreira, a superior stylist, by Diogo Bernardes, and Andrade Caminha, but the Quinhentistas tended to lose spontaneity in their imitation of classical models, though the verse of Frei Agostinho da Cruz is an exception. The genius of Camoens (q. v.) led him to fuse the best elements of the Italian and popular muse, thus creating a new poetry. Imitators arose in the following centuries, but most of their epics are little more than chronicles in verse. They include three by Jeronymo Corte Real, and one each by Pereira Brandão, Francisco de Andrade, Rodriguez Lobo, Pereira de Castro, Sá de Menezes, and Garcia de Mascarenhas. B. The classical plays Sá de Miranda endeavoured also to reform the drama and, shaping himself on Italian models, wrote the "Estrangeiros". Jorge Ferreira de Vasconcellos had produced in "Eufrosina" the first prose play, but the comedies of Sá and Antonio Ferreira are artificial and stillborn productions, though the latter's tragedy, "Ignez de Castro", if dramatically weak, has something of Sophocles in the spirit and form of the verse. C. Prose The best prose work of the sixteenth century is devoted to history and travel. João de Barros in his "Decadas", continued by Diogo do Couto, described with mastery the deeds achieved by the Portuguese in the discovery and conquest of the lands and seas of the Orient. Damião de Goes, humanist and friend of Erasmus, wrote with rare independence on the reign of King Manuel the Fortunate. Bishop Osorio treated of the same subject in Latin, but his interesting "Cartas" are in the vulgar tongue. Among others who dealt with the East are Castanheda, Antonio Galvão, Gaspar Correia, Bras de Albuquerque, Frei Gaspar da Cruz, and Frei João dos Santos. The chronicles of the kingdom were continued by Francisco de Andrade and Frei Bernardo da Cruz, and Miguel Leitão de Andrade compiled an interesting volume of "Miscellanea". The travel literature of the period is too large for detailed mention: Persia, Syria, Abyssinia, Florida, and Brazil were visited and described and Father Lucena compiled a classic life of St. Francis Xavier, but the "Peregrination" of Mendes Pinto, a typical Conquistador, is worth all the story books put together for its extrãordinary adventures told in a vigorous style, full of colour and life, while the "Historia Tragico-Maritima", a record of notable shipwrecks between 1552 and 1604, has good specimens of simple anonymous narrative. The dialogues of Samuel Usque, a Lisbon Jew, also deserve mention. Religious subjects were usually treated in Latin, but among moralists who used the vernacular were Frei Heitor Pinto, Bishop Arraez, and Frei Thome de Jesus, whose "Trabalhos de Jesus" has appeared in many languagues. VI. SEVENTEENTH CENTURY The general inferiority of seventeenth-century literature to that of the preceding age has been charged to the new royal absolutism, the Inquisition, the Index, and the exaggerated humanism of the Jesuits who directed higher education; nevertheless, had a man of genius appeared he would have overcome all obstacles. In fact letters shared in the national decline. The taint of Gongorism and Marinism attacked all the Seiscentistas, as may be seen in the "Fenix Renascida", and rhetoric conquered style. The Revolution of 1640 liberated Portugal, but could not undo the effects of the sixty years' union with Spain. The use of Spanish continued among the upper class and was preferred by many authors who desired a larger audience. Spain had given birth to great writers for whom the Portuguese forgot the earlier ones of their own land. The foreign influence was strongest in the drama. The leading Portuguese playwrights wrote in Spanish, and in the national tongue only poor religious pieces and a witty comedy by D. Francisco Manuel de Mello, "Auto do Fidalgo Aprendiz", were produced. The numerous Academies which arose with exotic names aimed at raising the level of letters, but they spent themselves is discussing ridiculous theses and determined the triumph of pedantry and bad taste. Yet though culteranismo and conceptismo infected nearly everyone, the century did not lack its big names. A. Lyric Poetry Melodious verses relieve the dullness of the pastoral romances of Rodriguez Lobo, while his "Corte na Aldea" is a book of varied interest in elegant prose. The versatile D. Francisco Manuel de Mello, in addition to his sonnets on moral subjects, wrote pleasing imitations of popular romances, but is at his best in a reasoned but vehement "Memorial to John IV", in the witty "Apologos Dialogaes", and in the homely philosophy of the "Carta de Guia de Casados, prose classics. Other poets of the period are Soror Violante do Ceo, and Frei Jeronymo Vahia, convinced Gongorists, Frei Bernardo de Brito with the "Sylvia de Lizardo", and the satirists, D. Thomas de Noronha and Antonio Serrão de Castro. B. Prose The century had a richer output in prose than in verse, and history, biography, sermons, and epistolary correspondence all flourished. Writers on historical subjects were usually friars who worked in their cells and not, as in the sixteenth century, travelled men and eye-witnesses of the events they describe. They occupied themselves largely with questions of form and are better stylists than historians. Among the five contributors to the ponderous "Monarchia Lusitana", only the conscientious Frei Antonio Brandão fully realized the importance of documentary evidence. Frei Bernardo de Brito begins his work with the creation and ends it where he should have begun; he constantly mistakes legend for fact, but was a patient investigator and vigorous narrator. Frei Luis de Sousa, the famous stylist, worked up existing materials into the classical hagiography "Vida de D. Frei Bertholameu dos Martyres" and "Annaes d'el Rei D. João III. Manoel de Faria y Sousa, historian and arch-commentator of Camoens, by a strange irony of fate chose Spanish as his vehicle, as did Mello for his classic account of the Catalonian War, while Jacintho Freire de Andrade told in grandiloquent language the story of justice-loving viceroy, D. João de Castro. Ecclesiastical eloquence was at its best in the seventeenth century and the pulpit filled the place of the press of to-day. The originality and imaginative power of his sermons are said to have won for Father Antonio Vieira in Rome the title of "Prince of Catholic Orators" and though they and his letters exhibit some of the prevailing faults of taste, he is none the less great both in ideas and expression. The discourses and devotional treatises of the Oratorian Manuel Bernardes, who was a recluse, have a calm and sweetness that we miss in the writings of a man of action like Vieira and, while equally rich, are purer models of classic Portuguese prose. He is at his best in "Luz e Calor" and the "Nova Floresta". Letter writing is represented by such master hands as D. Francisco Manuel de Mello in familiar epistles, Frei Antonio das Chagas in spiritual, and by five short but eloquent documents of human affection, the "Cartas de Marianna Alcoforada". VIII. EIGHTEENTH CENTURY Affectation continued to mark the literature of the first half of the eighteenth century, but signs of a change gradually appeared and ended in that complete literary reformation known as the Romantic Movement. Distinguished men who fled abroad to escape the prevailing despotism did much for intellectual progress by encouragement and example. Verney criticized the obsolete educational methods and exposed the literary and scientific decadence in the "Verdadeiro Methodo de Educar", while the various Academies and Arcadias, wiser than their predecessors, worked for purity of style and diction, and translated the best foreign classics. A. The Academies The Academy of History, established by John V in 1720 in imitation of the French Academy, published fifteen volumes of learned "Memoirs" and laid the foundations for a critical study of the annals of Portugal, among its members being Caetano de Sousa, author of the volumious "Historia da Casa Real", and the bibliographer Barbosa Machado. The Royal Academy of Sciences, founded in 1780, continued the work and placed literary criticism on a sounder basis, but the principal exponents of belles-lettres belonged to the Arcadias. B. The Arcadias Of these the most important was the Arcadia Ulisiponense established in 1756 by the poet Cruz e Silva -- "to form a school of good example in eloquence and poetry" -- and it included the most considered writers of the time. Garcão composed the "Cantata de Dido", a classic gem, and many excellent sonnets, odes, and epistles. The bucolic verse of Quita has the tenderness and simplicity of that of Bernardin Ribeiro, while in the mock-heroic poem, "Hyssope", Cruz e Silva satirizes ecclesiastical jealousies, local types, and the prevailing gallomania with real humour. Intestine disputes led to the dissolution of the Arcadia in 1774, but it had done good service by raising the standards of taste and introducing new poetical forms. Unfortunately its adherents were too apt to content themselves with imitating the ancient classics and the Quinhentistas and they adopted a cold, reasoned style of expression, without emotion or colouring. Their whole outlook was painfully academic. Many of the Arcadians followed the example of a latter-day Maecenas, the Conde de Ericeira, and endeavoured to nationalize the pseudo-classicism which obtained in France. In 1790 the "New Arcadia" came into being and had in Bocage a man who, under other conditions, might have been a great poet. His talent led him to react against the general mediocrity and though he achieved no sustained flights, his sonnets vie with those of Camoens. He was a master of short improvised lyrics as of satire, which he used to effect in the "Pena de Talião" against Agostinho de Macedo. This turbulent priest constituted himself a literary dictator and in "Os Burros" surpassed all other bards in invective, moreover he sought to supplant the Lusiads by a tasteless epic, "Oriente". He, however, introduced the didactic poem, his odes reach a high level, and his letters and political pamphlets display learning and versatility, but his influnce on letters was hurtful. The only other Arcadian worthy of mention is Curvo Semedo, but the "Dissidents", a name given to those poets who remained outside the Arcadias, include three men who show independence and a sense of reality, José Anastacio da Cunha, Nicolão Tolentino, and Francisco Manoel de Nascimento, better known as Filinto Elysio. The first versified in a philosophic and tender strain, the second sketched the custom and folies of the time in quintilhas of abundant wit and realism, the third spent a long life of exile in Paris in reviving the cult of the sixteenth-century poets, purified the language of Gallicisms and enriched it by numerous works, original and translated. Though lacking imagination, his contos, or scenes of Portuguese life, strike a new note of reality, and his blank verse translation of the "Martyrs" of Chateaubriand is a high performance. Shortly before his death he became a convert to the Romantic Movement, for whose triumph in the person of Almeida-Garrett he had prepared the way. C. Brazilian Poetry During the eighteenth century the colony of Brazil began to contribute to Portuguese letters. Manoel da Costa wrote a number of Petrarchian sonnets, Manoel Ignacio da Silva Alvarenga showed himself an ardent lyricist and cultivator of form, Thomas Antonio Gonzaga became famous by the harmonious verses of his love poem "Marilia do Dirceu", while the "Poesias sacras" of Sousa Caldas have a certain mystical charm though metrically hard. In epic poetry the chief name is that of Basilio da Gama, whose "Uruguai" deals with the struggle between the Portuguese and the Paraguay Indians. It is written in blank verse and has some notable episodes. The "Caramuru" of Santa Rita Durão begins with the discovery of Bahia and contains, in a succession of pictures, the history of Brazil. The passages descriptive of native customs are well written and these poems are superior to anything of the kind produced contemporaneously by the mother country. D. Prose The prose of the century is mainly dedicated to scientific subjects, but the letters of Antonio da Costa, Antonio Ribeiro Sanches, and Alexandre de Gusmão have literary value and those of the celebrated Carvalheiro d'Oliveira, if not so correct, are even more informing. E. Drama Though a Court returned to Lisbon in 1640, it preferred, for one hundred and fifty years, Italian opera and French plays to vernacular representations. Early in the eighteenth century several authors sprung from the people vainly attempted to found a national drama. Their pieces mostly belong to low comedy. The "Operas Portuguezas" of Antonio José da Silva, produced between 1733 and 1741, have a real comic strength and a certain originality, and, like those of Nicolau Luiz, exploit with wit the faults and foibles of the age. The latter divided his attention between heroic comedies and comedies de capa y espada and, though wanting in ideas and taste, they enjoyed a long popularity. At the same time the Arcadia endeavoured to raise the standard of the stage, drawing inspiration from the contemporary French drama, but its members lacked dramatic talent and achieved little. Garção wrote two bright comedies, Quita some stillborn tragedies, and Manuel de Figueredo compiled plays in prose and verse on national subjects, which fill thirteen volumes, but he could not create characters. IX. THE NINETEENTH CENTURY A. Poetry The early nineteenth century witnessed a literary reformation which was commenced by Almeida-Garrett who had become acquainted with the English and French Romanticism in exile and based his work on the national traditions. In the narrative poem "Camo&etilde;s" (1825) he broke with the established rules of composition and followed it with "Flores sem Fructo" and a collection of ardent love poems "Folhas Cahidas", while the clear elegant prose of this true artist is seen in a miscellany of romance and criticism, "Viagens na minha terra". The poetry of the austere Herculano has a religious or patriotic motive and is reminiscent of Lamennais. The movement initiated by Garrett and Herculano became ultra-Romantic with Castilho, a master of metre, who lacked ideas, and the verses of João de Lemos and the melancholy Soares de Passos record a limited range of personal emotions, while their imitators voice sentiments which they have not felt deeply or at all. Thomas Ribeiro, author of the patriotic poem "D. Jayme", is sincere, but belongs to the same school which thought too much of form and melody. In 1865 some young poets led by Anthero de Quental and Theophilo Braga rebelled against the domination over letters which Castilho had assumed, and, under foreign influences, proclaimed the alliance of philosophy with poetry. A fierce pamphlet war heralded the downfall of Castilho and poetry gained in breadth and reality, though in many instances it became non-Christian and revolutionary. Quental produced finely wrought, pessimistic sonnets inspired by neo-Buddhistic and German agnostic ideas, while Braga, a Positivist, compiled an epic of humanity, the "Visão dos Tempos". Guerra Junqueiro is mainly ironical in the "Morte de D. João", in "Patria" he evokes and scourges the Braganza kings in some powerful scenes, and in "Os Simples" interprets nature and rural life by the light of a pantheistic imagination. Gomes Leal is merely anti-Christian with touches of Baudelaire. João de Deus belonged to no school; an idealist, he drew inspiration from religion and women, and the earlier verses of the "Campo de Flores" are marked, now by tender feeling, now by sensuous mysticism, all very Portuguese. Other true poets are the sonneteer João Penha, the Parnassian Goncalves Crespo, and the symbolist Eugenio de Castro. The reaction against the use of verse for the propaganda of radicalism in religion and politics has succeeded and the most considered poets of to-day, Correa de Oliveira, and Lopes Vieira, are natural singers with no extraneous purpose to serve. They owe much to the "Só" of Antonio Nobre, a book of true race poetry. B. Drama After producing some classical tragedies, the best of which is "Cato", Garret undertook the reform of the stage on independent lines, though he learnt something from the Anglo-German school. Anxious to found a national drama, he chose subjects from Portuguese history and, beginning with "An Auto of Gil Vilcente", produced a series of prose plays which culminated in "Brother Luiz de Sousa", a masterpiece. His imitators, Mendes Leal and Pinheiro Chagas, fell victims to ultra-Romanticism, but Fernando Caldeira and Gervasio Lobato wrote life-like and witty comedies and recently the regional piecesof D. João da Camara have won success, even outside Portugal. At the present time, with the historical and social plays of Lopes de Mendonca, Julio Dantas, Marcellino Mesquita, and Eduardo Schwalbach, drama is more flourishing than ever before and Garrett's work has fructified fifty years after his death. C. The Novel The novel is really a creation of the nineteenth century and it began with historical romances in the style of Walter Scott by Herculano, to whom succeeded Rebello da Silva with "A Mocidade de D. João V", Andrade Corvo, and others. The romance of manners is due to the versatile Camillo Castello Branco, a rich impressionist who describes to perfection the life of the early part of the century in "Amor de Perdição", "Novellas do Minho", and other books. Gomes Coelho (Julio Dinis), a romantic idealist and subjective writer, is known best by "As Pupillas do Snr Reitor", but the great creative artist was Eca de Queiroz, founder of the Naturalist School, and author of "Primo Basilio", "Correspondencia de Fradique Mendes", "A Cidade e as Serras". His characters live and many of his descriptive and satiric passages have become classical. Among the lesser novelists are Pinheiro Chagas, Arnaldo Gama Luiz de Magalhães, Teixeira de Queiroz, and Malheiro Dias. D. Other prose History became a science with Herculano whose "Historia de Portugal" is also valuable for its sculptural style and Oliveira Martins ranks as a painter of scenes and characters in "Os Filhos de D. João" and "Vida de Nun' Alvares". A strong gift of humour distinguishes the "Farpas" of Ramalho Ortigão, as well as the work of Fialho d'Almeida and Julio Cesar Machado, and literary criticism had able exponents in Luciano Cordeiro and Moniz Barreto. The "Panorama" under the editorship of Herculano exercised a sound and wide influence over letters, but since that time the press has become less and less literary and now treats of little save politics. X. BRAZILIAN LITERATURE The literature of independent Brazil really began with the Romantic Movement, which was introduced in 1836 by Domingos de Magalhaes, whose "Suspiros Poeticos" reveal the influence of Lamartine. This religious phase was immediately followed by that of Indianism suggested by Chateaubriand and Fenimore Cooper, which had its chief exponent in Goncalves Dias, a melodious lyricist. Byron and Musset were the fathers of the next phase of Romanticism and its interpreters included Alvares de Azevedo, the introducer of humour, and Casimiro de Abreu, two poets whose popularity has endured. Lucindo Rebello belongs to the same epoch, but shows a more spontaneous inspiration, and the verse of Fagundes Varella forms a link with a new school in which the ardour and humanitarianism of Hugo inspired the patriotic muse of Tobias Barreto, an objective poet of wide sympathies, imagination, and feeling, and of Castro Alves, who sang the horrors of slavery while, later still, Parnassianism overran the whole of poetry. Brazil has yet to produce drama, but in the romance she has acknowledged masters in José de Alencar whose "Guarany" and "Iraçema" are standard books, and in the psychologist, Machado de Assis. The Romanticists mostly addressed themselves to the emotions rather than to the intelligence, but Machado de Assis rises to a more general conception of life, both in prose and verse. In "Bras Cubas" he has the irony of Sterne, and the pure, simple diction and distinguished style of Garrett, together with a reserve rarely found in a modern Latin writer. Brazil has now emancipated herself from mere imitation of foreign models and her novelists and critics of to-day show an originality and strength which promises much for the future of a literature still in its youth. Prestage, Portuguese Literature to the end of the eighteenth century (London, 1909); Idem, Portuguese Literature in the nineteenth century in Saintsbury, Periods of European Literature; Idem, The Later Nineteenth Century (London, 1907); Silva and Aranha, Diccionario Bibliographico Portugues (19 vols., Lisbon, 1858-1909); Braga, Historia da Litteratura Portugueza (32 vols., Oporto); Remedios, Historia da Litteratura Portugueza (3rd ed., Coimbra, 1908); Vasconcellos, Gesch. Der Portugiesischen Litteratur in Grober, Grundriss der Rom. Philologie (1893-4); Romero, Historia da Litteratura Brasileira (2 vols., Rio de Janeiro, 1903). EDGAR PRESTAGE Portugues East Africa Portuguese East Africa Portuguese East Africa consists of the Province of Mozambique. Portuguese activity on that coast began in 1505 with the foundation of the Captaincy of Sofala, and in 1558 a fortress was built at Mozambique, the port of call for ships bound to and from India, and the centre from which the discoverers penetrated into the interior, over-running the native empire of Monomotapa in the quest of gold. For centuries these territories were ruled from Goa, but in 1752 they became an independent government, though, until recently, Portuguese authority was almost limited to the cost line. While much diminished in size by virtue of the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty (11 June, 1891), which settled a serious boundary quarrel with England, the province comprises 1428 miles of coast line from Cape Delgado to the southern limit of the district of Lourenço Marques, with a superficial area of 292,631 squares miles. The greater part of the sea coast is low lying, with coral reefs, sand dunes and swamps, and the climate is hot and unhealthful, but the hinterland has mountainous districts and elevated table lands which are suitable for European colonization. The mean annual temperature is high. The rainy season lasts from November to March, the cool, from April to August. The province is served by a number of fine harbours, including Lourenço Marques, the best in south-east Africa, which is connected with the Transvaal by a railway, Beira, the outlet for the produce of the Mashona gold fields and joined to them by rail, Inhambane, Chinde, Quilimane, Ibo, and Mozambique. Besides the river Zambesi and its tributaries, other large rivers give communication to the interior, such as the Incomati and the Limpopo, and Lake Nyassa, with an area of 11,551 square miles, is on the frontier between Portuguese and British territory. Mozambique is connected with Europe by several lines of steamers, English, German, and Portuguese. For administrative purposes the province is divided into the following districts, Mozambique, Zambezia, Tete, Inhambane, Lourenço Marques and the military district of Gaza, each having a governor, while there is also a governor-general for the province who resides in Lourenço Marques. Major Freire de Andrade, the late governor-general, did much for the progress of the colony which of late has been rapid. Its commercial movement in 1892 was valued at 4951 contos de reis, but in 1901 it had reached 21,542 contos, and that of the Port of Lourenço Marques increased tenfold between 1892 and 1899. Since then the rate of progress has been well maintained. Inland trade is chiefly in the hands of Indians (Banyans), while that of the coast is done by English houses. The system of government by chartered companies, which succeeded in the neighbouring British colonies, has been tried here and the Mozambique and Nyassa Companies have jurisdiction over large territories, undeveloped for lack of funds. It is only recently that the Portuguese Government has completed the occupation of the province. Mozambique is rich in minerals, and among vegetable products sugar is raised in increasing quantities, while the extensive forests have valuable timber trees. The native population is of Bantu race and numbers about three millions. The whites number only a few thousand. For purposes of justice the province is divided into seven comarcas and the town of Mozambique has a Tribunal of Second Instance composed of three judges; for ecclesiastical purposes it has a prelacy with jurisdiction over the city but subordinate to the Patriarch of the East Indies at Goa. A force of 2730 men of the first line form the colonial army and the policing of the rivers and harbours is done by flotillas of gunboats. The custom houses are subordinate to that of Lourenço Marques. Primary schools exist in the principal centres, but very little has been done for education. Maugham, Portuguese East Africa and Zambesia (London, 1910); Vasconcellos, As Colonias Portuguesas (2nd ed., Lisbon, 1903). EDGAR PRESTAGE Portuguese West Africa Portuguese West Africa The name usually given to the Province of Angola. It has a coast line of 1015 miles from the Congo to the Cunene Rivers and an area of 490,525 sq. miles, including the territories of Cabinda, Molendo, and Massabi, on the coast north of the Congo. These are surrounded by the French Congo, while the rest of the province is bounded by Belgian, British, and German territory. The Congo was first entered by Diego Cam in 1484, who erected a pillar in token of occupation, and with him was Martin Behaim the cosmographer. Ever since it has belonged to Portugal, except for a period of Dutch domination (1640-48), the Hollanders being expelled by Admiral Correa de Sá e Benevides. Only in recent years has this great territory been explored, and even now the whole of it is not effectively occupied, though military expeditions from the mother-country have conquered the most warlike tribes, and a chain of fortified posts keeps them in subjection. The coast is low, and a sandy, barren plain stretches some way inland; beyond this the province is mountainous and very fertile. St. Paul de Loanda, the capital, has an anchorage ground of 1700 acres; Benguella, Mossamedes, and Porto Alexandre are good ports; while the only drawback to Lobito, the terminus of the new railway, is that it lacks potable water, as does the Bahia dos Tigres, which could otherwise shelter 5000 vessels in its 63,000 acres of water, as deep as 117 feet. The province is irrigated by the Rivers Chiloango, Congo, and Cuanza, while the Zambesi skirts its south-east frontier. The coast abounds in fish, and the territory in minerals, such as malachite, iron, petroleum, salt, lead, and sulphur, but its principal wealth lies in coffee (of which Loanda exported 4112 tons in 1894), india-rubber, gum, wax, and ivory, which are sent to Portugal and exchanged for cotton and woollen goods and wine. Formerly Angola depended for its prosperity almost entirely on the slave trade, and during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries many thousands of natives were transported annually to Brazil. The native population is reckoned at four millions; their religion is Fetichism, and they include a great variety of races. There is only a small proportion of whites. For administrative purposes the province is divided into six districts, and then into concelhos. Their names are Congo, Loanda, Benguella, Mossamedes, Huilla, and Lunda. The governor-general possesses civil and military attributes and resides at Loanda, while each district has a subordinate governor. For purposes of justice there are five comarcas, each with a judge; and a tribunal of second instance, composed of five judges, sits at Loanda. Each comarca has a commercial tribunal of first instance, and each parish a judge of the people, appointed annually. The military establishment consists of an army of 3200 men, partly European, partly native. For ecclesiastical purposes the province is subject to the Bishop of Loanda, and belongs to the Lisbon Province. The Province of Guinea, another West African possession of Portugal, comprising 4450 sq. miles, is surrounded by French possessions, and its coast is cut up by innumerable inlets. It is a low-lying and well-watered territory, the chief rivers being the Cacheo, Mansoa, and Geba. The climate is unhealthful for Europeans. The soil is generally of great fertility, and the province is fit for plantations on a large scale. Its products are tobacco, sugar, india-rubber, wax, and leather, which are exported through the commercial centres of Geba, Bissau, Farin, and Bolama. The population numbers about 67,000 and belongs to ten races, subdivided into many tribes. There are very few whites resident. The country has one concelho, that of Bolama, the seat of government, and is divided otherwise into four military commands. It is generally in a state of war, the natives being turbulent. A vicar-general and six missionary rectors form the religious staff of the province, and these latter are also professors of primary instruction. De Vasconcellos, As Colonias Portuguesas (2nd ed., Lisbon, 1903); Couceiro, Angola (Lisbon, 1910). EDGAR PRESTAGE Port Victoria Diocese of Port Victoria (PORTUS VICTORIÆ SEYCHELLARUM.) Port Victoria comprises the Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean. With their dependencies, these eighty-nine islands, the principal of which are Mahé, Praslin, Silhouette, Curieuse, and La Digue, cover an area of 148½ sq. miles. The French occupied the islands about 1742, but they were captured by the British in 1794, and were formally ceded to Great Britain in 1848. Port Victoria, the capital of Mahé and situated on the north-eastern side of the island, is the seat of the colonial government, the present governor being Walter Edward Davidson, C.M.G. In December, 1909, the estimated population of the islands was 22,409. Both Catholic and Church of England primary schools are aided by the State. The principal exports are vanilla cocoanuts, cocoa-nut oil, tortoise-shell, soap, and guano. The double cocoa-nut known as Coco de Mer is grown in Mahé and Praslin, while Aldabra, a dependency about 680 miles from Mahé, is famous for enormous land tortoises. By a Papal Decree of 26 November, 1852, the Seychelles were separated from the Diocese of Port Louis and made a prefecture Apostolic, to which a Decree of 6 December, 1854, joined the Amirantes and Agalega Islands, likewise separated from Port Louis. The first prefect Apostolic was the Right Reverend Jeremias Paglietti, who as a missionary had laboured successfully in the region for many years. In 1863 the mission was confided to the Capuchins, and was made a vicariate Apostolic on 31 Aug., 1880. As the Diocese of Port Victoria (erected 14 July, 1892), it was a suffragan of Colombo, Ceylon, but by a Decree of 3 June, 1899, it became directly subject to the Holy See. The present bishop is the Right Reverend Bernard Thomas Clarke, O.M.Cap. (born at London, 12 November, 1856; made titular Bishop of Tingis, 19 March, 1902, and Vicar Apostolic of Arabia). On 10 June, 1910, he was transferred to Port Victoria, where he succeeded Bishop Marc Hudrisier (born at Faverges, France, 27 July, 1848; became Bishop of Port Victoria, 21 July, 1892; died Feb., 1910). Besides Capuchins there are in the diocese Marist Brothers and Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny. There are 18 ecclesiastical residences, 18 churches or chapels, 1 infirmary, 24 schools with 2170 pupils, 2 colleges with 215 students, 2 orphanages with 67 orphans. Missiones Catholicoe (Rome, 1907); Statesman's Year Book (1911); BATTANDIER, Ann. pont (Paris, 1911). BLANCHE M. KELLY Positivism Positivism Positivism is a system of philosophical and religious doctrines elaborated by Auguste Comte. As a philosophical system or method, Positivism denies the validity of metaphysical speculations, and maintains that the data of sense experience are the only object and the supreme criterion of human knowledge; as a religious system, it denies the existence of a personal God and takes humanity, "the great being", as the object of its veneration and cult. We shall give a brief historical sketch of Positivism, an exposition of its fundamental principles, and a criticism of them. HISTORY OF POSITIVISM The founder of Positivism was Auguste Comte (born at Montpellier, 19 Jan., 1798; died at Paris, 5 Sept., 1857). He entered the Ecole polytechnique at Paris in 1814, was a disciple of Saint-Simon until 1824, and began to publish his course of philosophy in 1826. About this period he became temporarily deranged (1826-27). After recovering, he was appointed instructor (1832-52) and examiner in mathematics (1837-44) at the Ecole polytechnique, giving meanwhile a course of public lectures on astronomy. The unhappiness of his married life and his strange infatuation for Mme Clotilde de Vaux (1845-46) greatly influenced his naturally sentimental character. He realized that mere intellectual development is insufficient for life, and, having presented Positivism as the scientific doctrine and method, he aimed at making it a religion, the religion of humanity. Comte's chief works are his "Cours de philosophie positive" [6 vols.: Phiosophie mathématique (1830), astronomique et physique (1835), chimique et biologique (1838), partie dogmatique de la philosophie sociale (1839), partie historique (1840), complément de la philosophie sociale et conclusions (1842); translated by Harriet Martineau (London, 1853)] and his "Cours de politique positive" (3 vols., Paris 1815-54). Various influences concurred to form Comte's system of thought: the Empiricism of Locke and the Scepticism of Hume, the Sensism of the eighteenth century and the Criticism of Kant, the Mysticism of the Middle Ages, the Traditionalism of De Maistre and de Bonald, and the Philanthropy of Saint-Simon. He maintains as a law manifested by history that every science passes through three successive stages, the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive; that the positive stage, which rejects the validity of metaphysical speculation, the existence of final causes, and the knowableness of the absolute, and confines itself to the study of experimental facts and their relations, represents the perfection of human knowledge. Classifying the sciences according to their degree of increasing complexity, he reduces them to six in the following order: mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology. Religion has for its object the "great being" (humanity), the "great medium" (world-space), and the "great fetich" (the earth), which form the positivist trinity. This religion has its hierarchical priesthood, its positive dogmas, its organized cult, and even its calendar on the model of Catholicism (cf. Comte, "Catéchisme positiviste"). At the death of Comte, a division arose among the Positivists, the dissident group being formed with Littré as its leader, and the orthodox group under the direction of Pierre Laffitte. Emile Littré (q. v.) accepted Positivism in its scientific aspect: for him Positivism was essentially a method, viz, that method which limits human knowledge to the study of experimental facts and neither affirms nor denies anything concerning what may exist outside of experience. He rejected as unreal the religious organization and cult of Positivism. He considered all religions from the philosophical point of view, to be equally vain, while he confessed that, from the historical point of view, Catholicism was superior to all other religions. The true end of man, he maintained, was to work for the progress of humanity by studying it (science and education), loving it (religion), beautifying it (fine arts), and enriching it (industry). The official successor of Comte and leader of the orthodox group of Postivists was Pierre Laffitte, who became professor of the general history of sciences in the Collège de France in 1892. He maintained both the scientific and the religious teaching of Positivism with its cult, sacraments, and ceremonies. Other orthodox groups were formed in England with Harrison as its leader and Congreve, Elliot, Hutton, Morrison etc. as its chief adherents; in Sweden with A. Nystrom. An active and influential group was also founded in Brazil and Chile with Benjamin Constant and Miguel Lemos as leaders and a temple of humanity was built at Rio Janeiro in 1891. The principles of Positivism as a philosophical system were accepted and applied in England by J. Stuart Mill, who had been in correspondence with Comte (cf. "Lettres d'Aug. Comte à John Stuart Mill, 1841-1844", Paris, 1877), Spencer, Bain, Lewes, Maudsley, Sully, Romanes, Huxley, Tyndall etc.; in France by Taine, Ribot, de Roberty etc.; in Germany by Dühring, Avenarius etc. Thus, the principles and spirit of Positivism pervaded the scientific and philosophical thought of the nineteenth century and exercised a pernicious influence in every sphere. They had their practical consequences in the systems of positive or so-called scientific morality and utilitarianism in ethics, of neutrality and naturalism in religion. PRINCIPLES OF POSITIVISM The fundamental principle of Positivism is, as already said, that sense experience is the only object of human knowledge as well as its sole and supreme criterion. Hence abstract notions or general ideas are nothing more than collective notions; judgments are mere empirical colligations of facts. Reasoning includes induction and the syllogism: induction has for its conclusion a proposition which contains nothing more than the collection of a certain number of sense experiences, and the syllogism, taking this conclusion as its major proposition is necessarily sterile or even results in a vicious circle. Thus, according to Positivism, science cannot be, as Aristotle conceived it, the knowledge of things through their ultimate causes, since material and formal causes are unknowable, final causes illusions, and efficient causes simply invariable antecedents, while metaphysics, under any form, is illegitimate. Positivism is thus a continuation of crude Empiricism, Associationism, and Nominalism. The arguments advanced by Positivism, besides the assertion that sense experiences are the only object of human knowledge, are chiefly two: the first is that psychological analysis shows that all human knowledge can be ultimately reduced to sense experiences and empirical associations; the second, insisted upon by Comte, is historical, and is based on his famous "law of the three stages", according to which the human mind in its progress is supposed to have been successively influenced by theological preoccupations and metaphysical speculation, and to have finally reached at the present time the positive stage, which marks, according to Comte, its full and perfect development (cf. "Cours de philosophie positive", II, 15 sqq.). CRITICISM Positivism asserts that sense experiences are the only object of human knowledge, but does not prove its assertion. It is true that all our knowledge has its starting point in sense experience, but it is not proved that knowledge stops there. Positivism fails to demonstrate that, above particular facts and contingent relations, there are not abstract notions, general laws, universal and necessary principles, or that we cannot know them. Nor does it prove that material and corporeal things constitute the whole order of existing beings, and that our knowledge is limited to them. Concrete beings and individual relations are not only perceptible by our senses, but they have also their causes and laws of existence and constitution; they are intelligible. These causes and laws pass beyond the particularness and contingency of individual facts, and are elements as fundamentally real as the individual facts which they produce and control. They cannot be perceived by our senses, but why can they not be explained by our intelligence? Again, immaterial beings cannot be perceived by sense experience, it is true, but their existence is not contradictory to our intelligence, and, if their existence is required as a cause and a condition of the actual existence of material things, they certainly exist. We can infer their existence and know something of their nature. They cannot indeed be known in the same way as material things, but this is no reason for declaring them unknowable to our intelligence (see AGNOSTICISM; ANALOGY). According to Positivism, our abstract concepts or general ideas are mere collective representations of the experimental order -- for example, the idea of "man" is a kind of blended image of all the men observed in our experience. This is a fundamental error. Every image bears individual characters; an image of man is always an image of a particular man and can represent only that one man. What is called a collective image is nothing more than a collection of divers images succeeding one another, each representing an individual and concrete object, as may be seen by attentive observation. An idea, on the contrary, abstracts from any concrete determination, and may be applied identically to an indefinite number of objects of the same class. Collective images are more or less confused, and are the more so as the collection represented is larger; an idea remains always clear. There are objects which we cannot imagine (e. g. a myriagon, a substance, a principle), and which we can nevertheless distinctly conceive. Nor is the general idea a name substituted as a sign for all the individual objects of the same class, as stated by Taine (De l'Intelligence, I, 26). If a certain perception, says Taine, always coincides with or follows another perception (e. g. the perception of smoke and that of fire, the smell of a sweet odour and the sight of a rose), then the one becomes the sign of the other in such a way that, when we perceive one, we instinctively anticipate the presence of the other. So it is, Taine adds, with our general ideas. When we have perceived a number of different trees, there remains in our memory a certain image made up of the characters common to all trees, namely the image of a trunk with branches. We call it "tree", and this word becomes the exclusive sign of the class "tree"; it evokes the image of the individual objects of that class as the perception of every one of these evokes the image of the sign substituted for the whole class. Cardinal Mercier rightly remarks that this theory rests upon a confusion between experimental analogy and abstraction (Critériologie générale l, III c. iii, § 2, pp. 237 sqq.). Experimental analogy plays indeed a large part in our practical life, and is an important factor in the education of our senses (cf. St. Thomas, "Anal. post.", II, xv). But it should be remarked that experimental analogy is limited to the individual objects observed, to particular and similar objects; its generality is essentially relative. Again, the words which designate the objects correspond to the characters of these objects, and we cannot speak of "abstract names" when only individual objects are given, Such is not the case with our general ideas. They are the result of an abstraction, not of a mere perception of individual objects, however numerous; they are the conception of a type applicable in its unity and identity to an indefinite number of the objects of which it is the type. They thus have a generality without limit and independent of any concrete determination. If the words which signify them can be the sign of all the individual objects of the same class, it is because that same class has first been conceived in its type; these names are abstract because they signify an abstract concept. Hence mere experience is insufficient to account for our general ideas. A careful study of Taine's theory and the illustrations given shows that the apparent plausibility of this theory comes precisely from the fact that Taine unconsciously introduces and employs abstraction. Again, Positivism, and this is the point especially developed by John Stuart Mill (following Hume), maintains that what we call "necessary truths" (even mathematical truths, axioms, principles) are merely the result of experience, a generalization of our experiences. We are conscious, e. g. that we cannot at the same time affirm and deny a certain proposition, that one state of mind excludes the other; then we generalize our observation and express as a general principle that a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time. Such a principle is simply the result of a subjective necessity based on experience. Now, it is true that experience furnishes us with the matter out of which our judgments are formed, and with the occasion to formulate them. But mere experience does not afford either the proof or the confirmation of our certitude concerning their truth. If it were so, our certitude should increase with every new experience, and such is not the case, and we could not account for the absolute character of this certitude in all men, nor for the identical application of this certitude to the same propositions by all men. In reality we affirm the truth and necessity of a proposition, not because we cannot subjectively deny it or conceive its contradictory, but because of its objective evidence, which is the manifestation of the absolute, universal, and objective truth of the proposition, the source of our certitude, and the reason of the subjective necessity in us. As to the so-called "law of the three stages", it is not borne out by a careful study of history. It is true that we meet with certain epochs more particularly characterized by the influence of faith, or metaphysical tendencies, or enthusiasm for natural science. But even then we do not see that these characteristics realize the order expressed in Comte's law. Aristotle was a close student of natural science, while after him the neo-Platonic School was almost exclusively given to metaphysical speculation. In the sixteenth century there was a great revival of experimental sciences; yet it was followed by the metaphysical speculation of the German idealistic school. The nineteenth century beheld a wonderful development of the natural sciences, but we are now witnessing a revival of the study of metaphysics. Nor is it true that these divers tendencies cannot exist during the same epoch. Aristotle was a metaphysician as well as a scientist. Even in the Middle Ages, which are so generally considered as exclusively given to a priori metaphysics, observation and experiment had a large place, as is shown by the works of Roger Bacon and Albertus Magnus. St. Thomas himself manifests a remarkably keen spirit of psychological observation in his "Commentaries" and in his "Summa theologica", especially in his admirable treatise on the passions. Finally, we see a harmonious combination of faith, metaphysical reasoning, and experimental observation in such men as Kepler, Descartes, Leibniz, Paschal etc. The so-called "law of the three stages" is a gratuitous assumption, not a law of history. The positivist religion is a logical consequence of the principles of Positivism. In reality human reason can prove the existence of a personal God and of His providence, and the moral necessity of revelation, while history proves the existence of such a revelation. The establishment of a religion by Positivism simply shows that for man religion is a necessity. ROBINET, Notice sur l'oeuvre et la vie d' A. Comte (Paris, 1860); Testament d' A. Comte (Paris, 1884); MILL, A. Comte and Positivism (London. 1867, 1882); CARE, Littré et le positivisme (Paris, 1883); CAIRD, The Social Philosophy and Religion of Comte (Glasgow, 1885); LAURENT, La philos. de Stuart Mill (Paris. 1886); GRUBER, A Comte, der Begrunder d. Positivismus (Freiburg, 1889); IDEM, Der Positivismus vom Tode A. Comte's bis auf unsere Tage (Freiburg, 1891); Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, supplements xiv and lii; RAVAISSON, La philos. en France, au XIXe Siécle (Paris, 1894); MERCIER, Psychologie (6th ed., Louvain, 1894); IDEM, Critériologie générale (4th ed., Louvain, 1900); PEILLLAUBE, La théorie des concepts (Paris, 1895); PIAT, L'idée (Paris, 1901); MAHER, Psychology (5th ed., London, 1903); BALFOUR, Defense of Philosophic Doubt (London, 1895); TURNER, Hist. of Philos. (Boston, 1903); DEHERME, A. Comte et son oeuvre (Paris, 1909). GEORGE M. SAUVAGE. Demonic Possession Demonical Possession (See also DEMONOLOGY, DEMONIACS, EXORCISM, EXORCIST.) Man is in various ways subject to the influence of evil spirits. By original sin he brought himself into "captivity under the power of him who thence [from the time of Adam's transgression] had the empire of death, that is to say, the Devil" (Council of Trent, Sess. V, de pecc. orig., 1), and was through the fear of death all his lifetime subject to servitude (Heb., ii, 15). Even though redeemed by Christ, he is subject to violent temptation: "for our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places" (Eph., vi, 12). But the influence of the demon, as we know from Scripture and the history of the Church, goes further still. He may attack man's body from without (obsession), or assume control of it from within (possession). As we gather from the Fathers and the theologians, the soul itself can never be "possessed" nor deprived of liberty, though its ordinary control over the members of the body may be hindered by the obsessing spirit (cf. St. Aug., "De sp. et an.", 27; St. Thomas, "In II Sent.", d. VIII, Q. i; Ribet, "La mystique divine", Paris, 1883, pp. 190 sqq.). I. CASES OF POSSESSION Among the ancient pagan nations diabolical possession was frequent (Maspero, "Hist. anc. des peuples de l'Orient", 41; Lenormant, "La magie chez les Chaldéens"), as it is still among their successors (Ward, "History of the Hindoos", v., I, 2; Roberts, "Oriental Illustrations of the Scriptures"; Doolittle, "Social Life of the Chinese"). In the Old Testament we have only one instance, and even that is not very certain. We are told that "an evil spirit from the Lord troubled" Saul (I Kings, xvi, 14). The Hebrew word r=FBah need not imply a personal influence, though, if we may judge from Josephus (Ant. Jud., VI, viii, 2; ii, 2), the Jews were inclined to give the word that meaning in this very case. In New-Testament times, however, the phenomenon had become very common. The victims were sometimes deprived of sight and speech (Matt., xii, 22), sometimes of speech alone (Matt., ix, 32; Luke, xi, 14), sometimes afflicted in ways not clearly specified (Luke, viii, 2), while, in the greater number of cases, there is no mention of any bodily affliction beyond the possession itself (Matt., iv, 24; viii, 16; xv, 22; Mark, i, 32, 34, 39; iii, 11; vii, 25; Luke, iv, 41; vi, 18; vii, 21; viii, 2). The effects are described in various passages. A young man is possessed of a spirit "who, wheresoever he taketh him, dasheth him, and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away, . . . and oftentimes hath he [the spirit] cast him into the fire and into waters to destroy him" (Mark, ix, 17, 21). The possessed are sometimes gifted with superhuman powers: "a man with an unclean spirit, who had his dwelling in the tombs, and no man now could bind him, not even with chains. For having been often bound with fetters and chains, he had burst the chains, and broken the fetters in pieces, and no one could tame him" (Mark, v, 2-4). Some of the unfortunate victims were controlled by several demons (Matt., xii, 43, 45; Mark, xvi, 9; Luke, xi, 24-26); in one case by so many that their name was Legion (Mark, v, 9; Luke, viii, 30). Yet, evil as the possessing spirits were, they could not help testifying to Christ's Divine mission (Matt., viii, 29; Mark, i, 24, 34; iii, 12; v, 7; Luke, iv, 34, 41; viii, 28). And they continued to do so after His Ascension (Acts, xvi, 16-18). The history of the early Church is filled with instances of similar diabolical agency. A quotation from Tertullian will suffice to bring before us the prevalent conviction. Treating of true and false divinity he addresses the pagans of his time: "Let a person be brought before your tribunals who is plainly under demoniacal possession. The wicked spirit, bidden speak by the followers of Christ will as readily make the truthful confession that he is a demon as elsewhere he has falsely asserted that he is a god" (Apolog., tr. Edinburgh, p. 23). The facts associated with possession prove, he says, beyond question the diabolical source of the influence -- "What clearer proof than a work like that? What more trustworthy than such a proof? The simplicity of truth is thus set forth: its own worth sustains it; no ground remains for the least suspicion. Do you say that it is done by magic or by some trick of the sort? You will not say anything of the sort if you have been allowed the use of your ears and eyes. For what argument can you bring against a thing that is exhibited to the eye in its naked reality?" And the Christians expel by a word: "All the authority and power we have over them is from our naming of the name of Christ and recalling to their memories the woes with which God threatens them at the hands of Christ as Judge and which they expect one day to overtake them. Fearing Christ in God and God in Christ, they become subject to the servants of God and Christ. So at our touch and breathing, overwhelmed by the thought and realization of those judgment fires, they leave at our command the bodies they have entered." Statements of this kind embody the views of the Church as a whole, as is evident from the facts, that various councils legislated on the proper treatment of the possessed, that parallel with the public penance for catechumens and fallen Christians there was a course of discipline for the energumens also, and, finally, that the Church established a special order of exorcists (cf. Martigny, "Dict. des antiq. chrét.", Paris, 1877, p. 312). All through the Middle Ages councils continued to discuss the matter: laws were passed, and penalties decreed, against all who invited the influence of the Devil or utilized it to inflict injury on their fellowmen (cf. the Bulls of Innocent VIII, 1484; Julius II, 1504; and Adrian VI, 1523); and powers of exorcism were conferred on every priest of the Church. The phenomenon was accepted as real by all Christians. The records of criminal investigations alone in which charges of witchcraft or diabolical possession formed a prominent part would fill volumes. The curious may consult such works as Des Mousseaux, "Pratiques des démons" (Paris, 1854), or Thiers, "Superstitions" I, or, from the Rationalistic point of view, Lecky, "Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe", I, 1-138, and, for later instances, Constans, "Relation sur une épidemie d'hystéro-démonopathie" (Paris, 1863). And though at the present day among civilized races the cases of diabolical possession are few, the phenomena of Spiritism, which offer many striking points of resemblance, have come to take their place (cf. Pauvert, "La vie de N. S. Jésus-Christ", I, p. 226; Raupert, "The Dangers of Spiritualism", London, 1906; Lepicier, "The Unseen World", London, 1906; Miller, "Sermons on Modern Spiritualism", London, 1908). And if we may judge from the accounts furnished by the pioneers of the Faith in missionary countries, the evidences of diabolical agency there are almost as clear and defined as they were in Galilee in the time of Christ (cf. Wilson, "Western Africa", 217; Waffelaert in the "Dict. apol. de Ia foi cath.", Paris, 1889, s. v. Possession diabol.). II. REALITY OF THE PHENOMENON The infidel policy on the question is to deny the possibility of possession in any circumstances, either on the supposition, that there are no evil spirits in existence, or that they are powerless to influence the human body in the manner described. It was on this principle that, according to Lecky the world came to disbelieve in witchcraft: men did not trouble to analyse the evidence that could be produced in its favour; they simply decided that the testimony must be mistaken because "they came gradually to look upon it as absurd" (op. cit., p. 12). And it is by this same a priori principle, we believe, that Christians who try to explain away the facts of possession are unconsciously influenced. Though put forward once as a commonplace by leaders of materialistic thought, there is a noticeable tendency of late years not to insist upon it so strongly in view of the admission made by competent scientific inquirers that many of the manifestations of Spiritism cannot be explained by human agency (cf. Miller, op. cit., 7-9). But whatever view Rationalists may ultimately adopt, for a sincere believer in the Scriptures there can be no doubt that there is such a thing as possession possible. And if he is optimistic enough to hold that in the present order of things God would not allow the evil spirits to exercise the powers they naturally possess, he might open his eyes to the presence of sin and sorrow in the world, and recognize that God causes the sun to shine on the just and the unjust and uses the powers of evil to promote His own wise and mysterious purposes (cf. Job, passim; Mark v, 19). That mistakes were often made in the diagnosis of cases, and results attributed to diabolical agency that were really due to natural causes, we need have no hesitation in admitting. But it would be illogical to conclude that the whole theory of possession rests on imposture or ignorance. The abuse of a system gives us no warrant to denounce the system itself. Strange phenomena of nature have been wrongly regarded as miraculous, but the detection of the error has left our belief in real miracles intact. Men have been wrongly convicted of murder, but that does not prove that our reliance on evidence is essentially unreasonable or that no murder has ever been committed. A Catholic is not asked to accept all the cases of diabolical possession recorded in the history of the Church, nor even to form any definite opinion on the historical evidence in favour of any particular case. That is primarily a matter for historical and medical science (cf. Delrio, "Disq. mag. libri sex", 1747; Alexander, "Demon. Possession in the N. T.", Edinburgh, 1902). As far as theory goes, the real question is whether possession has ever occurred in the past, and whether it is not, therefore, possible that it may occur again. And while the cumulative force of centuries of experience is not to be lightly disregarded, the main evidence will be found in the action and teaching of Christ Himself as revealed in the inspired pages of the New Testament, from which it is clear that any attempt to identify possession with natural disease is doomed to failure. In classical Greek daimonan, it is true, means "to be mad" (cf. Eurip., "Phoen." 888; Xenophon, "Memor.", I, i, ix; Plutarch, "Marc.", xxiii), and a similar meaning is conveyed by the Gospel phrase daimonion echein, when the Pharisees use it of Christ (Matt., xi, 18; John, vii, 20; viii, 48), especially in John, x, 20, where they say "He hath a devil, and is mad" (daimonion echei, kai mainetai); daimonan, however, is not the word used by the sacred writers. Their word is daimonizesthai, and the meanings given to it previously by profane writers ("to be subject to an appointed fate"; Philemon, "Incert.", 981; "to be deified"; Sophocles, "Fr.", 180) are manifestly excluded by the context and the facts. The demoniacs were often afflicted with other maladies as well, but there is surely nothing improbable in the view of Catholic theologians that the demons often afflicted those who were already diseased, or that the very fact of obsession or possession produced these diseases as a natural consequence (cf. Job, ii, 7; G=F6rres "Die christ. mystik", iv; Les=EAtre in "Dict. de la bible" s. v. Démoniaques). Natural disease and possession are in fact clearly distinguished by the Evangelists: "He cast out the spirits with his word: and all that were sick he healed" (Matt., viii, 16). "They brought to him all that were ill and that were possessed with devils . . . and he healed many that were troubled with divers diseases; and he cast out many devils" (Mark i, 32, 34); and the distinction is shown more clearly in the Greek: pantas tous kakos echontas kai tous daimonizomenous. A favourite assertion of the Rationalists is that lunacy and paralysis were often mistaken for possession. St. Matthew did not think so, for he tells us that "they presented to him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases [poikilais nosois] and torments [Basanois], and such as were possessed by devils [daimonizomenous], and lunatics [seleniazomenous], and those who had the palsy [paralytikous], and he cured them" (iv, 24). And the circumstances that attended the cures point in the same direction. In the case of ordinary diseases they were effected quietly and without violence. Not so always with the possessed. The evil spirits passed into lower animals with dire results (Matt., viii, 32), or cast their victim on the ground (Luke, iv, 35) or, "crying out, and greatly tearing him, went out of him, and he became as dead, so that many said: He is dead" (Mark, ix, 25; cf. Vigouroux, "Les livres saints et la crit. rationaliste", Paris, 1891). Abstracting altogether from the fact that these passages are themselves inspired, they prove that the Jews of the time regarded these particular manifestations as due to a diabolical source. This was surely a matter too closely connected with Christ's own Divine mission to be lightly passed over as one on which men might, without much inconvenience from the religious point of view, be allowed to hold erroneous opinions. If, therefore, possession were merely a natural disease and the general opinion of the time based on a delusion, we might expect that Christ would have proclaimed the correct doctrine as He did when His followers spoke of the sin of the man born blind (John, ix, 2, 3), or when Nicodemus misunderstood His teaching on the necessity of being born again in Baptism (ibid., iii, 3, 4). So far from correcting the prevalent conviction, He approved and encouraged it by word and action. He addressed the evil spirits, not their victims; told His disciples how the evil spirit acted when cast out (Matt., xii, 44, 45; Luke, xi, 24-26), taught them why they had failed to exorcize (Matt., xvii, 19); warned the seventy-two disciples against glorying in the fact that the demons were subject to them (Luke, x, 17-20). He even conferred express powers on the Apostles "over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities" (Matt., x, 1; Mark, vi, 7; Luke, ix, 1), and, immediately before His Ascension, enumerated the signs that would proclaim the truth of the revelation His followers were to preach to the world: "In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover" (Mark, xvi, 17-18). Thus does the expulsion of demons become so closely bound up with other miracles of the Christian dispensation as to hardly permit of separation. The problem, therefore, that confronts us is this: If a belief so intimately connected in Christ's own mind with the mission He came to accomplish was based on a delusion, why did He not correct it? Why rather encourage it? Only two answers appear possible. Either He was ignorant of a religious truth, or He deliberately gave instructions that He knew to be false -- instructions that misled His followers, and that were eminently calculated, as indeed the issue proved, to have very serious consequences, often of a most painful and deplorable kind, in the whole subsequent history of the Church He founded. No Catholic can dream of admitting either of the explanations. The theory of accommodation formulated by Winer ("Biblisches Realw=F6rterbuch", Leipzig, 1833) may at once be dismissed (see DEMONIACS). Accommodation understood as the toleration of harmless illusions having little or no connexion with religion might perhaps be allowed; in the sense of deliberate inculcation of religious error, we find it very hard to associate it with high moral principle, and entirely impossible to reconcile it with the sanctity of Christ. Why possession should manifest itself in one country rather than another, why it should have been so common in the time of Christ and so comparatively rare in our own, why even in Palestine it should have been confined almost entirely to the province of Galilee are questions on which theologians have speculated but on which no sure conclusion can ever be reached (cf. Delitzch, "Sys. der biblis. Psychol.", Leipzig, 1861; Lesétre, op. cit.; Jeiler in "Kirchenlexikon", II, s. v. "Besessene"; St. Aug., X, xxii, De civ. Dei, 10, 22). The phenomenon itself is preternatural; a humanly scientific explanation is, therefore, impossible. But it might fairly be expected, we think, that since Christ came to overthrow the empire of Satan, the efforts of the powers of darkness should have been concentrated at the period of His earthly life, and should have been felt especially in the province where, with the exception of a few brief visits to neighbouring lands, His private and public life was passed. (See Exorcism, Exorcist.) In addition to the works mentioned above, see PERRONE, De deo creatore, p. I, c. v, prop. i, ii; BINTERIM, Denkw=FCrdigkeiten, VII (Mainz, 1841); MAURY, La magie et l'astrologie (Paris, 1900), p. II, c. ii; TYLOR, Primitive Culture (London, 1891), cc. xiv, xv; SPENCER, Principles of Sociology, I. M. J. O'DONNELL Antonius Possevinus Antonius Possevinus Theologian and papal envoy, b. at Mantua in 1533 or 1534; d. at Ferrara, 26 Feb., 1611. At sixteen he went to Rome to study, familiarized himself with many languages, and became secretary to Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga. In 1559 he entered the Society of Jesus, and in 1560 was sent to preach against heresy in Savoy. Passing on to France he was ordained priest in 1561, and preached at Paris, Bayonne, Rouen, and elsewhere, converting many Calvinists. He became rector of the colleges of Avignon and Lyons, and in 1573 was secretary to the General of the Society, Everardo Mercuriano. Gregory XIII himself was among those who learned to appreciate his merit while he occupied the last-named position. When John III of Sweden expressed his desire to become a Catholic, the pope, in 1577, made Possevinus his special legate to that court, and Possevinus also had to negotiate with the courts of Bavaria and Bohemia to secure support for John in the event of political complications. The Jesuit envoy, attired as a secular, was received with great honour in Sweden, and the king made his profession of the Catholic Faith. Many difficulties arose when measures for the conversion of Sweden were debated. Possevinus returned to Rome with proposals, some of which were judged inadmissible. Through his constant efforts several colleges (the German College at Rome, those of Braunsberg, Fulda, Olmütz, Prague, and others) received Swedish youth, with the object of forming a national Catholic clergy. At the close of 1578 he returned to Sweden as nuncio and Vicar Apostolic of Scandinavia. On his way, he again visited the Duke of Bavaria, the King of Poland, and the emperor. Disconcerted by the refusal of Rome to accept the king's terms, and thwarted by sectarians, who had the advantage in numbers and influence, Possevinus could do nothing but comfort and encourage the few Catholics remaining in Sweden. He displayed the greatest devotion on the occasion of an epidemic, when the sick were left helpless by the Protestant ministers. In 1580 he turned in Rome. In the meantime the Tsar Ivan IV sought the pope's mediation with Stephen Báthori, King of Poland, in the cause of peace. Possevinus was sent as papal legate (1581) to negotiate the re-union of the Russian Church with Rome. The negotiations made with the Russian envoys in Poland proved nugatory, as the King of Poland insisted on profiting by his successes in war, and Possevinus went to Russia to treat with the Tsar. He wisely laid down as preliminary conditions of peace with Poland the liberty of Catholic worship for foreigners in Russia and free passage for pontifical legates. These were granted pro forma. His overtures of reconciliation with Rome were met only with reassuring words. In 1582 the Tsar signed a treaty of peace, compelled by Polish victories. Possevinus left Moscow laden with honours but not deceived as to the success of his efforts: Ivan the Terrible had negotiated with the pope only to mislead both Rome and Poland. Having returned to Rome, Possevinus was immediately sent back to Poland as nuncio, to induce the king to combat heresy in Livonia and Transylvania. He himself visited these countries, preaching and arguing with the heretics. At the Diet of Warsaw, in 1583, he obtained the passage of resolutions favourable to Catholicism. His efforts were ineffectual in the treaties between Poland and the emperor, on which business he went twice to the Court of Rudolph II. He still stayed in the North, preaching in Livonia, Saxony, Bohemia and Transylvania, writing treatises against the innovators and distributing books on Catholic doctrine. He did much towards the reconciliation of the Ruthenians, and had a large share in the founding of the college of the Jesuits at Vilna. He also wrote treatises against the adversaries of the re-union. Through his exertions the Collegium Hosianum of Braunsberg was enlarged for the reception of Swedes and Ruthenians; at Olmütz and Claudiopolis, in Transylvania, colleges were established for similar purposes. In 1587 he was invited to teach theology at Padua, where he remained for four years. Among his disciples there was St. Francis of Sales. Returning to Rome, he devoted his time to theological, historical, and philosophical studies. Having played an important role in the recognition of Henry IV of France, he was expelled from Rome by the Spanish party. He then made extended tours to visit the libraries of Italy in quest of books, as on former occasions, in which task he was generously aided by Paul V. Antonio Possevinus represented the literary, scientific, and diplomatic type of Jesuit, performing important political missions, establishing schools of science and letters, and applying himself to diplomatic protocols and classical authors with equal assiduity. Had he not met with insurmountable difficulties in Sweden and Russia, and in negotiating the treaties between Poland and the empire, he would have left a still deeper trace on the political history of the Church and of Europe. His writings include "Moscovia" (Vilna, 1586), an important authority on Russian history; "Dell sacrificia della Messa" followed by an appendix, "Riposta a P. Vireto" (Lyons, 1563); "Il soldato cristiano" (Rome, 1569); "Notæ verbi Dei et Apostolicæ Ecclesiæ" (Posen, 1586). His most celebrated works are the "Apparatus sacer ad Scripturum veteris et Novi Test." (Venice, 1603-06), where he records and analyses more than 8,000 books dealing with sacred Scripture; and the "Bibliotheca Selecta" (Rome, 1593), treating of the method of study, teaching, and practical use of various sciences; the second part contains a critical bibliography of various sciences. (Several chapters of this book have been published separately.) Parts of his letters were published by A. M. Gratianus Borgo in "De scriptis ab Ant. Possevino ad Aloysnium fratrem litteris" (Florence, 1645-46). THEINER, Schweden u. s. Stellung zum hl. Stuhl (Augsburg, 1838); PIERLING, Possevini missio moscovitica (Paris, 1882); Idem, Un nonce du pape in Moscovie (Paris, 1886); Idem, Bathory et Possevin (Paris, 1887); La Russie et le S. Siège (Paris, 1897); BLAUDET, La Suède et la S. Siège (Paris, 1907). See also biographies of Possevinus by d'ORBIGNY (Paris, 1712); GHEZZI (Rome, 1759); KARTTUNEN (Rome, 1908); SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliothèque des éscrivains de la C. de J. VI, 1061-93; IX, 781. -- For the relations of Possevinus with Báthori and Tsar Ivan, see histories of Poland. U. BENIGNI St. Possidius St. Possidius Bishop of Calama in Numidia, author of a short life of St. Augustine and of an indiculus or list of St. Augustine's writings. The dates of his birth and death are unknown; he was alive and in exile in 437 according to Prosper, who, in his "Chronicle", records that Possidius and two other bishops were persecuted and expelled from their sees by the Vandal king, Genseric, who was an Arian. Possidius (Vita S. Augustini, xxxi), after describing the death of St. Augustine, speaks of his unbroken friendship with him for forty years. He also, speaking of himself in the third person, lets it be known that he was one of the clergy of St. Augustine's monastery (ibid., xii). The date of his promotion to the episcopate was, according to Tillemont, about 397. He followed St. Augustine's example and established a monastery at Calama. At a council, held at Carthage, Possidius challenged Crispinus, the Donatist Bishop of Calama, to a public discussion which the latter declined. Shortly afterwards one of Crispinus's clergy, bearing the same name as his bishop, attempted to assassinate Possidius. Legal proceedings were instituted against Crispinus, the bishop, who refused to punish his presbyter. He was proved to be a heretic and was heavily fined, but at the intercession of Possidius the fine was not exacted ("Vita", xii; St. Augustine, "Ep.", cv, 4; "Contra Crescon.", III, xlvi). In 407, Possidius served, with St. Augustine and five other bishops, on a committee appointed to adjudicate upon some ecclesiastical matter, the particulars of which are not known. In 408 he nearly lost his life in a riot stirred up by the pagans at Callama (St. Augustine, "Epp.", xc, xci, xciii). In 409 he was one of four bishops deputed to go to Italy to obtain the protection of the emperor against the Donatists. He was one of the seven bishops chosen to represent the Catholic party at the "Collatio" of 411. In 416 he assisted at the Council of Milevum, where fifty-nine Numidian bishops addressed a synodal letter to Innocent I, asking him to take action against Pelagianism. He joined with St. Augustine and three other bishops in a further letter to Innocent on the same subject, and was at the conference between St. Augustine and the Donatist Emeritus. When the Vandals invaded Africa, he fled to Hippo and was present at the death of St. Augustine (430). His "Vita S. Augustini", composed before the capture of Carthage (439), is included in all editions of the works of St. Augustine, and also printed in Hurter's "Opusc. SS. Patr.". His indiculus will be found in the last volume of Migne's edition of the works of St. Augustine and in the tenth volume of the Benedictine edition. CEILLIER, Hist. des auteurs ecclés., XII; TILLEMONT, Mémoires, XIII. F.S. BACCHUS Postcommunion Postcommunion The Communion act finishes the essential Eucharistic service. Justin Martyr (I Apol., lxv-lxvi) adds nothing after describing the Communion. However, it was natural that the people should not be dismissed without a final prayer of thanksgiving and of petition, so every rite ends its liturgy with a short prayer or two and a blessing before the dismissal. The earliest complete liturgy extant, that of the "Apostolic Constitutions", VIII, contains two such prayers, == a thanksgiving (XV, ii-vi), and a blessing (XV, vii-ix). A significant resemblance between the Roman Rite and that of the "Apostolic Constitutions" is that at Rome, too, there were formerly at every Mass two prayers of the same nature. In the "Leonine Sacramentary" they have no title; but their character is obvious. As examples, those for the summer ember days may serve (ed. Feltoe, p. 51, "In jejunio"), the first Gratias tibi referimus, the second Oculis tuæ miserationis intende. The Gelasian Sacramentary calls the first postcommunio, the second ad populum. In both sacramentaries these two prayers form part of the normal Mass said throughout the year, though not every Mass has both; the prayers "ad populum" in the later book are comparatively rare. They also begin to change their character. The formerly constant terms tuere, protege etc. are rarer; many are ordinary collects with no pronounced idea of prayers for blessing and protection. In the "Gregorian Sacramentary" the second prayer, now called Super populum, occurs almost only from Septuagesima to Easter; the first, Ad complendum, continues throughout the year, but both have lost much of their original character. The Ad complendum prayer (Post-communion) has become a collect formed on the model of the collect at the beginning of Mass, though generally it keeps some allusion to the Communion just received. That is still the state of these prayers after the Communion. The second, Oratio super populum, is said only in ferial Masses in Lent. This restriction apparently results from the shortening of the Mass (which explains many omissions and abbreviations) and the tendency of Lent to keep longer forms. The Mass was shortened for practical purposes except (in many cases) during Lent, which keeps the long preces in the Office omitted at other times, sometimes more than two lessons at Mass, and so on. The medieval commentators (Amalarius, "De divinis officiis", III, xxvii; Durandus, "Rationale", VI, xxviii; Honorius of Autun, "Gemma animæ", lix) explain this mystically; Honorius thinks the prayer to be a substitute for the Eastern blessed bread (antidopon). The Oratio super populum is now always the prayer at vespers on the same day. It has been suggested that its use at Mass in Lent may be a remnant of a custom, now kept only on Holy Saturday, of singing vespers at the end of Mass (Gihr, op. cit., 711). There remains the first prayer, called Ad complendum in the "Gregorian Sacramentary". Its name was uncertain through the Middle Ages. Durandus (op. cit., IV, lvii) calls it merely Oratio novissima, using the name Postcommunio for the Communion antiphon. The first "Roman Ordo" calls the prayer Oratio ad complendum (xxi); Rupert of Deutz calls it Ad complendum (De divinis officiis, II, xix). But others give it the name it had already in the Gelasian book, Postcommunio (Sicardus, "Mitrale", III, viii); so also many medieval missals (e.g. the Sarum). This is now its official name in the Roman Rite. The Postcommunion has lost much of its original character as a thanksgiving prayer and has absorbed the idea of the old Oratio ad populum. It is now always a petition, though the note of thanksgiving is often included (e.g. in the Mass Statuit, for a confessor pontiff). It has been affected by the Collect on which it is modelled, though there is generally an allusion to the Communion. Every Postcommunion (and secret) corresponds to a collect. These are the three fundamental prayers of any given Proper Mass. The Postcommunion is said or chanted exactly like the Collect. First comes that of the Mass celebrated; then, if other Masses are commemorated, their Postcommunions follow in the same order and with the same final conclusion as the collects. After the Communion, when the celebrant has arranged the chalice, he goes to the epistle side and reads the Communion antiphon. He then comes to the middle and says or sings Dominus Vobiscum (in the early Middle Ages he did not turn to the people this time == "Ordo Rom." I, n.21), goes back to the Epistle side, and says or sings one or more Postcommunions, exactly as the collects. At ferial Masses in Lent the Oratio super populum follows the last Postcommunion. The celebrant sings Oremus; the deacon turning towards the people chants: Humiliate capita vestra Deo, on do with the cadence la, do, si, si, do for the last five syllables. Meanwhile everyone, including the celebrant, bows the head. The deacon turns towards the altar and the celebrant chants the prayer appointed in the Mass. At low Mass the celebrant himself says: humiliate capita vestra Deo and does not turn towards the people. The deacon's exclamation apparently was introduced when this prayer became a speciality of Lent. Durandus mentions it. (VI, xxviii). GIHR, "Das heilige Messopfer" (Freiburg im Br., 1897), pp. 708-13; RIETSCHEL, "Lehrbuch der Liturgik", I (Berlin, 1900) 393-4; LE VAVASSEUR, "Manuel de Liturgie," (Paris, 1910), I, 313, 473-4; II, 41, 488; ROCK, "Hierurgia", I, (London, 1900); GIHR, "The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" (St. Louis, 1908) ADRIAN FORTESCUE Ven. Nicholas Postgate Ven. Nicholas Postgate English martyr, b. at Kirkdale House, Egton, Yorkshire, in 1596 or 1597; d. at York, 7 August, 1679. He entered Douay College, 11 July, 1621, took the college oath, 12 March, 1623, received minor orders, 23 December, 1624, the subdiaconate, 18 December, 1827, the diaconate, 18 March, 1628, and the priesthood two days later. He was sent to the mission, 29 June, 1630, and laboured in his native country with great benefit to hundreds of souls. Thomas Ward, who later wrote about him, knew him well. He was apprehended by the exciseman Reeves, at the house of Matthew Lyth, of Sleights, Little Beck, near Whitby, and was condemned under 27 Elizabeth, c. 2, for being a priest. His quarters were given to his friends and interred. One of the hands was sent to Douay College. His portable altar-stone is now venerated at Dodding Green, Westmoreland. WARD, England's Reformation (London, 1747), 200; CHALLONER, Missionary Priests, II, no. 204; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. s. v. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Postulant Postulant Postulancy is a preliminary stage to the novitiate existing from the institution of monasticism. (1) In the East, the would-be monk had to submit to many rebuffs, and, while he continued to pray for admission, he was discouraged in various ways, the hardships of religious life being exaggerated to test the sincerity of his intentions and the reality of his vocation. From the East this custom passed into the West. Cassian recommends it in his "institutions" (IV, iii), and St. Benedict introduced it into his rule: "Let not the newly arrived candidate be admitted too easily, but let care be taken, as the Apostle St. John advises, to try the spirits if they be of God: therefore after the aspirant has repeated his request for admission, if for four or five days he seems to bear patiently the rebuffs given him, and the difficulties put in the way of his entrance, and still persists in his attempt, let the door be opened to him" (c.58). This period of trial used to last in the different orders from three to ten days. After this, in the older orders, followed the novitiate of one, two, or three years, which was formerly considered rather as a preparation for, than a first period of the religious life. Thus, after his reception, the candidate returned to the world with unlimited leave of absence and the liberty to re-enter when he thought fit. In the Customs of St. Victor, xxiv (see Martene, "De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus", Appendix, p. 265), this practice is mentioned as common to many monasteries; and, although it is not altogether condemned, it is shown to have had many disadvantages, for in this way it was made easy for undesirable persons to place themselves under the protection of the Church. (2) This system of outside probation has long been abolished. In most orders, however, the candidate, when admitted to the religious life, is not allowed at once to mingle with the other novices, but receives separately a preliminary initiation, more or less prolonged as custom may require. The time occupied in this initiation is sometimes, but not always, reckoned as part of the novitiate. (3) According to existing law, persons who aspire to the religious life, but have not yet been admitted into any particular order, may be called postulants in the wide sense of the word; such are pupils of an apostolic school, or persons who, having decided to enter the religious state, remain as guests in the monastery, while waiting for their admission. Postulants, in the strict sense of the word, are those who are taking their first steps in the religious life, without having yet received the habit. Common law forbade regulars to receive as postulants in the wider sense of the word young persons under twenty years of age (see the decree of Clement X dated 16 May, 1675), and postulant lay-brothers could not be received before the age of nineteen full years (see Clement VIII, "Cum ad regularem", 19 March, 1603; this constitution has not been everywhere carried into effect). No general law compelled religious to observe a period of candidature. However, by the recent decree of 1 Jan., 1911, in orders where lay brothers make solemn profession, the general may, in individual cases, allow provincials to receive candidates for the grade of lay brother, after they have competed their seventeenth year; moreover, for valid profession, lay brothers must have made a postulature of two years (or longer, if the Constitutions so require). The same Decree prescribes that postulants shall be placed under the direction of a virtuous and experienced father. Nuns under solemn vows (at least in Italy) are ordered by the decree of the Sacred Congregation to make a retreat of ten days before receiving the habit. The Regulations (Normae) of 1901 require that sisters shall remain as postulants for a period varying from six months to a year. The superior-general may extend the time fixed by the Congregation for not more than three months. The time of the postulant's probation is most conveniently passed in the novitiate house, but may be spent elsewhere. For bibliography see NOVICE. A. VERMEERSCH Postulation Postulation (Lat. postulare, to request) A postulation is a petition presented to a competent ecclesiastical superior, that he may promote to a certain dignity a person who is not strictly eligible on account of some canonical impediment which is usually dispensable. Such impediments are, for example illegitimate birth, defect of requisite age, or the condition of a person, such as a bishop, even a titular one, or a regular, who cannot accept a new dignity without leave of their ecclesiastical superior. When a postulation is simultaneous with an election, it is required that the votes be twice the number sufficient if the person were canonically eligible. Occasionally, the Holy See dispenses with the necessity of postulation by granting an indult of eligibility to the person in question, or by empowering the electors to proceed to a choice without having recourse to a formal postulation. Postulation is called solemn, when it is addressed to the superior who can dispense with the defect in the candidate. It is called simple, when the superior in question can not dispense in the canonical impediment yet his consent is required for the candidate's promotion, such as is the case with regulars promoted to the episcopal dignity, who need the licence of their religious superior to accept the charge. Postulation is employed only for those who have a dispensable defect, and in the petitionary document all impediments must be expressed under pain of nullity. After a postulation has been signed and sealed, presented to, and accepted by, the proper superior, those making it can not recede from, nor change, it. The person in whose favour the postulation has been made must signify within a month his willingness to accept the dignity offered. LAURENTIUS, Institutiones Juris Canonici (Freiburg, 1903); FERRARIS, Bibliotheca Canonica, VI (Rome, 1890), s. v. Postulatio. WILLIAM H. W. FANNING. Potawatomi Indians Potawatomi Indians An important tribe of Algonquin linguistic stock, closely related dialectically to the Ojibwa and Ottawa, and living when first known to the French (about 1640) on and about the islands at the mouth of Green Bay, Lake Michigan, having recently been driven from their homes in the lower peninsula by the Iroquoian tribes living toward the east. At a later period and until their removal to the west (about 1835-40) they held both shores of Lake Michigan from about Manitowoc (44 deg.) on the west around to about Grand River (43 deg.) on the east, and southward to the Wabash, comprising territory in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, with some fifty villages, including those on the sites of Milwaukee, Chicago, South Bend (St. Joseph), and Grand Rapids. Much of this territory had been held earlier by the Illinois and Miami. According to tradition, which seems corroborated by linguistic evidence, the Potawatomi were originally one people with the Ojibwa and Ottawa, and derived their name, properly in plural form Potewatmik, "people of the fire place" or "fire-makers," from having moved off to the southward and kindled a new fire, i. e. formed a separate government for themselves. The three tribes have always been known as close confederates. It is very probable that the "Prairie Band" of Potawatomi, the Muskodensug of northern Illinois, are identical with the ancient Mascoutens, the so-called "Fire Nation." The Potawatomi were first met by the adventurous French explorer Jean Nicolet, the first white man in Wisconsin (1634-5). In 1641 they appear to have been present at the "feast of the dead" attended by the Jesuits Raymbaut and Jogues in the Huron country. In 1658-9 the explorers Radisson and Groseilliers, on their own invitation, spent the winter among them on Green Bay. They were occasional visitors at the mission of Saint-Esprit at La Pointe Chegoimegon (now Bayfield, Wis.) on Lake Superior, founded by Allouez in 1665, and in December, 1669, the same devoted Jesuit pioneer established the mission of Saint Francis Xavier near the head of Green Bay, Wisconsin, for the neighbouring Potawatomi, Sauk, Foxes, and Winnebago, with visiting stations in their various villages. The war between the French and Iroquois, beginning about ten years later, gave temporary check to all the missions, and in 1687 the Green Bay mission was burned by the pagan Indians while the resident priest, Fr. Jean Enjahan, was absent with Denonville's troops. On his return the next year it was restored, and a second mission, St. Joseph, was established by Allouez for the same tribe, on the river of that name, near the present South Bend, Ind. This mission continued with one long interruption until the removal of the tribe to the West, when the missionaries accompanied the Indians and re-established work in the new field. Political changes of administration, the rising struggle with England for control of the West, and a long war with the Foxes (1712-48) conspired to discourage the mission work. In 1721 Charlevoix found the mission at Green Bay, then under Fr. J.B. Chardon, devoted chiefly to the Sauk and Winnebago, while that on St. Joseph River was occupied jointly by Potawatomi and Miami. The suppression of the Jesuits in the French colonies in 1762 closed all their missions and for thirty years there was no priest west of Detroit, while the almost continuous wars for forty years == French and Indian, Pontiac's, the Revolution, and later to the Greenville treaty in 1795 == almost wiped out all recollection of Christian teaching. "Deprived of pastors, constantly in motion, mingling with war parties of pagan tribes and sharing in their superstitious rites, they soon relapsed into many of the old customs of their race" (Shea). The Potawatomi were a fighting race and in the Fox war and the French and Indian war sided actively with the French, continuing the struggle under Pontiac against the English until 1765. On the outbreak of the Revolution in 1775 they took up arms for England against the Americans and continued the war under Little Turtle and other Indian leaders until compelled to join in the treaty of Greenville in 1795 consequent upon Wayne's decisive victory over the confederated tribes in the preceding year. A part of them under Winamac joined the English again under Tecumseh's leadership in 1812, and made final treaty of peace in 1815. The Prairie Band, under their chief Gomo, held to the American interest. By these wars they suffered heavily and the close of the War of 1812 found them prostrated, while the immediate influx of whisky traders worked a wholesale demoralization, aggravated by constant fear of final removal as their territories were curtailed by repeated cessions under pressure. In 1822 the first Protestant work in the tribe was begun by the Baptists at Carey mission near South Bend and continued until 1830 when it was discontinued, in consequence of the inauguration of the removal policy, to be renewed shortly afterward among the immigrant Indians in Kansas. In the meantime, on formal request of the Ottawa chiefs to Congress (1823) for Jesuit missionaries, the old missions had been re-established through the efforts of Bishop Reze of Detroit, that of St. Joseph being confided to the secular, Fr. Stephen Badin. The main pillar of this mission was the distinguished chief Pokagan, baptized by Reze, and father of the still more noted Catholic chief and author, Simon Pokagan (1830-99), to whose memory a monument has been erected in Jackson Park, Chicago. Fr. Badin was shortly succeeded by Fr. Desseille, who remained until his death in 1837 and was succeeded by Fr. Benjamin Petit. In the meantime, by successive treaties the Potawatomi territory had been steadily curtailed in the various states originally occupied by them and band after band, much against their will, transported to new homes in Iowa and Kansas, beyond the Mississippi. Before the end of 1836 over sixteen hundred had been thus removed and others were on the road. Some eight hundred in Indiana, led by a chief who had steadily refused to sign away his lands, refused to go, and in September, 1838, were surrounded by the troops, while assembled at church, and driven out upon the long and weary foot journey to the West. On special request of the officer in charge, who dreaded an attempt to escape or resistance, Father Petit, who had already offered his services, was appointed to accompany them, which he did, traversing on foot with them the long way across Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, until in Kansas he confided his suffering and diminished flock to the Jesuit Fr. J. Hoecken, and returned to St. Louis. A few refugees escaped to Canada and settled on Walpole Island in Lake St. Clair. Other bands were removed to the West as late as 1841, a few hundred still continuing to remain in their old country. As early as 1836 Father Hoecken had reestablished work among the immigrant tribes in Kansas, and before the end of that year the mission of Saint Mary, destined to become so well known, was founded by Frs. De Smet and Verreydt, assisted by Brother Mazelli, along the still heathen and obdurate prairie Potawatomi. It was soon afterward placed in charge of Fr. Hoecken, under whom the mission claimed twelve hundred Catholic Indians, principal among whom were the chiefs Pokagan and Bourassa, with two flourishing schools, conducted jointly by the Jesuits and the Sisters of the Sacred Heart. The official Indian report for 1855 contains an interesting account of this mission by Fr. J.B. Duerinck, then in charge. It was then the only mission existing in the tribe, the Baptist work having been abandoned. Concerning Saint Mary's the agent in charge says (Ind. Rept. for 1855): "The missionary labors at Saint Mary's are divided into two establishments. The boys are under the charge of the "fathers" of the institution, whilst the girls are under the kind care of the 'Ladies of the Sacred Heart.' I cannot speak in terms too highly of the condition of these establishments. Besides the ordinary literary course the girls are taught sewing, knitting, embroidery, and the various other branches of housekeeping. In connection with the institution is a manual labor school, where the boys are taught the practical and useful departments of farming, gardening, etc. Mr. Duerinck is a man of great energy and business habits, united with a devotion to the welfare of the Potawatomi Indians, to whom he has proved a father and friend, and by whom he is highly esteemed. I have no hesitancy in expressing my conviction that this institution is of great service to these Indians. This influence is seen in the neat cottages and little fields of the 'Mission Indians' and the air of comfort and good order apparent throughout the neighborhood." Owing to friction between the progressive element and the conservative Prairie Band, the former were segregated in 1861 and took lands in severalty under the name of "Citizen Potawatomi." In 1868 they removed to Oklahoma, where they now reside. About three hundred are rated as Catholic, with two prosperous mission schools at Sacred Heart, St. Mary's (girls) in charge of the Sisters of Mercy, and St. Benedict's (boys) in charge of the Benedictines. The rest of the tribe, for whom no religious statistics are given is still in Kansas or east of the Mississippi. The whole tribe may have numbered 5000 souls. In 1855 they were officially estimated at about 4000, of whom about 3700 were in Kansas. They number now in round numbers about 3500; Oklahoma (Citizen), 1660; Kansas (Prairie), 725; Wisconsin (no agent), 440; Michigan (including "Huron" band), 450; Walpole Island, Ontario, Canada (Methodist), 225. The linguistic material of Potawatomi is meager, consisting chiefly of a few printed or manuscript vocabularies, the latter with the Bureau of American Ethnology, together with one or two small publications by the Baptist mission board, at Shawnee Mission, Kansas (about 1837). The Potawatomi were organized upon the clan system, having, according to Morgan, 15 gentes: Wolf, Bear, Beaver, Elk, Loon, Eagle, Sturgeon, Carp, Bald Eagle, Thunder, Rabbit, Crow, Fox, Turkey, Black Hawk. Like most of the Algonquin tribes of the central area they were semi-sedentary and semi-agricultural, but subsisted also largely by hunting and fishing, as well as by the gathering of wild rice and the preparation of maple sugar. They built communal bark-covered lodges, and buried in the ground or in hollow logs, excepting the Rabbit gens, which practiced cremation. They sacrificed chiefly to the sun, and each man had also his personal tutelary, which was chosen at their great "dream feast." Their ordinary dress was of buckskin, but the men frequently went almost naked excepting for the breechcloth. Their primitive weapons were the bow, tomahawk, and knife; they fought generally on foot. Polygamy was common, but the women were noted for their reserve, as were the men for their humane and refined disposition as compared with other tribes. They were also experts in the athletic game of lacrosse. The majority of the tribe are now fairly prosperous farmers. Jesuit Relations, ed. THWAITES (73 vols., Cleveland, 1896-1901); Catholic Ind. Missions in Annual Repts. of Director (Washington); Comsner. of Ind. Affairs in Annual Repts. (Washington); Dept. of Ind. Affairs (Canada) in Annual Repts. (Ottawa); Duerinck Letters in Repts. Secretary of Interior (Washington, 1852-7); DUNN, True Indian Stories (Indianapolis, 1908); SHEE, Catholic Indian Missions (New York, 1854); DESMET, Western Missions and Missionaries (New York, 1863); Wisconsin State Hist. Soc., colls. XI (Madison, 1888); PILLING, Bibliography of Algonquin Langs. in Bull. Bur. Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1891); BOYCE AND THOMAS, Indian Land Cessions in 18th Rept. Bur. Am. Ethnology, II (Washington, 1899); New York Colonial Documents (15 vols., Albany, 1853-87); American State Papers: Ind. Affairs, I (Washington, 1832); MERGRY, Decouvertes et etablissements de Francais (6 vols., Paris, 1875-86). JAMES MOONEY Robert Joseph Pothier Robert Joseph Pothier A celebrated French lawyer, b. at Orléans, 9 January, 1699; d. there, 2 March, 1772. His father was a judge of the petty court, a position later filled by the son (1750), who at the same time was professor of French law at the University of Orléans (1750). His life, devoted to teaching and the administration of justice, was not marked by any important events; his considerable influence was exercised in his lectures and his works. Of an austere life, modest, disinterested, and profoundly religious, he was a characteristic representative of the legal profession under the old regime. His principal work was rather in arrangement of the texts of the Roman Law: "Pandectae Justinianeae in novum ordinem digestae," 3 vols. (Paris, 1748-52) several times re-edited, and published under the patronage of the Chancellor d'Aguesseau, who offered him a professorship after the appearance of the first volume. Having written in collaboration with Prevost de la Jannés and Jousse, a remarkable "Introduction à la coutume d'Orléans (Orléans, 1740), he published "Les Coutumes d'Orléans" (1760). He is especially known for a series of treatises on duties, sales, constitution of rents, exchange, hiring, leases, leasing of cattle, contracts of beneficence, contracts aleatory, contracts of marriage, the community, dowry, law of habitation, tenure of the estate, possession, and title; they were published between 1761 and 1772; all collected in his "Traités sur differentes matieres du droit civil" (Orléans, 1781). Other essays left in manuscript, principally on fiefs, successions, donations, civil and criminal procedure, were published between 1776 and 1778. All these works, in plain clear compilation, perfectly planned, were in the hands of the jurists who edited the new French Civil Code (Code Napoléon). As the editors took into account both the Roman and the common law, Pothier's writings were exceedingly useful for the purposes of the new codification which owed considerable to them, especially as regards questions of duties and contracts. See Thézard, "De l'influence des travaux de Pothier et du Chancelier d'Aguesseau sur le droit civil moderne" (Paris, 1866). Pothier's most interesting work, from a religious point of view, is his "Traité du contrat de mariage," in which he exposes in all their fullness the current Gallican doctrines. According to French lawyers, not only is the marriage contract distinct front the sacrament, and becomes such only through the nuptial benediction, but it is subject to the authority of princes, who can legislate on the marriages of their subjects, remove obstacles, and regulate the formalities; thus marriages of minors contracted without the consent of their parents are declared null and void. Further, marriage matters, not alone of separation or divorce, but of nullification, pertain to the secular tribunals. In this way he was a forerunner of the secularization of marriage, and the establishment of civil marriage (Esmein, "Le mariage en droit canonique" Paris, 1891, I, 33 sq.). DUPIN, Dissertation sur la vie et les ouvrages de Pothier (Paris, 1825); FREMONT, Vie de Rob.-Jos. Pothier (Orléans, 1850). A. BOUDINHON Jean-Francois-Albert du Pouget Jean-François-Albert du Pouget Marquis de Nadaillac, b. in 1817; d. at Rougemont, Cloyes, 1 October, 1904; the scion of an old French family, and one of the most distinguished among modern men of anthropologic science. He devoted his earlier years to public affairs, and served in 1871 and 1877 respectively as prefect of the Departments of Basses-Pryénées and Indre-et-Loire, proving himself an able and sympathetic administrator. On completing his term of office he retired into private life and devoted himself to scientific research, chiefly in the lines of palæontology and anthropology, giving particular attention to American questions, upon which he was a leading authority. He had much to do with the exploration of the caves of southern France, being especially interested in the evidence of artistic development in the primitive occupants. He was probably the foremost authority on cave drawings. He studied deeply the relation of science to faith, and was one of the first to warn the French nation of the impending danger of race suicide. To a dignified presence he united an exquisite politeness which sprang from a kind heart. Of a spiritual temperament, he was an earnest Catholic. He died at his ancestral chateau of Rougemont, near Cloyes, Department of Eure-et-Loir, in his 87th year, and, as officially announced, "fortified by the sacraments of the Church", combining in himself the highest type of Christian gentleman and profound scientist. He was a member of learned societies in every part of the world, including several in the united States, and he held decorations from half a dozen Governments, besides being a chevalier of the Legion of Honour. He was also a correspondent of the Institute of France. His published volumes and shorter papers cover a remarkably wide range of interest. In this country he is probably best known for his great work on Prehistoric America (in French), published in Paris in 1883, and in English at New York in 1884. Among other important papers may be noted those on "Tertiary Man" (1885); "Decline of the Birthrate in France" (1886); "The Glacial Epoch" (1886); "Manners and Monuments of Prehistoric Peoples" (Paris, 1888); "Origin and Development of Life upon the Globe" (1888); "Prehistoric Discoveries and Christian Beliefs" (1889); "Most Ancient Traces of Man in America" (1890); "The First Population of Europe" (1890); "The National Peril" (1890); "The Progress of Anthropology" (1891); "Intelligence and Instinct" (1892); "The Depopulation of France" (1892); "The Lacustrine Population of Europe" (1894); "Faith and Science" (1895); "Evolution and Dogma" (1896); "Unity of the Human Species" (1897); "Man and the Ape" (1898); "Painted or Incised Figures...of Prehistoric Caverns" (1904). Most of these appeared first, either in the journal of the Institute or in the Revue des Questions Scientifiques of Louvain and Brussels. GAUDRY, in L'Anthropologie, XV, No. 5 (Paris, Sept., 1904); McGUIRE, in Am. Anthropologist, N. S., VII, No I (Lancaster, Jan., 1905). JAMES MOONEY Thomas Pounde Thomas Pounde Lay brother, b. at Beaumond (or Belmony), Farlington, Hampshire, 29 May, 1538; d. there, 26 Feb., 1612-13; eldest son of William Pounde and Helen, sister or half-sister to Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton. He is reported to have been educated at Winchester College. He was admitted to Lincoln's Inn, 16 Feb., 1559-60, and his father dying the same month, he then succeeded to Beaumond, and soon after was appointed esquire of the body to Queen Elizabeth. He acted the part of Mercury in Gascoigne's Masque, performed before the queen at Kenilworth in 1565. During the reveries of Christmastide, 1551, after dancing before the queen, he received a public affront from her, which induced him to retire from the court. Shortly afterwards he was reconciled to the Church, probably by Father Henry Alway, and after some time of seclusion at Beaumond, began an active career as a proselytizer. He was in the Marshallsea for six month in 1574; in Winchester Gaol for some months in 1575-6; and in the Marshallsea again from 9 March, 1575-76. to 18 Sept., 1580, being made a Jesuit lay-brother by a letter dated 1 Dec., 1578 from the Father-General Mercurian, sent at the instance of Father Thomas Stevens, S.J., the first Englishman to go to India. From the Marshalsea Pounde was removed to Bishop's Stortford Castle, and thence to Wisbech. Then he was in the Tower of London, 13 Aug., 1581 to 7 Dec., 1585. He was in the White Lion, Southwark, from 1 Sept., 1586, till he was sent back to Wisbech in 1587, where he remained nearly ten years. He was again in the Tower of London, from Feb., 1596-7, to the autumn of 1598, when he was again committed to Wisbech. From Wisbech he was relegated to Wood Street Counter where he remained for six weeks from 19 Dec., 1598. After that he was in the Tower again until 7 July, 1601. He was then in Framlingham castle for a year. In 1602 he was in Newgate, and in the following year he was indicted at York. Afterwards he was in the Gatehouse, Westminster, for some time, and then in the Tower (for the fourth time) for four months, and lastly in the Fleet for three months. He was finally liberated in late 1604 or early in 1605, having spent nearly thirty years in prison. These facts are but the dry bones of the career of an heroic man, whose real biography has yet to be written. the "life" by Father Matthias Tanner, S. J., is full of inaccuracies. TANNER, Societas Jesu Apostolorum Imatatrix (Prague, 1694), 450; FOLEY, Records of the English Province S. J. (London, 1877-83); Notes and Queries, 10th series, IV and V (London, 1905-06); Calendars of Domestic State Papers; DASENT, Acts of the Privy Council; Catholic Record Society's Publications; MORRIS, Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers (London, 1872-77); SIMPSON in The Rambler, VIII, 25-38, 94-106. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Nicolas Poussin Nicolas Poussin French painter, b. at Les Andelys near Rouen in 1594; d. at Rome, 19 November, 1666. His early history is obscure; his father had been a soldier, his mother was a peasant. In 1612, Varin, a wandering painter, brought him to Paris, where he experienced great distress. In despair he tried his fortune in the provinces but nothing remains of what he did at that time in Poitou and later with the Capuchins at Blois, as well as the six pictures he painted in eight days for the Jesuit college at Paris. He studied under Varin, Lallemand, and Ferdinand Elle, but they had no share in his development. The French school was then in a languid condition. The religious wars of the time rendered abortive the attempt of Francis I to inaugurate the Renaissance, and Henry IV had other things to engross his attention besides the arts. His successor sought rather such foreign artists as John of Bologna, Pourbus, and Rubens. At this juncture Poussin learned of some engravings by Marc Antonio after Giulio Romano and Raphael. This was his road to Damascus. Antique beauty was revealed to him through the works of these sons of Italy and thenceforth he lived in the past. All modern civilization seemed barbarous to him. His experience was an illumination, a veritable conversion. Henceforth he had no rest until he found the fatherland of his heart and his ideas. Three attempts he made to reach Rome. Compelled to return to Paris he there encountered Marini, the famous author of the "Adonis", who contracted a warm friendship for the enthusiastic boy: "Che ha", said he, "una furia di diavolo". With him he finally reached Rome in 1624; but Marini died within a few months and Poussin was alone in a strange city, helpless, ill, without means, and reduced to doing hack work. The poor artist then met a countryman, the cook Dughet, who took pity on him, sheltered and cured him, and whose daughter he married (1629). At the time of his arrival at Rome the school was divided into two parties, that of the mannerists who followed Guido, and that of the brutal naturalists who followed Caravaggio, both in Poussin's opinion quackery, equally dishonest and remote from reality. He detested the affected airs of the fashionable painters, their sentimentality, their insipidity, their ecstasy. Nor was he less hard on the affectation of the "naturalists and their partiality for ugliness and vulgarity". He called Caravaggio's art "painting for lackeys", and added: "This man is come to destroy painting". Both schools sought to execute more beautifully or more basely than nature; Art was endangered for lack of rule, conscience, and discipline. It was time to escape from caprice and anarchy, from the despotism of tastes and temperaments. And this was what Poussin sought to achieve by his doctrine of "imitation". To imitate the antique was an approach to nature, to learn conformity with reality, to recover life in its most lasting, noble, and human forms. Such at least was the doctrine and faith which he practised unceasingly in his works and letters. For this he became an archæologist, a numismatist, a scholar. He used scientific methods, measuring statues, consulting bas-reliefs, studying painted vases, sarcophagi, and mosaics. Every point was based on an authentic document. In this he was doubtless influenced by a certain narrowness and misunderstanding of the claims of realism. To a certain extent his art is for the initiated, the taste for it requires culture. More, this pure ideal implies a singular anachronism. Poussin presents the strange case of a man isolated in the past and who never descended in history lower than the Antonines. By his turn of mind this man of austere virtue was scarcely Christian. He rarely painted scenes from the Gospel. His Christ is certainly one of his weakest types. Let me dare to say it: as an artist Poussin thinks somewhat like a Leconte de Lisle or like the Renan of the "Prière sur l'Acropole". Poussin had no desire to see the modern world. He left but a single portrait, his own. He is wholly expressed in Bernini's words: "Veramente quest' uomo à stato grande istoriatore e grande favoleggiatore". He was a great historian, a great teller of fables, an epic poet, in a word the foremost of his time and one of the foremost of all time. His works are very numerous. The first group contains subjects borrowed from sacred and profane antiquity. Among these to mention only dated works are: "The Rape of the Sabines", and "The Plague of the Philistines" (1630, Louvre); "The Testament of Eudamidas" (Copenhagen); "Hebrews Gathering Manna" (1639); "Moses Rescued from the Waters" (1647); "Eliezer and Rebecca" (1648); "The Judgment of Solomon" (1649); "The Blind Men of Jericho" (1650); "The Adulteress" (1653); all these last-named pictures are at the Louvre. To these must be added the important double series of pictures known as the "Seven Sacraments". The first, painted (1644-8) for Cavaliere del Pozzo, is now at the Bridgewater Gallery, London. The second is a very different variation of the former and was painted for M. de Chantelou, his correspondent and active protector. It is now in collection of the Duke of Rutland at Belvoir Castle. This historical portion of his work seems to have been most in favour with his contemporaries. It immediately became classic and it is certainly filled with the highest beauty. Despite their high and strong qualities, however, these works no longer attract us, for we often find therein an intellectual affront, a something too literary or too rationalistic which seems to us foreign to the genius of painting. But that this was relished by the French of the seventeenth century is shown by their commentaries on these works. The description of the two pictures "Eliezer" and the "Manna", fills forty quarto pages in Félibien. Apart from these historical scenes which "relate" and "prove" there is a purely lyric side. In it are evident the wonderful skill of the designer and the poet, detached from any attempt at anecdote or "illustration". Such were the "Bacchanalia", the "Triumph of Flora", the "Childhood of Jupiter", which do little more than repeat the theme of the joy and beauty of living. Here Poussin's genius freed of all restraint can only be compared to that of great musicians such as Rameau or Gluck. Properly speaking it is the genius of rhythm. This is his true sphere, as original as that of any master, and the inexhaustible source of his emotion and poetry. In a sense his work may be considered as a ballet. This was his idea in his famous letter on the modes of the ancients, who distinguished as many as seven, the Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Hypolydian etc. "I desire", he added, "before another year to compose a picture in the Phrygian manner". This phrase would have aroused less amusement if Whistler's works, with his "symphonies", "harmonies", "nocturns", and "sonatas", had been known. But this music of painting which Whistler made chiefly a matter of colour seemed to Poussin a question of movement. For him it meant life understood as a dance which the Greeks made a science. Finally the landscape becomes more and more important in this lyrical or poetical side of his work. Nature accompanies with its profound harmony the human sentiments which transpire on its surface, the persons are merely a melodious figure outlined against the chorus of things. As a landscape artist he is without a peer, unless it be Titian. Constable finds something religious in his landscapes; in fact, when contemplating his "Polyphemus" or his "Cacus" (St. Petersburg), it is easy to understand (what no one since Virgil has felt) the naturalistic and mysterious origin of myths. Beyond doubt this is something far removed from the pious Franciscan tenderness as it finds expression in the "Canticle of creatures"; it is rather the religion of Epicurus or Lucretius, which teaches conformity with the ends of the universe and as supreme wisdom counsels harmony with the rhythm of nature. Towards the end of his life Poussin seems to have renounced the personal or dramatic element. His last works, the "Four Seasons" of the Louvre (1664-65), are simply four landscapes which please by variety of sense. Like the ancient sage the master leaves history and psychology, and devotes himself simply to music. Between 1624 and his death he was absent from Rome only once (1641-2) at the command of Richelieu, who summoned him to Paris to superintend the work at the Louvre with the title of painter to the king. This journey was otherwise unfortunate. The artist was misunderstood by the painters, who soon succeeded in driving him away. All that remains of this period are two large pictures, a "Last Supper", very mediocre, painted for St. Germain en Laye, a "Miracle of St. Francis Xavier", painted for the Jesuit novitiate, and a ceiling, the "Triumph of Truth", painted for Richelieu's chateau at Rueil. These three canvases are at the Louvre. On his return to Rome Poussin found his authority much increased by his official title. He lived not far from the Trinità dè Monti in a little side street where he had as neighbors Claude Lorrain and Salvator. Among artists he exercised a singular influence. Nearly all the Frenchmen who came to Rome to study, from Mignard to Le Brun and Sebastien Bourdon, not to mention his brother-in-law Gaspard Dughet (called "Guaspre"), imitated him and claimed him as master; but as usual none of them understood him. In his century he was an isolated genius, but his glory has not been useless to us; it shone more brilliantly in the decadence of the Italian school and it gave to the French school what it had hitherto lacked -- titles and an ancestor. I. POUSSIN'S correspondence in BOTTARI, Raccolta di Lettere (Rome, 1764), and in QUATREMÈRE DE QUINCY, Collection des Lettres de Poussin (Paris, 1824), defective edition, a critical one is in press. II. Biographies: BELLORI, Vite de' pittori (Rome, 1672); FÉLIBIEN, Entretiens sur la vie des plus excellents peintres (2nd ed., Paris, 1688); Archives de l'Art français (Paris, 1854 sq.), I, 1-11, 140-50; II, 224-31; III, 1-18; VI, 241-54. III. Studies on Poussin: DE SAINT GERMAIN, Vie de N. Poussin (Paris, 1806); GRAHAM, Memoirs of the life of N. Poussin (London, 1820); BOUCHITTÉ, Le Poussin, sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris, 1858); DELACROIX, Le Poussin in PIRON, Eug. Delacroix, sa vie et ses oeuvres (Paris, 1865); JOUIN, Conférences de l'Académie de peinture et de sculpture (Paris, 1883); DENIO, Nicolas Poussin (Leipzig, 1898); ADVIELLE, Recherches sur Nicolas Poussin (Paris, 1902); DESJARDINS, Poussin (Paris, s. d.). LOUIS GILLET Poverty Poverty I. THE MORAL DOCTRINE OF POVERTY Jesus Christ did not condemn the possession of worldly goods, or even of great wealth; for He himself had rich friends. Patristic tradition condemns the opponents of private property; the texts on which such persons rely, when taken in connexion with their context and the historical circumstances, are capable of a natural explanation which does not at all support their contention (cf. Vermeersch, "Quæst. de justitia", n. 210). Nevertheless it is true that Christ constantly pointed out the danger of riches, which, He says, are the thorns that choke up the good seed of the word (Matt., xiii, 22). Because of His poverty as well as of His constant journeying, necessitated by persecution, He could say: "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests: but the son of man hath not where to lay his head" (Matt., viii, 20), and to the young man who came to ask Him what he should do that he might have life everlasting, He gave the counsel, "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor" (Matt., xix, 16-21). The renunciation of worldly possessions has long been a part of the practice of Christian asceticism; the Christian community of Jerusalem in their first fervour sold their goods "and divided them to all, according as every one had need" (Acts, ii, 45), and those who embraced the state of perfection understood from the first that they must choose poverty. Does this mean that poverty is the object of a special virtue? Gury (Theolog. moralis II, n. 155) answers the question in the affirmative, and many religious writers favour the same opinion, which is supported by the ordinary conventual and ascetical literature; what is prescribed by the vow of poverty is compared therein with the virtue of poverty, just as we compare the vows of obedience and chastity with the corresponding virtues. But this is erroneous; for the object of a virtue must be something honourable or praiseworthy in itself: now poverty has no intrinsic goodness, but is good only because it is useful to remove the obstacles which stand in the way of the pursuit of spiritual perfection (St. Thomas, "Contra Gentiles", III, cxxxiii; Suarez, "Dereligione", tr. VII, l. VIII, c. ii, n. 6; Bucceroni, "Inst. theol. mor.", II, 75, n. 31). The practice of poverty derives its merit from the virtuous motive ennobling it, and from the virtues which we exercise in regard to the privations and sacrifices accompanying it. As every vow has for its object the worship of God, poverty practised under a vow has the merit of the virtue of religion, and its public profession, as enjoined by the Church, forms a part of the ritual of the Catholic religion. The ancients understood the nobility of making themselves independent of the fleeting things of earth, and certain Greek philosophers lived in voluntary penury; but they prided themselves on being superior to the vulgar crowd. There is no virtue in such poverty as this, and when Diogenes trampled Plato's carpet, saying as he did so: "Thus do I trample on Plato's pride", "Yes", answered Plato, "but only through your own pride." Buddhism also teaches the contempt of riches; in China the tenth precept of the novices forbids them to touch gold or silver, and the second precept of female novices forbids them to possess anything of their own; but their ignorance of a personal God prevents the Buddhist monks from having any higher motive for their renunciation than the natural advantage of restraining their desires (cf. Wieger, "Bouddhisme chinois", pp. 153, 155, 183, 185). If voluntary poverty is ennobled by the motive which inspires it, the poverty which puts aside temporal possessions for the service of God and the salvation of souls is the most noble of all. It is the apostolic poverty of the Christian religion which is practised in the highest degree by missionaries in pagan countries, and to a certain degree by all priests: all these voluntarily give up certain possessions and advantages in order to devote themselves entirely to the service of God. Voluntary poverty is the object of one of the evangelical counsels. The question then arises, what poverty is required by the practice of this counsel or, in other words, what poverty suffices for the state of perfection? The renunciation which is essential and strictly required is the abandonment of all that is superfluous, not that it is absolutely necessary to give up the ownership of all property, but a man must be contented with what is necessary for his own use. Then only is there a real detachment which sufficiently mortifies the love of riches, cuts off luxury and vain glory, and frees from the care for worldly goods. Cupidity, vain glory, and excessive solicitude are, according to St. Thomas, the three obstacles which riches put in the way of acquiring perfection (Summa, II-II, Q. clxxxviii, a. 7). This abandonment of superfluities was the only way in which voluntary poverty could be understood before the introduction of the common life. The state of perfection, understood in its proper sense, requires also that the renunciation should be of a permanent character; and in practice this stability follows as the result of a perpetual vow of poverty. The warnings and counsels of Jesus Christ are valuable even to those who are not vowed to a state of perfection. They teach men to moderate their desire for riches, and accept cheerfully the loss or deprivation of them; and they inculcate that detachment from the things of this world which our Lord taught when He said, "Everyone of you that doth not renounce all that he possesseth, cannot be my disciple" (Luke xiv 33). II. THE CANONICAL DISCIPLINE OF POVERTY Among the followers of perfection, the spirit of poverty was manifested from the first by giving up temporal possessions; and among those living in community, the use of goods as private property was strictly forbidden, being contrary to that common life which the patriarchs of monasticism, St. Pachomius and his disciple Schénoudi, St. Basil, and St. Benedict, imposed upon their followers. But there was at that time no express vow of poverty, and no legal disability; the monastic profession required nothing but the rigorous avoidance of all that was unnecessary (cf. De Buck, "Do sollemnitate votorum, præcipue paupertatis religiosæ epistola", x). Justinian ordained that the goods of religious should belong to the monastery (Novel. 5, iv sqq.; 123, xxxviii and xlii). This law gradually came into force, and in time created a disability to acquire property, although in the twelfth century, and even later, there were religious in possession of property. The rule of French law, under which a religious was considered as Civilly dead, contributed to establish a necessary connexion between the vow of poverty and the idea of disability. The express vow of renunciation of all private property was introduced into the profession of the Friars Minor in 1260. About the same time another change took place; hitherto no limit had been placed on the common possessions of religious, but the mendicant orders in the thirteenth century forbade the possession, even in common, of all immovable property distinct from the convent, and of all revenues; and the Friars Minor of the strict observance, desiring to go one step further, assigned to the Holy See the ownership of all their property, even the most indispensable. Following the example of St. Francis and St. Dominic, many founders established their orders on a basis of common poverty, and the Church saw a large increase in the number of the mendicant orders until the foundation of the clerks regular in the sixteenth century; even then, many orders united common poverty with the regular clerical life: such were the Theatines (1524), whose rule was to live on alms and contributions spontaneously given; and the Society of Jesus (1540). It soon became evident that this profession of poverty which had so greatly edified the thirteenth century was exposed to grave abuses, that a certain state of destitution created more cares than it removed, and was not conducive either to intellectual activity or to strict observance; and that mendicity might become an occasion of scandal. Consequently the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, c. iii, de reg.) permitted all monasteries, except those of the Friars Minor Observantines and the Capuchins, to possess immovable property, and consequently the income derived therefrom; but the Carmelites and the Society of Jesus, in its professed houses, continue to practise the common poverty which forbids the possession of assured incomes. Congregations with simple vows were not bound by the canonical law forbidding the private possession or acquisition of property by members of approved orders: the disability of private possession was thus considered as an effect of the solemn vow of poverty; but this bond between the incapacity to possess and the solemn vow is neither essential nor indissoluble. So far as the effect of the vow on private possession is concerned, the vow of poverty taken by the formed coadjutors of the Society of Jesus has the same effect as the solemn vow of the professed fathers. St. Ignatius instituted in his order a simple profession preparatory to the final one with an interval between them during which the religious retains his capacity to possess property. A similar rule has been extended to all orders of men by Pius IX and to orders of women by Leo XIII (see PROFESSION, RELIGIOUS). On the other hand, since the Rescript of the Penitentiary of 1 Dec., 1820, confirmed by the declaration to the bishops of Belgium dated 31 July, 1878, the solemn profession of religious in Belgium (and Holland appears to enjoy the same privilege) does not prevent them from acquiring property or keeping and administering it, or disposing of it: they are bound, however, in the exercise of their rights, to observe the submission they owe to their legitimate superiors. The Vow of Poverty in General The vow of poverty may generally be defined as the promise made to God of a certain constant renunciation of temporal goods, in order to follow Christ. The object of the vow of poverty is anything visible, material, appreciable at a money value. Reputation, personal services, and the application of the mass, do not fall under this vow; relics are included only on account of the reliquary which contains them, and (at least in practice) manuscripts, as such, remain the property of the religious. The vow of poverty entirely forbids the independent use, and sometimes the acquisition or possession of such property as falls within its scope. A person who has made this vow gives up the right to acquire, possess, use, or dispose of property except in accordance with the will of his superior. Nevertheless certain acts of abdication are sometimes left to the discretion of the religious himself, such as the arrangements for the administration and application of income which professed religious under simple vows are required to make; and the drawing up of a will, by which the religious makes a disposition of his property to take effect after his death, may be permitted without any restriction. This license with regard to wills is of great antiquity. The simple fact of refusing to accept, for example, a personal legacy, may be contrary to charity, but cannot be an offence against the vow of poverty. The vow of poverty does not debar a religious from administering an ecclesiastical benefice which is conferred upon him, accepting sums of money to distribute for pious works, or assuming the administration of property for the benefit of another person (when this is consistent with his religious state), nor does it in any way forbid the fulfilment of obligations of justice, whether they are the result of a voluntary promise -- for the religious may properly engage to offer a Mass or render any personal service -- or arise from a fault, since he is bound in justice to repair any wrong done to the reputation of another person. Submission to a superior (as we call the person whose permission, by the terms of the vow, is required for all acts disposing of temporal goods) does not necessarily call for an express or formal permission. A tacit permission which may be inferred from some act or attitude and the expression of some other wish, or even a reasonable presumption of permission, will be sufficient. There is no violation of the vow, when the religious can say to himself, "the superior, who is acquainted with the facts, will approve of my acting in this way without being informed of my intention". The case is more difficult, when he knows that the superior would expect to be informed, and asked for permission, even though he would willingly have given his consent: if it seems probable that he regards the request for permission as a condition of his approval, the inferior offends against the vow of poverty, if he acts without asking leave; but there is no offence if he knows that the superior and himself are agreed as to the essential nature of the act; and the question whether the presumption is reasonable or otherwise may depend on the customs of different orders, the importance of the object, the frequent necessity of the act, the age and prudence of the inferior, his relations with his superior, the facility of obtaining access to him, and other similar considerations. Any admission of luxury or superfluity in daily life is derogatory to the religious state and the first conception of voluntary poverty; but it is not clear that this want of strictness is necessarily contrary to the vow. To decide this, regard must be had to the manner in which each particular vow, with all its circumstances, is generally understood. A sin against the vow of poverty is necessarily an offence against the virtue of religion, and when committed in connexion with religious profession it is even a sacrilege. It may be a grave or a slight offence. The question, what matter is grave, causes great difficulty to moral theologians; and while some regard the appropriation of one franc as a grave matter, others are more lenient. Most theologians are inclined to compare the sin against the vow of poverty with the sin of theft, and say that the same amount which would make theft a mortal sin would, if appropriated contrary to the vow, constitute a grave offence against poverty. With the exception of Palmieri (Opus morale, tr. IX, c. i, n. 123) and Génicot (Theol. mor., II, n. 98) moralists admit that as in the case of sins against justice, so here circumstances may be considered. While many persons consider the importance and the wealth or poverty of the community in which the offence is committed, we are of opinion that it is rather the extent of the vow that should be considered, since the act does not violate the vow by reason of the harm it causes, but by its being a forbidden appropriation. If the fault is aggravated by in justice it must, as an unjust act, be judged according to the usual rules; but when considered as an offence against the vow, its gravity will be measured by the condition of the person who commits it. Thus a sum which would be very large for a beggar will be insignificant for a man who had belonged to a higher class. The social position should be considered; is it that of the poor or mendicant class? One cannot without grave fault dispose independently of a sum which without grave fault one could not take away from a beggar. For many existing congregations, the matter will be that of a mortal sin of theft committed to the detriment of a priest of honourable condition. It follows that in the case of incomplete appropriation, we must consider the economical value of the act in question; whether, for example, it is an act of simple use of administration; and when the religious does nothing but give away honourably goods of which he retains the ownership, the amount must be very large before the reasonable disposal of it can be regarded as a grave sin for want of the required authorization. If the sin consists, not in an independent appropriation, but in a life of too great luxury, it will be necessary to measure the gravity of the fault by the opposition which exists between luxury and the poverty which is promised by vow. Variety in the Vows of Poverty The vow of poverty is ordinarily attached to a religious profession; a person may however bind himself to a modest and frugal life, or even to follow the direction of an adviser in the use of his property. The vow may be perpetual or temporary. It may exclude private possession, or even to a certain point possession in common. It may entail legal disability or be simply prohibitive. It may extend to all goods possessed at present, or expected in the future; or it may be limited to certain classes of property; it may require the complete renunciation of rights, or simply forbid the application to personal profit, or even the independent use of the property. According to the present discipline of the Church, the vow of poverty taken by religious always involves a certain renunciation of rights: thus the religious is understood to give up to his order for ever the fruit of his work or personal industry, stipends of Masses, salary as professor, profits of any publication or invention, or savings from money allowed him for personal expenses. The independent disposal of any of these would be contrary not only to the vow, but also to justice. We have, moreover, to distinguish in the religious life between the solemn vow of poverty and the simple vow. The latter may be a step towards the solemn vow, or it may have a final character of its own. The Solemn Vow of Poverty The solemn vow by common law has the following special characteristics: it extends to all property and rights; it renders one incapable of possessing property, and therefore of transferring it; it makes all gifts or legacies which a religious receives, as well as the fruits of his own work, the property of the monastery; and in case property is inherited, the monastery succeeds in place of the professed religious, in accordance with the maxim: Quicquid monachus acquirit monasterio acquirit. Some orders are incapable of inheriting on such occasions, e.g., the Friars Minor Observantines, the Capuchins, and the Society of Jesus. The inheritance then passes to those who would succeed under the civil law in default of the professed religious. Sometimes before solemn vows are made by a religious, his monastery gives up its right of inheritance by arrangement with the family, and sometimes the religious is allowed to dispose of his share in anticipation. (As to these arrangements and their effect, see Vermeersch, "De relig. instit. et pers.", II, 4th ed., supp. VI, 70 sqq.) As long as monasteries were independent, the monastery which inherited in place of the professed monk was the house to which he was bound by his vow of stability; but in more recent orders, the religious often changes his house, and sometimes his province, and has therefore no vow of stability, except as to the entire order; in such cases, the monastery according to the common usage is the whole order, unless some arrangement is made for partition among provinces or houses. (See Sanchez, "In decalogum", VII, xxxii sqq.; De Lugo, "De institia et iure", d. iii, nn. 226 sqq.) We have already said that the religious of Belgium preserve their capacity to acquire property and dispose of it: their acts therefore are valid, but they will only be licit if done with the approval of their superior. It will be the duty of the latter to see that the rigour of observance and especially the common life do not suffer by this concession, which is, indeed in other respects most important for their own civil security. The Simple Vow of Religious Poverty The simple vow of poverty has these common characteristics: it leaves the capacity to acquire intact, and permits the religious to retain certain rights of ownership. In exceptional cases the simple vow may involve incapacity, as is characteristic of the last simple vows of the Society of Jesus. We have now to distinguish between the simple vow which is preparatory to the solemn vow, and the final simple vow. (a) The simple vow in preparation for the solemn vow The Decree "Sanctissimus" of 12 June, 1858, with the subsequent declarations, constitutes the common law on the subject of this simple vow. (See Vermeersch, "De religiosis institutis etc.", II, 4th ed., nn. 61 sqq., pp. 178 sqq.) This vow permits the religions to retain the ownership of property possessed at the time of his entrance into religion, to acquire property by inheritance, and to receive gifts and personal legacies. The administration and usufruct and the use of this property must before the taking of the vow pass either to the order (if it is able and willing to approve of the arrangement), or into other hands, at the choice of the religious. Such an arrangement is irrevocable as long as the religious remains under the conditions of the vow, and ceases should he leave the order; he seems authorized also to make or complete the resignation which he may have omitted to make or complete previously. Except so far as he is affected by the decree of the Council of Trent, which forbids novices to make any renunciation which would interfere with their liberty to leave their order, the religious who is bound by this simple vow may, with the permission of his superior, dispose of his property by a donation inter vivos, and apparently has full liberty to make a will. But the Decree "Perpensis" of 3 May, 1902, which extends to nuns the simple profession of orders of men, without mentioning a will, declares simply that women are not permitted to make final disposition of their property except during the two months immediately preceding their solemn profession. (b) The final simple vow With the exception of the Society of Jesus, in which the simple vow of formed coadjutors entails the same personal obligations and the same disability as the solemn vow, the final simple vow is known only in religious congregations, and the practice differs in different congregations (cf. Lucidi, "De visitatione SS. liminum" II, v, sec. 8, nn. 319 sqq.), and very often resembles that of the vow preparatory to the solemn vow; but according to the Regulations (Normoe) of 28 June, 1901, the transfer of property by donations inter vivos cannot be licitly made before the perpetual vows; after these vows, the complete renunciation requires the permission of the Holy See, which reserves to itself also the right to authorize the execution or modification of a will after profession. Any arrangements made before profession for the administration of property and the application of the revenues may be subsequently modified with the consent of the superior. In diocesan institutes, there is no question of the capacity of the religions; but the bishops generally reserve to themselves the right of approving the more important acts of administration. The Peculium Certain goods, for example sums of money, independent of the common stock, and made over to the religions to be used without restriction for their private wants, form what is called the peculium. Only that which is irrevocably put out of the power of the superior is contrary to the vow of poverty; but all peculium is an injury to that common life, which since the earliest times was considered so important by the founders of religious communities. The Holy See constantly uses its efforts to abolish it, and to establish that perfect common life which provides that there shall be in the convent one common treasury for the personal needs of all. Possession in Common The vow of poverty does not necessarily or as a general rule exclude the capacity to possess in common, that is to say, to have a common stock of property at the common disposal of the possessors, provided that they do not dispose of it in any manner Contrary to the accepted rules and customs. It is a great mistake to argue from the vow of poverty that it is just to deny to religions this real common possession. I. Historical BUTLER, The Lausiac History of Palladius (Cambridge, 1899), a critical discussion together with notes on early Egyptian monachism; CARRIÈRE, De iustitia et iure (Louvain, 1845), 195 sqq.; DE BUCK, De sollemnitate votorum, proecipue paupertatis reliqiosoe epistola (Brussels. 1862); LADEUZE, Etude sur le cénobitisme Pakhômien pendant le IVe siècle et la première moitié du Ve (Louvain, 1898); MARTÈNE, Comment, in reg. S. P. Benedicti; SCHIWIETZ, Das oriental. Mönchtum (Mainz, 1904); THOMASSINUS, Vetus et nova eccles. discip., I. iii. II. Doctrinal BASTIEN, Directoire canonique à l'usage des congrégations à voeux simples (Maredsous, 1911); BATTANDIER, Guide canonique pour les constitutions des soeurs à voeux simples (Paris. 1908); BOUIX, Tract. de jure regularium (Paris, 1858); DE LUGO, De iustitia et iure, d. iii, s. 4 sqq.; MOCCHEGGIANI, Jurisprudentia ecclesiastica ad usum et commoditatem utriusgue cleri, I (Quaracchi, 1904); PASSERINI, De hominum statibus, I, In Q. clxxxvi, art. 7, pp. 519 sqq.; PELLIZARIUS, Manuale regularium, tr. IV, c. ii; tr. VI, cc. ix and xiv; PIAT, Proelectiones iuris regularis, I (Tournai, 1898), 239-69; SANCHEZ, In Decalogum, l. VII, especially cc. xviii-xxi; SUAREZ, De religione, tr. VII, l. VIII; ST. THOMAS, II-II, Q. clxxxiv, a. 3; Q. clxxxv, a. 6, ad 1um; Q. clxxxvi, aa. 3 and 7; Q. clxxxviii, a. 7, c.; VERMEERSCH, De religiosis institutis et personis, I (Bruges, 1907), nn. 237 sqq.; II (4th ed., 1910), suppl. vi. A. VERMEERSCH Poverty and Pauperism Poverty and Pauperism In a legal and technical sense, pauperism denotes the condition of persons who are supported at public expense, whether within or outside of almshouses. More commonly the term is applied to all persons whose existence is dependent for any considerable period upon charitable assistance, whether this assistance be public or private. Not infrequently it denotes an extreme degree of poverty among a large group of persons. Thus, we speak of the pauperism of the most abject classes in the large cities. Poverty is even less definite, and more relative. In Catholic doctrinal and ascetical treatises and usage, it indicates merely renunciation of the right of private property; as in speaking of the vow of poverty, or the poverty of the poor in spirit recommended in the Sermon on the Mount. Apart from this restricted and technical signification, poverty means in general a condition of insufficient subsistence, but different persons have different conceptions of sufficiency. At one extreme poverty includes paupers, while its upper limit, at least in common language, varies with the plane of living which is assumed to be normal. As used by economists and social students, it denotes a lack of some of the requisites of physical efficiency; that is, normal health and working capacity. Like pauperism, it implies a more or less prolonged condition; for to be without sufficient food or clothing for a few days is not necessarily to be in poverty. Unlike pauperism, poverty does not always suppose the receipt of charitable assistance. As the definition just given sets up a purely material and utilitarian standard, namely, productive efficiency, we shall in this article substitute one that is more consonant with human dignity, yet which is substantially equivalent in content to the economic conception. -- Poverty, then denotes that more or less prolonged condition in which a person is without some of those goods essential to normal health and strength, an elementary degree of comfort, and right moral life. One question which at once suggests itself is: whether the amount of poverty and pauperism existing to-day is greater or less than that of former times. No general answer can be given that will not be misleading. Even the partial and particular estimates that are sometimes made are neither certain nor illuminating. Economic historians like Rogers and Gibbins declare that during the best period of the Middle Ages -- say, from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century, inclusive -- there was no such grinding and hopeless poverty, no such chronic semi-starvation in any class, as exists to-day among large classes in the great cities (cf. "Six Centuries of Work and Wages", and "Industry in England"). Probably this is true as regards the poorest of the poor at these two periods. In the Middle Ages there was no class resembling our proletariat, which has no security, no definite place, no certain claim upon any organization or institution in the socio-economic organism. Whether the whole number of persons in poverty in the earlier period was relatively larger or smaller than at present, we have no means of knowing. The proportion of medieval persons who lacked what are to-day regarded as requisites of elementary comfort was probably larger, while the proportion that had to go without adequate food and clothing for long periods of time was not improbably smaller. One of the great causes of poverty -- namely, insecurity of employment, of residence, and of shelter -- was certainly much less frequent in the older time. If we compare the poverty of to-day with that of one century ago, we find all authorities agreeing that it has decreased both absolutely and relatively. Against this general fact, however, we must note one or two circumstances that are less gratifying. Both the intensity and the extent of the lowest grade of poverty are probably quite as great now as they were at the beginning of the nineteenth century; and there are some indications that the improvement occurring during the last twenty-five years has been less than in the preceding half-century. Owing to lack of statistical data, it is impossible to estimate, even approximately, the proportion of the people of any country that is in poverty. On the basis of unemployment statistics, eviction statistics, cases of charity relief, and other evidences of distress, Robert Hunter declared that the number of persons in poverty in the United States in 1904 was ten millions; that is, they were "much of the time underfed, poorly clothed, and improperly housed" ("The New Encyclopedia of Social Reform", 940; cf. also his work on Poverty). Ten millions represented at that time about one-eighth of our total population. Professor Bushnell estimated the numer of persons known to be in receipt of public or private relief at three millions (Modern Methods of Charity, 385-90). Of course the total number of persons who received charitable aid was much larger, for a large proportion of such cases do not come to the knowledge of statisticians or social students. On the other hand, not all who are charitably assisted are paupers, nor strictly speaking in poverty. Mr. Hunter's estimate is perhaps too high. After a very careful and thorough investigation of the poor in London, completed in 1902, Charles Booth found that nearly thirty-one per cent of the people of that city were in poverty (cf. "Life and Labor of the People in London"). This estimate was fully and remarkably confirmed by the studies of Seebohm Rowntree in the City of York, where the proportion of the inhabitants in poverty appeared as twenty-eight per cent (cf. "Poverty: a Study of Town Life"). There are good reasons for thinking that both these estimates are under-statements, if poverty be understood according to the definition adopted in this article. For example, Rowntree placed above the poverty line all persons who were in a condition of present physical efficiency, even though many of them were unable to make any outlay for carfare, amusement, recreation, newspapers, religion, societies, or insurance against old age. Evidently, physical efficiency in such circumstances can be maintained only for a few years. At any rate, this condition is not elementary comfort nor decent existence. Since wages and their purchasing power are quite as high in England as in any other country of Europe, the proportion of poverty is probably as great in the latter as in the former. The causes of poverty are very numerous and very difficult to classify satisfactorily. While the division of them into social and individual causes is useful and suggestive it is not strictly logical; for each of these is often to some extent responsible for the other. Where both causes affect the same person, it is frequently impossible to say which is the more important. A better classification is that of immediate and original causes; but it is not always possible to determine which is the true original cause, nor how many of the intermediate causes have operated as mere instruments, and contributed no special influence of their own. As a rule, each case of poverty is due to more than one distinct factor, and it is not possible to measure the precise contribution of each factor to the general result. In any particular situation, the most satisfactory method is to enumerate all the chief causes and to state which seems to be the most potent. Professor Warner applied this method to more than 110,000 cases which had been investigated in London, in five American cities, and in seventy-six German cities ("American Charities", 1st ed., 22-58). He found the principal cause to be: in 21.3 per cent of the whole number of instances, misconduct, such as drink, immorality, inefficiency, and a roving disposition; in 74.4 per cent, misfortune, under which head he included such factors as lack of normal support, matters of employment, and individual incapacity as distinguished from individual fault. Misfortune was, therefore, the predominant cause in three and one-half times as many cases as misconduct. Among the particular chief factors drink was credited with 11 per cent, lack of employment with 17.4, no male support with 8, sickness or death in family with 23.6, old age with 9.6, insufficiency of employment with 6.7, poorly paid employment with 4.4, and inefficiency and shiftlessness with 8.26. In a general way these figures support the contention of Dr. E. T. Devine, that poverty "is economic, the result of maladjustment, that defective personality is only a halfway explanation, which itself results directly from conditions which society may largely control" (Misery and its Causes, 11). It must be noted, however, that Professor Warner aims to state the immediate causes only. In a large proportion of cases these are the result of some other cause or causes. Thus, disease, accident, or unemployment might be due to immorality or intemperance in the more or less distant, past; and what is now classified as culpable inefficiency or shiftlessness might be ultimately traceable to prolonged unemployment. The important lesson conveyed by this and every other attempt to estimate the comparative influence, of the various causes of poverty is that we must never regard our estimates as more than very rough approximations. Certain factors are known to be very important everywhere. They are: intemperance, sexual immorality, crime, improvidence, inefficiency, heredity and associations, insufficient wages and employment, congenital defects, injurious occupations, sickness, accident, and old age. Every one of these is not only capable of producing poverty on its own account, but of inducing or supplementing one of the other causes. Intemperance leads to sickness, accident, inefficiency, immorality, and unemployment; on the other hand, it often appears as the effect of these. Almost all of the other factors may properly be regarded in the same light, as causes and as effects reciprocally. Among the principal effects of poverty are physical suffering, through want of sufficient sustenance, through sickness, and other forms of disability; moral degeneration and immorality in many forms; intellectual defects and inefficiency; social injury through diminished productive efficiency, and unnecessary expenditures for poor relief; finally, more poverty though the vicious circle of many of the effects just enumerated. For example, intemperance, improvidence, sickness, and inefficiency are at once effects and causes. In a word, the effects of poverty are sufficiently numerous and sufficiently destructive to elicit the fervent wish that this condition might be totally abolished. The relief of poverty, especially under the direction of the Church, has been discussed at length in the article CHARITY AND CHARITIES. Here we merely note the fact that the poor are now assisted by the public authorities, by churches, by religious and secular associations, and by private individuals. All these methods are subject to abuses, but all are necessary. In many countries old-age pensions and insurance, housing activities, and insurance against sickness and other forms of disability, prevent a considerable amount of poverty, and thus relieve it in the most effective fashion. At present poor-relief is to a much greater extent carried on by the State, and to a much less extent by the Church, than in the period before the Protestant Reformation. The remedies and preventives of poverty are as numerous and various as the causes. Persons who attribute it almost wholly to social influences propose social correctives, such as legislation, and frequently some simple form of social reconstructing -- for example, the single tax or Socialism. Persons who believe that the individual is almost always responsible for his poverty or for the poverty of his natural dependents reject social remedies and insist upon the supreme and sufficient worth of reformation of character through education and religion. In times past the latter attitude was much more common than to-day, when the tendency is strongly and quite generally toward the social viewpoint. Both are exaggerations, and lead, therefore, to the use of one-sided and inefficient methods of dealing with poverty. While a large proportion of the individual causes of poverty are ultimately traceable to social causes, to congenital defects, or to pure misfortune, many of them nevertheless exert an original and independent influence. This is clearly seen in the case of two persons who have had precisely the same opportunities, environment, and natural endowments, only one of whom is in poverty. For such cases individual remedies are obviously indispensable. On the other hand it is only the crassly ignorant who can honestly think that all poverty is due to individual defects, whether culpable or not. Individual remedies, such as regeneration of character, cannot lift out of poverty the wage-earner who is without employment. Individual and social causes originate, produce respectively their own specific influences, and can be effectively counteracted only by measures that affect them directly. Of the individual causes that must be prevented in whole or in part by individual regeneration, the principal are intemperance, immorality, indolence, and improvidence. All these would be responsible for many cases of poverty even if the environment and the social arrangements were ideal. Each of them is, indeed, frequently affected by social forces, and consequently is preventible to some extent by social remedies. Thus, intemperance can be diminished by a better regulation of the liquor traffic, and by every measure that makes better provision for food, clothing, housing, security, and opportunity among the poor. Immorality can be lessened by more stringent and effective methods of detection and punishment. Indolence can be discouraged and to some extent prevented by compulsory labour colonies, as well as by penalties inflicted upon persons who refuse to provide for their natural dependents. Improvidence can be greatly lessened by laws providing larger economic opportunities, insurance against disability, and better methods of saving. Yet, in every one of these cases, the remedy which aims at improvement of character will be beneficial; and in many cases it will be indispensable. The chief causes of poverty to be removed by social methods are: unemployment, low wages, sickness, accident, old age, improper woman labour and child labour, unsanitary and debilitating conditions of employment, refusal of head of family to provide for support of family, and industrial inefficiency. The necessary social remedies must be applied by individuals, by voluntary associations and by the State; and the greater part of them will fall under the general head of larger economic opportunity. If this were attained to a reasonable degree, persons who are at or below the poverty line would enjoy adequate incomes and better conditions of employment generally, and thus would be enabled to protect themselves against most of the other causes of poverty which have just been enumerated. In great part, this larger economic opportunity will have to come through legislation directed towards a better organization of production and distribution, and towards an efficient system of industrial education. Legal provision must also be made for insurance against sickness, accident, unemployment, and old age, and for the coercion and punishment of negligent husbands and fathers. Since, however, many of these social causes of poverty are frequently due, in part at least, to individual delinquencies, they are curable to a considerable extent by individual remedies. Sickness, accident, inefficiency, and unemployment are often the results of intemperance, immorality, and indolence. Whenever this is the case, the reformation of character must enter into the remedy. In a word, we may say that the correctives of some causes of poverty must be dominantly social, of others dominantly individual; but that in nearly all cases both methods will be to some extent effective. The abolition of all poverty which is not due to individual fault, congenital defect, or unusual misfortune is one of the ideals of contemporary philanthropy and social reform. It is a noble aim, and it ought not to be impossible of realization. Against it are sometimes quoted the words of Christ: "The poor you have always with you"; but this sentence is in the present tense, and it was obviously addressed to the Disciples, not to the whole world. Until the words have been authoritatively given a universal application, the repetition of them as an explanation of current poverty, or as an argument against the abolition of poverty, will be neither convincing nor edifying. Equally irrelevant is the fact that poverty is highly honoured in ascetical life and literature. In the first place, there is question here of the abolition of the poverty that is involuntary, not that which is freely embraced. In the second place, religious poverty generally includes those things the lack of which makes the other kind of poverty so undesirable, namely, the requisites of elementary health and comfort, and decent living. Nor should we oppose the abolition of poverty on the ground that this would lessen the opportunities of the poor to practise humility, and of the rich to exercise benevolence. At present the majority of the people are not in poverty, yet no one urges that they should descend to that condition for the sake of the greater opportunity of humility. There would still be abundant room for the exercise of both these virtues after all involuntary poverty had disappeared, for there would be no lack of suffering, misfortune, and genuine need. On the other hand, those who had escaped poverty, or been lifted out of it, would be better able to practise many other virtues more beneficial than compulsory humility. Poverty has, indeed, been a school of virtue for many persons who otherwise would not have reached such heights of moral achievement, but these are the exceptions. The vast majority of persons are better off, physically, mentally, and morally, when they are above the line which marks the lower limit of elementary health, comfort, and decency. For the great majority, the wish of the Wise Man, "neither poverty nor riches", represents the most favourable condition for right and reasonable life. If any person sees in poverty better opportunities for virtuous living, let him embrace it, but no man ought to be compelled to take this course. After all, the proposal to abolish involuntary poverty is merely the proposal to enable every person to have a decent livelihood, and enjoy that reasonable and frugal comfort which Leo XIII declared to be the natural right of every wage-earner, and which, consequently, is the normal condition of every human being. It merely seeks to lift the lowest and weakest classes of the community to that level which Father Pesch believes is both desirable and practicable: "Permanent security in living conditions which are in conformity with the contemporary state of civilization, and in this sense worthy of human beings" (op. cit. infra., II, 276). HUNTER, Poverty (New York, 1904); DEVINE, Misery and Its Causes (New York, 1909); WARNER, American Charities (New York, 1894); BOOTH, Life and Labour of the People in London (London, 1889-1902); ROWNTREE, Poverty: A Study of Town Life (London, 1901); HOBSON, Problems of Poverty (London, 1899); ADAMS and SUMNER, Labor Problems (New York, 1905); SELIGMAN, Principles of Economics (New York, 1905); DEVAS, Political Economy (London, 1901); ANTOINE, Cours d'économie sociale (Paris, 1899); PESCH, Lehrbuch der Nationalökonomie (Freiburg, 1909). JOHN A. RYAN. Philip Powel Ven. Philip Powel (alias Morgan, alias Prosser) Martyr, b. at Tralon, Brecknockshire, 2 Feb., 1594; d. at Tyburn 30 June, 1646. He was the son of Roger and Catherine Powel, and was brought up to the law by David Baker, afterwards Dom Augustine Baker, O.S.B. At the age of sixteen he became a student in the Temple, London, but went to Douai three or four years later, where he received the Benedictine habit in the monastery of St. Gregory (now Downside Abbey, Bath). In 1618 he was ordained priest and in 1622 left Douai for the English mission. About 1624 he went to reside with Mr. Poyntz of Leighland, Somersetshire, but, when the Civil War broke out, in 1645, retired to Devonshire, where he stayed for a few months with Mr. John Trevelyan of Yarnscombe and then with Mr. John Coffin of Parkham. He afterwards served for six months as chaplain to the Catholic soldiers in General Goring's army in Cornwall, and, when that force was disbanded, took ship for South Wales. The vessel was captured on 22 February, 1646; Father Powel was recognized and denounced as a priest. On 11 May he was ordered to London by the Earl of Warwick, and confined in St. Catherine's Gaol, Southwark, where the harsh treatment he received brought on a severe attack of pleurisy. His trial, which had been fixed for 30 May, did not take place till 9 June, at Westminster Hall. He was found gulity and was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn. At the instance of the Common Council of London the head and quarters were not exposed, but were buried in the old churchyard at Moorfields. The martyr's crucifix, which had formerly belonged to Feckenham, last Abbot of Westminster, is preserved at Downside, with some of his hair and a cloth stained with his blood. Relation du martyre de Philippe Powel, autrement dit le Père Morgan, Religieux Bénédictin (Paris, 1647); Challoner, Memoirs of Missionary Priests, II (London, 1742), 297; Oliver, Collections Illustrating the History of the Catholic Religion in Cornwall, Devon, etc. (London, 1857), 20, 386; Weldon, ed. Dolan, Chronological Note on the English Congregation of the Order of St. Benedict (Worcester, 1881), 186; Stanton, Menology of England and Wales (London, 1887), 295; Downside Review (London, 1882), I, 346-52; XII, 239-48; Spillmann, Geschichte der Katholikenverfolgung in England, 1535-1681, IV (Freiburg, 1905), 309-13. G. ROGER HUDLESTON William Poynter William Poynter Born 20 May, 1762, at Petersfield, Hants; died 26 Nov., 1827, in London. He was educated at the English College at Douai, where he was ordained in 1786. He remained as professor, and afterwards prefect of studies till the college came to an end during the Terror. After undergoing eighteen months imprisonment, the collegians were set free, and returned to England in March, 1795. Poynter with the students from the South went to Old Hall, where he took a leading part in the foundation of St. Edmund's College, being first vice-president, then (1801-13) president. In 1803, Bishop Douglass of the London district being in declining health, Dr. Poynter was consecrated his coadjutor, remaining at the same time president of the college. On the death of Bishop Douglass in 1812, Bishop Poynter succeeded as vicar Apostolic. His position was rendered difficult by the persistent attacks of Bishop Miner in pamphlets and even in his pastorals (see MILNER, JOHN). Dr. Poynter endured all Milner's accusations in silence, having the support of all the other English and Scotch bishops; but when in May, 1814, on the issue of the famous Quarantotti Rescript, which sanctioned all the "security" restrictions, Milner went to Rome to obtain its reversal, Dr. Poynter followed him there and wrote his "Apologetical Epistle" defending himself to Propaganda. Quarantotti's Rescript was withdrawn, and in its place was substituted a "Letter to Dr. Poynter", dated from Genoa, where the pope had taken refuge. A limited veto was sanctioned, but the exequatur was refused. Milner was directed to abstain from publishing pastorals or pamphlets against Dr. Poynter. He obeyed this injunction, but continued his attacks in letters to the "Orthodox Journal" until he was peremptorily prohibited by order of the pope, under pain of being deposed. During his episcopate Dr. Poynter paid four visits to Paris of several months each (1814, 15, 17, and 22), with the object of reclaiming the property of the colleges at Douai and elsewhere, which had been confiscated during the Revolution. He received the support of the Duke of Wellington and Lord Castlereagh, and of the British commissioners appointed to deal with the claims. He succeeded eventually in recovering the colleges themselves and about £30,000 which had been kept in the names of the bishops, but the main claim amounting to £120,000 was lost. The French indeed paid it to the British commissioners, but these refused to hand it over, on the plea that it would be applied to purposes considered by English law as "superstitious". The final decision was given in November, 1825. It is said that the disappointment of the failure of his long labours notably shortened the bishop's life. His principal works are: "Theological Examinations of Columbanus" (London, 1811); "Epistola Apologetica", tr. by Butler (London, 1820), also appeared in Butler, "Hist. Mem.", 3rd edition; "Prayerbook for Catholic Sailors and Soldiers" (London, 1858); "Evidences of Christianity" (London, 1827); "New Year's Gift" in Directories (1813-28); numerous pamphlets, pastorals etc. There is a portrait of him by Ramsay (1803) at St. Edmund's College, another in "Catholic Directory" for 1829; also a bust by Turnerelli and another at Moorfields. COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog.; GILLOW, Dict. Eng. Cath.; KIRK, Biographies (London, 1909): BRADY, Episcopal Succession (London, 1877) AMHERST, Cath. Emancipation (London, 1886); WARD, Hist. of St. Edmund's College (London, 1893); Catholic London a Century Ago (London, 1905); IDEM, Dawn of Catholic Revival (London, 1909); HUSENBETH, Life of Milner (Dublin, 1862); BUTLER, Hist. Mem. (3rd ed., London, 1822); Laity's Directory (1829); Cath. Miscellany; Orthodox Journal, etc. BERNARD WARD. Andreas Pozzo Andreas Pozzo (Puteus) Italian painter and architect of the Baroque period, b. at Trent, 1642; d. at Vienna, 1709. The greater part of his life was spent at Genoa, Rome, Turin, and Vienna. After his literary studies, he devoted himself to painting, and at twenty-four entered the Society of Jesus as a lay brother. After his death he was commemorated by a memoir and a medal. Pozzo was an unrivalled master of perspective; he used light, colour, and an architectural background as means of creating illusion. In the Baroque period, instead of employing panels ornamented with stucco work, painting was used not only to cover the domes and semi-domes but also the ceiling and vaultings. Michelangelo had painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, but Bramante did not follow him in treating the main vaulting of St. Peter's. It had begun to be customary to fill the sunken panels or large cartouches, and finally the entire vault, as, for example, the domes, with perspective paintings in the advanced style of Correggio. Michelangelo's device of painting in architectural framework to divide the different portions of the painting was no longer in vogue, nor even actual architectural members. Pozzo was a master in this new style of painting; he gives full instruction concerning this method in his manual. His frescoes on the ceiling, dome, and apse of the church of San Ignazio at Rome are greatly admired. By the skilful use of linear perspective, light, and shade, he made the great barrel-vault of the nave of the church into an idealized aula from which is seen the reception of St. Ignatius into the opened heavens. About the painting there is a wonderful effect of supernatural majesty, but the whole composition is more a feat of skill than a work of art. Only the Baroque era could regard it as a genuine devotional picture. Pozzo executed a similar work in San Bartolommeo at Modena. In the Abbey of the Cassinese at Arezzo and in the Pinacotheca at Bologna the magical effect is produced by the architectural perspective alone. Importance is laid on the profiles of the ornamental architectural members, not in the life and movement. According to his theory, columns must be twisted; they can even be bent and cracked. Coloured stones and metals must also aid in securing the pictorial effect. An extraordinary increase in bulk, therefore, would be required to obtain the necessary constructive strength. In making the altar for the Jesuit church at Venice, he erected for the plastic work of the centre a temple of ten columns, with twisted entablature. He also constructed the high altar of Gli Scalzi at Venice. The altar of St. Ignatius in the Gesù at Rome is an example of the greatest magnificence. His manual gives directions for making all kinds of church furniture. Pozzo's decorative work, logically systematized, shows his great talent which perfectly suited the characteristic taste of the period and the pomp then customary in religious services. POZZO, Perspectiva pictorum et architectorum (2 vols., Rome, 1693; 1700), text in Italian and Latin and 226 plates; tr. into English, JAMES (London, 1893); LANZI, Storia pittorica dell'Italia (Bassano, 1789); DE QUINCY, Dict. d'architecture. G. GIETMANN Pozzuoli Diocese of Pozzuoli (PUTEOLANA) The city of Pozzuoli in the province of Naples, southern Italy, on the gulf of the same name, was founded by the Cumæans, whose port it became, under the name of Dicæarchia. It was used by the Carthaginians in the Second Punic War. The Romans took possession of it, fortified it, and gave it the name of Puteoli. Hannibal sought in vain to take this place, which became a Roman colony in 194 b.c. and was thereafter the most important port of Italy, enjoying exceptional municipal liberties. The harbour was set off from the sea by a line of pilasters supporting a long arcade, which was restored later by Antonius Pius. Caligula connected the ports of Pozzuoli and of Baiæ with a pontoon bridge. In the third century Pozzuoli fell into decadence. In 410, it was besieged and sacked by Alaric, in 545 by Totila, and in 715 by Grimoaldo II, Duke of Benevento, who, however, did not succeed in taking it from its Byzantine masters; in the tenth century, it was several times the object of Saracen incursions. In 1014 Pozzuoli was taken by the Neapolitans, and later passed, with Naples, into the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. In 1448 and 1538, it suffered from severe earthquakes; in 1550 the Turks landed and wrought frightful havoc in the town. Abundant ruins of villas and temples attest its ancient splendour. Among the temple ruins, the most important are those of the Temple of Serapis, which was at once a temple and an establishment of therapeutic baths; there remain the cella and many of its columns, also sixteen bath-rooms for baths in the mineral water that flows near by. The work of excavation (1838) exposed the ruins of an amphitheatre that had a capacity of 30,000; there are also the ruins of a theatre, and of thermæ or hot baths, where was found, among other objects, the Venus Anadyomene of the Naples Museum. The object of greatest interest at Pozzuoli, however, are the sulphur caves, the "forum Vulcani" of the ancients, which, through crevices in the earth exude sulphuretted hydrogen and sulphurous acid. in 1190 there was a severe volcanic eruption from these caves. There are also four mineral springs, and two caverns, known as the "Grotta del Cane", which exudes carbonic acid and the "Grotta dell' Ammoniaca" On his voyage to Rome, St. Paul landed at Pozzuoli, where he met some "brothers" (Acts, xxviii, 13, 14), and among these Jews there may have been Christians; no doubt the Apostle took advantage of the opportunity to preach to his countrymen the mystery of the Messiah already come. That St. Patrobas, a disciple of St. Paul, was first Bishop of Pozzuoli is a fabrication of the notorious Dositheos; on the other hand, the Bishops St. Celsus and St. Joannes governed the diocese before the fourth century. Proculus, Acutius, Eutyches, and St. Artemas were martyrs of Pozzuoli, and St. Januarius of Benevento and his companions suffered martyrdom here. In the fourth century the bishop of this see was Florentius, against whom Pope Damasus was compelled to seek the assistance of the emperors. Bishop St. Theodorus died in 435; Julianus was pontifical legate to the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449; the Bishop Stephanus, whom Cappelletti names at this period, should be referred to the seventh century, or later. Other bishops were Gaudiosus (680); St. Leo (about 1030), later a hermit; Ludovico di Costanzo, who, with the assistance of Alfonso of Aragon, was at first a usurper of this see, but was later recognized by Nicholas V; Carlo Borromeo (1537), a relative of the saint of the same name; Gian Matteo Castaldi (1542), who rebuilt the cathedral; Lorenzo Mongevio (1617), a good orator, formerly Auxiliary Bishop of Salzburg and of Valencia (he was a Franciscan), unjustly accused, and held prisoner in Castel Sant' Angelo; Martin Leon y Cardenas (1619), to whom a public monument was erected, in recognition of his many merits. The cathedral rises on the ruins of the Temple of Augustus; it contains some good pictures, among them the Martirio di San Gennaro by Guido Reni. The churches of Santa Maria delle Grazie and of Santa Croce are worthy of note. The diocese is a suffragan of Naples; has 10 parishes, with 57,100 inhabitants, 1 religious house of men, and 3 of women, and 1 educational establishment for girls. CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Itala, XX. U. BENIGNI. Jean-Martin de Prades Jean-Martin de Prades A theologian, born about 1720 at Castelsarrasin (Diocese of Montauban), died in 1782 at Glogau, famous through an irreligious thesis. Having finished his preliminary studies, he went to Paris, where he lived in many seminaries, especially in that of St-Sulpice. He very soon became acquainted with the principal publishers of the "Encyclopédie", and supplied them with the article on "Certitude". About the end of 1751, he presented himself for the doctorate, driven, as a mémoire of that time says, "by the incredulous, who, in order to justify his blasphemies, wanted to have his doctrine approved by the Faculty". Prades wrote a very long thesis, which the examiners accepted without reading. The defence, which took place on 18 November, was very sharp, and the scandal broke out. On 15 December following, the Faculty declared several propositions to be "worthy of blame and censures". On 15 January following, the censure was published. According to Abbé de Prades, the soul is an unknown substance; sensations are the source of our ideas; the origin of civil law is might, from which are derived all notions of just and of unjust, of good and evil; natural law is empiric; revealed religion is only natural religion in its evolution; the chronology of Moses's books is false; the healings operated by Jesus Christ are doubtful miracles, since those operated by Esculapius present the same characteristics. The archbishop of Paris and several bishops approved the censure; afterwards, on the 2 March, Benedict XIV condemned the thesis; at last the Parliament of Paris issued a decree against the author; further, Stanislas, Duke of Lorraine, incited the Faculty against the Abbé. The latter found a refuge in Holland, where he published his "Apology" (1752). It consists of two parts: a third part containing "reflexions upon the Pastoral Letter of the bishop of Montauban and the Pastoral Instruction of the bishop of Auxerre" as written by Diderot. Le Père Brotier published "the Survey of the Apology of the Abbé de Prades" (1753). The question is whether the Abbé de Prades is not the author of an "Apology of the Abbé de Prades" in verse. Upon the recommendation of Voltaire and of the Marquis of Argens, the Abbé became lector to Frederick of Prussia and went to Berlin. Frederick gave him a pension and two canonries, the one at Oppeln, the other at Glogau. From the year 1753, negotiations were entered upon between the Abbé de Prades and the Bishop of Breslau, Philip von Schaffgotsch, with a view to a recantation. Frederick himself induced the Abbé to return to "the bosom of the Church". Benedict XIV and the Cardinal of Vencin wrote the formula of recantation which was signed by the Abbé. In 1754, the Faculty of Paris again inscribed the Abbé upon the list of bachelors. The Abbé de Prades became the archdeacon of the Chapter of Glogau, and died in that town in 1782. Besides the works quoted, he left an "Abrégé de l'histoire ecclésiastique de Fleury", tr. Berne (Berlin, 1767), II vols., with a violently anti-catholic preface written by Frederick II. This would make us doubt the sincerity of the recantation of the Abbé de Prades. To him is generally ascribed "le Tombeau de la Sorbonne" translated from Latin (1782). According to Quérard, he left in manuscript a complete translation of Tacitus, which remains unpublished. What has become of the manuscript is unknown. It is said also that he worked, before leaving France, at a Treatise on "the Truth of Religion". Acta. S. Facultatis Paris. circa J. M. de Prades (Paris, 1794); CHIELAND, Souvenirs de Berlin (3rd ed., IV, 368); FEHET, La Faculté de théologie de Paris, VI (Paris, 1909), 183-193. JOSEPH DEDIEU. Jerome de Prado Jerome de Prado Exegete, b. at Baeza in Spain, 1547; d. at Rome, 13 Jan., 1595. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1572; taught literature; and then filled the chair of scripture at Cordova for sixteen years. His great work is the "Tomus Primus in Ezechiel" (fol. pp. 360; Rome, 1596). After sixteen years spent on this tome he died at Rome, where he was seeking illustrations for it. He had reached the twenty-sixth chapter. The remainder of Ezechiel was interpreted by John Baptist Villalpando, S. J., of Cordova, who added two volumes: Of these the second is in two parts: I. "Explanationum Ezechielis prophetæ, pars prima, in tredecim capita sequentia" (fol. pp. 104; Rome, 1604); II. "De postrema Ezechielis prophetæ visione" (fol. pp. 655; Rome, 1605). This second part of the second volume goes into a detailed archæological study of the Temple. The third volume of this commentary on Ezechiel is entitled "Appartus urbis ac templi Hierosolymitani" (folio, pp. xvi, 603; Rome, 1604). There are two parts to the volume, and both are the joint work of Prado and Villalpando. Commentaries on Isaias, Zachary, Micheas, the Epistle to the Hebrews, together with a book on biblical chronology, are among the MSS. works left by Prado, several of which are in the National Library of Madrid. The volumes published by Villalpando were dedicated to Philip II, at whose request and cost the work begun by Prado was brought to a successful completion. These three volumes have always been highly esteemed for their thorough and scientific study of Jewish coins, weights, and measures; likewise for the care with which the Temple and the City of Jerusalem are reconstructed from the very few data at hand. Cardinal Wiseman found the work of Prado to be "still the greatest repertory to which every modern scholiast must recur, in explaining the difficulties of the book" (Science and Revealed Religion, II, London, 1851, 199). The younger Rosen Müller calls these volumes "a work replete with varied erudition, and most useful to the study of antiquity" (Ezechielis Vaticinia", I, Leipzig, 1826, 32, in Wiseman, I, c.). Among those whom Prado inspired with his thoroughness and enthusiasm in the study of the Bible were his pupils John Pineda and Louis de Alcazar. HURTER, Nomenclator, I (Innsbruck, 1892), 84; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus, VI, 1149. WALTER DRUM Praelatus Nullius Praelatus Nullius (i.e. Dioceseos) A prelate who exercises quasi-episcopal jurisdiction in a territory not comprised in any diocese. The origin of such prelates must necessarily be sought in the Apostolic privileges, for only he whose authority is superior to that of bishops can grant an exemption from episcopal jurisdiction. Such exemption, therefore, comes only from the pope. The rights of prelates nullius are quasi-episcopal, and these dignitaries are supposed to have any power that a bishop has, unless it is expressly denied to them by canonical law. When they have not received episcopal consecration, such prelates may not confer sacred orders, but they have the privilege (if they are abbots and priests) of advancing candidates to tonsure and minor orders. If not consecrated episcopally, they have not the power to exercise those functions of consecrating oils, etc., which are referred to the episcopal order only analogously. Prelates nullius may take cognizance of matrimonial causes within the same limits as a bishop; they may dispense from the proclamation of matrimonial banns, grant faculties for hearing confessions and preaching, reserve certain cases to themselves, publish indulgences and jubilees, exercise full jurisdiction over the enclosure of nuns, and invite any bishop to confirm in their quasi-diocese. These prelates may not, however, without special permission of the Holy See, convoke a synod or institute synodal examiners. Neither may they confer parochial benefices. They are not allowed to grant indulgences, or absolve from the reserved cases and secret irregularities whose absolution is restricted to the pope ordinarily, but allowed to bishops by the Council of Trent; nor promote secular clerics to orders, nor grant dimissorial letters for ordination, nor exercise jurisdiction over regulars as Apostolic delegates. Prelates nullius are, however, bound to residence, to preach the Word of God, to offer up Mass for their people, to make the visit ad limina, and in concurrence with the neighbouring bishop to make a visitation of their quasi-diocese. The only prelate nullius in the United States is the Abbot of Maryhelp, Belmont, North Carolina. (See Abbot.) SANGUINETTI, Juris Ecclesiasticae Institutiones (Rome, 1896); TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), s.v. Prelates. WILLIAM H.W. FANNING Pragmatic Sanction Pragmatic Sanction (pragmatica sanctio, lex, jussio, also pragmatica or pragmaticum) Pragmatic sanction meant in the latter period of the Roman Empire an edict formally issued by the emperor. They were called pragmatic, from pragma, the affair or matter of sanction. In later times the best known are: I. The Sanctio Pragmatica said to have been issued by St. Louis IX of France in 1269 Its purpose was to oppose the extension of papal power, the demands of tribute made by Rome, and the increase of papal reservations in regard to the filling of offices. The rights of prelates, patrons, and the regular collators of benefices were protected against papal collation of benefices. Free elections, promotions, and collations were guaranteed to the cathedrals and other churches. This was directed against the papal right of reservation and presentation, not against the filling of offices by the king. It was further laid down that all promotions, collations, and bestowals of Church offices must be in accordance with the common law, the early councils and the ancient regulations of the Fathers. Simony was forbidden. Papal taxes and imposts were permitted only in case of necessity, and with the permission of the king and the French Church. The liberties and privileges granted to churches, monasteries, and priests by the kings were guaranteed. The investigations of Thomassy (1844), Gérin (1869), Viollet (1870), and Scheffer-Boichorst (1887), have proved that it is a forgery which appeared between 1438 and 1452. II. The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges The Council of Basle (1431-7) had issued many useful decrees concerning reform, but finally came into conflict with Eugenius IV and was suspended by him. Both parties, pope and council, now sought the support of the secular powers. It was to the interest of these to prevent a new schism and not to permit the complete failure of the reforms of Basle. The position of France in regard to these questions was to be discussed at a national council that King Charles VII commanded to meet at Bourges in May, 1438. This council declared itself neutral in the dispute between the pope and the synod, but accepted the greater part of the Basle decrees on reform, modifying some on account of the special conditions in France; these changes were made with the expectation that the council would ratify the modifications. On 7 July, 1438, the king issued a decree, the Pragmatic Sanction, in which he accepted the decisions and ordered the observance of them. Essentially it contains the tenets of the supremacy of an ecumenical council over the pope, of the regular holding of general councils, and of the limitation of papal reservations and demands of tribute. The suppression of annates by the Council of Basle was added, but with the modification that a fifth of the former tax was conceded to the papal see. By this edict the French king issued a law of the secular legislative authority in purely ecclesiastical affairs. The recognition of the authority of the Council of Basle was only formal, for the validity of its decisions in France rested solely upon the edict of the king. As the law was recorded in the Parliaments these, especially the Parliament of Paris, received the right of interfering in the internal affairs of the Church. In addition, no attention had been paid to the pope, consequently every effort was made at Rome to have the law set aside. Pius II (1458-64) declared it an infringement of the rights of the papal see, and called upon the French bishops to aid in its suppression. Charles VII appealed against this to a general council. His successor Louis XI promised the pope to repeal the sanction, but the Parliament of Paris and the university resisted, and the king let the matter drop. In 1499 Louis XII by explicit declaration renewed the enforcement of the sanction. Leo X effected its annulment by means of a Concordat made with Francis I in 1516. III. The German Pragmatic Sanction of 1439 At the Diet of Frankfort held in March, 1438, the German ruling princes also declared their neutrality in the struggle between Eugenius IV and the Council of Basle. A new diet was held for further discussion of the matter in March, 1439, at Mainz, and this diet also accepted a series of the Basle decrees of reform with modifications in individual cases. The diet reserved to itself the right to make other changes, and at a convenient time the council was to pass decisions on such points. This is the substance of the "Instrumentum acceptationis" of 26 March, 1439. The designation pragmatic sanction is, however, misleading, for it was not confirmed by the emperor. IV. The Pragmatic Sanction of the Emperor Charles VI This edict, issued by the last German male member of the House of Hapsburg regulating the succession to his hereditary lands, was read 19 April, 1713, before the ministers and councillors, but was temporarily kept secret. The law ordained that all the Austrian hereditary lands should always remain united, and that on the failure of male descendants they should pass to the daughters that might be born to the emperor; and not until their descendants died out should the right of succession revert to the daughters of his brother, the Emperor Joseph I (1705-11), and to their male and female descendants. This pragmatic sanction was accepted by the estates of the Austrian lands in 1720-4; then in the course of time it was also recognized and guaranteed by the Powers of Europe, so that after the death of Charles VI his daughter Maria Theresa could succeed. V. The Pragmatic Sanction of Charles III of Spain Charles III was King of Naples and Sicily until he succeeded his brother Ferdinand upon the throne of Spain in 1759. The pragmatic sanction that he issued 6 Oct., 1759, before he left Naples, is also an edict of succession. As earlier treaties forbade the union of Spain and Naples, he transferred Naples and Sicily to his third son Ferdinand. Up to Ferdinand's sixteenth year Naples was to be administered by a regency. The eldest son, Philip, was weak-minded; the second son Charles was to receive Spain. Charles III also provided that in case Ferdinand's line should become extinct his brothers Philip and Louis were to have the succession. The union of Naples and the Two Sicilies was expressly forbidden in the edict. HERGENRÖTHER, Handbuch der allgemeinen Kirchengesch., ed. KIRSCH, II (4th ed., Freiburg, 1904), 600-01, 931; HEFELE, Konziliengeschichte, VII (Freiburg, 1869), 762-70; KOCH, Sanctio pragmatica Germanorum illustrata (Strasburg, 1789); St. Louis and the Pragmatic Sanction in The Month (London, Oct., 1869), 366. KLEMENS LÖFFLER. Pragmatism Pragmatism Pragmatism, as a tendency in philosophy, signifies the insistence on usefulness or practical consequences as a test of truth. In its negative phase, it opposes what it styles the formalism or rationalism of Intellectualistic philosophy. That is, it objects to the view that concepts, judgments, and reasoning processes are representative of reality and the processes of reality. It considers them to be merely symbols, hypotheses and schemata devised by man to facilitate or render possible the use, or experience, of reality. This use, or experience, is the true test of real existence. In its positive phase, therefore, Pragmatism sets up as the standard of truth some non-rational test, such as action, satisfaction of needs, realization in conduct, the possibility of being lived, and judges reality by this norm to the exclusion of all others. I. THE ORIGINS OF PRAGMATISM Although the Pragmatists themselves proclaim that Pragmatism is but a new name for old ways of thinking, they are not agreed as to the immediate sources of the Pragmatic movement. Nevertheless, it is clear that Kant, who is held responsible for so many of the recent developments in philosophy and theology, has had a deciding influence on the origin of Pragmatism. Descartes, by reason of the emphasis he laid on the theoretical consciousness, "I think, therefore I exist", may be said to be the father of Intellectualism. From Kant's substitution of moral for theoretical consciousness, from his insistence on "I ought" instead of "I think", came a whole progeny of Voluntaristic or non-rational philosophies, especially Lotze's philosophy of "value instead of validity", which were not without influence on the founders of Pragmatism. Besides the influence of Kant, there is also to be reckoned the trend of scientific thought during the last half of the nineteenth century. In ancient and medieval times the scientist aimed at the discovery of causes and the establishment of laws. The cause was a fact of experience, ascertainable by empirical methods, and the law was a generalization from facts, representing the real course of events in nature. With the advent of the evolution theory it was found that an unproved hypothesis or hypothetical cause, if it explains the facts observed, fulfils the same purpose and serves the same ends as a true cause or an established law. Indeed, if evolution, as a hypothesis, explains the facts observed in plant and animal life, or if a hypothetical medium, like ether, explains the facts observed in regard to light and heat, there is no reason, say the scientists, why we should concern ourselves further about the truth of evolution or the existence of ether. The hypothesis functions satisfactorily, and that is enough. From this equalization of hypothesis with law and of provisional explanation with proved fact arose the tendency to equalize postulates with axioms, and to regard as true any principle which works out well, or functions satisfactorily. Moreover, evolution had familiarized scientists with the notion that all progress is conditioned by adjustment to new conditions. It was natural, therefore, to consider that a problem presented to the thinking mind calls for the adjustment of the previous content of the mind to the new experience in the problem pondered. A principle or postulate or attitude of mind that would bring about an adjustment would satisfy the mind for the time being, and would, therefore, solve the problem. This satisfaction came, consequently, to be considered a test of truth. This account, however, would be incomplete without a mention of the temperamental, racial, and, in a sense, the environmental determinants of Pragmatism. The men who represent Pragmatism are of the motor-active type; the country, namely the United States, in which Pragmatism has flourished most is pre-eminently a country of achievement, and the age in which Pragmatism has appeared is one which bestows its highest praise on successful endeavour. The first of the Pragmatists declares that Pragmatism rests on the axiom "The end of man is action", an axiom, he adds, which does not recommend itself to him at sixty as forcibly as it did when he was thirty. II. THE PRAGMATISTS In a paper contributed to the "Popular Science Monthly" in 1878 entitled "How to make our Ideas clear", Mr. C. S. Peirce first used the word Pragmatism to designate a principle put forward by him as a rule to guide the scientist and the mathematician. The principle is that the meaning of any conception in the mind is the practical effect it will have in action. "Consider what effects which might conceivably have practical bearings we consider the object of our conception to have. Then our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object." This rule remained unnoticed for twenty years, until it was taken up by Professor William James in his address delivered at the University of California in 1898. "Pragmatism", according to James, "is a temper of mind, an attitude; it is also a theory of the nature of ideas and truth; and finally, it is a theory about reality" (Journal of Phil., V, 85). As he uses the word, therefore, it designates + (a) an attitude of mind towards philosophy, + (b) an epistemology, and + (c) a metaphysics. James's epistemology and metaphysics will be described in sections III and IV. The attitude which he calls Pragmatism he defines as follows: "The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our lives, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one" (Pragmatism, p. 50). Thus, when one is confronted with the evidence in favour of the formula "the human soul is immortal", and then turns to the considerations put forward by the sceptic in favour of the formula "the human soul is not immortal", what is he to do? If he is a Pragmatist, he will not be content to weigh the evidence, to compare the case for with the case against immortality; he will not attempt to fit the affirmative or the negative into a "closed system" of thought; he will work out the consequences, the definite differences, that follow from each alternative, and decide in that way which of the two "works" better. The alternative which works better is true. The attitude of the Pragmatist is "the attitude of looking away from first things, principles, categories, supposed necessities; and of looking towards last things, fruits, consequences, facts" (op. cit., 55). This view of the scope and attitude of philosophy is sustained in Professor James's numerous contributions to the literature of Pragmatism (see bibliography), in lectures, articles, and reviews which obtained for him the distinction of being the most thorough-going and the most eminent, if not the most logical, of the Pragmatists. Next in importance to James is Professor John Dewey, who in his "Studies in Logical Theory" and in a number of articles and lectures, defends the doctrine known variously as Instrumentalism, or Immediate Empiricism. According to Dewey, we are constantly acquiring new items of knowledge which are at first unrelated to the previous contents of the mind; or, in moments of reflection, we discover that there is some contradiction among the items of knowledge already acquired. This condition causes a strain or tension, the removal of which gives satisfaction to the thinker. An idea is "a plan of action", which we use to relieve the strain; if it performs that function successfully, that is, satisfactorily, it is true. The adjustment is not, however, one-sided. Both the old truths in the mind and the new truth that has just entered the mind must be modified before we can have satisfaction. Thus there is no static truth, much less absolute truth; there are truths, and these are constantly being made true. This is the view which, under the names Personalism, and Humanism, has been emphasized by Professor F. S. Schiller, the foremost of the English exponents of Pragmatism. "Humanism", and "Studies in Humanism" are the titles of his principal works. Pragmatism, Schiller thinks, "is in reality only the application of Humanism to the theory of knowledge" (Humanism, p. xxi), and Humanism is the doctrine that there is no absolute truth, but only truths, which are constantly being made true by the mind working on the data of experience. On the Continent of Europe, Pragmatism has not attained the same prominence as in English-speaking countries. Nevertheless, writers who favour Pragmatism see in the teachings of Mach, Ostwald, Avenarius, and Simmel a tendency towards the Pragmatic definition of philosophy. James, for instance, quotes Ostwald, the illustrious Leipzig chemist, as saying, "I am accustomed to put questions to my classes in this way: in what respects would the world be different if this alternative or that were true? If I can find nothing that would become different, then the alternative has no sense" (Pragmatism, p. 48). Avenarius's "Criticism of Experience", and Simmel's "Philosophie des Geldes" tend towards establishing the same criterion. In France, Renouvier's return to the point of view of practical reason in his neo-Criticism, the so-called "new philosophy" which minimizes the value of scientific categories as interpretations of reality, and which has its chief representative in Poincaré, who, as James says, "misses Pragmatism only by the breadth of a hair", and, finally, Bergson, whom the Pragmatists everywhere recognize as the most brilliant and logical of their leaders, represent the growth and development of the French School of Pragmatism. Side by side with this French movement, and not uninfluenced by it, is the school of Catholic Immanent Apologists, beginning with Ollé-Laprune and coming down to Blondel and Le Roy, who exalt action, life, sentiment, or some other non-rational element into the sole and supreme criterion of higher spiritual truth. In Italy, Giovanni Papini, author of "Introduzione al pragmatismo", takes his place among the most advanced exponents of the principle that "the meaning of theories consists uniquely in the consequences which those who believe them true may expect from them" (Introd., p. 28). Indeed, he seems at times to go farther than the American and English Pragmatists; when, for instance, in the "Popular Science Monthly" (Oct., 1907), he writes that Pragmatism "is less a philosophy than a method of doing without philosophy". III. PRAGMATIC THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE In fairness to the Pragmatists it must be recorded that, when they claim to shift the centre of philosophic inquiry from the theoretical to the practical, they explain that by "practical" they do not understand merely the "bread and butter" consequences, but include also among practical consequences such considerations as logical consistency, intellectual satisfaction, and harmony of mental content; and James expressly affirms that by "practical" he means "particular and concrete". Individualism or Nominalism is, therefore, the starting-point of the Pragmatist. Indeed Dr. Schiller assures us that the consequences which are the test of truth must be the consequences to some one, for some purpose. The Intellectualism against which Pragmatism is a revolt recognizes logical consistency among the tests of truth. But while Intellectualism refers the truth to be treated to universal standards, to laws, principles, and to established generalizations, Pragmatism uses a standard which is particular, individual, personal. Besides, realistic Intellectualism, such as was taught by the Scholastics, recognizes an order of real things, independent of the mind, not made by the mind, but given in experience, and uses that as a standard of truth, conformity to it being a test of truth, and lack of conformity being a proof of falseness. Pragmatism regards this realism as naive, as a relic of primitive modes of philosophizing, and is obliged, therefore, to test newly-acquired truth by the standard of truth already in the mind, that is, by personal or individual experience. Again, there underlies the pragmatic account of knowledge a Sensist psychology, latent, perhaps, so far as the consciousness of the Pragmatist is concerned. For the Pragmatist, although he does not affirm that we have no knowledge superior to sense knowledge, leaves no room in his philosophy for knowledge that represents universally and necessarily and, at the same time, validly. Knowledge begins with sense-impressions. At this point the Pragmatist falls into his initial error, an error, however, of which the idealistic Intellectualist is also guilty. What we are aware of, say both the Pragmatist and the Idealist, is not a thing, or a quality of an object, but the state of self, the subjective condition, the "sensation of whiteness", the "sensation of sweetness" etc. This error, fatal as it is, need not detain us here, because, as has been said, it is common to Idealists and Pragmatists. It is, in fact, the luck-less Cartesian legacy to all modern systems. Next, we come to percepts, concepts, or ideas. Incidentally, it may be remarked that the Pragmatist, in common with the Sensist, this time, fails to distinguish between a percept, which is particular and contingent, and an idea or concept, which is universal and necessary. Let us take the word concept, and use it as he does, without distinguishing its specific meaning. What is the value of the concept? The Realist answers that it is a representation of reality, that, as in the case of the impression, so here, too, there is a something outside the mind which the concept represents and which is the primary test of the truth of the concept. The Pragmatist rejects the notion that concepts represent reality. However the Pragmatists may differ later on, they are all agreed on this point: James, Schiller, Bergson, Papini, the neo-Critics of science and the Immanentists. What, then, does the concept do? Concepts, we are told, are tools fashioned by the human mind for the manipulation of experience. James, for example, says "The notions of one Time, one Space . . . the distinctions between thoughts and things . . . the conceptions of classes with subclasses within them . . . surely all these were once definite conquests made at historic dates by our ancestors in their attempts to get the chaos of their crude individual experiences into a more shareable and manageable shape. They proved of such sovereign use as Denkmittel that they are now a part of the very structure of our mind" (Meaning of Truth, p. 62). A concept, therefore, is true if, when we use it as a tool to manipulate or handle our experience, the results, the practical results, are satisfactory. It is true if it functions well; in other words, if it "works". Schiller expresses the same notion in almost identical words. Concepts, he tells us, are "tools slowly fashioned by the practical intelligence for the mastery of experience" (Studies in Humanism, p. 64). They are not static but dynamic; their work is never done.For each new experience has to be subjected to the process of manipulation, and this process implies the readjustment of all past experience. Hence, as Schiller says, there are truths but there is no truth; or, as James expresses it, truth is not transcendent but ambulatory; that is to say, no truth is made and set aside, or outside experience, for future reference of new truth to it; experience is a stream out of which we can never step; no item of experience can ever be verified definitely and irrevocably; it is verified provisionally now, but must be verified again to-morrow, when I acquire a new experience. Verificability and not verification is the test of experience; and, therefore, the function of the concept, of any concept or of all of them, goes on indefinitely. Professor Dewey agrees with James and Schiller in his description of the meaning of concepts. He appears to differ from them merely in the greater emphasis which he lays on the strain or stress which the concept relieves. Our first experience, he says, is not knowledge properly so-called. When to this is added a second experience there is likely to arise in the mind a sense of contradiction, or, at least, a consciousness of the lack of coördination, between the first and the second. Hence arises doubt, or uneasiness, or strain, or some other form of the throes of thinking. We cannot rest until this painful condition is remedied. Therefore we inquire, and continue to inquire until we obtain an answer which satisfies by removing the inconsistency which existed, or by bringing about the adjustment which is required. In this inquiry we use the concept as a "plan of action"; if the plan leads to satisfaction, it is true, if it does not, it is false. For Dewey, as for James and Schiller, each adjustment means a going over and a doing over of all the previous contents of experience, or, at least, of those contents which are in any way relevant or referrable to the newly-acquired item. Here, therefore, we have once more the doctrine that the concept is not static but dynamic, not fixed but fluent; its meaning is not its content but its function. The same doctrine is brought out very forcibly by Bergson in his criticism of the categories of science. The reality which science attempts to interpret is a stream, a continuum, more like a living organism than a mineral substance. Truth in the mind of the scientist is, therefore, a vital stream, a succession of concepts, each of which flows into its successor. To say that a given concept represents things as they are can be true only in the fluent or functional sense. A concept cut out of the continuum of experience at any moment no more represents the reality of science than a cross-section of a tissue represents the specific vital function of that tissue. When we think we cut our concepts out of the continuum: to use our concepts as they were intended to be used, we must keep them in the stream of reality, that is, we must live them. If we pass now from the consideration of concepts to that of judgment and reasoning, we find the same contrast between the intellectual Realist and the Pragmatist as in the case of concepts. The intellectual Realist defines judgment as a process of the mind, in which we pronounce the agreement or difference between two things represented by the two concepts of the judgment. The things themselves are the standard. Sometimes, as in self-evident judgments, we do not appeal to experience at the moment of judging, but perceive the agreement or difference after an analysis of the concepts. Sometimes, as in empirical judgments, we turn to experience for the evidence that enables us to judge. Self-evident truths are axiomatic, necessary, and universal, such as "All the radii of a given circle are equal", or "The whole is greater than its part". Truths that are not self-evident may change, if the facts change, as, for instance, "The pen I hold in my hand is six inches long". There are necessary truths, which are a legitimate standard by which to test new truths; and there are truths of fact, which, as long as they remain true, are also legitimate tests of new truth. Thus, systems of truth are built up, and part of the system may be axiomatic truths, which need not be re-made or made over when a new truth is acquired. All this is swept aside by the Pragmatist with the same contempt as the naive realism which holds that concepts represent reality. There are no necessary truths, there are no axioms, says Pragmatism, but only postulates. A judgment is true if it functions in such a way as to explain our experiences, and it continues to be true only so long as it does explain our experiences. The apparent self-evidence of axioms, says the Pragmatist, is due, not to the clearness and cogency of the evidence arising from an analysis of concepts, much less is it due to the cogency of reality; it is due to a long-established habit of the race. The reason why I cannot help thinking that two and two are four is the habit of so thinking, a habit begun by our ancestors before they were human and indulged in by all their descendants ever since. All truths are, therefore, empirical: they are all "man-made"; hence Humanism is only another name for Pragmatism. Our judgments being all personal, in this sense, and based on our own experience, subject to the limitations imposed by the habits of the race, it follows that the conclusions which we draw from them when we reason are only hypothetical. They are valid only within our experience, and should not be carried beyond the region of verifiable experience. Pragmatism, as James pointed out, does not look backward to axioms, premises, systems, but forward to consequences, results, fruits. In point of fact, then, we are, if we believe the Pragmatist, obliged to subscribe to the doctrine of John Stuart Mill that all truth is hypothetical, that "can be" and "cannot be" have reference only to our experience, and that, for all we know, there may be in some remote region of space a country where two and two are five, and a thing can be and not be at the same time. IV. PRAGMATIC THEORY OF REALITY The attitude of Pragmatism towards metaphysics is somewhat ambiguous. Professor James was quoted above (Sec. II) as saying that Pragmatism is "finally, a theory of reality". Schiller, too, although he considers metaphysics to be "a luxury", and believes that "neither Pragmatism nor Humanism necessitates a metaphysics", yet decides at last that Humanism "implies ultimately a voluntaristic metaphysics". Papini, as is well known, puts forward the "corridor-theory", according to which Pragmatism is a method through which one may pass, or must pass, to enter the various apartments indicated by the signs "Materialism", "Idealism", etc., although he confesses that the Pragmatist "will have an antipathy for all forms of Monism" (Introduzione, p. 29). As a matter of fact, the metaphysics of the Pragmatist is distinctly anti-Monistic. It denies the fundamental unity of reality and, adopting a word which seems to have been first used by Wolff to designate the doctrines of the Atomists and the Monadism of Leibniz, it styles the Pragmatic view of reality Pluralistic. Pluralism, the doctrine, namely, that reality consists of a plurality or multiplicity of real things which cannot be reduced to a basic metaphysical unity, claims to offer the most consistent solution of three most important problems in philosophy. These are: + (1) The possibility of real change; + (2) the possibility of real variety or distinction among things; and + (3) the possibility of freedom (see art. "Pluralism" in Baldwin, "Dict.of Philosophy and Psychology"). It is true that Monism fails on these points, since + (1) it cannot consistently maintain the reality of change; + (2) it tends to the Pantheistic view that all distinctions are merely limitations of the one being; and + (3) it is inevitably Deterministic, excluding the possibility of true individual freedom (see art. MONISM). At the same time, Pluralism goes to the opposite extreme, for: + (1) while it explains one term in the problem of change, it eliminates the other term, namely the original causal unity of all things in God, the First Cause; + (2) while it accounts for variety, it cannot consistently explain the cosmic harmony and the multitudinous resemblances of things; and + (3) while it strives to maintain freedom, it does not distinguish with sufficient care between freedom and causalism. James, the chief exponent of Pragmatic Pluralism, contrasts Pluralism and Monism as follows: "Pluralism lets things really exist in the each-form or distributively. Monism thinks that the all-form or collective-unit form is the only form that is rational. The all-form allows of no taking up and dropping of connexions, for in the 'all' the parts are essentially and externally co-implicated. In the each-form, on the contrary, a thing may be connected by intermediate things, with a thing with which it has no immediate or essential connexion. . . . If the each-form be the eternal form of reality no less than the form of temporal appearance, we still have a coherent world, and not an incarnate incoherence, as is charged by so many absolutists. Our 'multiverse' still makes a 'universe'; for every part, though it may not be in actual or immediate connexion, is nevertheless in some possible or mediate connexion with every other part, however remote" (A Pluralistic Universe, 324). This type of union James calls the "strung-along type", the type of continuity, contiguity, or concatenation, as opposed to the co-implication or integration type of unity advocated by the absolute Monists. If one prefers a Greek name, he says, the unity may be called synechism. Others, however, prefer to call this tychism, or mere chance succession. Peirce, for instance, holds that the impression of novelty which a new occurrence produces is explicable only on the theory of chance, and Bergson seems to be in no better case when he tries to explain what he calls the devenir réel. The gist of Pluralism is that "Things are 'with' one another in many ways, but nothing includes everything or dominates over everything" (ibid., p. 321). One of the consequences of this view is that, as Schiller says ("Personal Idealism", p. 60), "the world is what we make it". "Sick souls", and "tender-minded" people may, as James says, be content to take their places in a world already made according to law, divided off into categories by an Absolute Mind, and ready to be represented in the mind of the beholder, just as it is. This is the point of view of the Monist. But, the "strenuous", and the "tough-minded" will not be content to take a ready-made world as they find it; they will make it for themselves, overcoming all difficulties, filling in the gaps, so to speak, and smoothing over the rough places by establishing actual and immediate connexions among the events as they occur in experience. The Monistic view, James confesses, has a majesty of its own and a capacity to yield religious comfort to a most respectable class of minds. "But, from the human (pragmatic Pluralist) point of view, no one can pretend that it does not suffer from the faults of remoteness and abstractness. It is eminently a product of what I have ventured to call the Rationalistic temper. . . . It is dapper, it is noble in the bad sense, in the sense in which it is noble to be inapt for humble service. In this real world of sweat and dirt, it seems to me that when a view of things is 'noble', that ought to count as a presumption against its truth, and as a philosophic disqualification" (Pragmatism, pp. 71 and 72). Moreover, Monism is a species of spiritual laziness, of moral cowardice. "They [the Monists] mean that we have a right ever and anon to take a moral holiday, to let the world wag its own way, feeling that its issues are in better hands than ours and are none of our business" (ibid., p. 74). Pluralistic strenuosity suffers no such restraints; it recognizes no obstacle that cannot be overcome. The test of its audacity is its treatment of the idea of God. For the Pluralist, "God is not the absolute, but is Himself a part. . . . His functions can be taken as not wholly dissimilar to those of the other smaller parts -- as similar to our functions, consequently, having an environment, being in time, and working out a history just like ourselves, He escapes from the foreignness from all that is human, of the static, timeless, perfect absolute" (A Pluralistic Universe, p. 318). God, then, is finite. We are, indeed, internal parts of God, and not external creations. God is not identical with the universe, but a limited, conditioned, part of it. We have here a new kind of Pantheism, a Pantheism of the "strung-along" type, and if James is content to have his philosophical democratic strenuosity judged by this result, he has very effectively condemned his own case, not only in the estimation of aristocratic Absolutists but also in that of every Christian philosopher. V. PRAGMATISM AND RELIGION It has been pointed out that one of the secrets of the popularity of Pragmatism is the belief that in the warfare between religion and Agnosticism the Pragmatists have, somehow, come to the rescue on the side of religious truth (Pratt, "What is Pragmatism", p. 175). It should be admitted at once that, by temperamental disposition, rather than by force of logic, the Pragmatist is inclined to uphold the vital and social importance of positive religious faith. For him, religion is not a mere attitude of mind, an illumination thrown on facts already ascertained, or a state of feeling which disposes one to place an emotional value on the truths revealed by science. It adds new facts and brings forward new truths which make a difference, and lead to differences, especially in conduct. Whether religions are proved or not, they have approved themselves to the Pragmatist (Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 331). They should be judged by their intent and not merely by their content. James says expressly: "On Pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis of God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, it is true" (Pragmatism, p. 299). This is open to two objections. In the first place, what functions or "works satisfactorily" is not the existence of God, but belief in the existence of God. In the struggle with Agnosticism and religious scepticism the task of the Christian apologist is not to prove that men believe in God but to justify that belief by proving that God exists; and in this task the assistance which he receives from the Pragmatist is of doubtful value. In the second place, it will be remembered that the Pragmatist makes experience synonymous with reality. The consequences, therefore, which follow from the "hypothesis of God" must fall within actual or possible human experience, not of the inferential or deductive kind, but experience direct and intuitional. But it is clear that if we attach any definite meaning at all to the idea of God, we must mean a Being whose existence is not capable of direct intuitional experience, except in the supernatural order, an order which, it need hardly be said, the Pragmatist does not admit. We do not need the Pragmatist to tell us that belief in God functions for good, that it brings order into our intellectual chaos, that it sustains us by confidence in the rationality of things here, and buoys us up with hope when we look towards the things that are beyond. What we need is assistance in the task of showing that that belief is founded on inferential evidence, and that the "hypothesis of God" may be proved to be a fact. VI. ESTIMATE OF PRAGMATISM In a well-known passage of his work entitled "Pragmatism", Professor James sums up the achievements of the Pragmatists and outlines the future of the school. "The centre of gravity of philosophy must alter its place. The earth of things, long thrown into shadow by the glories of the upper ether, must resume its rights. . . . It will be an alteration in the 'seat of authority' that reminds one almost of the Protestant Reformation. And as, to papal minds, Protestantism has often seemed a mere mess of anarchy and confusion, such, no doubt, will Pragmatism often seem to ultra-Rationalist minds in philosophy. It would seem so much trash, philosophically. But life wags on, all the same, and compasses its ends, in Protestant countries. I venture to think that philosophic Protestantism will compass a not dissimilar prosperity" (Pragmatism, p. 123). It is, of course, too soon to judge the accuracy of this prophecy. Meantime, to minds papal, though not ultra-Rationalistic, the parallel here drawn seems quite just, historically and philosophically. Pragmatism is Individualistic. Despite the disclaimers of some of its exponents, it sets up the Protagorean principle, "Man is the measure of all things". For if Pragmatism means anything, it means that human consequences, "consequences to you and me", are the test of the meaning and truth of our concepts, judgments, and reasonings. Pragmatism is Nominalistic. It denies the validity of content of universal concepts, and scornfully rejects the mere possibility of universal, all-including or even many-including, reality. It is, by implication, Sensistic. For in describing the functional value of concepts it restricts that function to immediate or remote sense-experience. It is Idealistic. For, despite its disclaimer of agreement with the intellectual Idealism of the Bradley type, it is guilty of the fundamental error of Idealism when it makes reality to be co-extensive with experience, and describes its doctrine of perception in terms of Cartesian Subjectivism. It is, in a sense, Anarchistic. Discarding Intellectualistic logic, it discards principles, and has no substitute for them except individual experience. Like the Reformers, who misunderstood or misrepresented the theology of the Schoolmen, it has never grasped the true meaning of Scholastic Realism, always confounding it with Intellectual Realism of the Absolutist type. Finally, by bringing all the problems of life within the scope of Pragmatism, which claims to be a system of philosophy, it introduces confusion into the relations between philosophy and theology, and still worse confusion into the relations between philosophy and religion. It consistently appeals to future prosperity as a Pragmatic test of its truth, thus leaving the verdict to time and a future generation. But with the elements of error and disorganization which it has embodied in its method and adopted in its synthesis, it has done much, so the Intellectualist thinks, to prejudge its case. JAMES, Varieties of Religious Experience (New York, 1902); IDEM, Pragmatism (New York, 1908); IDEM, A Pluralistic Universe (New York, 1909); IDEM, The Meaning of Truth (New York, 1910); DEWEY, Outlines of Ethics (Chicago, 1891); IDEM, Studies in Logical Theory (Chicago, 1903); articles in Journal of Philosophy, etc.; SCHILLER, Personal Idealism (London, 1902); IDEM, Humanism (London, 1903); IDEM, Studies in Humanism (New York, 1907); BERGSON, L'Evolution créatrice (Paris, 1907); IDEM, Matière et mémoire (Paris, 1897); BAWDEN, Principles of Pragmatism (New York, 1910). Anti-Pragmatist: PRATT, What is Pragmatism? (New York, 1909); SCHINZ, Anti-Pragmatism (New York, 1909); WALKER, Theories of Knowledge (New York, 1910); FARGES, La crise de la certitude (Paris, 1907); LECLÈRE, Pragmatisme, modernisme, protestantisme (Paris, 1909). Articles: Rivista di filosofia neo-scolastica (April and Oct., 1910); Revue néo-scolastique (1907). pp. 220 sq. (1909), pp. 451 sq.; Revue des sciences phil. et théol. (1907), pp. 105 Sq., give an up-to-date bibliography of Pragmatism. Of the many articles which appeared on the subject from the Catholic point of view. cf.TURNER, New York Review (1906); SHANAHAN in Catholic University Bulletin (1909-); SAUVAGE, ibid. (1906-); MOORE, Catholic World (Dec., 1909). Articles criticizing Pragmatism have appeared in the Philosophical Review, CREIGETON in vols. XIII, XV, XVII; HIBBEN in vol. XVII; BAKEWELL in vol. XVII; Monist, CARUS in vols. XVIII, XIX, etc. In defence of Pragmatism many articles have appeared in the Journal of Phil. Psychol. etc., and in Mind. A recent article on the French School of Pragmatism is entitled Le pragmatisme de l'école française in Rev. de phil. (April, 1910). WILLIAM TURNER. Archdiocese of Prague Prague (PRAGENSIS). An archdiocese in Bohemia. From about the middle of the sixth century Slavonic tribes advancing into Bohemia drove the Marcomanni to the borders of the country. The Slavs soon came under the influence of the Carolingian civilization. In 845 Czech princes and their warriors appeared at the Court of Louis the German at Ratisbon, where they were baptized on the octave of Epiphany (13 January) by the Bishop of Ratisbon. Although many German priests now came into Bohemia to aid in the spread of Christianity, the land soon fell under the dominion of Moravia, which was naturally followed by the appearance of Slavonic priests from Great Moravia. It is supposed, though it cannot be proved, that the Bohemian Duke Boriwoi was baptized by Methodius, the apostle to the Slavs. The first Duke of Bohemia of whom there is historic certainty that he was a Christian is Boriwoi's son, Spitigniew, who in 895 allied himself to Carlmann's son, Arnulf of Carinthia. Spitigniew's brother and successor, Wratislaw I, built the church of St. George upon the Hradschin (castle hill) at Prague. His wife Drahomira, who belonged to a pagan Slavonic family, though probably baptized, was not Christian at heart. Their sons, St. Wenceslaus and Boleslaw I the Cruel, were still minors at the death of their father. The most important factor in the history of Bohemia at this time was the opposition between the pagan or national party and the Christian or German party. Wenceslaus hoped to gain everything from the Germans. Desiring to build a church upon the Hradschin he requested permission from the diocesan bishop who came to the consecration. The church was dedicated to St. Vitus, as Henry I the Saxon of Germany had sent a present of a precious relic of this saint. The struggle between pagan and Christian divided even the ducal family. On 28 September, 935, Wenceslaus was murdered by his brother Boleslaw and his accomplices at the door of the church in Altbunzlau. Yet Boleslaw found himself obliged to rule in a manner favourable to the Christian-German party. Much was done for the Christian civilization of Bohemia by his children, Boleslaw II the Pious, Milada, and Dubravka. Boleslaw II desired to be independent of Germany in ecclesiastical matters and sought to have Prague made a bishopric. Otto II of Germany aided this effort, for he regarded it as a protection against Hungary. John XIII consented on condition that the Latin Rite should be used. Milada, sister of the duke, who lived in a Benedictine abbey at Rome, was appointed by the pope under the name of Maria abbess of the Abbey of St. George on the Hradschin, the first monastic foundation in Bohemia. Bohemia then formed a part of the Diocese of Ratisbon, suffragan of Salzburg. St. Wolfgang drew up the charter for the new diocese and it was made a suffragan of Mainz. Thietmar, a monk from Magdeburg who had a thorough knowledge of the Slavonic language, was appointed (973) the first Bishop of Prague. The new diocese included: Bohemia, Silesia including Cracow, and Lusatia; Moravia, western Hungary as far as the Waag and Danube Rivers; Lower Austria between Taja and Kamp. In Moravia, Vracen was appointed bishop. St. Adalbert, second Bishop of Prague, appointed by Otto II at Verona, was consecrated by Willigis of Mainz. He proved in Bohemia and Moravia a stern censor of morals, striving to suppress concubinage among the clergy, polygamy, and heathen practices, but, obliged to withdraw, took refuge in a monastery at Rome. At the request of the Bohemians he returned with twelve monks from Monte Cassino, among them Christinus, Benedictus, and Matthæus. In 993 Adalbert founded for these monks the first monastery for men in Bohemia, that of Brewnow near Prague (St. Margaret), and appointed his teacher Radla (Anastasius) abbot. Two years later Adalbert was again obliged to flee. The pope now dissolved his connexion with Prague and Adalbert died (997) a martyr in Prussia. Severus, sixth Bishop of Prague, was one of the retinue of Duke Bretislaw Achilles, who brought (1039) the relics of St. Adalbert from Gnesen to Prague. The ambitious Bretislaw wished to be independent of Germany. It was his intention to make use of the Benedictine monastery of Sazawa, founded in 1037, with a Greek-Slavonic liturgy, as a national church; he appointed St. Procopius the first abbot of this monastery. A part of his plan was that Bishop Severus, as the lawful successor of St. Methodius, should receive the pallium. As, however, the Polish Church complained of the robbery of the relics of St. Adalbert, the duke and bishop became involved in an investigation and they were condemned to found a monastery as penance. Bretislaw established the collegiate chapter of Altbunzlau in 1096 and two years later founded Raigern, the first monastery in Moravia. Raigern was united with Brewnow. The next duke, Spitihnew, founded (1058) the collegiate church of St. Stephen at Leitmeritz. The Slavonic monks, who were replaced by Latin monks, were transferred to the monasteries of Vesprim, Vy?ehrad, Csanad, and Arad. Nicholas II granted the duke the honour of "the mitre" (a cloak) for an annual payment of one hundred marks; this honour was regarded as a sign of royal dignity. Spitihnew's brothers, Wratislaw II, who succeeded him and Jaromir (Gebhard), who was appointed Bishop of Prague, were men very different in character. In 1063 the duke gave his consent to the establishment of the Diocese of Olmütz. The Bishop of Prague received compensation for what he lost in tithes and fiefs, and a monk named John, belonging to the monastery of Brewnow, was appointed first Bishop of Olmütz. The new bishop had much to suffer from Jaromir, who attacked and ill-treated him in his episcopal residence. Alexander II sent to Prague the legate Rudolphus, who held there a synodal diet at which, however, Jaromir did not appear. Jaromir was declared to be deposed; Gregory VII summoned the contending bishops to Rome. At the Easter synod of 1074, Jaromir expressed his regret for his ill-usage of John but was unwilling to yield the fief of Podvin. The pope now wrote to Wratislaw that if necessary he should drive Jaromir away by force. In the struggle over Investitures Wratislaw II and Jaromir supported Henry IV. After the death of Bishop John, Jaromir secured the union of Olmütz with Prague (1085-91), as his brother had received the title of king from Henry IV and consequently was entirely on the king's side. Wratislaw soon deserted the emperor and gave Olmütz to his court chaplain Wecel (Andreas I), who was made bishop. Jaromir died at Gran, where he was preparing to fight his rival. After Wecel's death Henry IV invested the canon Andreas at Mantua with the ring and crozier, but he was not consecrated until two years later. At Easter (1138) Bishop Henry of Olmütz, called Zdik after his native town, entered the Premonstratensian Order in the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem. On his return, he persuaded the Bishop of Prague, John I, to bring Premonstratensians from Steinhof near Cologne and establish them at Strahow. Bitter contention arose between Zdik and his clergy when the princes of Moravia rebelled against Wladislaw II, Duke of Bohemia. Zdik adhered to the duke, and was, therefore, obliged to flee to Prague; after giving warnings in vain he placed the rebels and the land under bann and interdict, which were later removed by the legate Guido. He deposed ecclesiastics who had concubines. Ordinations were only permitted on definite conditions. Wladislaw supported the legate so vigorously that it was said of him that he had enforced clerical chastity throughout Bohemia. Wladislaw also granted Podvin in perpetuity to the bishop and bestowed on him the right to have a mint. Lucius II invited Zdik to Rome. On the way he was attacked and robbed near Boscowicz, and escaped to Leitomischl. In 1143, Bishop Otto settled Cistercians from Waldsassen at Sedlek. When the Second Crusade was preached Bishop Henry of Olmütz was the subdelegate of St. Bernard for Bohemia and Moravia. Henry himself went to Pomerania, but soon returned unsuccessful. In 1156, the Order of St. John of Jerusalem was introduced in the hospice of St. Mary near the Prague bridge. Frederick I Barbarossa in 1158 made Wladislaw a king in return for his aid against Lombardy. The right to crown the king was assigned to the Bishops of Prague and Olmütz. The Bohemian king and Bishop Daniel I supported Frederick in his bitter struggle with Alexander III. The king and bishop were excommunicated and when in 1167 the bishop died the clergy of Prague refused to recite the Office for the Dead. It was during the quarrel between Duke Premysl Ottokar I and Bishop Henry Bretislaw that Kacim, Bishop of Olmütz, ordained deacons and priests at Prague in 1193 but forgot the laying on of hands. Two years later his successor, Engelbert, performed this part of the rite, but the cardinal legate Peter suspended the ordination and in 1197 the entire ordination had to be repeated. At the renewed ordination the cardinal legate insisted positively upon the vow of chastity. The candidates rebelled at this and Peter had to leave the church. Not long after, the legate succeeded in making a synod pass his demands, and the prosperity of the Bohemian Church rapidly increased. About this time St. Hrozata founded the Premonstratensian Abbey of Tepl, which he entered. Premysl Ottokar I made Bohemia a hereditary kingdom, and independent of Germany; hence the Bishops of Prague and Olmütz no longer received investiture from the emperor but from the King of Bohemia. The cathedral chapter was to elect the bishop. Ottokar wished to make Prague an archbishopric with Olmütz as its suffragan. Innocent III, however, had all the less reason to be gracious to the Bohemian king as Ottokar had just changed his political adherence from Otto IV to Philip of Swabia, against the wishes of the pope. The first king who received Bohemia by inheritance desired to annul the immunity of the clergy and take the church tithes for himself, while Bishop Andreas wished to enforce the decrees of the fourth Synod of Laberno. The king would not permit this. Andreas placed Bohemia under an interdict, the king cut off all the bishop's revenues. The pope commanded that Robert of Olmütz, who, in spite of the interdict, had celebrated Mass at Prague, should be punished. With the aid of a legate a fairly satisfactory agreement was reached (Concord of Skacenze, 1220). One of Ottokar's daughters, St. Agnes, corresponded with St. Clare of Assisi, and founded the convent of St. Clare, called later St. Agnes, in 1234 at Prague; as soror major Agnes was the head of it. She also aided the foundation of the Order of the Knights of the Cross of the Red Star at Prague. While on his journey to Poland St. Hyacinth brought Dominicans to Prague, who established themselves in the monastery of St. Clement. Wenceslaus granted to the Franciscans the monastery of St. James in the Altstadt, Prague. Bohemian nobles who went to France became acquainted there with the Knights Templars. They introduced them into Bohemia and the order flourished to such extent that in 1240 Bohemia became a national priory and Prague had two commanderies, the Temple and St. Laurence. Church life flourished in Bohemia at this era; the country seemed "to breathe nothing but holiness". King Wenceslaus remained a firm adherent of Frederick II even after his deposition by the Council of Lyons. An interdict was pronounced over Bohemia and Bishop Nicholas of Bohemia was suspended. Mass was only celebrated in the monasteries and there behind closed doors without the ringing of bells. For some time, the Teutonic Knights had been fighting against the natives of Prussia. In 1225 Premysl Ottokar II assumed the cross; he wished to gain the favour of the pope and Christendom. The name of the city of Königsberg preserves the memory of the king, who was called not only the Golden but also the Iron. About this time (1256) the first heresy appeared in Bohemia; the Flagellants came from Germany (see FLAGELLANTS). In gratitude for the successful issue of his struggle with Béla IV (battle of Kressenbrunn) Premysl Ottokar II in 1263 founded the Cistercian monastery of Goldenkron, so named because of a relic of the Crown of Thorns set in gold that had been given by St. Louis. Ottokar's viceroy in Austria, Peter of Rosenberg, founded the monastery of Hohenfurt in expiation of his sins and for the salvation of the souls of his ancestors. Bishop John III of Bohemia attended the Council of Vienna in 1276, which had been summoned by the king. The council's nineteen canons treat of the behaviour of the clergy, of the penal power of bishops and abbots, and the relations between Christians and Jews. The Jews were to be distinguished by pointed hats, and on Good Friday they were not to appear in public. Bishop Bruno of Olmütz had brought to Ottokar from the Council of Lyons a letter written by the pope calling upon him to support the election of Rudolph of Hapsburg as Emperor of Germany. When Ottokar recommenced, he was excommunicated; consequently it was not until eighteen years after he had been killed in battle that he was buried in consecrated ground in the Cathedral of Prague. During this time, it is said, there were not less than twenty-one thousand Beghards in Bohemia. The country was also disturbed by off-shoots of the Waldensians who called themselves "Apostolic Brethren", and "Brethren of the Holy Spirit". They even wished to have wives and property in common and sought to live underground. They claimed that God did not trouble Himself about what happened under the earth and so have been called Grubenheimer. Bishop John IV of Prague had taken in preparing the decrees concerning the dispute between the Mendicant Orders and the secular priests, which were drawn up at Vienna. After his return, he desired to execute these decrees. The Mendicants were only to preach in their own churches and not there during the service at the parish church; they were not in any way to encroach upon the pastoral work, and must have episcopal authority to hear confessions. The Mendicants appealed to their exemption and made loud complaint that the bishop denied the validity of confessions heard by them. The parish priests of Prague announced that they would publish the decisions of the Council of Vienna in their churches. The Mendicants also made their preparations. Bishop John established the Court of the Inquisition as the council had desired. When in the course of a year, however, this court delivered to the State fourteen heretics who were burned at the stake, the bishop sent the Inquisitors away and opened their prisons. Complaint having been made against him, he had to go to Avignon, and after an investigation of eleven years he finally returned home. After the suppression of the Knights Templar, their lands were given by King John of Luxemburg to other orders of knights, and he substituted religious houses founded by him. He also established the first Carthusian monastery in Bohemia, Maria Garten am Smichow, and at Raudnitz a monastery of Augustinian Canons. The increasing prosperity of the Church reached its most flourishing period during the reign of Charles IV. The emperor had been educated at the French court; his teacher and friend Peter de Rosières was now Clement VI. It was, therefore, not difficult for Charles to obtain from him in 1344 a Bull raising Prague to an archbishopric, with the suffragan Dioceses of Olmütz and of the newly founded Leitomischl. The archbishop was to anoint and crown the Bohemian kings; thus he was the Primate of Bohemia. The first archbishop was St. Ernst of Pardubitz, the advisor of Charles IV in his great undertakings. Charles brought Matthias of Arras from Avignon to Prague so that, with the aid of Peter Parler of Gmünd (in Suabia), he might build the beautiful Cathedral of St. Vitus, the corner-stone of which had been laid by the emperor's father. It is yet unfinished. The emperor even included his crown among the treasures with which he thought to enrich the cathedral; from that time it adorned the head of St. Wenceslaus. The crown jewels were kept in the Castle of Karlstein built by Arras. The chapel of Castle Karlstein was built in the shape of a cross; its walls were inlaid with Bohemian garnets on a gold ground, so that the lights of the altar were reflected many hundred times. At Emaus Charles founded an abbey for Benedictines, who were to use the Glagolitic Liturgy in celebrating Mass. The foundation in which Charles was most interested was the University of Prague, established in 1348, the oldest German university. The archbishop was to be its chancellor (Protector studiorum et Cancellarius). In 1349 Archbishop Ernst held the celebrated provincial synod that defined the rights and duties of the clergy. Correctores Cleri were provided who were to supervise the carrying out of the Statuta Ernesti and to supply what was lacking. Now began a religious movement that plunged Bohemia and the surrounding countries into war, seriously retarded the growth of the Church, and left the See of Prague vacant for one hundred and forty years (1421-1561). For details of this period, see HUS AND HUSSITES; CONSTANCE, COUNCIL OF: III. THE REPRESSION OF HERESY. These hundred years of religious unrest had prepared a fruitful soil for the Reformation. Matthias preached Luther's doctrines openly on the public roads; Thomas Münzer and Gallus Cahera preached them in Prague. King Ferdinand, who had taken up his residence on the Hradschin, checked the growth of Protestantism, but the war over the Hungarian throne and the struggle with the Turks impeded his efforts. The Utraquist Consistory of Prague obtained in Mistopol an administrator who was even inclined to Lutheranism. During the Smalkaldic war the Bohemian Brethren united with the Protestants. After the battle of Mühlberg (1547), the religious reformers, driven out of the cities of Bohemia, went to Poland and Prussia, which were added by the Bohemian Brethren as a third province to Bohemia and Moravia. The greatest aid received by the Catholic Church came from the Jesuits. In 1556, Peter Canisius brought the first twelve Jesuits to St. Clement's at Prague; their college there, called Clementinum, ranked with the Carolinum. In 1561, Prague again received an archbishop, Anton Brus of Müglitz in Moravia. At the Council of Trent the archbishop sought to gain the cup for the laity, which Pius IV granted in 1567 for the countries ruled by Ferdinand. As, however, the result expected from this concession did not appear, the Utraquists becoming more largely Lutheran, Pius V recalled the permission. Maximilian II was more favourable to Protestantism. In 1567 he annulled the Compacta for the benefit of the Utraquists. Not only the Utraquistic Catholics, but also all Utraquists (Protestants) were to be tolerated. At the Diet of Prague they demanded the introduction of the Augsburg Confession. The "Bohemian Confession" was drawn up in twenty-five articles; it maintained Luther's teachings, but was indefinite on the doctrine of the Eucharist. The administrator of the consistory was to ordain their priests also, while fifteen defenders were to be added to the consistory. Thus the imperial cities which had been Utraquistic rapidly became Lutheran. At Prague three Lutheran parishes were soon formed. When Rudolph II shut himself up in the castle on the Hradschin the archdukes of Austria selected Matthias as the head of the Hapsburg dynasty. The Bohemian estates, taking advantage of the family quarrel of the Hapsburgs, elected a directory and raised an army. They remained indeed loyal to Rudolph, but forced from him in 1609 the royal charter (Majestätsbrief), which confirmed the Bohemian Confession, opened the university to the evangelical estates, granted them the right to elect defensors, and also permitted the three secular estates of lords, knights, and imperial cities to build Protestant churches and schools. Rudolph finally abdicated and in 1611 Cardinal Dietrichstein of Olmütz crowned Matthias King of Bohemia (1611-9). Contrary to the regulations of the royal charter granted by Rudolph, subjects of the Archbishop of Prague built a Protestant church at Klostergrab and subjects of the Abbot of Braunau one at Braunau. The archbishop commanded these to be closed, and when the Emperor Matthias sanctioned this order the result was the Third Defenestration of Prague, with which the Thirty Years' War began. A government of thirty directors was formed, and the head of the Protestant Union and of the German Calvinists, Frederick V, Elector of the Palatinate, was elected King of Bohemia. The Cathedral of Prague was arranged for Calvinistic services; altars were torn down, pictures and statues destroyed. The court preacher Scultetus drew up an independent liturgy for Bohemia. A sovereign has seldom begun his reign under greater difficulties than Ferdinand II (1619-37). The insurgents under Thurn were at the gates of Vienna; within the city the non-Catholic estates made common cause with the besiegers. Ferdinand, however, never yielded. After the battle of the White Mountain (1620) he took more severe measures against the disturbers; they were driven out of the country, the royal charter that had been the source of so much disorder was annulled, and a system of government introduced in 1627 that among other things made the clergy the first estate. It granted the bishops, prelates, and abbots seats and votes in the diet (the ecclesiastical bench) and the title of Primas regni to the archbishop. Only the Catholic religion was to be permitted. An imperial commission of reform ("dragonnades", "saviours") was to traverse the country purging it of preachers, heretical schoolmasters and books. Thirty-six thousand families were welcomed in neighbouring countries, but with all this the country was not made thoroughly Catholic. Many conformed only externally and the varying phases of the Thirty Years' War, for which in the end religion was merely the excuse, constantly favoured Protestantism. In the Peace of Westphalia (1648), however, Ferdinand III did not allow himself to be dictated to. During the period when princes were absolute rulers, events protected the Church against fresh attacks. Pastoral care, instruction, and ecclesiastical administration were improved. The Montscratines, Piarists, Theatines, and Ursuline nuns were introduced into the country, the clerical seminary was founded, and the new Dioceses of Leitmeritz (1655) and Königgrätz (1665) were erected. The old University of Prague and the Clementinum, the Jesuit college, were united into the Caroline-Ferdinand University. The tax of fifteen kreuzers on salt, either mined in Bohemia or imported, was applied to Church purposes, the St. Wenceslaus fund was used to distribute good books, and the Emeritus fund was employed to aid poor priests. For two years from 1712 the churches even in Prague were closed on account of the plague. In 1729 the canonization of St. John Nepomucene was celebrated with great festivities. The power of the sovereign over the Church was introduced by Protestantism. The Catholic rulers at first only assumed this position as regards their Protestant subjects. In the course of time, however, they began to exercise this power also as regards their Catholic subjects. As the maintenance of religion (the Counter-Reformation) was their work and they obtained the chief patronage of the Church, a State Church was the natural consequence. Even in the reign of Maria Theresa edicts were issued concerning ecclesiastical matters. No one could take the vows of an order until fully twenty-four (1770); monastic prisons were to be suppressed (1771). As the basis of theological instruction were to be used: Sagan's Catechism (1772), Riegger's "Institutiones jurisprudentiæ ecclesiasticæ", and Rautenstrauch's "Synopsis juris ecclesiastici". Trumpets and drums could no longer be used in the churches; in the lessons of the Breviary for the feast of St. Gregory VII the places concerning the power of the pope to depose kings were to be omitted. Parish priests were expressly forbidden to speak abusively of the laws of the country. Within ten years Joseph II issued sixty-two hundred laws, orders of the court, and ordinances. Even what was good showed marks of haste; laws and ordinances contradicted one another. When in 1781 the patent of toleration was issued quite a number who had been Protestants in secret now appeared as such openly. The Bull "In coena Domini' and "Unigenitus" were to be suppressed. It was forbidden to study theology at Rome, Roman dignities and titles could only be assumed after obtaining permission of the ruler. A general seminary was established at Prague, where both secular priests and candidates for the orders were to be educated. Even the number of Masses to be held in a church and the number of candles that could be used at such services were prescribed by law; the litany of the Trinity was forbidden "on account of various additions's. Many monasteries were suppressed, the remaining ones were regulated by the State, and fell into decay. One good measure of the emperor was, that he formed a fund for the maintenance of religion from the property of the suppressed monasteries and used it to increase the number of parishes. In this way Joseph II founded eighty-one parishes and three hundred and fourteen dependent churches in Bohemia. He also established the Diocese of Budweis. Joseph's brother Leopold II soon changed conditions. The general seminaries were abolished, there was no further suppression of monasteries, and books for theological instruction were submitted to the censorship of the bishop. Francis II was a pious ruler, who took a serious view of his duty in regard to conscience and religious duties, but for nearly a generation the war with France claimed all the strength and energy of the Government. In the meantime both laity and clergy grew more and more accustomed to the Josephine reforms of the Church. Were any ecclesiastical concessions made the Josephinists raised a cry over the unjustifiable demands of the Church and the unheard of concessions of the Government. One of the results of the French war was the demand of the Government for the silver plate in 1806, 1809 etc., when all the Church silver not absolutely necessary went to the mint. In return, the churches received from the Government an acknowledgment of the indebtedness. During this period the priest, Bernhard Bolzano, a philosophical writer and professor of theology at the University of Prague, wrote: "Lehrbuch der Religionswissenschaft" (4 vols.); "Wissenschaftslehre"; "Logic" (4 vols.); "Athanasia oder die Gründe für die Unsterblichkeit der Seele"; "Erbauungsreden an die akademische Jugend" (4 vols.); "Ueber die Perfektibilität des Katholizismus". The authorities were suspicious of him on account of his teachings, but his archbishop, Prince von Salm, protected him. In 1820 he was removed from his professorship and died in 1848. In 1848 Alois, Freiherr von Schrenk became Prince Archbishop of Prague. On 15 March, the emperor announced his intention of granting a constitution. Schrenk may have thought that "freedom is a great good for those who know how to use it". On 22 March he issued a censure, as some priests, forgetting their sacred calling, turned the pulpit into a political platform. The freedom gained should rather be the signal for greater activity. His address at the Easter festival, posted on the streets in Czech and German, sought to allay the hostility to the Jewish population. A meeting of thirty-five ecclesiastics, parish priests, members of orders, cathedral canons, professors, and prelates, called together without asking the consent of the archbishop by F. Nahlowsky, principal of the seminary for Wends, Upper Lusatia, was held at the seminary on 18 and 22 May. In his address Nahlowsky expressed his opinion concerning the unsuitability of the unessential system of celibacy; the monasteries should be thoroughly reformed. The proceedings of this assembly even appeared in print. Naturally both the archbishop and Bishop Hille of Leitmeritz, of which diocese Nahlowsky was a priest, expressed "their deep sorrow". Late in August the pamphlet issued by the Bohemian episcopate appeared. The contents discussed the two questions: What is the position of the Church towards the State in general and what are the special rights of the Church in dogma, liturgy, and administration. The strain he had undergone shattered the health of the archbishop and he died in March, 1849, at the age of forty-seven. His successor was Cardinal Schwarzenberg. The present prince archbishop is Leo Cardinal von Skrbensky. The Archdiocese of Prague (1911) has a population of 2,228,750 Catholics, 63,475 Protestants, 51,016 Jews. There are: 570 parishes; 1348 secular, 258 regular priests; 1517 nuns in 76 orders. (See BOHEMIA; MORAVIA.) DOBNER, Mon. hist. Boemioe (6 vols., Prague, 1764-85); Fontes rerum bohemicarum (4 vols., Prague, 1871-84); GINDELY, Mon. hist. Bohemica (5 vols., Prague, 1864-90); Mon. Vat. res bohemicas illustrantia, 1342-1404 (5 vols., Prague, 1903-05); PELZEL AND DOBROWSKY, Scriptores rerum Bohemicarum (2 vols., Prague, 1783-). Works on Bohemia: BACHMANN, Gesch. Böhmens, I (1899) to 1400, II (1905) to 1526; FRIND, Die Kirchengesch. Böhmens (4 vols., Prague, 1864-78); Die Gesch. d. Bischöfe u. Erzbischöfe von Prag (Prague, 1873); PALACKY, Gesch. von Böhmen (9 vols., Prague, 1836-67); SCHINDLER, D. soziale Wirken d. Kath. Kirche in d. Prager Erzdiözese (Vienna, 1902); WATTENBACH, Beiträge zur Gesch. d. Christ. Kirche in Mähren u. Böhmen (Vienna, 1849); VON LUTZOW (non-Catholic), Bohemia, A Historical Sketch (London, 1896); DENIS, La Bohême depuis la Montagne Blanche (Paris, 1903). C. WOLFSGRUBER University of Prague University of Prague The University of Prague was founded by Charles IV with the consent of the Estates on the model of the universities of Paris and Bologna and confirmed at the emperor's request by Clement VI as a studium generale. It was established by the Golden Bull of 7 April, 1345, and received imperial sanction 14 September, 1349 Archbishop Ernst of Pardübitz took an active part in the foundation by obliging the clergy to contribute. Its official title is "Imperial and Royal Franz Ferdinand University"; at the present time it is divided into two completely separated universities, one German and the other Bohemian or Czech, each having four faculties (namely, theology, jurisprudence, philosophy, and medicine), each its own rector and four deans. Both universities are national and are under the immediate control of the Imperial and Royal Ministry of Education at Vienna. All professors are appointed by the State, even the theological professors; these latter are appointed in agreement with the Archbishop of Prague, who is chancellor of both theological faculties. I. HISTORY From the time of its founding the University of Prague was equipped with four faculties, of which each came gradually to elect its dean for one half-year, and jointly the rector, at first for a year, then later for a half-year. On account of a dispute about an inheritance the faculty of law separated from the rest of the university in April, 1372, and from that time on, with the consent of the king, formed what might be called an independent university under the direction of a dean of its own; the chancellor was the only official whose authority extended to all the faculties; this office was held in perpetuity by the Archbishop of Prague. The list of matriculations from 1372 to 1418 of the faculty of law is still in existence. The lectures were held in the colleges, of which the oldest was the Carolinum. The chapel of the Carolinum still stands and serves as the chapel of the university for the ceremony of giving degrees. Theological instruction was given in the Carolinum and in the monasteries. For the administration of its affairs the university was divided into four "nations", according to the native land of the teachers and students, namely: the Bohemian, including Bohemians, Moravians, southern Slavs, and Hungarians; the Bavarian, including Austrians, Swabians, natives of Franconia and of the Rhine provinces; the Polish, including Silesians, Poles, Russians; the Saxon, including inhabitants of the Margravate of Meissen, Thuringia, Upper and Lower Saxony, Denmark, and Sweden. Each nation had a vote in all deliberations regarding the affairs of the university. This was changed in 1409. Although in 1403 the university had forbidden its members to follow the teachings of Wyclif, yet his doctrine constantly gained adherents in the Bohemian nation, the most conspicuous being the magister, Jerome of Prague, and John Hus. The latter had translated Wyclif's "Trialogus" into Czech. In 1401-02 Hus had been dean of the faculty of arts, in 1402-03 rector of the university; he had also been an exceedingly popular preacher at the Bethlehem chapel. The majority of the other three nations of the university had declared themselves, together with the Archbishop of Prague, on the side of Gregory XII, to whom King Wenceslaus IV was opposed, and Hus knew how to make use of the king's displeasure at this to obtain from him what is called the "Kuttenberg Decree" of 18 January, 1409. This gave the Bohemian nation three votes in all the affairs of the university and only one vote to all the other nations together; the result of this decree was the emigration of the German professors and students to Leipzig in May, 1409. In 1408 the university had about 200 doctors and magisters, 500 bachelors, and 30,000 students; it now lost a large part of this number, accounts of the loss varying from 5000 to 20,000 including 46 professors. This was the beginning of the decline of the university, from now on a national Bohemian institution, which sank to a very low status. For the faithfulness of Hus's opponents led to a far-reaching division between the theological and the secular faculties, as the latter held firmly to his teachings even after he was burnt by the Council of Constance (1414). The faculty of arts became a centre of the Hussite movement, and the chief doctrinal authority of the Utraquists. On account of the part taken by the university in ecclesiastico-political affairs, its position as a centre of Learning suffered. No degrees were given in the years 1417-30; at times there were only eight or nine professors, as in 1419 the faculties of theology and law disappeared, and only the faculty of arts remained in existence. There were also very few students, for many were unwilling to study under the Calixtine faculties and therefore went into foreign countries. The holdings of the university were taken by the Emperor Sigismund as his personal property. Under the impulse of Humanism some progress was made by the philosophical faculty when the Emperor Rudolf II (1612) took up his residence in Prague, but it did not last long. The only thing to the credit of the university was what it did in directing the school system of the country. In the meantime the Emperor Ferdinand I had called the Jesuits to Prague, in 1556, and these had opened an academy near St. Clement's, the imperial letter of foundation being dated 1562. This academy comprised a gymnasium of six classes as well as an institute for teaching theology and philosophy arranged according to the "Plan of Study" (Ratio studiorum) of the Society. At first there was only one teacher for each of the two departments of theology and philosophy. In addition, a large college was built near St. Clement's, which on this account was called the Clementina, or, after its founder, the Ferdinandea. The right of giving degrees, which it received from the emperor in 1562, was sharply contested by the old university, the Carolina. After the battle of the White Mountain, the Jesuits, who had been expelled in the years 1618-21, came to have a predominant influence over the emperor in matters concerning instruction on account of their "Plan of study", and the great work they did for Catholicism. An imperial decree of 19 September, 1622, gave them the supreme control of the entire school system of Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia. In November of the same year, after the resignation of the remaining four professors, they were also given control of the Carolina together with nine colleges, and all the rights and revenues of these, so that whoever was rector of the Jesuit college was the future rector of the Carolo-Ferdinandea. The right of giving degrees, of holding the chancellorship, and of appointing the secular professors was also granted to the Jesuits. Cardinal Ernst, Count von Harrach, who opposed this union of the university with another institution and the withdrawal of the archiepiscopal right to the chancellorship, prevented the drawing-up of the imperial Golden Bull for the confirmation of these grants. He also founded an archiepiscopal seminary of his own, the Collegium Adalbertinum, in order to secure his influence over the students in training for the priesthood. In 1638 Ferdinand III limited the monopoly of teaching enjoyed by the Jesuits by taking from them the rights, properties, and archives of the Carolina, the faculties of law and medicine, and making these once more independent under an imperial protector. During the last year of the Thirty Years' War the Karls Bridge of Prague was courageously defended against the Swedes by the students of the Carolina and Clementina under the leadership of the Jesuit Father George Plachý. After this war the university received its permanent constitution and by a formal ceremony (4 March, 1654) the Carolo-Ferdinandea was again united and placed under a chancellor, the Archbishop of Prague, and an imperial superintendent. The Jesuits retained all the professorships in the philosophical and theological faculties up to 1757, when a Dominican and an Augustinian were also appointed to give theological instruction. In the two secular faculties the number of lay professors increased after the abolition, in 1612, of the obligatory celibacy of the professors. The secular professors were appointed by the emperor, the Jesuit professors were merely presented to him. They held closely to the Ratio studiorum of the Society and, in regard to discipline and jurisdiction, they were entirely their own masters. The theological faculty had four regular professorships; that of law, four to six; the philosophical, three to five; the medical, five. The dilapidated Carolinum was rebuilt in 1718 by Max Kanka at the expense of the State. The university was strictly Catholic: the profession of faith that had to be made on receiving a degree before the chancellor, the Archbishop of Prague, excluded non-Catholics from the professorships; the rector granted the degrees for the ecclesiastical chancellor (pro cancellario). The laws of the university prescribed that the whole teaching corps should receive Communion on Maundy Thursday and (after 1602) should take part as a body in the Corpus Christi procession. From 1650 those who received degrees took an oath to maintain the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin as long as the Church did not decide against it, and this oath was annually renewed on 8 December by all the cives academici. Such, on the whole, was the status which continued until the bureaucratic reform of the universities of Austria in 1752 and 1754. This reform deprived the universities of many of their corporate rights, and rectors appointed by the State were placed at the head of the faculties; as neither the rectors nor the deans so appointed were professors, the Senate was little more than an ornamental body. Matters remained thus until 1849. A great change was brought about in the entire school system of Austria by the suppression of the Jesuits in 1773: secular priests now received positions in the theological faculty, and laymen were appointed to the philosophical faculty. In 1781 the prevailing Josephinism opened academic offices to non-Catholics, and this was followed, in 1785, by the appointment of the first Protestant as professor in the philosophical faculty; in 1781 Jews were permitted to study at the university, and in 1790 they were allowed to receive degrees. The juramentum de Immaculata Conceptione and the profession of faith on receiving a degree were dropped in 1782. The new regulations concerning studies (1784) increased the number of professorships and teaching positions in all the faculties; German was made the language of instruction, only pastoral theology and obstetrics were taught in Czech. In 1784 the professors dropped the dress peculiar to the university, which has been retained to the present only by the five proctors, the upper proctor and the proctors for the four faculties. The university was completely under the guardianship of the state, which prescribed the text-books, themes for disputation, semi-annual examinations and fees; in making all these changes, practical training was kept in view. It was not until the revolutionary year of 1848 in which the students of the University of Prague took up arms that a radical change was made. The "regulation respecting study" of 1 October, 1850, is based upon freedom of teaching and learning. By this law and that "concerning the organization of academic boards of control" the early autonomy of the university with its independent election of rectors and deans was restored. The religious limitations upon academic degrees and positions were to be entirely removed; although as late as 1863 a Protestant elected dean of the philosophical faculty failed of confirmation by the State. Since that time the election of non-Catholics as deans and rectors has been of common occurrence. Jews, also, have held the office of dean, but not, so far, that of rector, two who were elected having declined the position. Great difficulties have arisen from the national conditions. One indication of the constitutional tendency was a constant development of the national and political consciousness of the Czech majority of the Bohemian people. The university recognized this to a limited degree by founding parallel Czech professorships. Thus, in 1863, out of 187 lecture courses 22 were in Czech; the number was increased but even this did not satisfy the Czechs. Consequently, after long negotiations, the Carolo-Ferdinandea was divided into a German and a Bohemian Karl-Ferdinand University, by the law of 28 February, 1882. The academic authorities and institutions of each section are entirely independent of the other section; only the aula in the Carolinum and the university library are in common. The separation came into effect in the winter semester of 1882-83, but it did not include the theological faculty, where lectures are generally given in Latin, on account of the opposition of Cardinal Schwarzenburg. Under Schwarzenburg's successor, Cardinal Count Schönborn, this faculty was also divided in the winter semester of 1891-2, while the archiepiscopal seminary for priests remained mixed in nationality. The sum of 93,000 kronen is required for the maintenance of the 150 students of this seminary -- i. e. about 620 kronen apiece (a krone is twenty cents). Of this amount 32,043 kronen come from the revenues of the seminary; the rest is granted by the State. The separation and the constantly increasing needs of the work of teaching make new buildings necessary. Two new university buildings to replace the inadequate Carolinum are in course of construction. II. PRESENT CONDITION In the winter semester of 1909-10 the German Karl-Ferdinand University had 1778 students; these were divided into: 58 theological students, for both the secular priesthood and religious orders; 755 law students; 376 medical; 589 philosophical. Among the students were about 80 women. The professors were divided as follows: theology, 7 regular professors, 1 assistant professor, 1 docent; law, 12 regular professors, 2 assistant professors, 4 docents; medicine, 15 regular professors, 19 assistant, 30 docents; philosophy, 30 regular professors, 8 assistant, 19 docents, 7 lecturers. The budget for the year (not including building expenses) was: 1,612,246 kronen ($322,450) for regular expenses, 94,534 kronen for extraordinary expenses. The student associations, copied from those in the German Empire, are highly developed. The principal ones are: the "Reading and Debating Club of the German Students" founded in 1848, with about 500 members; the "Germania", founded in 1892, with 600 members (both Liberal associations); the Catholic association, "Academia", founded in 1909, with over a hundred members. In the face of over twenty student corps which have colours of their own and favour duelling, the three Catholic corps with about a hundred active members have a difficult position; yet they continually increase in number. In aid of the students there is a German students' home with a hundred rooms and a students' commons. The Bohemian Karl-Ferdinand University in the winter semester of 1909-10 included 4319 students; of these 131 were theological students belonging both to the secular and regular clergy; 1962 law students; 687 medical; 1539 philosophical; 256 students were women. The professors were divided as follows: theological faculty, 8 regular professors, 2 docents; law, 12 regular, 7 assistant professors, 12 docents; medicine, 16 regular professors, 22 assistant, 24 docents; philosophy, 29 regular, 16 assistant, 35 docents, 11 lecturers. The annual budget amounts to 1,763,790 kronen ($352,758) for regular expenditures, and 117,760 kronen for extraordinary expenditures, without including building expenses. The theological faculty is temporarily housed in a private residence. The "Academic Reading Society" (Akademický ctenárský spolek) is Liberal in religion, the "Svaz cesko-slovanas-kého studentstva" is more radical still. In comparison with these the Catholic associations are comparatively weak. They are: "Druzstvo Arnosta z Pardubie" (100 to 200 members), "Ceska akademicka Liga", and the Slavonic "Dan". In addition to the Hlaska house of studies for students, there is a Catholic home for students founded by Ernst von Pardübitz. The library common to both universities, and to which the public is also admitted, contains 375,630 volumes; among these are 3921 manuscripts, and 1523 early printed books. The expenses of the library for 1910 were 178,509 kronen ($35,702). TOMAK, Gesch. der Prager Universität (Prague, 1849); IDEM, Gesch. von Prag (12 vols., Prague, 1856-1901), in Bohemian; ZSCHOKKA, Theologische Studien und Anstalten im Osterreich (Vienna, 1894), 157-219; ERMANN-HORN, Bibliographia der deutschen Universitäten, II (Leipzig, 1904), nn. 14790 sqq.; Die Karl-Ferdinands- Universität in Prag 1848-1898 (Prague, 1898); Prag als deutscher Hochschulstadt (2nd ed., Prague, 1910); RASHDALL, Universities of the Middle Ages, II (Oxford, 1895). KARL HILGENREINER Praxeas Praxeas An early anti-Montanist, is known to us only by Tertullian's book "Adversus Praxean". His name in the list of heresies appended to the "De Praescriptionibus" of that writer (an anonymous epitome of the lost "Syntagma" of Hippolytus) is a correction made by some ancient diorthotes for Noetus. Praxeas was an Asiatic, and was inflated with pride (says Tertullian) as a confessor of the Faith because he had been for a short time in prison. He was well received at Rome (c. 190-98) by the pope (Victor, or possibly Zephyrinus). The latter pope had decided to acknowledge the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla (if we may believe Tertullian). The intention had been sufficiently public to bring peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia == so much depended on the papal sanction; but Praxeas prevailed upon the pope to recall his letter. He came to Carthage before Tertullian had renounced the Catholic communion (c. 206-8). He taught Monarchian doctrine there, or at least doctrine which Tertullian regarded as Monarchian: "Patrem cruci fixit; Paraclitum fugavit" == "Having driven out the Paraclete [Montanus], he now crucified the Father". He was refuted, evidently by Tertullian himself, and gave an explanation or recantation in writing, which, when Tertullian wrote several years afterwards, was still in the hands of the authorities of the Carthaginian Church, the carnal", as he affects to call them. When Tertullian wrote he himself was no longer in the Church; Monarchianism had sprung up again, but he does not mention its leaders at Rome, and directs his whole argument against his old enemy Praxeas. But the arguments which he refutes are doubtless those of Epigonus and Cleomenes. There is little reason for thinking that Praxeas was a heresiarch, and less for identifying him with Noetus, or one of his disciples. He was very likely merely an adversary of the Montanists who used some quasi-Monarchian expressions when at Carthage, but afterwards them when he saw they might be misunderstood. On the identification by Hageman of Praxeas with Callistus, see MONARCHIANS. JOHN CHAPMAN Praexedes and Pudentia Praexedes and Pudentia Martyrs of an unknown era. The seventh-century itineraries to the graves of the Roman martyrs mention in the catacomb of Priscilla two female martyrs called Potentiana (Potenciana) and Praxedis (Praxidis). They occupied adjoining graves in this catacomb (De Rossi. "Roma sott.", 1, 176-7). Of the various manuscripts of the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" only the Echtemach Codex (Cod. Eptern.) gives the name of St. Praxedes on 21 July ("Martyrol. Hieronym.", ed. De Rossi-Duchesne, 94), but it looks like a later addition, and not as if it came from the fourth-century Romar Martyrology. St. Potentiana's name is found under 19 May in the Martvrology of Reichenau. Praxedes and Pudentiana were venerated as martyrs at Rome. Later legends connect them with the founder of the old title-church of Rome, "titulus Pudentis", called also the "ecclesia Pudentiana". Legend makes Pudens a pupil of St. Peter, and Praxedes and Potentiana, his daughters. Later Potentiana became customarily known as "Pudentiana ", probably because the "ecclesia Pudentiana" was designated as "eccl. sanctae Pudentianae" and Pudentiana was identified with Potentiana. The two female figures offering their crowns to Christ in the mosaic of the apse in St. Pudentiana are probably Potentiana and Praxedes. The veneration of these martyrs therefore was in the fourth century connected in a particular manner with the "Titulus Pudentis". About that time a new church, "titulus Praxedis", was built near Santa Maria Maggiore, and the veneration of St. Praxedes was now especially connected with it. When Paschal I (817-824) rebuilt the church in its present form he translated to it the bones of Sts. Praxedes, Potentiana, and other martyrs. St. Pudentiana's feast is observed on 19 May, St. Praxedes's on 21 July. J.P. KIRSCH George Pray George Pray Abbot, canon, librarian of the University library of Buda, and important Hungarian historian, b. at Ersekujvár, 11 Sept., 1723; died in Pesth, 23 Sept., 1801. His family came from the Tyrol. He studied in Pozsony, entered the Society of Jesus in 1745, spent two years in the Jesuit college (St. Ann's) in Vienna, and completed his higher studies at Nagy-Szombat. He taught at Nagy-Varád, Trencsén, Nagy-Szombat, and Pozsony. In 1754 he was ordained and continued teaching in Rozsnyó and in the Theresianum at Vienna, where he was professor of political science, and, at the same time, tutor to the princesses of Salm. He was professor in Györ (1758), Nagy-Szombat (1759), and Buda (1760), where, among other subjects, he lectured on moral theology. At the suppression of the Jesuits (1773), he went to the Archdiocese of Gran, and Maria Theresa appointed him imperial historiographer, with a yearly income of 400 florins. When the University of Nagy-Szombat was transferred to Pesth (1777), Pray was given charge of the library; he resigned this position in 1780, but resumed it in 1784. During this year he surrendered his manuscripts and collection of documents to the university library for a life annuity of 400 florins. He became canon in Grosswardein (1790), and was sent by the chapter as its representative to the Hungarian Reichstag. Later he became Abbott of Tormowa. His literary activity embraced the history of Hungary, especially the early centuries, the history of the Catholic church in Hungary, and editing the sources of Hungarian history. He was the first to draw attention to the oldest coherent text in the Hungarian language, "Oratio funebris", dating probably from 1199, which was called after him "The Pray-codex". Among his works may be mentioned: "Annales veteres Hunnorum Avarorum et Hungarorum, 210 ad 997" (Vienna, 1761); "Annales regum Hungariæ, 997-1564" (5 vols., Vienna, 1763-70); "Vita S. Elizabethæ" (Vienna, 1770); "Specimen Hierarchiæ Hungariæ" (2 vols., Presburg, 1776-9). SZINNYEI in Magyar irók élete és munkái (Life and works of Hungarian writers), XI, where the bibliography of his works and matter concerning him are collected. A. =E7LD=E7SY Prayer Prayer (Greek euchesthai, Latin precari, French prier, to plead, to beg, to ask earnestly). An act of the virtue of religion which consists in asking proper gifts or graces from God. In a more general sense it is the application of the mind to Divine things, not merely to acquire a knowledge of them but to make use of such knowledge as a means of union with God. This may be done by acts of praise and thanksgiving, but petition is the principal act of prayer. The words used to express it in Scripture are: to call up (Gen., iv, 26); to intercede (Job, xxii, 10); to mediate (Is., liii, 10); to consult (I Kings, xxviii, 6); to beseech (Ex., xxxii, 11); and, very commonly, to cry out to. The Fathers speak of it as the elevation of the mind to God with a view to asking proper things from Him (St. John Damascene, "De fide", III, xxiv, in P.G., XCIV, 1090); communing and conversing with God (St. Gregory of Nyssa, "De oratione dom.", in P.G., XLIV, 1125); talking with God (St. John Chrysostom, "Hom. xxx in Gen.", n. 5, in P.G., LIII, 280). It is therefore the expression of our desires to God whether for ourselves or others. This expression is not intended to instruct or direct God what to do, but to appeal to His goodness for the things we need; and the appeal is necessary, not because He is ignorant of our needs or sentiments, but to give definite form to our desires, to concentrate our whole attention on what we have to recommend to Him, to help us appreciate our close personal relation with Him. The expression need not be external or vocal; internal or mental is sufficient. By prayer we acknowledge God's power and goodness, our own neediness and dependence. It is therefore an act of the virtue of religion implying the deepest reverence for God and habituating us to look to Him for everything, not merely because the thing asked be good in itself, or advantageous to us, but chiefly because we wish it as a gift of God, and not otherwise, no matter how good or desirable it may seem to us. Prayer presupposes faith in God and hope in His goodness. By both, God, to whom we pray, moves us to prayer. Our knowledge of God by the light of natural reason also inspires us to look to Him for help, but such prayer lacks supernatural inspiration, and though it may avail to keep us from losing our natural knowledge of God and trust in Him, or, to some extent, from offending Him, it cannot positively dispose us to receive His graces. Objects of Prayer Like every act that makes for salvation, grace is required not only to dispose us to pray, but also to aid us in determining what to pray for. In this "the spirit helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings" (Rom., viii, 26). For certain objects we are always sure we should pray, such as our salvation and the general means to it, resistance to temptation, practice of virtue, final perseverance; but constantly we need light and the guidance of the Spirit to know the special means that will most help us in any particular need. That there may be no possibility of misjudgment on our part in such an essential obligation, Christ has taught us what we should ask for in prayer and also in what order we should ask it. In response to the request of His disciples to teach them how to pray, He repeated the prayer commonly spoken of as the Lord's Prayer (q. v.), from which it appears that above all we are to pray that God may be glorified, and that for this purpose men may be worthy citizens of His kingdom, living in conformity with His will. Indeed, this conformity is implied in every prayer: we should ask for nothing unless it be strictly in accordance with Divine Providence in our regard. So much for the spiritual objects of our prayer. We are to ask also for temporal things, our daily bread, and all that it implies, health, strength, and other worldly or temporal goods, not material or corporal only, but mental and moral, every accomplishment that may be a means of serving God and our fellow- men. Finally, there are the evils which we should pray to escape, the penalty of our sins, the dangers of temptation, and every manner of physical or spiritual affliction, so far as these might impede us in God's service. To whom may we pray Although God the Father is mentioned in this prayer as the one to whom we are to pray, it is not out of place to address our prayers to the other Divine persons. The special appeal to one does not exclude the others. More commonly the Father is addressed in the beginning of the prayers of the Church, though they close with the invocation, "Through Our Lord Jesus Christ Thy Son who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Ghost, world without end". If the prayer be addressed to God the Son, the conclusion is: "Who livest and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end"; or, "Who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity, etc.". Prayer may be addressed to Christ as Man, because He is a Divine Person, not however to His human nature as such, precisely because prayer must always be addressed to a person, never to something impersonal or in the abstract. An appeal to anything impersonal, as for instance to the Heart, the Wounds, the Cross of Christ, must be taken figuratively as intended for Christ Himself. Who can pray As He has promised to intercede for us (John, xiv, 16), and is said to do so (Rom., viii, 34; Heb., vii, 25), we may ask His intercession, though this is not customary in public worship. He prays in virtue of His own merits; the saints intercede for us in virtue of His merits, not their own. Consequently when we pray to them, it is to ask for their intercession in our behalf, not to expect that they can bestow gifts on us of their own power, or obtain them in virtue of their own merit. Even the souls in purgatory, according to the common opinion of theologians, pray to God to move the faithful to offer prayers, sacrifices, and expiatory works for them. They also pray for themselves and for souls still on earth. The fact that Christ knows the future, or that the saints may know many future things, does not prevent them from praying. As they foresee the future, so also they foresee how its happenings may be influenced by their prayers, and they at least by prayer do all in their power to bring about what is best, though those for whom they pray may not dispose themselves for the blessings thus invoked. The just can pray, and sinners also. The opinion of Quesnel that the prayer of the sinned adds to his sin was condemned by Clement XI (Denzinger, 10 ed., n. 1409). Though there is no supernatural merit in the sinner's prayer, it may be heard, and indeed he is obliged to make it just as before he sinned. No matter how hardened he may become in sin, he needs and is bound to pray to be delivered from it and from the temptations which beset him. His prayer could offend God only if it were hypocritical, or presumptuous, as if he should ask God to suffer him to continue in his evil course. It goes without saying that in hell prayer is impossible; neither devils nor lost souls can pray, or be the object of prayer. For whom we may pray For the blessed prayers may be offered not with the hope of increasing their beatitude, but that their glory may be better esteemed and their deeds imitated. In praying for one another we assume that God will bestow His favours in consideration of those who pray. In virtue of the solidarity of the Church, that is, of the close relations of the faithful as members of the mystical Body of Christ, any one may benefit by the good deeds, and especially by the prayers of the others as if participating in them. This is the ground of St. Paul's desire that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men (Tim., ii, 1), for all, without exception, in high or low station, for the just, for sinners, for infidels; for the dead as well as for the living; for enemies as well as for friends. (See COMMUNION OF SAINTS). Effects of Prayer In hearing our prayer God does not change His will or action in our regard, but simply puts into effect what He had eternally decreed in view of our prayer. This He may do directly without the intervention of any secondary cause as when He imparts to us some supernatural gift, such as actual grace, or indirectly, when He bestows some natural gift. In this latter case He directs by His Providence the natural causes which contribute to the effect desired, whether they be moral or free agents, such as men; or some moral and others not, but physical and not free; or, again, when none of them is free. Finally, by miraculous intervention, and without employing any of these causes, He can produce the effect prayed for. The use or habit of prayer redounds to our advantage in many ways. Besides obtaining the gifts and graces we need, the very process elevates our mind and heart to a knowledge and love of Divine things, greater confidence in God, and other precious sentiments. Indeed, so numerous and so helpful are these effects of prayer that they compensate us, even when the special object of our prayer is not granted. Often they are of far greater benefit than what we ask for. Nothing that we might obtain in answer to our prayer could exceed in value the familiar converse with God in which prayer consists. In addition to these effects of prayer, we may (de congruo) merit by it restoration to grace, if we are in sin; new inspirations of grace, increase of sanctifying grace, and satisfy for the temporal punishment due to sin. Signal as all these benefits are, they are only incidental to the proper effect of prayer due to its impetratory power based on the infallible promise of God, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you" (Matt., vii, 7); "Therefore I say unto you, all things whatsoever you ask when ye pray, believe that you shall receive" (Mark, xi, 24 == see also Luke, xi, 11; John, xvi, 24, as well as innumerable assurances to this effect in the Old Testament). Conditions of Prayer Absolute though Christ's assurances in regard to prayer would seem to be, they do not exclude certain conditions on which the efficacy of prayer depends. In the first place, its object must be worthy of God and good for the one who prays, spiritually or temporally. This condition is always implied in the prayer of one who is resigned to God's will, ready to accept any spiritual favour God may be pleased to grant, and desirous of temporal ones only in so far as they may help to serve God. Next, faith is needed, not only the general belief that God is capable of answering prayer or that it is a powerful means of obtaining His favour, but also the implicit trust in God's fidelity to His promise to hear a prayer in some particular instance. This trust implies a special act of faith and hope that if our request be for our good, God will grant it, or something else equivalent or better, which in His Wisdom He deems best for us. To be efficacious prayer should be humble. To ask as if one had a binding claim on God's goodness, or title of whatever colour to obtain some favour, would not be prayer but demand. The parable of the Pharisee and the Publican illustrates this very clearly, and there are innumerable testimonies in Scripture to the power of humility in prayer. "A contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise" (Ps. 1, 19). "The prayer of him that humbleth himself shall pierce the clouds" (Eccl., xxxv, 21). Without sacrifice of humility we may and should try to be sure that our conscience is good, and that there is no defect in our conduct inconsistent with prayer; indeed, we may even appeal to our merits so far as they recommend us to God, provided always that the principal motives of one's confidence are God's goodness and the merits of Christ. Sincerity is another necessary quality of prayer. It would be idle to ask favour without doing all that may be in our power to obtain it; to beg for it without really wishing for it; or, at the same time that one prays, to do anything inconsistent with the prayer. Earnestness or fervour is another such quality, precluding all lukewarm or half-hearted petitions. To be resigned to God's will in prayer does not imply that one should be indifferent in the sense that one does not care whether one be heard or not, or should as lief not receive as receive; on the contrary, true resignation to God's will is possible only after we have desired and earnestly expressed our desire in prayer for such things as seem needful to do God's will. This earnestness is the element which makes the persevering prayer so well described in such parables as the Friend at Midnight (Luke, xi, 5-8), or, the Widow and the Unjust Judge (Luke, xviii, 2-5), and which ultimately obtains the precious gift of perseverance in grace. Attention in Prayer Finally, attention is of the very essence of prayer. As an expression of sentiment emanating from our intellectual faculties prayer requires their application, i.e. attention. As soon as this attention ceases, prayer ceases. To begin praying and allow the mind to be wholly diverted or distracted to some other occupation or thought necessarily terminates the prayer, which is resumed only when the mind is withdrawn from the object of distraction. To admit distraction is wrong when one is obliged to apply oneself to prayer; when there is no such obligation, one is at liberty to pass from the subject of prayer, provided it be done without irreverence, to any other proper subject. This is all very simple when applied to mental prayer; but does vocal prayer require the same attention as mental,-in other words, when praying vocally must one attend to the meaning of words, and if one should cease to do so, would one by that very fact cease to pray? Vocal prayer differs from mental precisely in this that mental prayer is not possible without attention to the thoughts that are conceived and expressed whether internally or externally. Neither is it possible to pray without attending to thought and words when we attempt to express our sentiment in our own words; whereas all that is needed for vocal prayer proper is the repetition of certain words, usually a set form with the intention of using them in prayer. So long as the intention lasts, i.e. so long as nothing is done to terminate it or wholly inconsistent with it, so long as one continues to repeat the form of prayer, with proper reverence in disposition and outward manner, with only this general purpose of praying according to the prescribed form, so long as one continues to pray and no thought or external act can be considered a distraction unless it terminate our intention, or by levity or irreverence be wholly inconsistent with the prayer. Thus one may pray in the crowded streets where it is impossible to avoid sights and sounds and consequent imaginations and thoughts. Provided one repeats the words of the prayer and avoids wilful distractions of mind to things in no way pertaining to prayer, one may through mental infirmity or inadvertence admit numerous thoughts not connected with the subject of the prayer, without irreverence. It is true, this amount of attention does not enable one to derive from prayer the full spiritual advantage it should bring; nay, to be satisfied with it as a rule would result in admitting distractions quite freely and wrongfully. For this reason it is advisable not only to keep the mind bent on praying but also to think of the purport of the prayer, and as far as possible to think of the meaning of some at least of the sentiments or expressions of the prayer. As a means of cultivating the habit, it is recommended, notably in the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius, often to recite certain familiar prayers, the Lord's Prayer, the Angelical Salutation, the Creed, the Confiteor, slowly enough to admit the interval of a breath between the principal words or sentences, so as to have time to think of their meaning, and to feel in one's heart the appropriate emotions. Another practice strongly recommended by the same author is to take each sentence of these prayers as a subject of reflection, not delaying too long on any one of them unless one finds in it some suggestion or helpful thought or sentiment, but then stopping to reflect as long as one finds proper food for thought or emotion, and, when one has dwelt sufficiently on any passage, finishing the prayer without further deliberate reflection (see DISTRACTION). Necessity of Prayer Prayer is necessary for salvation. It is a distinct precept of Christ in the Gospels (Matt., vi, 9; vii, 7; Luke, xi, 9; John, xvi, 26; Col., iv, 2; Rom., xii, 12; I Pet., iv, 7). The precept imposes on us only what is really necessary as a means of salvation. Without prayer we cannot resist temptation, nor obtain God's grace, nor grow and persevere in it. This necessity is incumbent on all according to their different states in life, especially on those who by virtue of their office, of priesthood, for instance, or other special religious obligations, should in a special manner pray for their own welfare and for others. The obligation to pray is incumbent on us at all times. "And he spoke also a parable, to them that we ought always to pray, and not to faint" (Luke, xviii, 1); but it is especially pressing when we are in great need of prayer, when without it we cannot overcome some obstacle or perform some obligation; when, to fulfil various obligations of charity, we should pray for others; and when it is specially implied in some obligation imposed by the Church, such as attendance at Mass, and the observance of Sundays and feast-days. This is true of vocal prayer, and as regards mental prayer, or meditation, this, too, is necessary so far as we may need to apply our mind to the study of Divine things in order to acquire a knowledge of the truths necessary for salvation. The obligation to pray is incumbent on us at all times, not that prayer should be our sole occupation, as the Euchites, or Messalians, and similar heretical sects professed to believe. The texts of Scripture bidding us to pray without ceasing mean that we must pray whenever it is necessary, as it so frequently is necessary; that we must continue to pray until we shall have obtained what we need. Some writers speak of a virtuous life as an uninterrupted prayer, and appeal to the adage "to toil is to pray" (laborare est orare). This does not mean that virtue or labour replaces the duty of prayer, since it is not possible either to practise virtue or to labour properly without frequent use of prayer. The Wyclifites and Waldenses, according to Suarez, advocated what they called vital prayer, consisting in good works, to the exclusion even of all vocal prayer except the Our Father. For this reason Suarez does not approve of the expression, though St. Francis de Sales uses it to mean prayer reinforced by work, or rather work which is inspired by prayer. The practice of the Church, devoutly followed by the faithful, is to begin and end the day with prayer; and though morning and evening prayer is not of strict obligation, the practice of it so well satisfies our sense of the need of prayer that neglect of it, especially for a long time is regarded as more or less sinful, according to the cause of the neglect, which is commonly some form of sloth. Vocal Prayer Prayer may be classified as vocal or mental, private or public. In vocal prayer some outward action, usually verbal expression, accompanies the internal act implied in every form of prayer. This external action not only helps to keep us attentive to the prayer, but it also adds to its intensity. Examples of it occur in the prayer of the Israelites in captivity (Ex., ii, 23); again after their idolatry among the Chanaanites (Judges, iii, 9); the Lord's Prayer (Matt., vi, 9); Christ's own prayer after resuscitating Lazarus (John, xi, 41); and the testimonies in Heb., v, 7, and xiii, 15, and frequently we are recommended to use hymns, canticles, and other vocal forms of prayer. It has been common in the Church from the beginning; nor has it ever been denied, except by the Wyclifites and the Quietists. The former objected to it as unnecessary, as God does not need our words to know what goes on in our souls, and prayer being a spiritual act need be performed by the soul alone without the body. The latter regarded all external action in prayer as an untoward disturbance or interference with the passivity of the soul required, in their opinion, to pray properly. It is obvious that prayer must be the action of the entire man, body as well as soul; that God who created both is pleased with the service of both, and that when the two act in unison they help instead of interfering with one another's activities. The Wyclifites objected not only to all external expression of prayer generally, but to vocal prayer in its proper sense, viz. Prayer expressed in set form of words, excepting only the Our Father. The use of a variety of such forms is sanctioned by the prayer over the first-fruits (Deut., xxvi, 13). If it be right to use one form, that of the Our Father, why not others also? The Litany, Collective and Eucharistic prayers of the early Church were surely set forms, and the familiar daily prayers, the Our Father, Hail Mary, Apostles' Creed, Confiteor, Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, all attest the usage of the Church in this respect and the preference of the faithful for such approved forms to others of their own composition. Postures in Prayer Postures in prayer are also an evidence of the tendency in human nature to express inward sentiment by outward sign. Not only among Jews and Christians, but among pagan peoples also, certain postures were considered appropriate in prayer, as, for instance, standing with arms raised among the Romans. The Orante indicates the postures favoured by the early Christians, standing with hands extended, as Christ on the Cross, according to Tertullian; or with hands raised towards heaven, with bowed heads, or, for the faithful, with eyes raised toward heaven, and, for the catechumens, with eyes bent on the earth; prostration, kneeling, genuflection, and such gestures as striking the breast are all outward signs of the reverence proper for prayer, whether in public or private. Mental Prayer Meditation is a form of mental prayer consisting in the application of the various faculties of the soul, memory, imagination, intellect, and will, to the consideration of some mystery, principle, truth, or fact, with a view to exciting proper spiritual emotions and resolving on some act or course of action regarded as God's will and as a means of union with Him. In some degree or other it has always been practised by God-fearing souls. There is abundant evidence of this in the Old Testament, as, for instance, in Ps. xxxviii, 4; lxii, 7; lxxvi, 13; cxviii throughout; Ecclus., xiv, 22; Is., xxvi, 9; lvii, 1; Jer., xii, 11. In the New Testament Christ gave frequent examples of it, and St. Paul often refers to it, as in Eph., vi, 18; Col., iv, 2; I Tim., iv, 15; I Cor., xiv, 15. It has always been practised in the Church. Among others who have recommended it to the faithful as Chrysostom in his two books on prayer, as also in his "Hom. xxx in Gen." and "Hom. vi. in Isaiam"; Cassian in "Conference ix"; St. Jerome in "Epistola 22 ad Eustochium"; St. Basil in his "Homily on St. Julitta, M.", and "In regular breviori", 301; St. Cyprian, "In expositione orationis dominicalis"; St. Ambrose, "De sacramentis", VI, iii; St. Augustine, "Epist. 121 ad Probam", cc. v, vi, vii; Boctius, "De spiritu et anima", xxxii; St. Leo, "Sermo viii de jejunio"; St. Bernard, "De consecratione'", I, vii; St. Thomas, II-II, Q. lxxxiii, a. 2. The writings of the Fathers themselves and of the great theologians are in large measure the fruit of devout meditation as well as of study of the mysteries of religion. There is, however, no trace of methodical meditation before the fifteenth century. Prior to that time, even in monasteries, no regulation seems to have existed for the choir or arrangement of subject, the order, method, and time of the consideration. From the beginning, before the middle of the twelfth century, the Carthusians had times set apart for mental prayer, as appears from Guigo's "Consuetudinary", but no further regulation. About the beginning of the sixteenth century one of the Brothers of the Common Life, Jean Mombaer of Brussels, issued a series of subjects or points for meditation. The monastic rules generally prescribed times for common prayer, usually the recitation of the Office, leaving it to the individual to ponder as he might on one or other of the texts. Early in the sixteenth century the Dominican chapter of Milan prescribed mental prayer for half an hour morning and evening. Among the Franciscans there is record of methodical mental prayer about the middle of that century. Among the Carmelites there was no regulation for it until Saint Theresa introduced it for two hours daily. Although Saint Ignatius reduced meditation to such a definite method in his spiritual exercises, it was not made part of his rule until thirty years after the formation of the Society. His method and that of St. Sulpice have helped to spread the habit of meditating beyond the cloister among the faithful everywhere. Methods of Meditation In the method of St. Ignatius the subject of the meditation is chosen beforehand, usually the previous evening. It may be any truth or fact whatever concerning God or the human soul, God's existence, His attributes, such as justice, mercy, love, wisdom, His law, providence, revelation, creation and its purpose, sin and its penalties, death, creation and its purpose, sin and its penalties, death, judgment, hell, redemption, etc. The precise aspect of the subject should be determined very definitely, otherwise its consideration will be general or superficial and of no practical benefit. As far as possible its application to one's spiritual needs should be foreseen, and to work up interest in it, as one retires and rises, one should recall it to mind so as to make it a sleeping and a waking thought. When ready for meditation, a few moments should be given to recollecting what we are about to do so as to begin with quiet of mind and deeply impressed with the sacredness of prayer. A brief act of adoration of God naturally follows, with a petition that our intention to honour Him in prayer may be sincere and persevering, and that every faculty and act, interior and exterior, may contribute to His service and praise. The subject of the meditation is then recalled to mind, and in order to fix the attention, the imagination is here employed to construct some scene appropriate to the subject, e.g. the Garden of Paradise, if the meditation be on Creation, or the Fall of Man; the Valley of Jehosaphat, for the Last Judgment; or, for Hell, the bottomless and boundless pit of fire. This is called the composition of the place, and even when the subject of meditation has no apparent material associations, the imagination can always devise some scene or sensible image that will help to fix or recall one's attention and appreciate the spiritual matter under consideration. Thus, when considering sin, especially carnal sin, as enslaving the soul, the Book of Wisdom, ix, 15, suggests the similarity of the body to the prison house of the soul: "The corruptible body is a load upon the soul, and the earthly habitation presseth down the mind that museth upon many things." Quite often this initial step, or prelude as it is called, might occupy one profitably the entire time set apart for meditation; but ordinarily it should be made in a few minutes. A brief petition follows for the special grace one hopes to obtain and then the meditation proper begins. The memory recalls the subject as definitely as possible, one point at a time, repeating it over if necessary, always as a matter of intimate personal interest, and with a strong act of faith until the intellect naturally apprehends the truth or the import of the fact under consideration, and begins to conceive it as a matter for careful consideration, reasoning about it and studying what it implies for one's welfare. Gradually an intense interest is aroused in these reflections, until, with faith quickening the natural intelligence one begins to perceive applications of the truth or fact to one's condition and needs and to feel the advantage or necessity of acting upon the conclusions drawn from one's reflections. This is the important moment of meditation. The conviction that we need or should do something in accordance with our consideration begets in us desires or resolutions which we long to accomplish. It we are serious we shall admit of no self-deception either as to the propriety or possibility of such resolutions on our part. No matter what it may cost us to be consistent, we shall adopt them, and the more we appreciate their difficulty and our own weakness or incapacity, the more we shall try to value the motives which prompt us to adopt them, and above all the more we shall pray for grace to be able to carry them out. If we are in earnest we shall not be satisfied with a superficial process. In the light of the truth we are meditating, our past experience will come to mind and confront us perhaps with memory of failure in previous attempts similar to those we are considering now, or at least with a keen sense of the difficulty to be apprehended, making us more solicitous about the motives animating us and humble in petitioning God's grace. These petitions, as well as all the various emotions that arise from our reflections, find expression in terms of prayer to God which are called colloquies, or conversations with Him. They may occur at any point in the process, whenever our thoughts inspire us to call upon God for our needs, or even for light to perceive and appreciate them and to know the means of obtaining them. This general process is subject to variations according to the character of the matter under consideration. The number of preludes and colloquies may vary, and the time spent in reasoning may be greater or less according to our familiarity with the subject. There is nothing mechanical in the process; indeed, if analysed, it is clearly the natural operation of each faculty and of all in concert. Roothaan, who has prepared the best summary of it, recommends a remote preparation for it, so as to know whether we are properly disposed to enter into meditation, and, after each exercise, a brief review of each part of it in detail to see how far we may have succeeded. It is strongly advised to select as a means of recalling the leading thought or motive or affection some brief memorandum, preferably couched in the words of some text of Scripture, the "Imitation of Christ", the Fathers of the Church, or of some accredited writer on spiritual things. Meditation made regularly according to this method tends to create an atmosphere or spirit of prayer. The method in vogue among the Sulpicians and followed by the students in their seminaries is not substantially different from this. According to Chenart, companion of Olier and for a long time director of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, the meditation should consist of three parts: the preparation, the prayer proper, and the conclusion. By way of preparation we should begin with acts of adoration of Almighty God, of self-humiliation, and with fervent petition to be directed by the Holy Spirit in our prayer to know how to make it well and obtain its fruits. The prayer proper consists of considerations and the spiritual emotions or affections that result from such considerations. Whatever the subject of the meditation may be, it should be considered as it may have been exemplified in the life of Christ, in itself, and in its practical importance for ourselves. The simpler these considerations are the better. A long or intricate course of reasoning is not at all desirable. When some reasoning is needed, it should be simple and always in the light of faith. Speculation, subtlety, curiosity are all out of place. Plain, practical reflections, always with an eye to self-examination, in order to see how well or ill our conduct conforms to the conclusions we derive from such reflections, are by means to be sought. The affections are the main object of the meditation. These are to have charity as their aim and norm. They should be few, if possible, one only of such simplicity and intensity that it can inspire the soul to act on the conclusion derived from the consideration and resolve to do something definite in the service of God. To seek too many affections only distracts or dissipates the attention of the mind and weakens the resolution of the will. If it be difficult to limit the emotions to one, it is not well to make much effort to do so, but better to devote our energies to deriving the best fruit we can from such as arise naturally and with ease from our mental reflections. As a means of keeping in mind during the day the uppermost thought or motive of the meditation we are advised to cull a spiritual nosegay, as it is quaintly called, with which to refresh the memory from time to time. Meditation carefully followed forms habits of recalling and reasoning rapidly and with some ease about Divine things in such a manner as to excite pious affections, which become very ardent and which attach us very strongly to God's will. When prayer is made up chiefly of such affections, it is called by Alvarez de Paz, and other writers since his time, affective prayer, to denote that instead of having to labour mentally to admit or grasp a truth, we have grown so familiar with it that almost the mere recollection of it fills us with sentiments of faith, hope, charity; moves us to practise more generously one or other of the moral virtues; inspires us to make some act of self-sacrifice or to attempt some work for the glory of God. When these affections become more simple, that is, less numerous, less varied, and less interrupted or impeded by reasoning or mental attempts to find expression either for considerations or affections, they constitute what is called the prayer of simplicity by Bossuet and those who follow his terminology, of simple attention to one dominant thought or Divine object without reasoning on it, but simply letting it recur at intervals to renew or strengthen the sentiments which keep the soul united to God. These degrees of prayer are denoted by various terms by writers on spiritual subjects, the prayer of the heart, active recollection, and by the paradoxical phrases, active repose, active quietude, active silence, as opposed to similar passive states; St. Francis de Sales called it the prayer of simple committal to God, not in the sense of doing nothing or of remaining inert in His sight, but doing all we can to control our own restless and aberrant faculties so as to keep them disposed for His action. By whatever name these degrees of prayer may be called, it is important not to confuse them with any of the modes of Quietism (see GUYON, MOLINOS), as also not to exaggerate their importance, as if they were absolutely different from vocal prayers and meditation, since they are only degrees of ordinary prayer. With more than usual attention to the sentiment of a set form of prayer meditation begins; the practice of meditation develops a habit of centering our affections on Divine things; as this habit is cultivated, distractions are more easily avoided, even such as arise from our own varied and complex thoughts or emotions, until God or any truth or fact relating to Him becomes the simple object of our undisturbed attention, and this attention is held steadfast by the firm and ardent affection it excites. St. Ignatius and other masters in the art of prayer have provided suggestions for passing from meditation proper to these further degrees of prayer. In the "Spiritual Exercises" the repetition of previous meditations consists in affective prayer, and the exercises of the second week, the contemplations of the life of Christ, are virtually the same as the prayer of simplicity, which is in its last analysis the same as the ordinary practice of contemplation. Other modes of prayer are described under CONTEMPLATION; PRAYER OF QUIET. The classification of private and public prayer is made to denote distinction between the prayer of the individual, whether in or out of the presence of others, for his or for others needs, and all prayer offered officially or liturgically whether in public or in secret, as when a priest recites the Divine Office outside of choir. All the liturgical prayers of the Church are public, as are all the prayers which one in sacred orders offers in his ministerial capacity. These public prayers are usually offered in places set apart for this purpose, in churches or chapels, just as in the Old Law they were offered in the Temple and in the synagogue. Special times are appointed for them: the hours for the various parts of the daily Office, days of rogation or of vigil, seasons of Advent and Lent; and occasions of special need, affliction, thanksgiving, jubilee, on the part of all, or of large numbers of the faithful. (See UNION OF PRAYER.) ST. THOMAS, II-II, Q. lxxxiii; SUAREZ, De oratione, I, in De religione, IV; PESCH, Praelectiones dogmaticae, IX (Freiburg, 1902); ST. BERNARD, Scala claustralium, attributed to St. Augustine under the title of Scala paradisi in volume IX among his works; ROOTHAAN, The Method of Meditation (New York, 1858); LETOURNEAU, Methode d'oraison mentale du seminaire de St-Sulpice (Paris, 1903); Catechism of the Council of Trent, tr. DONOVAN (Dublin, s. d.); POULAIN, The Graces of Interior Prayer (St. Louis, 1911); CAUSADE, Progress in Prayer, tr. SHEEHAN (St. Louis); FISHER, A Treatise on Prayer (London, 1885); EGGER, Are Our Prayers Heard? (London, 1910); ST. FRANCIS DE SALES, Treatise of the Love of God (tr. London, 1884); ST. PETER OF ALCANTARA, A Golden Treatise on Mental Prayer (tr. Oxford, 1906); FABER, Growth in Holiness (London, 1854). Among the many books of meditation, the following may be mentioned: AVANCINI, Vita et doctrina Jesu Christi ex quatuor evangeliis collectae (Paris, 1850); DE PONTE, Meditationes de praecipuis fidei nostrae mysteriis (St. Louis, 1908-10), tr., Meditations on the Mysteries of Holy Faith (London, 1854); GRANADA, Meditations and Contemplations (New York, 1879); LANCICIUS, Pious Affections towards God and the Saints (London, 1883); SEGNERI, The Manna of the Soul (London, 1892); ST. JOHN BAPTIST DE LA SALLE, Meditations for Sundays and Festivals (New York, 1882); BELLORD, Meditations (London); LUCK, Meditations; CHALLONER, Considerations upon Christian Truths and Christian Doctrines (Philadelphia, 1863); CLARKE, Meditations on the Life, Teaching and Passion of Jesus Christ (New York, 1901); HAMON, Meditations for all the Days in the Year (New York, 1894); MEDAILLE, Meditations on the Gospels, tr. EYRE (New York, 1907); NEWMAN, Meditations and Devotions (New York, 1893); WISEMAN, Daily Meditations (Dublin, 1868); VERCRUYSSE, Practical Meditations (London). JOHN J. WYNNE Prayer-Books Prayer-Books By "prayer-books" usage generally understands a collection of forms of prayer intended for private devotion, and in so far distinct from the "service books" which contain the liturgical formularies used in public worship. In the Church of England, of course, the official liturgy is entitled "The Book of Common Prayer" or more compendiously the "Prayer Book", but this is an exception. Of prayer-books in the sense defined, the early Christian centuries have left us no specimen, neither can we be certain that any such existed. The work sometimes known as "Bishop Serapion's Prayer-book" (Eng. tr. by J. Wordsworth, 1899) and compiled probably by an Egyptian bishop of that name in the fourth century should rather be described as a Pontifical or Euchologium than as a prayer-book, and was certainly not intended for private devotion. On the other hand we do find traces of isolated compositions, sometimes in prose, sometimes in a metrical form which entitles them perhaps to be regarded rather as hymns, which in all probability were not meant to be used in church, and there is nothing in the nature of things which could render it improbable that individuals may have copied these and other more liturgical prayers into a volume as an aid to piety. Thus one or two prayers or hymns of the third or fourth century have been recovered from buried papyri (see Wessely, "Les plus anciens Monuments du Christianisme", Paris, 1906, pp 195 and 205). An ostracon from a Coptic monastery at De reli-Bahri preserves in Greek what amounts practically to a sixth-century equivalent of the Hail Mary, though this may be liturgical (see Crum, "Coptic Ostraca", 1902, p. 3), while two long prayers formerly attributed to St. Cyprian, but probably of the fifth century, are especially worthy of remark on account of the light they throw upon certain early developments of Christian art (see K. Michel, "Gebet und Bild in frühchristlicher Zeit", 1902, pp. 3-7). But on the whole the Christians in the first centuries probably found that the Psalms sufficed for the needs of private as well as public devotion (cf. Cassian, "De coe;nob. inst.", II, v, P.L. XLIX, 34; Eusebius, "In Psalm." in P.G., XXIII, 647), and the fact is significant that a large proportion of the surviving books of piety belonging to the early Middle Ages which were copied for private use are simply psalters, to which devotional supplements of various kinds, for example the litanies, the Gloria, Credo, Athanasian Creed etc., were added with increasing frequency. Some few of these psalter prayer-books have been happily preserved to us, probaably on account of their illuminations, ornamentation, or binding, while the plainer copies belonging to less exalted owners have entirely perished. The psalter of the Emperor Lothair (c. 845) is one of the earliest and most famous of these, but there is also a similar manuscript which belonged to Charles the Bold now preserved at Paris and two very fine psalters of St. Gall, one of them known as the "psalterium aureum", the work of the famous scribe Sindram and belonging to the beginning of the tenth century. Similar books of devotion are to be found in English libraries. The ancient psalter in the British Museum (Cotton M.S. Vespas., A. 1), formerly supposed to be one of the books brought by St. Augustine from Rome but really written in England about 700, is probably to be accounted liturgical. It is not a manual for private devotion, although in the eleventh century a number of non-liturgical prayers were added to it. On the other hand, the volume in the same collection, known as King Athelstan's psalter (ninth century), seems to have been intended for a prayer-book, being small in size and supplemented with a number of prayers in a later but tenth-century script. And here be it said that down to the time of the invention of printing, the Psalter, or at least a volume containing psalms and portions of the Office with a supplement of miscellaneous prayers, remained the type of the devotional manuals most favoured by the laity. After King Alfred, at the age of twelve or thirteen (861), as Asser tells us, had learned to read, "he carried about with him everywhere, as we ourselves have often seen, the daily Office (cursum diurnum), that is, the celebrations of the hours (celebrationes horarum), and next certain psalms and a number of prayers, all collected into one book which he kept as an inseparable companion in his bosom to help him to pray amid all the contingencies of life". Similarly we read in the life of St. Wenceslaus (tenth century) of the dog-eared prayer-book (codicellum manuale frequentia rugosum) which he carried about with him while he continuously recited the Psalms and other prayers. These descriptions seem to apply accurately enough to a number of devotional manuals still surviving in manuscript, though often enough the whole Psalter was transcribed and not merely select portions of the Office. Many of those thus preserved must have been intended for the use of great personages and, like the famous "Utrecht Psalter", for example, in the ninth century, or the psalter of Archbishop Egbert of Trier (d. 993), were elaborately illustrated, and, as in the last case at least, very considerably enlarged by devotional additions. At least five psalters of this kind are still in existence, which seem to have belonged to St. Louis of France, more than one of them being clearly of English workmanship, which in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was very famous. One of these, now preserved at Leyden, was used by the saint in his boyhood as an elementary reading-book, a fact which brings us very near the origin of the English name "primer". Moreover, to pass from the complete books of psalms to a collection of offices, of which the principal was the Little Office of Our Lady, was the most natural of transitions, and we thus arrive at the manual which is universally recognized as being the great prayer-book of the laity during the close of the Middle Ages (see The Primer.) The psalter type, however, was not the only form of manual of private devotions which exited in the Carlovingian period. Several collections of miscellaneous prayers, often with extracts from the gospels and more especially the Passion according to the four Evangelists, still survive from the eighth and ninth centuries. The codex known as "the Book of Cerne", written apparently for Bishop Ædeluald of Lichfield (818-30) and now preserved in the University Library, Cambridge, is one of the most famous of these and it has recently been rendered accessible, with valuable notes by Mr. Edmund Bishop, in the edition of Dom Kuypers (Cambridge, 1902). The traces of Celtic influences and, as Mr. Bishop points out, of "Spanish symptoms", are very marked in this book, but it is difficult not to admit that such a prayer as the "Lorica" (breastplate), which, while resembling that attributed to St. Patrick, is different from it and ascribed to a certain Loding, partakes in some respects of the nature of an incantation. There are also in the "Book of Cerne" and some similar collections forms of general accusation for confession, embracing almost every imaginable crime, which were probably intended to help the penitent, much as a modern examination of conscience might do. Closely resembling the "Book of Cerne" is the eighth-century Book of Nunnaminster (MS. Harl. 2965). This also contains the Passion according to the four Evangelists and a miscellaneous collection of non- liturgical prayers (many of them connected with the Passion of Christ), and also the "Lorica" of Loding. Irish and Gallican characteristics are much in evidence, in spite of the book coming from Winchester. This is still more the case with Harl. MS. 7053, a fragmentary "book of private devotions written by an Irish lady probably a nun", and with MS. Reg. 2, A. XX., compiled probably at Lindisfarne in the eighth century. In all of them, despite much genuine piety, there is a pronounced tendency to fall occasionally to the level of magical incantations and spells. Even on the Continent these collections of prayers for private use were apt to wear an Irish colouring, as, for example, may be observed in the tenth-century "Libellus Precum" of Fleury (printed by Martène, "De antiq. ecc. ritibus", III, 234), though prayers extracted from the Fathers, e.g. St. Augustine and St. Ephrem, predominated. Alcuin in his "De Psalmorum Usu" and "Officia per Ferias" (P.L. CI, 465-612) also made similar collections. His arrangement of such devotions according to days of the week was especially noteworthy, since it was conspicuously revived by Simon Verepæus and other prayer-book compilers of the sixth century. The affection for the Psalms, even when dissociated from any form of Office, was always a conspicuous feature in the early devotional books of the laity; see, for example, the "Liber Orationum" of Charles the Bold (ninth century, edited at Ingolstadt, 1483), in which, after the example of Alcuin, selections of the Psalms are made for various spiritual needs, e.g. "Psalmi pro tribulatione et tentatione carnis", "Pro gratiarum actione", etc. When, however, some few centuries later, it had become the custom in most of the monastic orders to supplement the Divine Office with various "cursus" of the Blessed Virgin, of All Saints, of the Holy Cross, etc., these excressences upon the official prayer of the Church acquired great popularity with the laity also, and in the long run it seems to have been felt that the psalms included in these little offices, with the Gradual and Penitential Psalms, sufficed for the needs of the ordinary layman. Hence the "Book of Hours", or "Primer", as it was called in England, gradually replaced the Psalter in popular use. At the same time an immense variety of prayers came to be added to the Office of Our Lady, which formed the kernel of these "Horæ", so that hardly any two manuscript copies of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries are identical in their contents. In the case of books written for the devotion of royal and noble personages, the most exquisite artistic skill was often lavished upon the illuminations and miniatures with which they were adorned. Be it noted also that in course of time a certain traditional order of subjects established itself in the full-page miniatures which commonly preceded each of the Little Hours, the Penitential Psalms, the Office for the Dead, and the other elements of which these Books of Hours were made up, but, to give details would be impossible here. A brief description of some of the most famous of these artistic treasures, e.g. the "Horæ" of Bona of Luxemburg (1327) and that of Catherine of Cleves, wife of Duke Arnold of Gelders, is given by Father Beissel in the "Stimmen aus Maria-Laach" (Aug., 1909) and a more general account by Dr. M. R. James in his catalogue of the MSS. of the Fitzwilliam Museum (especially pp. xxv-xxxviii). Upon the introduction of printing an immense stimulus was given to the production of manuals of popular devotion. Apart from a relatively quite small and unimportant class of booklets (the "Fifteen O's" in English, "printed by command of Princess Elizabeth, Queen of England", at Caxton's press in 1490, may be cited in illustration), the books issued from 1475 to about 1530, though the names differed, varied hardly at all in type. In France and England the "Horæ" held undisputed sway. As explained in the article Primer, certain elements were constant, and the supplementary matter exhibited a constant tendency to increase in bulk and we may add also in extravagance. In Germany the book known as the "Hortulus Animæ" (the little garden of the soul), which seems first to have appeared in 1498, enjoyed most popularity. But though the "Horæ" and the "Hortulus" were apt to differ somewhat in arrangement, their contents in substance were identical, and, more particularly after the "Hortulus" was brought out at Lyons in 1504, the various publishers of the one book made no scruple about appropriating any feature in the other which took their fancy. Both in the "Horæ" and the "Hortulus" we find, at any rate in the later copies, almost without exception, after the Calendar, the Office of the Blessed Virgin, extracts from the four Gospels (either the beginnings or the narratives of the Passion), the Penitential Psalms, the Litany of the Saints, a long series of prayers to the Holy Trinity and the Divine Persons, to Our Lady and to different saints, mostly with an antiphon, versicle, and respond taken from liturgical books, also prayers for the principal feasts borrowed from the Missal, and particularly the Office for the Dead and prayers for the dying. Both the "Horæ" and the "Hortulus" appeared in innumerable editions. Even as early as the period 1487 to 1498 more than sixty-five editions of the different "Horæ" are known to have been printed in France alone. For the adornment of these volumes, which were often printed upon vellum, the best art of the wood engraver was called into requisition. The editions of the "Horæ" by Du Pré, Vérard, Pigouchet, and Geoffroy Tory, especially those produced between 1488 and 1502, may rank among the most beautiful specimens of the printing press in the first hundred years of its existence, while the German cuts of the engravers Schäufelein and Springinklee have also a charm of their own. It was also a common practice to employ hand illumination to add further lustre to many of the copies printed upon vellum. In regard to the contents, the devotional extravagance of the age and the competition between publisher and publisher to push their wares and attract purchasers led to many regrettable abuses. Spurious indulgences and fantastic promises of all kinds abound, and even prayers which in themselves are full of piety and absolutely unobjectionable-for example the prayers in honour of the Passion previously referred to, which were attributed to St. Bridget and were known in England as the "Fifteen O's"-are not exempt from these disfigurements. A deplorable example of such extravagance is presented by a Sarum "Horæ" of Thielman Kerver printed at Paris in 1510, in which we find such assertions as the following: "Alexander the VI pope of Rome hath granted to all them that say this prayer devoutly in the worship of St. Anne and Our Lady and her Son Jesus V thousand years of pardon for deadly sins and XX years for venial sins totiens quotiens", or again, "This prayer our Lady shoed to a devout person, saying that this golden prayer is the most sweetest and acceptablest to me, and in her appearing, she had this salutation and prayer written with letters of gold on her breast" (Hoskins, "Horæ", 124-5). Again, for a certain prayer to be said before a picture of Christ crucified, Pope Gregory III is declared to have granted an indulgence of so many days as there were wounds in our Saviour's sacred Body. In another supposed grant of Boniface VIII an indulgence of eighty thousand years is mentioned. In the case of other devotions again the pious reader is assured that if he practise them he shall not die without confession, that Our Lady and her Divine Son will come to warn him before his death, etc. Of course it must be remembered that, practically speaking, no censorship existed in the early years of the sixteenth century. The Congregation of the Index did not come into existence until after the Council of Trent. Hence the booksellers in pre-Tridentine days were free to publish almost any extravagance which might help to sell their wares. After Trent things in this respect were very different. Besides the "Horæ" and the "Hortuli" a few collections of private prayers, generally connected with some special subject, also saw the light before Reformation times. There were books on the art of how to die well, books on the Rosary copiously interspersed with meditations and prayers (of these the volumes of the Dominican Castillo, with a picture for each of the one hundred and fifty Hail Marys, is perhaps the best known), books on various forms of devotion to the Passion, for example, the seven Bloodsheddings and the seven Falls-spiritual pilgrimages which eventually took a more permanent shape in the exercise of the Stations of the Cross. A more important work, issued about 1498, was the collection of prayers called "Paradisus Animæ". In England there is evidence that the devotion long dear to the English Catholics' forefathers in the days of persecution under the name of "The Jesus Psalter" was printed and sold separately as early as 1520, though no copy is now known to survive. The author of this most touching prayer is believed to have been Richard Whitford, the Brigittine monk who loved to call himself "the Wretch of Sion". He has also left a spiritual little volume compiled for the use of communicants, and has been sometimes named as the true author of "The Fruyte of Redemcyon", a collection of prayers which professes to have been composed by "Simon the Anker [Anchoret] of London Wall". But this last work is a dull performance and quite unworthy of Whitford. In all probability there must have been many more of these devotional books than our libraries have preserved traces of, for such works when they are not protected by the abundance or beauty of their illustrations (as was the case with many of the "Horæ") are apt to disappear completely without leaving any trace. The preface of an early "Reforming" English prayer-book (Certaine Prayers and godly meditacyons, 1538) while speaking contemptuously of this devotional literature, implies that even in England it was large and varied. "These bokes, (though they abounded in every place with infinite errours and taught prayers made with wicked folysshenesse both to God and also to his sayntes) yet by cause they were garnyshed with glorious tytles and with redde letters, promisinge moche grace and pardon (though it were but vanyte) have sore deceyved the unlerned multitude. One is called the Garden of the Soule, another the Paradyse of the Soule, and by cause I will be short, loke thou thy sylfen whate dyvers and tryfeling names be gyven vnto them." We are not concerned here with the prayer-books of the Reformers, but it may be worth while to notice that, just as in Germany the Lutherans produced a modified version of the "Hortulus Animæ", so in England it was the first care of Henry VIII and his vicar-general, Thomas Cromwell, after the breach with Rome, to bring out a new set of primers adapted to the new condition of things. Indeed even in 1532 Sir Thomas More in his "Confutacion of Tyndale's Answer" could write of the devotional works produced by heretics: "And lest we should lack prayers, we have the Primer and the Ploughman's Prayer and a book of other small devotions and then the whole Psalter too". These, however, we cannot identify. Better known were the emended Primers of Marshall and Hilsey (1534 and 1538), followed in 1545 by "The King's Primer", which Henry VIII supervised himself. Of course the great bulk of this material was entirely Catholic and imitated in arrangement that of the "Horæ". Other Primers appeared under Edward VI in 1551 (in this the Hail Mary was for the first time omitted) and 1533 (which last, omitting all references to the Hours, is simply a book of private prayers for each day of the week beginning with Sunday), but under Elizabeth in 1559 the arrangement of the Hours was restored and even the Office for the Dead of "Dirige" (see Clay, "Private Prayers", Parker Society). But the transformations of these forms of private devotional books are very intricate, and they were alternately adapted to suit Catholic and Protestant taste. For example, the book called the "Pomander of Prayer", which was printed towards the close of Henry VIII's reign, with a strong Protestant colouring, appeared again under Mary in a form in which it could well be used by Catholics. One point may be noted as of some importance, and it is: that down to the breach with Rome Latin predominated, even in those books published for the use of the laity. The Pater, Ave, and Creed, and the Psalms were commonly said by the people in Latin and no printed edition of the Office of the Blessed Virgin, or in other words no entirely English Primer, is known to have been issued before 1534. But the books of the last fifteen years of Henry's reign accustomed the people to pray in English, and under Mary we have printed Catholic Primers both in Latin and English, and in English alone. It may probably be said that from this time forth the uneducated laity, even though Catholics, prayed almost exclusively in English. Although a similar change in the direction of the vernacular, due in large measure to the same cause, i.e. the influence of the Reformers, was taking place in Germany, France, and the Netherlands, still the most widely known and popular prayer-books introduced in the sixteenth century made their appearance first in Latin. The reforms initiated by the Council of Trent took practical effect in the Bull of St. Pius V, 11 March, 1571, which enjoined a rigorous censorship of the "Horæ" and "Hortuli" containing the Office of the Blessed Virgin, forbade the extravagant accretions and suprious indulgences often found in those books, prescribed a uniform text for the Office itself, and forbade it to be printed in the vernacular. We may suppose that this action, while occasioning the publication of revised and corrected editions (though these do not seem to have been numerous), also occasioned or at least marked a certain revulsion of feeling against the type of devotional manual thus condemned. In any case we note the appearance at this same period of a number of new prayer-books, which seem in several cases to have been designed to serve as manuals for the sodalities of the Blessed Virgin which were now springing up in Germany and elsewhere as one of the first fruits of the Counter-Reformation and the educational activity of the Society of Jesus. With this new type of prayer-book must be connected in the first place the name of Blessed Peter Canisius. His activity in this matter cannot be discussed in detail (cf. "Zeitschrift f. kat. Theol.", 1890, XIV, pp. 727 sq.), but we may note that to his widely popular, short Catechism a collection of prayers was appended, that he produced in 1556 his "Lectiones et precationes ecclesiasticæ" for the use of students, and in 1587 his "Manuale Catholicorum". Other books of prayers specially intended for the use of sodalists were published by Fathers Sailly and Veron, S. J., and they have since been often reprinted and imitated. A similar purpose seems to have been dominant in the mind of Simon Verepæus, a priest of Mechlin, who in 156l5 brought out a little work entitled "Precationum piarum Enchiridion" founded in part upon materials left by Cornelius Liadanus. Verepæus's "Enchiridion" was frequently reprinted and several editions appeared in German. Of other foreign works it will be sufficient to mention here two famous prayer-books of German origin both belonging to the seventeenth century and both appearing in the vernacular before they were published in Latin editions. The earlier of these was the "Paradisus Animæ" compiled by Merlo Horstius, a parish priest of Cologne, the first (German) edition of which appeared in 1644. The later was the still more famous collection of Father William Nakatenus, S. J., known as the "Coe;leste Palmetum". In the case of both of these works their popularity seems to have been largely due to the very wide range of devotions which they included, adapted to every occurrence of life and including many litanies, little offices, and pious instructions. In France during the seventeenth century we may note the introduction of the "Paroissien", a book which contained a large proportion of liturgical matter connected with Mass and Vespers for the Sundays and feasts, as also the Epistles and Gospels, and often a great deal of musical notation, but not excluding private devotions, methods of hearing Mass, preparation for Confession and Communion etc. The popularity of this work (though its contents have varied a good deal at different periods and in different localities) has lasted on down to modern times. For the use of English Catholics during the days of persecution two forms of prayer-book long held an unchallenged supremacy. The first of these was simply a revision of the old pre-Reformation Primer. An important edition of this, the first since Queen Mary's time, was issued by that energetic scholar Richard Verstegan at Antwerp in 1599 "for the more utility", as he said, "of such of the English nation and others using our language as understand not the Latin tongue". With this object the Office of the Blessed Virgin was printed both in Latin and English and the book contained a selection of hymns rather rudely translated into English verse probably by Verstegan himself. In other respects the main features of the old Primer reappear. We have the Office for the Dead, Offices of the Holy Cross and of the Holy Ghost, the Litanies of the Saints, Seven Penitential Psalms etc., but the extravagant prayers of the early editions were eliminated and devotions of a more practical kind, e.g. for Confession and Communion etc., substituted in their place. A considerable number of editions appeared subsequently and the book was in favour down to the close of the eighteenth century. Another noteworthy revision of the Primer took place in King James II's reign and later in 1706 the rude renderings of the hymns were replaced by a version perhaps executed by John Dryden. The other prayer-book was the "Manual of devout Prayers and Exercises, collected and translated out of diverse authors", which seems to have been printed for the first time in 1583. If we may accept the conclusions of Mr. Joseph Gillow (The Ushaw Magazine, 1910) this book also was translated by Verstegan and then printed by Flinton at Father Persons' press at Rouen. The original work upon which it was based was, Mr. Gillow maintains, the prayer-book of Verepæus, from which it borrowed its arrangement according to the seven days of the week. This compilation became very popular. Already in 1584 we find it mentioned among a list of Catholic books seized at Hoxton, and it seems to have been reprinted with certain modifications in 1595, 1596, 1599, and 1604. The history of the subsequent impressions has been minutely traced by Mr. Gillow, who claims to have identified seventy-two different editions, but whose list is nevertheless not entirely exhaustive. An important revision of the work appeared under Jesuit auspices in 1652 (St. Omer's) and another published by command of His Majesty, James II, in 1686. In 1729 it came out in London in two parts, and in 1744 an edition was printed which professed to have been corrected and enlarged by Bishop Challoner, but the changes made were relatively slight. It appeared also in 1811 and 1819 and for the last time in 1847. The attraction of the book appears to have lain in the variety of its contents, and in the course of years it departed a good deal from the type of a collection of extracts from the Fathers and other devout writers, which was its leading characteristic in the sixteenth century. Still more famous than the "Manual of Prayers" is the work compiled by Bishop Challoner in 1740 under the title of "The Garden of the Soul". The purpose aimed at in this new work is indicated in its subheading "a Manual of Spiritual Exercises and Instructions for Christians who, living in the World, aspire to devotion", and although as Dr. Burton notices (Life of Challoner, I, 127), the book "after 170 years has been edited out of all recognition", its popularity was originally acquired while it still remained "a brief guide to the spiritual life, containing not prayers only, but information, instructions, and much practical advice". The seventh edition of "The Garden of the Soul", which appeared in 1757, was "corrected and enlarged by the Author" and this is the final shape in which he left it; innumerable modifications to which it has since been subjected have been made entirely according to the caprice of the different publishers. Both before and after the issue of "The Garden of the Soul", a large number of other Catholic manuals of devotion have enjoyed more or less popularity. In 1617 and 1l618 we have "A new Manual of Old Christian Catholic Meditations and Prayers" and "A Manual of Prayers used by the Fathers of the Primitive Church", both compiled by Richard Broughton, a divine of Douai. The "Devotions in the Ancient Way of Offices", which was drawn up by John Austin before 1670, had the compliment paid it of being imitated and practically pirated by Anglicans. The "Libellus Precum" was a work produced by the English Jesuits in the eighteenth century for the use of the sodalists in their colleges and has continued in use down to the present day. Of the crowd of works bearing such titles as the "Key of Heaven", "The Path to Paradise", the "Golden Manual", the "Path to Heaven" etc., some of them reproducing names already in use in the seventeenth century, it would be impossible to speak in detail. As regards the censorship of prayer-books, something has already been said of the Motu Proprio of St. Pius V (11 March, 1571). The most important legislation since then is that of the Constitution "Officiorum et Munerum", 25 Jan., 1897 (see Censorship of Books). Paragraph 20 of this document in very concise terms enacts that no one is to publish "libros vel libellos precum" (prayer-books or booklets) as well as works of devotion or religious instruction etc., even though they may seem calculated to foster piety, "without the permission of lawful authority", a somewhat vague phrase which is generally interpreted to mean without the imprimatur of the ordinary: "otherwise", adds the decree, "such a book must be held to be forbidden". Special restrictions have also been imposed in the same Constitution (§ 19) upon the publication of new litanies without the revision and approbation of the ordinary. Moreover, it has since been decided that even then litanies which have only an episcopal approval of this kind cannot be used for public devotions in churches (see Hilgers, "Der Index der verbotenen Bücher", Freiburg, 1904; Vermeersch, "De prohibitione et censura librorum", 4th ed., Tournai, 1906). Beissel in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach LXXVII (July to October, 1909); Burton, Life of Bishop Challoner, I (London, 1907), 130 sq.; Gillow in The Tablet (27 Dec., 1884; 10 Jan., 1885); Idem in The Ushaw Magazine (1910); Lingard in The Catholic Magazine (1830); Kuypers and Bishop in The Book of Cerne (Cambridge, 1902). HERBERT THURSTON Feast of the Prayer of Christ Feast of the Prayer of Christ This feast occurs on the Tuesday after Septuagesima (double major). Its object is to commemorate the prolonged prayer which Christ offered in Gethsemane in our behalf in preparation for His Sacred Passion. The Office insists on the great importance of prayer. The feast is placed at the beginning of Lent to remind us that the penitential season is above all a time of prayer. The Office probably was composed by Bishop Struzzieri of Todi, at the suggestion of St. Paul of the Cross (d. 1775), and, together with the other six offices by which the mysteries of Christ's Passion are celebrated (see FEAST OF THE PASSION OF CHRIST), was approved by Pius VI. The hymns were composed by Fatati (Schulte, "Hymnen des röm. Brev."). Outside the Congregation of St. Paul this feast was adopted later than any of the other feasts of the Passion. It is not found in the proprium of Salerno (1793) nor in that of Livorno (1809). Other dioceses took it up only after the city of Rome had adopted it (1831). It has not yet been inserted in the Baltimore Ordo. NILLES, Kal. manuale utriusque ecclesiæ, (Innsbruck, 1892). F.G. HOLWECK Preacher Apostolic Preacher Apostolic A dignitary of the pontifical household. As a regular function, under special Regulations, this office was established by Paul IV, in 1555, and formed a part of the great scheme of reforms which that pope was anxious to carry out. The innovation was somewhat unpopular among the Prelates, as the preacher Apostolic bad to expound wholesome truths before the papal Court, and remind them of their respective duties. Before 1555 several members of the regular clergy, especially of the Franciscans, had preached in presence of the Roman Court. In the period following, among those who filled the office of preacher Apostolic were Alonso Salmerón, companion of Saint Ignatius, Francis Toleto, S.J., who held the position during seven Pontificates, Anselmus Marzatti, Francis Cassini, and Bonaventure Barberini, Minor Capuchins; Toleto, Marzatti, and Cassini were elevated to the cardinalate. By the Brief of 2 March, 1753, directed to Father Michael Angelo Franceschi, then preacher Apostolic, Benedict XlV conferred the said dignity in perpetuum upon the Capuchin Order, because of "the example of Christian piety and religious perfection, the splendour of doctrine and the Apostolic zeal" to be found in their institute. Two of the preachers Apostolic during the past century deserve special mention: Lewis Micara of Frascati, who became Cardinal-Vicar of Rome, and Lewis of Trent, chosen to deliver the discourse at the first session of the Vatican Council. At present the office is held by Father Luke of Padua, the former titular, Father Pacific of Sejano, having been elected Minister General of the order. The preacher is chosen by the pontiff, though generally presented by the predecessor, or by the superior general of the Capuchins. He is notified by a Rescript of the Cardinal of the Apostolic Palace; and becomes ipso facto a Palatine prelate and a member of the papal household, enjoying all the privileges attached to his title. The sermons are delivered in Advent on the Feasts of St. Andrew, St. Nicholas, St. Lucy, and St. Thomas; and on Fridays in Lent, except in Holy Week, when the Passion Sermon is preached on Tuesday. The papal Court meets in the throne-room in the Vatican; the pulpit occupies the place of the throne. Beside it is placed the bussola, a perforated wooden partition, covered with silver hangings, behind which is the seat of the pontiff. On the appointed day, the preacher with his " socius " is taken to the Vatican in a pontifical carriage, and enters the throne-room; when notified by the master of ceremonies, he draws near the bussola, takes off his mantle, asks the pope's blessing, and ascends the pulpit. The sermon begins with an "Ave Maria", recited aloud and answered by the audience. The pontiff is assisted by his majordomo and the master of the camera. The cardinals occupy the front seats: behind them are the bishops, prelates, and general heads of the Mendicant Orders. Nobody else is admitted without a special permission of the pope. At the close of the sermon, the preacher returns to the pontiff, kisses his feet, takes leave of him, and is driven back to his convent. Analecta Ord. Cap.; Bull. Cap.; BARONIUS, Anal. eccl.; PALLAVICINO, Hist. Conc. Trid. F. CANDIDE Order of Preachers Order of Preachers As the Order of the Friars Preachers is the principal part of the entire Order of St. Dominic, we shall include under this title the two other parts of the order: the Dominican Sisters (Second Order) and the Brothers of Penitence of St. Dominic (Third Order). First, we shall study the legislation of the three divisions of the order, and the nature of each. Secondly, we shall give an historical survey of the three branches of the order. I. LEGISLATION AND NATURE In its formation and development, the Dominican legislation as a whole is closely bound up with historical facts relative to the origin and progress of the order. Hence some reference to these is necessary, the more so as this matter has not been sufficiently studied. For each of the three groups, constituting the ensemble of the Order of St. Dominic, we shall examine: A. Formation of the Legislative Texts; B. Nature of the Order, resulting from legislation. A. FORMATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE TEXTS In regard to their legislation the first two orders are closely connected, and must be treated together. The preaching of St. Dominic and his first companions in Languedoc led up to the pontifical letters of Innocent III, 17 Nov., 1205 (Potthast, "Reg., Pont., Rom.", 2912). They created for the first time in the Church of the Middle Ages the type of apostolic preachers, patterned upon the teaching of the Gospel. In the same year, Dominic founded the Monastery of Prouille, in the Diocese of Toulouse, for the women whom he had converted from heresy, and he, made this establishment the centre of union of his missions and of his apostolic works (Balme-Lelaidier, "Cartulaire ou Histoire Diplomatique de St. Dominic", Paris, 1893, I, 130sq.; Guiraud, "Cart. de Notre Dame de Prouille," Paris, 1907, I, CCCXXsq). St. Dominic gave to the new monastery the Rule of St. Augustine and also the special Institutions which regulated the life of the Sisters, and of the Brothers who lived near them, for the spiritual and temporal administration of the community. The Institutions are edited in Balme, "Cart." II, 425; "Bull. Ord. Præd.", VII, 410; Duellius, "Misc.", bk. I (Augsburg, 1723), 169; "Urkundenbuch der Stadt.", I (Fribourg, Leipzig, 1883), 605. On 17 Dec., 1219, Honorius III, with a view to a general reform among the religious of the Eternal City, granted the monastery of the Sisters of St. Sixtus of Rome to St. Dominic, and the Institutions of Prouille were given to that monastery under the title of Institutions of the Sisters of St. Sixtus of Rome. With this designation they were granted subsequently to other monasteries and congregations of religious. It is also under this form that we possess the primitive Institutions of Prouille, in the editions already mentioned. St. Dominic and his companions, having received from Innocent III authorization to choose a rule, with a view to the approbation of their order, adopted in 1216, that of St. Augustine, and added thereto the "Consuetudines" which regulated the ascetic and canonical life of the religious. These were borrowed in great part from the Constitutions of Prémontré, but with some essential features, adapted to the purposes of the new Preachers who also renounced private possession of property, but retained the revenues. The "Consuetudines" formed the first part (prima distinctio) of the primitive Constitutions of the order (Quétif-Echard, "Scriptores Ord. Præd.", L 12-13; Denifle, "Archiv. für Literatur und Kirchengeschichte", I, 194; Balme, "Cart.", II, 18). The order was solemnly approved, 22 Dec., 1216. A first letter, in the style of those granted for the foundation of regular canons, gave the order canonical existence; a second determined the special vocation of the Order of Preachers as vowed to teaching and defending the truths of faith. "Nos attendentes fratres Ordinis tui futuros pugiles fidei et vera mundi lumina confirmamus Ordinem tuum" (Balme, "Cart." II, 71-88; Potthast, 5402-5403). (Expecting the brethren of your order to be the champions of the Faith and true lights of the world, we confirm your order.) On 15 Aug., 1217 St. Dominic sent out his companions from Prouille. They went through France, Spain, and Italy, and established as principal centres, Toulouse, Paris, Madrid, Rome, and Bologna. Dominic, by constant journeyings, kept watch over these new establishments, and went to Rome to confer with the Sovereign Pontiff (Balme, "Cart." II, 131; "Annales Ord. Præd.", Rome, 1756, p. 411; Guiraud, "St. Dominic", Paris, 1899, p. 95). In May, 1220, St. Dominic held at Bologna the first general chapter of the order. This assembly drew up the Constitutions, which are complementary to the "Consuetudines" of 1216 and form the second part (secunda distinctio). They regulated the organization and life of the order, and are the essential and original basis of the Dominican legislation. In this chapter, the Preachers also gave up certain elements of the canonical life; they relinquished all possessions and revenues, and adopted the practice of strict poverty; they rejected the title of abbey for the convents, and substituted the rochet of canons for the monastic scapular. The regime of annual general chapters was established as the regulative power of the order, and the source of legislative authority. ("Script. Ord. Præd.", I, 20; Denifle, "Archiv.", I, 212; Balme, "Cart.", III, 575). Now that the legislation of the Friars Preachers was fully established, the Rule of the Sisters of St. Sixtus was found to be very incomplete. The order, however, supplied what was wanting by compiling a few years after, the Statuta, which borrowed from the Constitutions of the Friars, whatever might be useful in a monastery of Sisters. We owe the preservation of these Statuta, as well as the Rule of St. Sixtus, to the fact that this legislation was applied in 1232 to the Penitent Sisters of St. Mary Magdalen in Germany, who observed it without further modification. The Statuta are edited im Duellius, "Misc.", bk. I, 182. After the legislative work of the general chapters had been added to the Constitution of 1216-20, without changing the general ordinance of the primitive text, the necessity was felt, a quarter of a century later, of giving a more logical distribution to the legislation in its entirety. The great canonist Raymond of Penaforte, on becoming master general of the order, devoted himself to this work. The general chapters, from 1239 to 1241, accepted the new text, and gave it the force of law. In this form it has remained to the present time as the official text, with some modification, however, in the way of suppressions and especially of additions due to later enactments of the general chapters. It was edited in Denifle, "Archiv.", V, 553; "Acta Capitulorum Generalium", I (Rome, 1898), II, 13, 18, in "Monum. Ord. Præd. Hist.", bk. III. The reorganization of the Constitutions of the Preachers called for a corresponding reform in the legislation of the Sisters. In his letter of 27 Aug., 1257, Alexander IV ordered Humbert of Romans, the fifth master general, to unify the Constitutions of the Sisters. Humbert remodelled them on the Constitutions of the Brothers, and put them into effect at the General Chapter of Valenciennes, 1259. The Sisters were henceforth characterized as Sorores Ordinis Prdicatorum. The Constitutions are edited in "Analecta, Ord. Præd." (Rome, 1897), 338; Finke, "Ungedruckte Dominicanerbriefe des 13 Jahrhunderts" (Paderborn, 1891), D. 53; "Litterae Encyclicae magistrorum generalium" (Rome, 1900), in " Mon. Ord. Praed. Hist.", V, p. 513. To this legislation, the provincials of Germany, who had a large number of religious convents under their care, added certain admonitiones by way of completing and definitely settling the Constitutions of the Sisters. They seem to be the work of Herman of Minden, Provincial of Teutonia (1286-90). He drew up at first a concise admonition (Denifle, "Archiv.", II, 549); then other series of admonitions, more important, which have not been edited (Rome, Archives of the Order, Cod. Ruten, 130-139). The legislation of the Friars Preachers is the firmest and most complete among the systems of law by which institutions of this sort were ruled in the thirteenth century. Hauck is correct in saying: "We do not deceive ourselves in considering the organization of the Dominican Order as the most perfect of all the monastic organizations produced by the Middle Ages" ("Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands", part IV, Leipzig, 1902, p. 390). It is not then surprising that the majority of the religious orders of the thirteenth century should have followed quite closely the Dominican legislation, which exerted an influence even upon institutions very dissimilar in aim and nature. The Church considered it the typical rule for new foundations. Alexander IV thought of making the legislation of the Order of Preachers into a special rule known as that of St. Dominic, and for that purpose commissioned the Dominican cardinal, Hugh of St. Cher (3 Feb., 1255), but the project encountered many obstacles, and nothing came of it. (Potthast, n. 1566; Humberti de Romanis, "Opera de vita regulari", ed., Berthier, I, Rome, 1888, n. 43) B. NATURE OF THE ORDER OF PREACHERS (1) Its Object The canonical title of "Order of Preachers", given to the work of St. Dominic by the Church, is in itself significant, but it indicates only the dominant feature. The Constitutions are more explicit: "Our order was instituted principally for preaching and for the salvation of souls." The end or aim of the order then is the salvation of souls, especially by means of preaching. For the attainment of this purpose, the order must labour with the utmost zeal -- "Our main efforts should be put forth, earnestly and ardently, in doing good to the souls of our fellow-men." (2) Its Organization The aim of the order and the conditions of its environment determined the form of its organization. The first organic group is the convent, which may not be founded with less than twelve religious. At first only large convents were allowed and these were located in important cities (Mon. Ger. Hist.: SS. XXXII, 233, 236), hence the saying: Bernardus valles, montes Benedictus amabat, Oppida Franciscus, celebres Dominicus urbes. (Bernard loved the valleys, Benediet the mountains, Francis the towns, Dominic the populous cities). The foundation and the existence of the convent required a prior as governor, and a doctor as teacher. The Constitution prescribes the dimensions of the church and the convent buildings, and these should be quite plain. But in the course of the thirteenth century the order erected large edifices, real works of art. The convent possesses nothing and lives on alms. Outside of the choral office (the Preachers at first had the title of canonici) their time is wholly employed in study. The doctor gives lectures in theology, at which all the religious, even the prior, must be present, and which are open to secular clerics. The religious vow themselves to preaching, both within and without the convent walls. The "general preachers" have the most extended powers. At the beginning of the order, the convent was called praedicatio, or sancta praedicatio. The convents divided up the territory in which they were established, and sent out on preaching tours religious who remained for a longer or shorter time in the principal places of their respective districts. The Preachers did not take the vow of stability, but could be sent from one locality to another. Each convent received novices, these, according to the Constitutions, must be at least eighteen years of age, but this rule was not strictly observed. The Preachers were the first among religious orders to suppress manual labour, the necessary work of the interior of the house being relegated to lay brothers called conversi whose number was limited according to the needs of each convent. The prior was elected by the religious and the doctor was appointed by the provincial chapter. The chapter, when it saw fit, relieved them from office. The grouping of a certain number of convents forms the province, which is administered by a provincial prior, elected by the prior and two delegates from each convent. He is confirmed by the general chapter, or by the master general, who can also remove him when it is found expedient. He enjoys in his province the same authority as the master general in the order; he confirms the election of conventual priors, visits the province, sees to it that the Constitutions and the ordinances are observed and presides at the provincial chapters. The provincial chapter, which is held annually, discusses the interests of the province. It is composed of a provincial prior, priors from the convents, a delegate from each convent, and the general preachers. The capitulants (members of the chapter), choose from among themselves, four counsellors or assistants, who, with the provincial, regulate the affairs brought before the chapter. The chapter appoints those who are to visit annually each part of the province. The provinces taken together constitute the order, which has at its head a master general, elected by the provincial priors and by two delegates from each province. For a long time his position was for life; Pius VII (1804), reduced it to six years, and Pius IX (1862) fixed it at twelve years. At first the master general had no permanent residence; since the end of the fourteenth century, he has lived usually at Rome. He visits the order, holds it to the observance of the laws, and corrects abuses. In 1509, he was granted two associates (socii); in 1752, four; in 1910, five. The general chapter is the supreme authority within the order. From 1370, it was held every two years; from 1553, every three years, from 1625, every six years. In the eighteenth and at the beginning of the nineteenth century, chapters were rarely held. At present they take place every three years. From 1228, for two years in succession, the general chapter was composed of definitors or delegates from the provinces, each province sending one delegate; the following year it was held by the provincial priors. The chapter promulgates new constitutions, but to become law they must be accepted by three constitutive chapters. The chapter deals with all the general concerns of the order, whether administrative or disciplinary. It corrects the master general, and in certain eases can depose him. From 1220 to 1244, the chapters were held alternately at Bologna and Paris; subsequently, they passed round to all the principal cities of Europe. The generalissimo chapter acknowledged by the Constitution and composed of two definitors from each province, also of provincials, i.e. equivalent to three consecutive general chapters, was held only in 1228 and 1236. The characteristic feature of government is the elective system which prevails throughout the order. "Such was the simple mechanism which imparted to the Order of Friars Preachers a powerful and regular movement, and secured them for a long time a real preponderance in Church and in State" (Delisle, "Notes et extraits des mss. de la Bibl. Nat.", Paris, xxvii, 1899, 2nd part, p. 312. See the editions of the Constitutions mentioned above: "Const. Ord. Fr. Præd.", Paris, 1, 1888, "Acta Capit. Gen. Ord. Fr. Præd.", ed., Reichert, Rome, 1898, sq. 9 vols.; Lo Cicero, Const., "Declar. et Ord. Capit. Gen. O. P.", Rome, 1892; Humbert de Romanis, "Opera de vita regulari", ed. Berthier, Rome, 1888; Reichert, "Feier und Gesehäftsordung der Provincialkapitel des Dominikanerordens im 13 Jahrhundert" in "Römische Quart.", 1903, p. 101). (3) Forms of its Activity The forms of life or activity of the Order of Preachers are many, but they are all duly subordinated. The order assimilated the ancient forms of the religious life, the monastic and the canonical, but it made them subservient to the clerical and the apostolic life which are its peculiar and essential aims. The Preachers adopted from the monastic life the three traditional vows of obedience, chastity, and poverty; to them they added the ascetic element known as monastic observances; perpetual abstinence, fasting from 14 Sept. until Easter and on all the Fridays throughout the year the exclusive use of wool for clothing and for the bed a hard bed, and a common dormitory, silence almost perpetual in their houses, public acknowledgment of faults in the chapter, a graded list of penitential practices, etc. The Preachers, however, did not take these observances directly from the monastic orders but from the regular canons, especially the reformed canons, who had already adopted monastic rules The Preachers received from the regular canons the choral Office for morning and evening, but chanted quickly. They added, on certain days, the Office of the Holy Virgin, and once a week the Office of the Dead. The habit of the Preachers, as of the regular canons, is a white tunic and a black cloak. The rochet, distinctive of the regular canons, was abandoned by the Preachers at the General Chapter of 1220, and replaced by the scapular. At the same time they gave up various canonical customs, which they had retained up to that period. They suppressed in their order the title of abbot for the head of the convent, and rejected all property, revenues, the carrying of money on their travels, and the use of horses. The title even of canon which they had borne from the beginning tended to disappear about the middle of the thirteenth century, and the General Chapters of 1240-1251 substituted the word clericus for canonicus in the article of the Constitutions relating to the admission of novices; nevertheless the designation, "canon" still occurs in some parts of the Constitutions. The Preachers, in fact, are primarily and essentially clerics. The pontifical letter of foundation said: "These are to be the champions of the Faith and the true lights of the world." This could apply only to clerics. The Preachers consequently made study their chief occupation, which was the essential means, with preaching and teaching as the end. The apostolic character of the order was the complement of its clerical character. The Friars had to vow themselves to the salvation of souls through the ministry of preaching and confession, under the conditions set down by the Gospel and by the example of the Apostles: ardent zeal, absolute poverty, and sanctity of life. The ideal Dominican life was rich in the multiplicity and choice of its elements, and was thoroughly unified by its well-considered principles and enactments; but it was none the less complex, and it, full realization was difficult. The monastic-canonical element tended to dull and paralyze the intense activity demanded by a clerical-apostolic life. The legislators warded off the difficulty by a system of dispensations, quite peculiar to the order. At the head of the Constitutions the principle of dispensation appears jointly with the very definition of the order's purpose, and is placed before the text of the laws to show that it controls and tempers their application. "The superior in each convent shall have authority to grant dispensations whenever he may deem it expedient, especially in regard to what may hinder study, or preaching, or the profit of souls since our order was originally established for the work of preaching and the salvation of souls", etc. The system of dispensation thus broadly understood while it favoured the most active element of the order, displaced, but did not wholly eliminate, the difficulty. It created a sort of dualism in the interior life, and permitted an arbitrariness that might easily disquiet the conscience of the religious and of the superiors. The order warded off this new difficulty by declaring in the generalissimo chapter of 1236, that the Constitutions did not oblige under pain of sin, but under pain of doing penance (Acta Cap. Gen. I, 8.) This measure, however, was not heartily welcomed by everyone in the order (Humbert de Romanis, Op., II, 46), nevertheless it stood. This dualism produced on one side, remarkable apostles and doctors, on the other, stern ascetics and great mystics. At all events the interior troubles of the order grew out of the difficulty of maintaining the nice equilibrium which the first legislators established, and which was preserved to a remarkable degree during the first century of the order's existence. The logic of things and historical circumstances frequently disturbed this equilibrium. The learned and active members tended to exempt themselves from monastic observance, or to moderate its strictness; the ascetic members insisted on the monastic life, and in pursuance of their aim, suppressed at different times the practice of dispensation, sanctioned as it was by the letter and the spirit of the Constitutions ["Cons". Ord. Praed.", passim;. Denifle, "Die Const. des Predigerordens" in "Archiv. f. Litt. u. Kirchengesch.", I, 165; Mandonnet, " Les Chanoines -- Prêcheurs de Bologne d'après Jacques de Vitry" in "Archives de la société d'histoire du canton de Fribourg", bk. VIII, 15; Lacordaire, " Mémoire pour la restauration des Frères Prêcheurs dans la Chrétienté", Paris, 1852; P. Jacob, "Memoires sur la canonicité de l'institut de St. Dominic", Béziers, 1750, tr. into Italian under the title; " Difesa del canonicato dei FF. Predicatori", Venice, 1758; Laberthoni, "Exposé de l'état, du régime, de la legislation et des obligations des Frères Prêcheurs", Versailles, 1767 (new ed., 1872)]. (4) Nature of the Order of the Dominican Sisters We have indicated above the various steps by which the legislation of the Dominican Sisters was brought into conformity with the Constitutions of Humbert of Romans (1259). The primitive type of religious established at Prouille in 1205 by St. Dominic was not affected by successive legislation. The Dominican Sisters are strictly cloistered in their monasteries; they take the three religious vows, recite the canonical Hours im choir and engage in manual labor. The eruditio litterarum inscribed in the Institutions of St. Sixtus disappeared from the Constitutions drawn up by Humbert of Romans. The ascetic life of the Sisters is the same as that of the Friars. Each house is governed by a prioress, elected canonically, and assisted by a sub-prioress, a mistress of novices, and various other officers. The monasteries have the right to hold property in common; they must be provided with an income sufficient for the existence of the community; they are independent and are under the jurisdiction of the provincial prior, the master general, and of the general chapter. A subsequent paragraph will deal with the various phases of the question as to the relation existing between the Sisters and the Order of Preachers. Whilst the Institutions of St. Sixtus provided a group of brothers, priests, and lay servants for the spiritual and temporal administration of the monastery, the Constitutions of Humbert of Romans were silent on these points. (See the legislative texts relating to the Sisters mentioned above.) (5) The Third Order St. Dominic did not write a rule for the Tertiaries, for reasons which are given further on in the historical sketch of the Third Order. However, a large body of the laity, vowed to piety, grouped themselves about the rising Order of Preachers, and constituted, to all intents and purposes, a Third Order. In view of this fact and of some circumstances to be noted later on, the seventh master general of the order, Munio de Zamora, wrote (1285) a rule for the Brothers and Sisters of Penitence of St. Dominic. The privilege granted the new fraternity 28 Jan., 1286, by Honorius IV, gave it a canonical existence (Potthast, 22358). The rule of Munio was not entirely original; some points being borrowed from the Rule of the Brothers of Penitence, whose origin dates back to St. Francis of Assisi; but it was distinctive on all essential points. It is in a sense more thoroughly ecclesiastical; the Brothers and Sisters are grouped in different fraternities; their government is immediately subject to ecclesiastical authority; and the various fraternities do not form a collective whole, with legislative chapters, as was the case among the Brothers of Penitence of St. Francis. The Dominican fraternities are local and without any bond of union other than that of the Preaching Brothers who govern them. Some characteristics of these fraternities may be gathered from the Rule of Munio de Zamora. The Brothers and Sisters, as true children of St. Dominic, should be, above all things, truly zealous for the Catholic Faith. Their habit is a white tunic, with black cloak and hood, and a leathern girdle. After making profession, they cannot return to the world, but may enter other authorized religious orders. They recited a certain number of Paters and Aves, for the canonical Hours; receive communion at least four times a year, and must show great respect to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. They fast during Advent, Lent, and on all the Fridays during the year, and eat meat only three days in the week, Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday. They are allowed to carry arms only in defense of the Christian Faith. They visit sick members of the community, give them assistance if necessary, attend the burial of Brothers or Sisters and aid them with their prayers. The head or spiritual director is a priest of the Order of Preachers, whom the Tertiaries select and propose to the master general or to the provincial; he may act on their petition or appoint some other religious. The director and the older members of the fraternity choose the prior or prioress, from among the Brothers and Sisters, and their office continues until they are relieved. The Brothers and the Sisters have, on different days, a monthly reunion in the church of the Preachers, when they attend Mass, listen to an instruction, and to an explanation of the rule. The prior and the director can grant dispensations; the rule, like the Constitutions of the Preachers, does not oblige under pain of sin. The text of the Rule of the Brothers of the Penitence of St. Dominic is in "Regula S. Augustini et Constitutiones FF. Ord. Praed." (Rome, 1690), 2nd pt. p. 39; Federici, "Istoria dei cavalieri Gaudent" (Venice, 1787), bk. II, cod. diplomat., p. 28; Mandonnet, "Les règles et le gouvernement de l'Ordo de Poenitentia au XIIIe siècle" (Paris, 1902); Mortier, "Histoire des Maîtres Généraux des Frères Prêcheurs", II (Paris, 1903), 220. II. HISTORY OF THE ORDER A. THE FRIARS PREACHERS Their history may be divided into three periods: (1) The Middle Ages (from their foundation to the beginning of the sixteenth century); (2) The Modern Period up to the French Revolution; (3) The Contemporaneous Period. In each of these periods we shall examine the work of the order in its various departments. (1) The Middle Ages The thirteenth century is the classic age of the order, the witness to its brilliant development and intense activity. This last is manifested especially in the work of teaching. By preaching it reached all classes of Christian society, fought heresy, schism, paganism, by word and book, and by its missions to the north of Europe, to Africa, and Asia, passed beyond the frontiers of Christendom. Its schools spread throughout the entire Church its doctors wrote monumental works in all branches of knowledge and two among them, Albertus Magnus, and especially Thomas Aquinas, founded a school of philosophy and theology which was to rule the ages to come in the life of the Church. An enormous number of its members held offices in Church and State -- as popes, cardinals, bishops, legates, inquisitors, confessors of princes, ambassadors, and paciarii (enforcers of the peace decreed by popes or councils). The Order of Preachers, which should have remained a select body, developed beyond bounds and absorbed some elements unfitted to its form of life. A period of relaxation ensued during the fourteenth century owing to the general decline of Christian society. The weakening of doctrinal activity favoured the development here and there of the ascetic and contemplative life and there sprang up, especially in Germany and Italy, an intense and exuberant mysticism with which the names of Master Eckhart, Suso, Tauler, St. Catherine of Siena are associated. This movement was the prelude to the reforms undertaken, at the end of the century, by Raymond of Capua, and continued in the following century. It assumed remarkable proportions in the congregations of Lombardy and of Holland, and in the reforms of Savonarola at Florence. At the same time the order found itself face to face with the Renaissance. It struggled against pagan tendencies in Humanism, in Italy through Dominici and Savonarola, in Germany through the theologians of Cologne but it also furnished Humanism with such advanced writers as Francis Colonna (Poliphile) and Matthew Brandello. Its members, in great numbers, took part im the artistic activity of the age, the most prominent being Fra Angelico and Fra Bartolomeo. (a) Development and Statistics When St. Dominic, in 1216, asked for the official recognition of his order, the first Preachers numbered only sixteen. At the general Chapter of Bologna, 1221, the year of St. Dominic's death, the order already counted some sixty establishments, and was divided into eight provinces: Spain, Provence, France, Lombardy, Rome, Teutonia, England, and Hungary. The Chapter of 1228 added four new provinces: the Holy Land, Greece, Poland, and Dacia (Denmark and Scandinavia). Sicily was separated from Rome (1294), Aragon from Spain (1301). In 1303 Lombardy was divided into Upper and Lower Lombardy; Provence into Toulouse and Provence; Saxony was separated from Teutonia, and Bohemia from Poland, thus forming eighteen provinces. The order, which in 1277 counted 404 convents of Brothers, in 1303 numbered nearly 600. The development of the order reached its height during the Middle Ages; new houses were established during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but in relatively small numbers As to the number of religious only approximate statements can be given. In 1256, according to the concession of suffrages granted by Humbert of Romans to St. Louis, the order numbered about 5000 priests; the clerks and lay brothers could not have been less than 2000. Thus towards the middle of the thirteenth century it must have had about 7000 members (de Laborde, "Layette du trésor des chartes", Paris 1875, III, 304). According to Sebastien de Olmeda, the Preachers, as shown by the census taken under Benedict XII, were close on to 12,000 in 1337. (Fontana, "Monumenta Dominicana", Rome, 1674, pp. 207-8). This number was not surpassed at the close of the Middle Ages; the Great Plague of 1348, and the general state of Europe preventing a notable increase, The reform movement begun in 1390 by Raymond of Capua established the principle of a twofold arrangement in the order. For a long time it is true, the reformed convents were not separate from their respective provinces; but with the foundation of the congregation of Lombardy, in 1459, a new order of things began. The congregations were more or less self-governing, and, according as they developed, overlapped several provinces and even several nations. There were established successively the congregations of Portugal (1460), Holland (1464), Aragon, and Spain (1468), St. Mark in Florence (1493), France (1497), the Gallican (1514). About the same time some new provinces were also established: Scotland (1481), Ireland (1484), Bétique or Andalusia (1514), Lower Germany (1515). (Quétif-Echard, "Script. Ord. Praed.", I, p. 1-15; "Anal. Ord. Praed.", 1893, passim; Mortier, "Hist. des Maîtres Généraux", I-V, passim). (b) Administration The Preachers possessed a number of able administrators among their masters general during the Middle Ages, especially in the thirteenth century. St. Dominic, the creator of the institution (1206-1221), showed a keen intelligence of the needs of the age. He executed his plans with sureness of insight, firmness of resolution, and tenacity of purpose. Jordan of Saxony (1222-1237) sensitive, eloquent, and endowed with rare powers of persuasion, attracted numerous and valuable recruits. St. Raymond of Penaforte (1238-1240), the greatest canonist of the age, ruled the order only long enough to reorganize its legislation. John the Teuton (1241-1252), bishop and linguist, who was associated with the greatest personalities of his time pushed the order forward along the line of development outlined by its founder. Humbert of Romans (1254-1263), a genius of the practical sort, a broad-minded and moderate man, raised the order to the height of its glory, and wrote manifold works, setting forth what, in his eyes, the Preachers and Christian society ought to be. John of Vercelli (1264-1283), an energetic and prudent man, during his long government maintained the order in all its vigor. The successors of these illustrious masters did their utmost in the discharge of their duty, and in meeting the situations which the state of the Church and of society from the close of the thirteenth century rendered more and more difficult. Some of them did no more than hold their high office, while others had not the genius of the masters general of the golden age [Balme-Lelaidier, "Cart. de St. Dominic"; Guiraud, "St. Dominic" (Paris, 1899); Mothon, "Vie du B. Jourdain de Saxe" (Paris, 1885); Reichert, "Des Itinerar des zweiten Dominikaner-generals Jordanis von Sachsen" in "Festschrift des Deutschen Campo Santo in Rom" (Freiburg, 1897) 153; Mothon, "Vita del B. Giovanini da Vecellio" (Vecellio 1903); Mortier, "Histoire des Maîtres Généraux", I-V]. The general chapters which wielded supreme power were the great regulators of the Dominican life during the Middle Ages. They are usually remarkable for their spirit of decision, and the firmness with which they ruled. They appeared even imbued with a severe character which, taking no account of persons, bore witness to the importance they attached to the maintenance of discipline. (See the Acta Cap. Gen. already referred to.) (c) Modification of the Statute We have already spoken of the chief exception to be taken to the Constitution of the order, the difficulty of maintaining an even balance between the monastic and canonical observances and the clerical and apostolical life. The primitive régime of poverty, which left the convents without an assured income, created also a permanent difficulty. Time and the modifications of the state of Christian society exposed these weak points. Already the General Chapters of 1240-1242 forbade the changing of the general statutes of the order, a measure which would indicate at least a hidden tendency towards modification (Acta, I, p. 14-20). Some change seems to have been contemplated also by the Holy See when Alexander IV, 4 February, 1255, ordered the Dominican cardinal, Hugh of Saint Cher, to recast the entire legislation of the Preachers into a rule which should be called the Rule of St. Dominic (Potthast, 156-69). Nothing came of the project, and the question was broached again about 1270 (Humbert de Romanis, "Opera", I, p. 43). It was during the pontificate of Benedict XII, (1334-1342), who undertook a general reform of the religious orders, that the Preachers were on the point of undergoing serious modifications in the secondary elements of their primitive statute. Benedict, desiring to give the order greater efficiency, sought to impose a régime of property-holding as necessary to its security and to reduce the number of its members (12,000) by eliminating the unfit etc.; in a word, to lead the order back to its primitive concept of a select apostolic and teaching body. The order, ruled at that time by Hugh de Vansseman (1333-41), resisted with all its strength (1337-40). This was a mistake (Mortier, op. cit., III, 115). As the situation grew worse, the order was obliged to petition Sixtus IV for the right to hold property, and this was granted 1 June, 1475. Thence forward the convents could acquire property, and perpetual rentals (Mortier, IV, p. 495). This was one of the causes which quickened the vitality of the order in the sixteenth century. The reform projects of Benedict XII having failed, the master general, Raymond of Capua (1390) sought to restore the monastic observances which had fallen into decline. He ordered the establishment in each province of a convent of strict observance, hoping that as such houses became more numerous, the reform would eventually permeate the entire province. This was not usually the case. These houses of the observance formed a confederation among themselves under the jurisdiction of a special vicar. However, they did not cease to belong to their original province in certain respects, and this, naturally gave rise to numerous conflicts of government. During the fifteenth century, several groups made up congregations, more or less autonomous; these we have named above in giving the statistics of the order. The scheme of reform proposed by Raymond and adopted by nearly all who subsequently took up with his ideas, insisted on the observance of the Constitutions ad unguem, as Raymond, without further explanation, expressed it. By this, his followers, and, perhaps Raymond himself, understood the suppression of the rule of dispensation which governed the entire Dominican legislation. "In suppressing the power to grant and the right to accept dispensation, the reformers inverted the economy of the order, setting the part above the whole, and the means above the end" (Lacordaire, "Mémoire pour la restauration des Frères L Prêcheurs dans la chrétienité", new ed., Dijon, 1852, p. 18). The different reforms which originated within the order up to the nineteenth century, began usually with principles of asceticism, which exceeded the letter and the spirit of the original constitutions. This initial exaggeration was, under pressure of circumstances, toned down, and the reforms which endured, like that of the congregation of Lombardy, turned out to be the most effectual. Generally speaking, the reformed communities slackened the intense devotion to study prescribed by the Constitutions; they did not produce the great doctors of the order, and their literary activity was directed preferably to moral theology, history, subjects of piety, and asceticism. They gave to the fifteenth century many holy men (Thomae Antonii Senesis, "Historia disciplinæ regularis instaurata in Cnobiis Venetis Ord. Præd." in Fl. Cornelius, "Ecclesiæ Venetæ", VII, 1749, p. 167; Bl. Raymond of Capua, "Opuscula et Litterae", Rome, 1899; Meyer, "Buch der Reformacio Predigerordens" in "Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Dominikanerordens in Deutschland", II, III, Leipzig 1908-9; Mortier, "Hist. des Maîtres Généraux", III, IV). (d) Preaching and Teaching Independently of their official title of Order of Preachers, the Roman Church especially delegated the Preachers to the office of preaching. It is in fact the only order of the Middle Ages which the popes declared to be specially charged with this office (Bull. Ord. Præd., VIII, p. 768). Conformably to its mission, the order displayed an enormous activity. The "Vitæ Fratrum " (1260) (Lives of the Brothers) informs us that many of the brothers refused food until they had first announced the Word of God (op. cit., p. 150). In his circular letter (1260), the Master General Humbert of Romans, in view of what had been accomplished by his religious, could well make the statement: "We teach the people, we teach the prelates, we teach the wise and the unwise, religious and seculars, clerics and laymen, nobles and peasants, lowly and great." (Monum. Ord. Præd. Historia, V, p. 53). Rightly, too, it has been said: "Science on one hand, numbers on the other, placed them [the Preachers] ahead of their competitors in the thirteenth century " (Lecoy de la Marche, "La chaire française au Moyen Age", Paris, 1886, p. 31). The order maintained this supremacy during the entire Middle Ages (L. Pfleger, "Zur Geschichte des Predigtwesens in Strasburg", Strasburg, 1907, p. 26; F. Jostes, "Zur Geschichte der Mittelalterlichen Predigt in Westfalen", Münster, 1885, p. 10). During the thirteenth century, the Preachers in addition to their regular apostolate, worked especially to lead back to the Church heretics and renegade Catholics. An eyewitness of their labours (1233) reckons the number of their converts in Lombardy at more than 100,000 ("Annales Ord. Præd.", Rome, 1756, col. 128). This movement grew rapidly, and the witnesses could scarcely believe their eyes, as Humbert of Romans (1255) informs us (Opera, II, p. 493). At the beginning of the fourteenth century, a celebrated pulpit orator, Giordano da Rivalto, declared that, owing to the activity of the order, heresy had almost entirely disappeared from the Church ("Prediche del Beato Fra Giordano da Rivalto", Florence, 1831, I, p. 239). The Friars Preachers were especially authorized by the Roman Church to preach crusades, against the Saracens in favour of the Holy Land, against Livonia and Prussia, and against Frederick II, and his successors (Bull. O. P., XIII, p. 637). This preaching assumed such importance that Humbert of Romans composed for the purpose a treatise entitled, "Tractatus de prædicatione contra Saracenos infideles et paganos" (Tract on the preaching of the Cross against the Saracens, infidels and pagans). This still exists in its first edition in the Paris Bibliothèque Mazarine, incunabula no. 259; Lecoy de la Marche, "La prédication de la Croisade au XIIIe siècle" in "Rev. des questions historiques", 1890, p. 5). In certain provinces, particularly in Germany and Italy, the Dominican preaching took on a peculiar quality, due to the influence of the spiritual direction which the religious of these provinces gave to the numerous convents of women confided to their care. It was a mystical preaching; the specimens which have survived are in the vernacular, and are marked by simplicity and strength (Denifle, "Uber die Anfänge der Predigtweise der deutschen Mystiker" in "Archiv. f. Litt. u. Kirchengesch", II, p. 641; Pfeiffer, "Deutsche Mystiker des vierzehnten Jahrhundert", Leipzig, 1845; Wackernagel, "Altdeutsche Predigten und Gebete aus Handschriften", Basle, 1876). Among these preachers may be mentioned: St. Dominic, the founder and model of preachers (d. 1221); Jordan of Saxony (d. 1237) (Lives of the Brothers, pts. II, III); Giovanni di Vincenza, whose popular eloquence stirred Northern Italy during the year 1233 -- called the Age of the Alleluia (Sitter, "Johann von Vincenza und die Italiensche Friedensbewegung", Freiburg, 1891); Giordano da Rivalto, the foremost pulpit orator in Tuscany at the beginning of the fourteenth century [d. 1311 (Galletti, "Fra Giordano da Pisa", Turin, 1899)]; Johann Eckhart of Hochheim (d. 1327), the celebrated theorist of the mystical life (Pfeiffer, "Deutsche Mystiker", II, 1857; Buttner, "Meister Eckharts Schriften und Predigten", Leipzig, 1903); Henri Suso (d. 1366), the poetical lover of Divine wisdom (Bihlmeyer, "Heinrich Seuse Deutsche Schriften", Stuttgart, 1907); Johann Tauler (d. 1361), the eloquent moralist ("Johanns Taulers Predigten" ed. T. Harnberger, Frankfort, 1864); Venturino la Bergamo (d. 1345), the fiery popular agitator (Clementi, "Un Santo Patriota, Il B. Venturino da Bergamo", Rome, 1909); Jacopo Passavanti (d. 1357), the noted author of the "Mirror of Penitence" (Carmini di Pierro, "Contributo alla Biografia di Fra Jacopo Passavanti" in "Giornale storico della letteratura italiana", XLVII, 1906 p. 1); Giovanni Dominici (d. 1419), the beloved orator of the Florentines (Gallette, "Una Raccolta di Prediche volgari del Cardinale Giovanni Dominici" in "Miscellanea di studi critici publicati in onore di G. Mazzoni", Florence, 1907, I); Alain de la Rochei (d. 1475), the Apostle of the Rosary (Script. Ord. Præd., I, p. 849); Savonarola (d. 1498), one of the most powerful orators of all times (Luotto, "II vero Savonarola", Florence, p. 68). (e) Academic Organization The first order instituted by the Church with an academic mission was the Preachers. The decree of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) requiring the appointment of a master of theology for each cathedral school had not been effectual. The Roman Church and St. Dominic met the needs of the situation by creating a religious order vowed to the teaching of the sacred sciences. To attain their purpose, the Preachers from 1220 laid down as a fundamental principle, that no convent of their order could be founded without a doctor (Const., Dist. II, cog. I). From their first foundation, the bishops, likewise, welcomed them with expressions like those of the Bishop of Metz (22 April, 1221): "Cohabitatio ipsorum non tantum laicis in praedicationibus, sed et clericis in sacris lectionibus esset plurimum profutura, exemplo Domini Papæ, qui eis Romæ domum contulit, et multorum archiepiscoporum ac episcoporum" etc. (Annales Ord. Præd. I, append., col. 71). (Association with them would be of great value not only to laymen by their preaching, but also to the clergy by their lectures on sacred science, as it was to the Lord Pope who gave them their house at Rome, and to many archbishops and bishops.) This is the reason why the second master general, Jordan of Saxony, defined the vocation of the order: "honeste vivere, discere et docere", i.e. upright living, learning and teaching (Vitæ Fratrum, p. 138); and one of his successors, John the Teuton, declared that he was "ex ordine Praedicatorum, quorum proprium esset docendi munus" (Annales, p. 644). (Of the Order of Preachers whose proper function was to teach.) In pursuit of this aim the Preachers established a very complete and thoroughly organized scholastic system, which has caused a writer of our own times to say that "Dominic was the first minister of public instruction in modern Europe" (Larousse, "Grand Dictionnaire; Universel du XIXe Siècle", s. v. Dominic). The general basis of teaching was the conventual school. It was attended by the religious of the convent, and by clerics from the outside; the teaching was public. The school was directed by a doctor, called later, though not in all cases, rector. His principal subject was the text of Holy Scripture, which he interpreted, and in connection with which he treated theological questions. The "Sentences" of Peter Lombard, the "History" of Peter Comestor, the "Sum" of cases of conscience, were also, but secondarily, used as texts. In the large convents, which were not called studia generalia, but were in the language of the times studia solemnia, the teaching staff was more complete. There was a second master or sub-rector, or a bachelor, whose duty it was to lecture on the Bible and the "Sentences". This organization somewhat resembled that of the studia generalia. The head master held public disputations every fortnight. Each convent possessed a magister studentium, charged with the superintendence of the students, and usually an assistant teacher. These masters were appointed by the provincial chapters, and the visitors were obliged to report each year to the chapter on the condition of academic work. Above the conventual schools were the studia generalia. The first studium generale which the order possessed was that of the Convent of St. Jacques at Paris. In 1229 they obtained a chair incorporated with the university and another in 1231. Thus the Preachers were the first religious order that took part in teaching at the University of Paris, and the only one possessing two schools. In the thirteenth century the order did not recognize any mastership of theology other than that received at Paris. Usually the masters did not teach for any length of time. After receiving their degrees, they were assigned to different schools of the order throughout the world. The schools of St. Jacques at Paris were the principal scholastic centres of the Preachers during the Middle Ages. In 1248 the development of the order led to the erection of four new studia generalia -- at Oxford, Cologne, Montpellier, and Bologna. When at the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century several provinces of the order were divided, other studia were established at Naples, Florence, Genoa, Toulouse, Barcelona, and Salamanca. The studium generale was conducted by a master or regent, and two bachelors who taught under his direction. The master taught the text of the Holy Scriptures with commentaries. The works of Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas show us the nature of these lessons. Every fifteen days the master held a debate upon a theme chosen by himself. To this class of exercises belong the "Quæstiones Disputatæ" of St. Thomas, while his "Quaestiones Quodlibeticae" represent extraordinary disputations which took place twice a year during Advent and Lent and whose subject was proposed by the auditors. One of the bachelors read and commentated the Book of Sentences. The commentaries of Albert and Thomas Aquinas on the Lombard are the fruit of their two-year baccalaureate course as sententiarii. The biblicus lectured on the Scriptures for one year before becoming a sententiarius. He did not commentate, but read and interpreted the glosses which preceding ages had added to the Scriptures for better understanding of the text. The professors of the studia generalia were appointed by the general chapters, or by the master general, delegated for the purpose. Those who were to teach at Paris were taken indiscriminately from the different provinces of the order. The conventual schools taught only the sacred sciences, i.e. Holy Scripture and theology. At the beginning of the thirteenth century neither priest nor religious studied or taught the profane sciences As it could not set itself against this general status the order provided in its constitutions, that the master general, or the general chapter, might allow certain religious to take up the study of the liberal arts Thus, at first, the study of the arts, i.e. of philosophy was entirely individual. As numerous masters of arts entered the order during the early years, especially at Paris and Bologna, it was easy to make a stand against this private teaching. However, the development of the order and the rapid intellectual progress of the thirteenth century soon caused the organization -- for the use of religious only -- of regular schools for the study of the liberal arts. Towards the middle of the century the provinces established in one or more of their convents the study of logic; and about 1260 the studia naturalium, i.e. courses in natural science. The General Chapter of 1315 commended the masters of the students to lecture on the moral sciences to all the religious of their convents; i.e. on the ethics, politics, and economics of Aristotle. From the beginning of the fourteenth century we find also some religious who gave special courses in philosophy to secular students. In the fifteenth century the Preachers occupied in several universities chairs of philosophy, especially of metaphysics. Coming in contact as it did with barbaric peoples -- principally with the Greeks and Arabs -- the order was compelled from the outset to take up the study of foreign languages. The Chapter Generalissimo of 1236 ordered that in all convents and in all the provinces the religious should learn the languages of the neighbouring countries. The following year Brother Phillippe, Provincial of the Holy Land, wrote to Gregory IX that his religious had preached to the people in the different languages of the Orient, especially in Arabic, the most popular tongue, and that the study of languages had been added to their conventual course. The province of Greece furnished several Hellenists whose works we shall mention later. The province of Spain, whose population was a mixture of Jews and Arabs, opened special schools for the study of languages. About the middle of the thirteenth century it also established a studium arabicum at Tunis; in 1259 one at Barcelona; between 1265 and 1270 one at Murcia; in 1281 one at Valencia. The same province also established some schools for the study of Hebrew at Barcelona in 1281, and at Jativa in 1291. Finally, the General Chapters of 1310 commanded the master general to establish, in several provinces, schools for the study of Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic, to which each province of the order should send at least one student. In view of this fact a Protestant historian, Molmier, in writing of the Friars Preachers, remarks: "They were not content with professing in their convents all the divisions of science, as it was then understood; they added an entire order of studies which no other Christian schools of the time seem to have taught, and in which they had no other rivals than the rabbis of Languedoc and Spain" ("Guillem Bernard de Gaillac et l'enseignement chez les Dominicains", Paris, 1884, p. 30). This scholastic activity extended to other fields, particularly to the universities which were established throughout Europe from the beginning of the thirteenth century; the Preachers took a prominent part in university life. Those universities, like Paris, Toulouse etc., which from the beginning had chairs of theology, incorporated the Dominican conventual school which was patterned on the schools of the studia generalia. When a university was established as in a city -- as was usually the case -- after the foundation of a Dominican convent which always possessed a chair of theology, the pontifical letters granting the establishment of the university made no mention whatever of a faculty of theology. The latter was considered as already existing by reason of the Dominican school and others of the mendicant orders, who followed the example of the Preachers. For a time in the Dominican theological schools were simply in juxtaposition to the universities, which had no faculty of theology. When these universities petitioned the Holy See for a faculty of theology, and their petition was granted, they usually incorporated the Dominican school, which thus became a part of the theological faculty. This transformation began towards the close of the fourteenth and lasted until the first years of the sixteenth century. Once established, this state of things lasted until the Reformation in the countries which became Protestant, and until the French Revolution and its spread in the Latin countries. The archbishops, who according to the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) were to establish each metropolitan church a master of theology, considered themselves dispensed from this obligation by reason of the creation of Dominican schools open to the secular clergy. However, when they thought it their duty to apply the decree of the council, or when later they were obliged by the Roman Church to do so, they frequently called in a Dominican master to fill the chair of their metropolitan school. Thus the metropolitan school of Lyons was entrusted to the Preachers, from their establishment in that city until the beginning of the sixteenth century (Forest, "L'école cathédrale de Lyon", Paris-Lyons, 1885, pp. 238, 368; Beyssac, "Les Prieurs de Notre Dame de Confort", Lyons, 1909; "Chart. Univer. Paris", III, p. 28). The same arrangement, though not so permanent, was made at Toulouse, Bordeaux, Tortosa, Valencia, Urgel, Milan etc. The popes, who believed themselves morally obligated to set an example regarding the execution of the scholastic decree of the Lateran Council, usually contented themselves during the thirteenth century with the establishment of schools at Rome by the Dominicans and other religious orders. The Dominican masters who taught at Rome or in other cities where the sovereign pontiffs took up their residence, were known as lectores curiae. However, when the popes, once settled at Avignon, began to require from the archbishops the execution of the decree of Lateran, they instituted a theological school in their own papal palace; the initiative was taken by Clement V (1305-1314). At the request of the Dominican, Cardinal Nicolas Alberti de Prato (d. 1321), this work was permanently entrusted to a Preacher, bearing the name of Magister Sacri Palatii. The first to hold the position was Pierre Godin, who later became cardinal (1312). The office of Master of the Sacred Palace, whose functions were successively increased, remains to the present day the special privilege of the Order of Preachers (Catalani, "De Magistro Sacri Palatii Apostolici", Rome, p. 175). Finally, when towards the middle of the thirteenth century the old monastic orders began to take up the scholastic and doctrinal movement, the Cistercians, in particular, applied to the Preachers for masters of theology in their abbeys ("Chart. Univ Paris", I, p. 184). During the last portion of the Middle Ages, the Dominicans furnished, at intervals, professors to the different orders, not themselves consecrated to study (Denifle, " Quellen zur Gelehrtengeschichte des Predigerordens im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert" in "Archiv." II, p.165; Mandonnet, "Les Chanoines Prêcheurs de Bologne" Fribourg 1903; Douais, "Essai sur l'organisation des études dans l'Ordre des Frères-Prêcheurs", Paris: 1884; Mandonnet, "De l'incorporation des Dominicains dans l'ancienne Université de Paris" in "Revue Thomiste", IV 1896, p. 139; Denifle, "Die Universitäten des Mittelalters", Berlin, 1885; I, passim; Denifle-Chatelain, "Chart. Univ., Paris" 1889, passim; Bernard, "Les Dominicains dans l'Université de Paris", Paris, 183; Mandonnet, "Siger de Brabant et l'averroisme Latin au XIIIe siècle", Louvain, 1911, I, n. 30-95). The legislation regarding studies occurs here and there in the constitutions, and principally in the "Acta Capitularium Generalium', Rome, 1898, sq. and Douais, "Acta Capitulorum Provincialium" (Toulouse, 1894). The teaching activity of the order and its scholastic organization placed the Preachers in the forefront of the intellectual life of the Middle Ages. They were the pioneers in all directions as one may see from a subsequent paragraph relative to their literary productions. We speak only of the school of philosophy and of theology created by them in the thirteenth century which has been the most influential in the history of the Church. At the beginning of the thirteenth century philosophical teaching was confined practically to the logic of Aristotle and theology, and was under the influence of St. Augustine; hence the name Augustinism generally given to the theological doctrines of that age. The first Dominican doctors, who came from the universities into the order, or who taught in the universities, adhered for a long time to the Augustinian doctrine. Among the most celebrated were Roland of Cremona, Hugh of Saint Cher, Richard Fitzacre, Moneta of Cremona, Peter of Tarentaise, and Robert of Kilwardby. It was the introduction into the Latin world of the great works of Aristotle, and their assimilation, through the action of Albertus Magnus, that opened up in the Order of Preachers a new line of philosophical and theological investigation. The work begun by Albertus Magnus (1240-1250) was carried to completion by his disciple, Thomas Aquinas (q. v.), whose teaching activity occupied the last twenty years of his life (1245-1274). The system of theology and philosophy constructed by Aquinas is the most complete, the most original, and the most profound, which Christian thought has elaborated, and the master who designed it surpasses all his contemporaries and his successors in the grandeur of his creative genius. The Thomist School developed rapidly both within the order and without. The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries witnessed the struggles of the Thomist School on various points of doctrine. The Council of Vienne (1311) declared in favour of the Thomistic teaching, according to which there is but one form in the human composition, and condemned as heretical any one who should deny that "the rational or intellective soul is per se and essentially the form of the human body". This is also the teaching of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515). See Zigliara, "De Mente Concilii Viennensis", Rome, 1878, pp. 88-89. The discussions between the Preachers and the Friars on the poverty of Christ and the Apostles was also settled by John XXII in the Thomistic sense [(12 Nov., 1323), Ehrle, "Archiv. f. Litt. u Kirchengesch.", III, p. 517; Tocco, "La Questione della povertà nel Secolo XIV", Naples, 1910]. The question regarding the Divinity of the Blood of Christ separated from His Body during His Passion, raised for the first time in 1351, at Barcelona, and taken up again in Italy in 1463, was the subject of a formal debate before Pius II. The Dominican opinion prevailed; although the pope refused a sentence properly so called (Mortier, "Hist. des Maîtres Généraux", III, p. 287, IV, p. 413; G. degli Agostini, "Notizie istorico-critiche intorno la vita e le opere degli scrittori Viniziani", Venice, 1752, I, p. 401. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the Thomist School had to make a stand against Nominalism, of which a Preacher had been one of the protagonists. The repeated sentences of the universities and of princes slowly combatted this doctrine (De Wulf, "Histoire de la philosophic médiévale", Louvain-Paris, 1905, p. 453). The Averroism against which Albert the Great and especially Aquinas had fought so energetically did not disappear entirely with the condemnation of Paris (1277), but survived under a more or less attenuated form. At the beginning of the sixteenth century the debates were renewed, and the Preachers found themselves actively engaged therein in Italy where the Averroist doctrine had reappeared. The General of the Dominicans, Thomas de Vio (Cajetan) had published his commentaries on the "De Anima" of Aristotle (Florence, 1509), in which, abandoning the position of St. Thomas, he contended that Aristotle had not taught the individual immortality of the soul, but affirming at the same time that this doctrine was philosophically erroneous. The Council of Lateran, by its Decree, 19 Dec., 1513, not only condemned the Averroistic teaching, but exacted still further that professors of philosophy should answer the opposing arguments advanced by philosophers -- a measure which Cajetan did not approve (Mansi, "Councils", I, 32, col. 842). Pietro Pomponazzi, having published at Bologna (1516) his treatise on the immortality of the soul in the Averroistic sense, while making an open profession of faith in the Christian doctrine, raised numerous polemics, and was held as a suspect. Chrysostom Javelli, regent of theology at the Convent of St. Dominic, in agreement with the ecclesiastical authority, and at the request of Pomponazzi, sought to extricate him from this difficulty by drawing up a short theological exposé of the question which was to be added in the future to the work of Pomponazzi. But this discussion did not cease all at once. Several Dominicans entered the lists. Girolamo de Fornariis subjected to examination the polemic of Pomponazzi with Augustin Nifi (Bologna, 1519); Bartolommeo de Spina attacked Cajetan on one article, and Pomponazzi in two others (Venice, 1519); Isidore of Isolanis also wrote on the immortality of the soul (Milan, 1520); Lucas Bettini took up the same theme, and Pico della Mirandola published his treatise (Bologna, 1523); finally Chrysostom Javelli himself, in 1523, composed a treatise on immortality in which he refuted the point of view of Cajetan and of Pomponazzi (Chrysostomi Javelli, "Opera", Venice, 1577, I-III, p. 52). Cajetan, becoming cardinal, not only held his position regarding the idea of Aristotle, but further declared that the immortality of the soul was an article of faith, for which philosophy could offer only probable reasons ("In Ecclesiasten", 1534, cap. iv; Fiorentino, "Pietro Pomponazzi", Florence, 1868). (f) Literary and Scientific Productions During the Middle Ages the order had an enormous literary output, its activity extending to all spheres. The works of its writers are epoch-making in the various branches of human knowledge. (i) Works on the Bible. -- The study and teaching of the Bible were foremost among the occupations of the Preachers, and their studies included everything pertaining to it. They first undertook correctories (correctoria) of the Vulgate text (1230-36), under the direction of Hugh of Saint Cher, professor at the University of Paris. The collation with the Hebrew text was accomplished under the sub-prior of St-Jacques, Theobald of Sexania, a converted Jew. Two other correctories were made prior to 1267, the first called the correctory of Sens. Again under the direction of Hugh of Saint Cher the Preachers made the first concordances of the Bible which were called the Concordances of St. Jacques or Great Concordances because of their development. The English Dominicans of Oxford, apparently under the direction of John of Darlington, made more simplified concordances in the third quarter of the thirteenth century. At the beginning of the fourteenth century a German Dominican, Conrad of Halberstadt simplified the English concordances still more; and John Fojkowich of Ragusa, at the time of the Council of Basle, caused the insertion in the concordances of elements which had not hitherto been incorporated in them. The Dominicans, moreover, composed numerous commentaries on the books of the Bible. That of Hugh of Saint Cher was the first complete commentary on the Scriptures (last ed., Venice, 1754, 8 vols. in fol.). The commentaries of Bl. Albertus Magnus and especially those of St. Thomas Aquinas are still famous. With St. Thomas the interpretation of the text is more direct, simply literal, and theological. These great Scriptural commentaries represent theological teaching in the studia generalia. The lecturae on the text of Scripture, also composed to a large extent by Dominicans, represent scriptural teaching in the other studia of theology. St. Thomas undertook an "Expositio continua" of the four Gospels now called the "Catena aurea", composed of extracts from the Fathers with a view to its use by clerics. At the beginning of the fourteenth century Nicholas of Trevet did the same for all the books of the Bible. The Preachers were also engaged in translating the Bible into the vernacular. In all probability they were the translators of the French Parisian Bible during the first half of the thirteenth century, and in the fourteenth century they took a very active share in the translation of the celebrated Bible of King John. The name of a Catalonian Dominican, Romeu of Sabruguera, is attached to the first translation of the Scriptures into Catalonian. The names of Preachers are also connected with the Valencian and Castilian translations, and still more with the Italian (F. L. Mannoci, "Intorno a un volgarizzamento della Biblia attribuita al B. Jacopo da Voragine" in "Giornale storico e letterario della Liguria", V, 1904, p. 96). The first pre-Lutheran German translation of the Bible, except the Psalms, is due to John Rellach, shortly after the middle of the fifteenth century. Finally the Bible was translated from Latin into Armenian about 1330 by B. Bartolommeo Parvi of Bologna, missionary and bishop in Armenia. These works enabled Vercellone to write: "To the Dominican Order belongs the glory of having first renewed in the Church the illustrious example of Origen and St. Augustine by the ardent cultivation of sacred criticism " (P. Mandonnet "Tràvaux des Dominicains sur les Saintes Ecritures" in "Dict. de la Bible", II, col. 1463; Saul, "Des Bibelstudium im Predigerorden" in "Der Katholik", 82 Jahrg, 3 f., XXVII, 1902, a repetition of the foregoing article). (ii) Philosophical works. -- The most celebrated philosophical works of the thirteenth century were those of Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas Aquinas. The former compiled on the model of Aristotle a vast scientific encyclopedia which exercised great influence on the last centuries of the Middle Ages ("Alberti Magni Opera", Lyons, 1651, 20 vols. in fol.; Paris, 1890, 38 vols. in 40; Mandonnet, "Siger de Brabant", I, 37, n. 3). Thomas Aquinas, apart from special treatises and numerous philosophical sections in his other works, commentated in whole or in part thirteen of Aristotle's treatises, these being the most important of the Stagyrite's works (Mandonnet, "Des écrits authentiques de St. Thomas d'Aquin", 2nd ed., p. 104, Opera, Paris, 1889, XXII-XVI). Robert of Kilwardby (d. 1279) a holder of the old Augustinian direction, produced numerous philosophical writings. His "De ortu et divisione philosophiae" is regarded as "the most important introduction to Philosophy of the Middle Ages" (Baur "Dominicus Gundissalinus De divisione philosophiae", Münster, 1903, 368). At the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century, Dietrich of Vriberg left an important philosophical and scientific work (Krebs, "Meister Dietrich, sein Leben, seine Werke, seine Wissenschaft", Münster, 1906). At the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century the Dominicans composed numerous philosophical treatises, many of them bearing on the special points whereon the Thomistic School was attacked by its adversaries ("Archiv f. Litt. und Kirchengesch.", II, 226 sqq.). (iii) Theological works. -- In importance and number theological works occupy the foreground in the literary activity of the order. Most of the theologians composed commentaries on the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard, which was the classical text in theological schools. Besides the "Sentences" the usual work of bachelors in the Universities included Disputationes and Quodlibeta, which were always the writings of masters. The theological summae set forth the theological matter according to a more complete and well-ordered plan than that of Peter Lombard and especially with solid philosophical principles in which the books of the "Sentences" were wanting. Manuals of theology and more especially manuals, or summae, on penance for the use of confessors were composed in great numbers. The oldest Dominican commentaries on the "Sentences" are those of Roland of Cremona, Hugh of Saint Cher, Richard Fitzacre, Robert of Kilwardby and Albertus Magnus. The series begins with the year 1230 if not earlier and the last are prior to the middle of the thirteenth century (Mandonnet, "Siger de Brabant", I, 53). The "Summa" of St. Thomas (1265-75) is still the masterpiece of theology. The monumental work of Albertus Magnus is unfinished. The "Summa de bono" of Ulrich of Strasburg (d. 1277), a disciple of Albert is still unedited, but is of paramount interest to the historian of the thought of the thirteenth century (Grabmann, "Studien ueber Ulrich von Strassburg" in "Zeitschrift für Kathol. Theol.", XXIX, 1905, 82). The theological summa of St. Antoninus is highly esteemed by moralists and economists (Ilgner, "Die Volkswirtschaftlichen Anschaungen Antonins von Florenz", Paderborn, 1904). The "Compendium theologicæ veritatis" of Hugh Ripelin of Strasburg (d. 1268) is the most widespread and famous manual of the Middle Ages (Mandonnet, "Des écrits authentiques de St. Thomas", Fribourg, 1910, p. 86). The chief manual of confessors is that of Paul of Hungary composed for the Brothers of St. Nicholas of Bologna (1220-21) and edited without mention of the author in the "Bibliotheca Casinensis" (IV, 1880, 191) and with false assignment of authorship by R. Duellius, "Miscellan. Lib." (Augsburg, 1723, 59). The "Summa de Poenitentia" of Raymond of Pennafort, composed in 1235, was a classic during the Middle Ages and was one of the works of which the MSS. were most multiplied. The "Summa Confessorum" of John of Freiburg (d. 1314) is, according to F. von Schulte, the most perfect product of this class of literature. The Pisan Bartolommeo of San Concordio has left us a "Summa Casuum" composed in 1338, in which the matter is arranged m alphabetical order. It was very successful in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The manuals for confessors of John Nieder (d. 1438), St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence (d. 1459), and Girolamo Savonarola (d. 1498) were much esteemed in their time (Quétif-Echard, "Script. Ord. Praed.", I, passim; Hurter, " Nomenclator literarius; aetas media", Innsbruck, 1906, passim; F. von Schulte, "Gesch. der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts", Stuttgart, II, 1877, p. 410 sqq.; Dietterle, "Die Summæ confessorum . . . von ihren Anfängen an bis zu Silvester Prierias" in "Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch.", XXIV, 1903; XXVIII, 1907). (iv) Apologetic works. -- The Preachers, born amid the Albigensian heresy and founded especially for the defense of the Faith, bent their literary efforts to reach all classes of dissenters from the Catholic Church. They produced by far the most powerful works in the sphere of apologetics. The "Summa contra Catharos et Valdenses" (Rome, 1743) of Moneta of Cremona, in course of composition in 1244, is the most complete and solid work produced in the Middle Ages against the Cathari and Waldenses. The "Summa contra Gentiles" of St. Thomas Aquinas is one of that master's strongest creations. It is the defense of the Christian Faith against Arabian philosophy. Raymond Marti in his "Pugio fidei", in course of composition in 1278 (Paris, 1642; 1651: Leipzig, 1687), measures arms with Judaism. This work, to a large extent based on Rabbinic literature, is the most important medieval monument of Orientalism (Neubauer, "Jewish Controversy and the Pugio Fidei" in "The Expositor", 1888, p. 81 sqq.; Loeb, "La controverse religieuse entre les chrétiens et les Juifs au moyen-âge en France et en Espagne" in "Revue de l'histoire des religions", XVIII, 136). The Florentine, Riccoldo di Monte Croce, a missionary in the East (d. 1320), composed his "Propugnaculum Fidei" against the doctrine of the Koran. It is a rare medieval Latin work based directly on Arabian literature. Demetrius Cydonius translated the "Propugnaculum" into Greek in the fourteenth century and Luther translated it into German in the sixteenth (Mandonnet, "Fra Riccoldo di Monte Croce, pélerin en Terre Sainte et missionnaire en Orient" in "Revue Biblique", I, 1893, 44; Grabmann, "Die Missionsidee bei den Dominikanertheologien des 13. Jahrhunderts" in "Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft", I, 1911, 137). (v) Educational literature. -- Besides manuals of theology the Dominicans furnished a considerable literary output with a view to meeting the various needs of all social classes and which may be called educational or practical literature. They composed treatises on preaching, models or materials for sermons, and collections of discourses. Among the oldest of these are the "Distinctiones" and the "Dictionarius pauperum" of Nicholas of Biard (d. 1261), the "Tractatus de diversis materiis prædicabilibus" of Stephen of Bourbon (d. 1261), the "De eruditione prædicatorum " of Humbert of Romans (d. 1277), the "Distinctiones" of Nicholas of Goran (d. 1295), and of Maurice of England [d. circa 1300; (Quétif-Echard, "Script. Ord. Præd.", II, 968; 970; Lecoy de la Marche, "La chaire française au moyen âge", Paris, 1886; Crane, "The exempla or illustrative stories from the 'Sermones vulgares' of Jacques de Vitry", London, 1890)]. The Preachers led the way in the composition of comprehensive collections of the lives of the saints or legendaries, writings at once for the use and edification of the faithful. Bartholomew of Trent compiled his "Liber epilogorum in Gesta Sanctorum " in 1240. After the middle of the thirteenth century Roderick of Cerrate composed a collection of "Vitæ Sanctorum" (Madrid University Library, cod. 146). The "Abbreviatio in gestis et miraculis sanctorum", composed in 1243 according to the "Speculum historiale" of Vincent of Beauvais, is the work of Jean de Mailly. The "Legenda Sanctorum" of Jacopo de Voragine (Vorazze) called also the "Golden Legend", written about 1260, is universally known. "The success of the book," writes the Bollandist, A. Poncelet, "was prodigious; it far exceeded that of all similar compilations." It was besides translated into all the vernaculars of Europe. The "Speculum Sanctorale" of Bernard Guidonis is a work of a much more scholarly character. The first three parts were finished in 1324 and the fourth in 1329. About the same time Peter Calo (d. 1348) undertook under the title of "Legenda sanctorum" an "immense compilation" which aimed at being more complete than its predecessors (A. Poncelet, "Le légendier de Pierre Calo" in "Analecta Bollandiana", XXIX, 1910, 5-116). Catechetical literature was also early taken in hand. In 1256-7 Raymond Marti composed his "Explanatio symboli ad institutionem fidelium" ("Revue des Bibliothèques", VI, 1846, 32; March, "La 'Explanatio Symboli', obra inedita de Ramon Marti, autor del 'Pugio Fidei"', in "Anuari des Institut d'Estudis Catalans", 1908, and Bareclona, 1910). Thomas Aquinas wrote four small treatises which represent the contents of a catechism as it was in the Middle Ages: "De articulis fidei et Ecclesiae Sacramentis"; "Expositio symboli Apostolorum"; "De decem præceptis et lege amoris"; "Expositio orationis dominicae". Several of these writings have been collected and called the catechism of St. Thomas. (Portmann-Kunz, "Katechismus des hl. Thomas von Aquin", Lucerne, 1900.) In 1277 Laurent d'Orléans composed at the request of Philip the Bold, whose confessor he was, a real catechism in the vernacular known as the "Somme le Roi" (Mandonnet, "Laurent d'Orléans l'auteur de la Somme le Roi" in "Revue des langues romanes", 1911; "Dict. de théol. cath.", II, 1900). At the beginning of the fourteenth century Bernard Guidonis composed an abridgment of Christian doctrine which he revised later when he had become Bishop of Lodève (1324-31) into a sort of catechism for the use of his priests in the instruction of the faithful ("Notices et extraits de la Bib. Nat.", XXVII, Paris, 1879, 2nd part, p. 362, C. Douais, "Un nouvel écrit de Bernard Gui. Le synodal de Lodève, "Paris, 1944 p. vii). The "Discipulus" of John Hérolt was much esteemed in its day (Paulus, "Johann Hérolt und seine Lehre. Ein Beitrag zur Gesch. des religiosen Volksunterichte am Ausgang des Mittelalters" in "Zeitsch. für kath. Theol.", XXVI, 1902, 417). The order also produced pedagogical works. William of Tournai composed a treatise "De Modo docendi pueros" (Paris, Bib. Nat. lat. 16435) which the General Chapter of 1264 recommended, as well as one on preaching and confession for school children. ("Act. Cap. Gen." I, 125; "Script. Ord. Præd.", I, 345). Vincent of Beauvais wrote especially for the education of princes. He first composed his "De eruditione filiorum regalium" (Basle, 1481), then the "De eruditione principum", published with the works of St. Thomas, to whom as well as to Guillaume Perrault it has been incorrectly ascribed; finally (c. 1260) the "Tractatus de morali principis institutione", which is a general treatise and is still unedited ("Script. Ord. Præd.", I, 239; R. Friedrich, "Vincentius von Beauvais als Pädagog nach seiner Schrift De eruditione filiorum regalium", Leipzig, 1883). Early in the fifteenth century (1405) John Dominici composed his famous "Lucula noctis", in which he deals with the study of pagan authors in the education of Christian youth. This is a most important work, written against the dangers of Humanism ("B. Johannis Dominici Cardinalis S. Sixti Lucula Noctis", ed. R. Coulon, Paris, 1908). Dominici is also the author of a much esteemed work on the government of the family ("Regola del governo di cure familiare dal Beato Giovanni Dominici", ed. D. Salve, Florence, 1860). St. Antoninus composed a "Regola a ben vivere" (ed. Palermo, Florence, 1858). Works on the government of countries were also produced by members of the order; among them are the treatises of St. Thomas "De rege et regno", addressed to the King of Cyprus (finished by Bartolommeo of Lucca), and the "De regimine subditorum", composed for the Countess of Flanders. At the request of the Florentine Government Girolamo Savonarola drew up (1493) his " Trattati circa il reggimento e governo della cittá di Firenze" (ed. Audin de Rians, Florence, 1847) in which he shows great political insight. (vi) Canon law. -- St. Raymond of Pennafort was chosen by Gregory IX to compile the Decretals (1230-34); to his credit also belong opinions and other works on canon law. Martin of Troppau, Bishop of Gnesen, composed (1278) a "Tabula decreti" commonly called "Margarita Martiniana", which received wide circulation. Martin of Fano, professor of canon law at Arezzo and Modena and podeatà of Genoa in 1260-2, prior to entering the order, wrote valuable canonical works. Nicholas of Ennezat at the beginning of the fourteenth century composed tables on various parts of canon law. During the pontificate of Gregory XII John Dominici wrote copious memoranda in defense of the rights of the legitimate pope, the two most important being still unedited (Vienna, Hof-bibliothek, lat. 5102, fol. 1-24). About the middle of the fifteenth century John of Torquemada wrote extensive works on the Decretals of Gratian which were very influential in defense of the pontifical rights. Important works on inquisitorial law also emanated from the order, the first directories for trial of heresy being composed by Dominicans. The oldest is the opinion of St. Raymond of Pennafort [1235 (ed. in Bzovius, "Annal. eccles." ad ann. 1235 "Monum. Ord. Præd. Hist.", IV, fasc. II, 41; "Le Moyen Age", 2nd series III, 305)]. The same canonist wrote (1242) a directory for the inquisitions of Aragon (C. Douais, "L'Inquisition", Paris, I, 1906, p. 275). About 1244 another directory was composed by the inquisitors of Provence ("Nouvelle revue historique du droit français et étranger", Paris, 1883, 670; E. Vacandard, "L'Inquisition", Paris, 1907, p. 314). But the two classical works of the Middle Ages on inquisitorial law are that of Bernard Guidonis composed in 1321 under the title of "Directorium Inquisitionis hereticae pravitatis" (ed. C. Douais Paris, 1886) and the "Directorium Inquisitorum" of Nicholas Eymerich [(1399) "Archiv für Literatur und Kirchengeschechte"; Grahit, "El inquisidor F. Nicholas Eymerich", Girona, 1878; Schulte, "Die Gesch. der Quellen und Literatur des Canonischen Rechts", II, passim]. (vii) Historical Writings. -- The activity of the Preachers in the domain of history was considerable during the Middle Ages. Some of their chief works incline to be real general histories which assured them great success in their day. The "Speculum Historiale" of Vincent of Beauvais (d. circa 1264) is chiefly, like the other parts of the work, of the nature of a documentary compilation, but he has preserved for us sources which we could never otherwise reach (E. Boutarie, "Examen des sources du Speculum historiale de Vincent de Beauvais", Paris, 1863). Martin the Pole, called Martin of Troppau (d. 1279), in the third quarter of the thirteenth century composed his chronicles of the popes and emperors which were widely circulated and had many continuators ("Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", XXII). The anonymous chronicles of Colmar in the second half of the thirteenth century have left us valuable historical materials which constitute a sort of history of contemporary civilization (Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XVII). The chronicle of Jacopo da Voragine, Archbishop of Genoa (d. 1298) is much esteemed ("Rer. Ital. Script."; Mannucci, "La Cronaca di Jacopo da Voragine", Genoa, 1904). Ptolemy of Lucca and Bernard Guidonis are the two great ecclesiastical historians of the early fourteenth century. The "Historia ecclesiastica nova" of the former and the "Flores cronicorum seu cathalogus pontificum romanorum" of the latter contain valuable historical information. But the historical activity of Bernard Guidonis far exceeded that of Ptolemy and his contemporaries; he is the author of twenty historical publications, several of which, such as his historical compilation on the Order of Preachers, are very important in value and extent. Bernard Guidonis is the first medieval historian who had a wide sense of historical documentation ("Rer. Ital. Script.", XI K. Krüger, "Des Ptolemäus Lucensis Leben und Werke", Göttingen, 1874; D. König, "Ptolemaus von Lucca und die Flores Chronicorum des B. Guidonis", Würzburg, 1875, Idem, "Tolomeo von Lucca", Harburg, 1878; Delisle, "Notice sur les manuscrits de Bernard Gui" in "Notices et manuscrits de la Bib. Nat.", XVII, pt. II, 169-455; Douais, "Un nouveau manuscrit de Bernard Gui et de ses chroniques des papes d'Avignon" in "Mém. soc. Archéol. Midi", XIV, 1889, p. 417, Paris, 1889; Arbellot, "Etude biographique et bibliographique sur Bernard Guidonis", Paris-Limoges, 1896). The fourteenth century beheld a galaxy of Dominican historians, the chief of whom were: Francesco Pipini of Bologna (d. 1320), the Latin translator of Marco Polo and the author of a "Chronicon" which began with the history of the Franks (L. Manzoni, "Di frate Francesco Pipini da Bologna, storico, geografo, viaggiatore del sec. XIV", Bologna, 1896); Nicholas of Butrinto (1313), author of the "Relatio de Henrici VII imperatoris itinere italico" (ed. Heyck, Innsbruck, 1888); Nicholas Trevet, compiler of the "Annales sex regum Angliæ" (ed. T. Hog, London, 1845); Jacopo of Acqui and his "Chronicon imaginis mundi" [(1330); Monumenta historiæ patriæ, script." III, Turin, 1848]; Galvano Fiamma (d. circal 1340) composed various works on the history of Milan (Ferrari, "Le cronache di Galvano Flamma e le fonti della Galvagnana" in "Bulletino dell' Istituto Storico Italiano", Rome, 1891); John of Colonna (c. 1336) is the author of a "De viris illustribus" and a "Mare Historiarum" (Mandonnet, "Des écrits authentiques de St. Thomas d'Aquin", Fribourg, 2nd ed., 1910, p. 97). In the second half of the fourteenth century Conrad of Halberstadt wrote a "Chronographia summorum Pontificum et Imperatorum romanorum (Merck, "Die Chronographia Konrads von Halberstadt" etc. in "Forsch. deutsch. Gesch." XX, 1880, 279); Henry of Hervordia (d. 1370) wrote a " Liber de rebus memorabilibus" (ed. Potthast, Göttingen, 1859); Stefanardo de Vicomercato is the author of the rhythmical poem "De gestis in civitate Mediolani" (in "Script. Rer. Ital.", IX; G. Calligaris, "Alcune osservazioni sopra un passo del poema 'De gestis in civitate Mediolani' di Stefanardo" in "Misc. Ceriani", Milan, 1910). At the end of the fifteenth century Hermann of Lerbeke composed a "Chronicon comitum Schauenburgensium" and a "Chronicon episcoporum Mindensium" (Eckmann, "Hermann von Lerbeke mit besonderer Berücksichtigung seines Lebens und der Abfassungszeit seiner Schriften" (Hamm, 1879); Hermann Korner left an important "Chronica novella" (ed. J. Schwalm, Göttingen 1895; cf. Waitz, "Ueber Hermann Korner und die Lübecker Chronikon", Göttingen, 1851). The "Chronicon" or "Summa Historialis" of St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence, composed about the middle of the fifteenth century is a useful compilation with original data for the author's own times (Schaube, "Die Quellen der Weltchronik des heil. Antonin Erzbischofs von Florenz" Hirschberg, 1880). Felix Fabri (Schmid, d. 1502) left valuable historical works; his "Evagatorium in Terræ Sanctæ, Arabiæ et Aegypti peregrinationem " (ed., Hassler, Stuttgart, 1843) is the most instructive and important work of this kind during the fourteenth century. He is also the author of a "Descriptio Sueviæ" ("Quellen zer Schweizer Gesch.", Basle, 1884) and a "Tractatus de civitate Ulmensi" (Litterarischesverein in Stuttgart, no. 186, Tübingen, 1889, ed. G. Veesenmeyer; cf., under the names of these writers, Quétif-Echard, "Script. Ord. Præd", Chevalier, "Répertoire . . . du moyen-âge; Bio-Bibl.", Paris, 1907, Potthast "Bib. Hist. Medii Ævi", Berlin, 1896; Hurter, "Nomenclator Lit.", II, 1906). (viii) Miscellaneous works. -- Being unable to devote a section to each of the different spheres wherein the Preachers exercised their activity, we shall mention here some works which obtained considerable influence or are particularly worthy of attention The "Specula" ("Naturale", "doctrinale", "historiale"; the "Speculum morale" is apocryphal) of Vincent of Beauvais constitute the largest encyclopedia of the Middle Ages and furnished materials for many subsequent writers (Vogel, "Literar-historischen Notizen über den mittelalterlichen Gelehrten Vincenz von Beauvais", Freiburg, 1843; Bourgeat, "Etudes sur Vincent de Beauvais", Paris, 1856). The work of Humbert of Romans, "De tractandis in concilio generali", composed in 1273 at the request of Gregory X and which served as a programme to the General Council of Lyons in 1274, contains the most remarkable views on the condition of Christian society and the reforms to be undertaken (Mortier, "Hist. des Maîtres généraux de l'ordre des Frères Prêcheurs", I, 88). The treatise is edited in full only in Brown "Appendix ad fasc. rerum expectandarum et fugendarum" (London, 1690, p. 185). Burchard of Mount Sion with his "Descriptio Terræ Sanctae" written about 1283, became the classic geographer of Palestine during the Middle Ages (J. C. M. Laurent, "Peregrinatores medii ævi quatuor", Leipsig, 1873). William of Moerbeke, who died as Archbishop of Corinth about 1286, was the revisor of translations of Aristotle from the Greek and the translator of portions not hitherto translated. To him are also due translations of numerous philosophical and scientific works of ancient Greek authors (Mandonnet "Siger de Brabant", I, 40). The "Catholicon" of the Genoese John Balbus, completed in 1285, is a vast treatise on the Latin tongue, accompanied by an etymological vocabulary. It is the first work on profane sciences ever printed. It is also famous because in the Mainz edition (1460) John Guttenberg first made use of movable type ("Incunabula xylographica et typographica", 1455-1500, Joseph Baer Frankfort, 1900, p. 11). The "Philobiblion" edited under the name of Richard of Bury, but composed by Robert Holcot (d. 1349), is the first medieval treatise on the love of books (ed. Cocheris, Paris, 1856; tr. Thomas, London, 1888). John of Tambach (d. 1372), first professor of theology at the newly-founded University of Prague (1347), is the author of a valuable work, the "Consolatio Theologiæ" (Denifle, "Magister Johann von Dambach" in "Archiv für Litt. u. Kirchengesch" III, 640). Towards the end of the fifteenth century Frederico Frezzi, who died as Bishop of Foligno (1416), composed in Italian a poem in the spirit of the "Divine Commedia" and entitled "Il Quadriregio" (Foligno, 1725); (cf. Canetti, "Il Quadriregio", Venice, 1889; Filippini, "Le edizioni del Quadriregio" in "Bibliofilia", VIII, Florence, 1907). The Florentine Thomas Sardi (d. 1517) wrote a long and valued poem, "L'anima peregrina", the composition of which dates from the end of the fifteenth century (Romagnoli "Frate Tommaso Sardi e il suo poema inedito dell' anima peregrine" in "Il propugnatore", XVIII, 1885, pt. II, 289). (ix) Liturgy. -- Towards the middle of the thirteenth century the Dominicans had definitely established the liturgy which they still retain. The final correction (1256) was the work of Humbert of Romans. It was divided into fourteen sections or volumes. The prototype of this monumental work is preserved at Rome in the general archives of the order ("Script. Ord. Præd." I, 143; "Zeitschr. f. Kathol. Theol.", VII, 10). A portable copy for the use of the master general, a beautiful specimen of thirteenth-century book-making, is preserved in the British Museum, no. 23,935 (J. W. Legg, "Tracts on the Mass", Bradshaw Society, 1904; Barge, "Le Chant liturgique dans 1'Ordre de Saint-Dominique" in "L'Année Dominicaine", Paris, 1908, 27; Gagin, "Un manuscrit liturgique des Frères Prêcheurs antérieur aux réglements d Humbert de Romans" in "Revue des Bibliothèques", 1899, p. 163; Idem, "Dominicains et Teutoniques, conflit d'attribution du 'Liber Choralis'" no. 182 du catalogue 120 de M. Ludwig Rosenthal" in "Revue des Bibliothèques", 1908). Jerome of Moravia, about 1250, composed a "Tractatus de Musica" (Paris, Bib. Nat. lat. 16,663), the most important theoretical work of the thirteenth century on liturgical chant, some fragments of which were placed as preface to the Dominican liturgy of Humbert of Romans. It was edited by Coussemaker in his "Scriptores de musica medii ævi", I (Paris, 1864). (Cf. Kornmüller "Die alten Musiktheoretiker XX. Hieronymus von Mären" in "Kirchenmusikalisehes Jahrbueh", IV, 1889, 14.) The Preachers also left numerous liturgical compositions, among the most renowned being the Office of the Blessed Sacrament by St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the masterpieces of Catholic liturgy (Mandonnet, "Des écrits authentiques de S. Thomas d'Aquin", 2nd ed. p. 127). Armand du Prat (d. 1306) is the author of the beautiful Office of St. Louis, King of France. His work, selected by the Court of Philip the Bold, came into universal use in France ("Script. Ord. Præd." I, 499; "Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bib. Nat.", XXVII, 11th pt., 369, n. 6). The "Dies Iræ" has been attributed to Cardinal Latino Malabranca who was in his time a famous composer of ecclesiastical chants and offices ("Scritti vari di Filologia", Rome, 1901, p. 488). (x) Humanistic works. -- The order felt more than is commonly thought the influence of Humanism and furnished it with noteworthy contributions. This influence was continued during the following period in the sixteenth century and reacted on its Biblical and theological compositions. Leonardo Giustiniani, Archbishop of Mytilene, in 1449, composed against the celebrated Poggio a treatise "De vera nobilitate", edited with Poggio's "De nobilitate" (Avellino, 1657). The Sicilian Thomas Schifaldo wrote commentaries on Perseus about 1461 and on Horace in 1476. He is the author of a "De viris illustribus Ordinis Prædicatorum", written in humanistic style, and of the Office of St. Catherine of Siena, usually but incorrectly ascribed to Pius II (Cozzuli "Tommaso Schifaldo umanista siciliano del sec. XV", Palermo, 1897, in "Documenti per servire alla storia di Sicilia", VI). The Venetian Francesco Colonna is the author of the celebrated work "The Dream of Poliphilus" ("Poliphili Hypnerotomachia, ubi humane omnia non nisi somnium esse docet", Aldus, Venice, 1499; cf. Popelin, "Le songe de Poliphile ou hypnerotomachia de Frère Francesco Colonna", Paris, 1880). Colonna's work aims to condense in the form of a romance all the knowledge of antiquity. It gives evidence of its author's profound classical learning and impassioned love for Græco-Roman culture. The work, which is accompanied by the most perfect illustrations of the time, has been called "the most beautiful book of the Renaissance" (Ilg, "Ueber den kunsthistorisches werth der Hypnerotomachia Poliphili", Vienna, 1872; Ephrusi, "Etudes sur le songe de Poliphile" in "Bulletin de Bibliophile" 1887, Paris, 1888; Dorez, "Des origines et de la diffusion du songe de Poliphile" in "Revue des Bibliothèques", VI, 1896, 239; Gnoli "Il sogno di Polifilo, in "Bibliofila", 1900, 190; Fabrini, "Indagini sul Polifilo" in "Giorn. Storico della letteratura Italiana", XXXV, 1900, I; Poppelreuter, "Der anonyme Meister des Polifilo" in "Zur Kunstgesch. des Auslandes", XX, Strassburg, 1904; Molmenti, "Alcuni documenti concernenti l'autore della (Hypnerotomachia Poliphili)" in "Archivio storico italiano", Ser. V, XXXVIII (906, 291). Tommaso Radini Todeschi (Radinus Todischus) composed under the title "Callipsychia" (Milan, 1511) an allegorical romance in the manner of Apuleius and inspired by the Dream of Poliphilus. The Dalmatian, John Polycarpus Severitanus of Sebenico, commentated the eight parts of the discourse of Donatus and the Ethics of Seneca the Younger (Perugia, 1517; Milan, 1520; Venice, 1522) and composed "Gramatices historicæ, methodicæ et exegeticæ" (Perugia, 1518). The Bolognese Leandro Alberti (d. 1550) was an elegant Latinist and his "De viris illustribus ordinis praedicatorum" (Bologna, 1517), written in the humanistic manner, is a beautiful specimen of Bolognese publishing ("Script. Ord. Præd.", II, 137; Campori, "Sei lettere inedite di Fra Leandro Alberti" in "Atti e memorie della Deput. di Storia patria per le prov. Modenesi e Parmensi", I, 1864, p. 413). Finally Matteo Bandello (d. 1555), who was called the "Dominican Boccacio", is regarded as the first novelist of the Italian Cinquecento and his work shows what an evil influence the Renaissance could exert on churchmen (Masi "Matteo Bandello o vita italiana in un novelliere del cinquecento", Bologna, 1900). (g) The Preachers and Art The Preachers hold an important place in the history of art. They contributed in many ways to the artistic life of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Their churches and convents offered an extraordinary field of activity to contemporary artists, while a large number of the Preachers themselves did important work in the various spheres of art. Finally by their teaching and religious activity they often exercised a profound influence on the direction and inspiration of art. Primarily established under a regime of evangelic poverty, the order took severe measures to avoid in its churches all that might suggest luxury and wealth. Until the middle of the thirteenth century its constitutions and general chapters energetically legislated against anything tending to suppress the evidence of poverty ("Archiv. f. Litt.-und Kirchgesch.", I, 225, "Acta Cap. Gen.", I, passim). But the order's intense activity, its establishment in large cities and familiar contact with the whole general movement of civilization triumphed over this state of things. As early as 1250, churches and convents appeared called opus sumptuosum (Finke, "Die Freiburger Dominikaner und der Münsterbau", Freiburg, 1901 p. 47; Potthast, op. cit., 22,426). They were, however, encouraged by ecclesiastical authority and the order eventually relinquished its early uncompromising attitude. Nevertheless ascetic and morose minds were scandalized by what they called royal edifices (Matthew Paris, "Hist. maj.", ad. ann. 1243; d'Achéry, "Spicelegium", Paris, 1723, II, 634; Cocheris "Philobiblion", Paris, 1856, p. 227). The second half of the thirteenth century saw the beginning of a series of monuments, many of which are still famous in history and art. " The Dominicans," says Cesare Cantù, "soon had in the chief towns of Italy magnificent monasteries and superb temples, veritable wonders of art. Among others may be mentioned: the Church of Santa Maria Novella, at Florence; Santa Maria Sopra Minerva, at Rome; St. John and St. Paul, at Venice; St. Nicholas, at Treviso; St. Dominic, at Naples, at Perugia, at Prato, and at Bologna, with the splendid tomb of the founder, St. Catherine, at Pisa; St. Eustorgius and Sta Maria delle Grazie, at Milan, and several others remarkable for a rich simplicity and of which the architects were mostly monks" ("Les Hérétiques de l'Italie", Paris, 1869, I, 165; Berthier, "L'église de Sainte Sabine à Rome", Rome, 1910; Mullooly, "St. Clement, Pope and Martyr, and his Basilica in Rome", Rome, 1873; Nolan, "The Basilica of St. Clement in Rome" Rome, 1910; Brown, "The Dominican Church of Santa Maria Novelli at Florence, An historical, architectural and artistic study", Edinburgh, 1902; Berthier, "L'église de la Minerve à Rome, Rome: 1910; Marchese, "San Marco convento dei Padri Predicatori in Firenze", Florence, 1853; Malaguzzi, "La chiesa e il convento di S. Domenico a Bologna secondo nuove richerche" in "Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft", XX, 1897, 174; Caffi, "Della chiesa di Sant' Eustorgio in Milano", Milan, 1841; Valle, "S. Domenico Maggiore di Napoli", Naples, 1854; Milanese, "Le Chiesa monumentale di S. Nicolò in Treviso", Treviso, 1889; Mortier, "Notre Dame de la Guercia" Paris, 1904; Ital. tr. Ferretti, Florence, 1904; Oriandini, "Descrizione storica della chiesa di S. Domenico di Perugia", Perugia, 1798; Biebrach, "Die holzgedeckten Franziskaner und Dominikanerkirchen in Umbrien und Toskana", Berlin, 1908). France followed in Italy's footsteps. Here mention must be made of the Jacobins of Toulouse (Carrière, "Les Jacobins de Toulouse", 2nd ed., Toulouse, s. d.); St. Jacques de Paris (Millie, "Antiquités rationales", Paris, 1790, III, 1); St. Maximin in Provence (Rostan, "Notice sur l'église de Saint-Maximin", Brignoles, 1859); Notre-Dame-de-Confort at Lyons (Cormier, "L'ancien couvent des Dominicains de Lyon", Lyons, 1898). A comprehensive account of the architectural work of the Dominicans in France may be found in the magnificent publication of Rohault de Fleury "Gallia Dominicana, Les couvents de Saint-Dominique en France au moyen-âge" (Paris, 1903, 2 vols. in 4). Spain was also covered with remarkable monuments: St. Catherine of Barcelona and St. Thomas of Madrid were destroyed by fire; S. Esteban at Salamanca, S. Pablo and S. Gregorio at Valladolid, Santo Tomas at Avila, San Pablo at Seville and at Cordova. S. Cruz at Granada, Santo Domingo at Valencia and Saragossa (Martinez-Vigil, "La orden de Predicadores", Barcelona, 1886). Portugal also had beautiful buildings. The church and convent of Batalha are perhaps the most splendid ever dwelt in by the order (Murphy, "Plans, elevations, sections and views of the Church of Batalha", London, 1795; de Condeixa, "O mosteiro de Batalha em Portugal", Paris, 1892; Vascoucellos, "Batalha. Convento de Santa Maria da Victoria", Porto, 1905). Germany had beautiful churches and convents, usually remarkable for their simplicity and the purity of their lines (Scherer, "Kirchen und Kloster der Franziskaner und Dominikaner in Thuringen", Jena, 1910; Schneider, "Die Kirchen der Dominikaner und Karmeliten" in "Mittelalterliche Ordensbauten in Mainz", Mainz, 1879; "Zur Wiederherstellung der Dominikanerkirche in Augsburg" in "Augsburger Postzeitung", 12 Nov., 1909; "Des Dominikanerkloster in Eisenach", Eisenach, 1857; Ingold, "Notice sur l'église et le couvent des Dominicains de Colmar", Colmar, 1894; Burckhardt-Riggenbach, "Die Dominikaner Klosterkirche in Basel", Basle, 1855; Stammler, "Die ehemalige Predigerkirche in Bern und ihre Wandmalerein" in "Berner Kunstdenkmaler", III, Bern, 1908). Whatever may be said to the contrary the Dominicans as well as other mendicant orders created a special architectural art. They made use of art as they found it in the course of their history and adapted it to their needs. They adopted Gothic art and assisted in its diffusion, but they accepted the art of the Renaissance when it had supplanted the ancient forms. Their churches varied in dimensions and richness, according to the exigencies of the place. They built a number of churches with double naves and a larger number with open roofs. The distinct characteristic of their churches resulted from their sumptuary legislation which excluded decorated architectural work, save in the choir. Hence the predominance of single lines in their buildings. This exclusivism, which often went as far as the suppression of capitals on the columns, gives great lightness and elegance to the naves of their churches. While we lack direct information concerning most of the architects of these monuments, there is no doubt that many of the men who supervised the construction of its churches and convents were members of the order and they even assisted in works of art outside of the order. Thus we know that Brother Diemar built the Dominican church of Ratisbon (1273-77) (Sighart, "Gesch. d. bildenden Künste im Kgn. Bayern", Munich, 1862). Brother Volmar exercised his activity in Alsace about the same time and especially at Colmar (Ingold, op. cit.). Brother Humbert was the architect of the church and convent of Bonn, as well as of the stone bridge across the Aar, in the Middle Ages the most beautiful in the city (Howard, "Des Dominikaner-Kloster in Bern von 1269-1400", Bern, 1857). In Italy architects of the order are known to fame, especially at Florence, where they erected the church and cloisters of S. Maria Novella, which epitomize the whole history of Florentine art (Davidsohn, "Forschungen zur Gesch. von Florenz", Berlin, 1898, 466; Marchese, "Memorie dei più insigni pittori, scultori e architetti domenicani", Bologna, 1878, I). At first the order endeavoured to banish sculpture from its churches, but eventually accepted it and set the example by the construction of the beautiful tomb of St. Dominic at Bologna, and of St. Peter of Verona at the Church of St. Eustorgius at Milan. A Dominican, William of Pisa, worked on the former (Berthier, "Le tombeau de St. Dominique", Paris, 1895; Beltrani, "La cappella di S. Pietro Martire presso la Basilica di Sant Eustorgio in Milano" in "Archivio storico dell' arte", V, 1892). Brother Paschal of Rome executed interesting sculptural works, e.g. his sphinx of Viterbo, signed and dated (1286), and the paschal candlestick of Sta. Maria in Cosmedin, Rome ("Römische Quartalschrift", 1893, 29). There were many miniaturists and painters among the Preachers. As early as the thirteenth century Hugh Ripelin of Strasburg (d. 1268) was renowned as a painter (Mon. Germ. Hist.: SS., XVII, 233). But the lengthy list is dominated by two masters who overshadow the others, Fra Angelico and Fra Bartolommeo. The work of Fra Giovanni Angelico da Fiesole (d. 1455) is regarded as the highest embodiment of Christian inspiration in art (Marchese, "Memorie", I, 245; Tumiàti, "Frate Angelico", Florence, 1897; Supino "Beato Angelico", Florence, 1898; Langton Dougias, "Fra Angelico", London, 1900; Wurm, "Meister und Schülerarbeit in Fra Angelicos Werk", Strasburg, 1907; Cochin, "Le Bienheureux Fra Giovanni Angelico da Fiesole", Paris, 1906; Schottmuller, "Fra Angelico da Fiesole", Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1911 (Fr. ed., Paris, 1911). Fra Bartolommeo belongs to the golden age of the Italian Renaissance. He is one of the great masters of drawing. His art is scholarly, noble and simple and imbued with a tranquil and restrained piety (Marchese, "Memorie", II, 1; Franz, "Fra Bartolommeo della Porta", Ratisbon, 1879; Gruyer, "Fra Bartolommeo della Porta et Mariotto Albertinelli", Paris-London, s. d.; Knapp, "Fra Bartolommeo della Porta und die Schule von San Marco", Halle, 1903). The order also produced remarkable painters on glass: James of Ulm (d. 1491), who worked chiefly at Bologna and William of Marcillat (d. 1529), who in the opinion of his first biographer was perhaps the greatest painter on glass who ever lived (Marchese, "Memorie", II; Mancini, "Guglielmo de Marcillat francese insuperato pittore sul vetro", Florence, 1909). As early as the fourteenth century Dominican churches and convents began to be covered with mural decorations. Some of these edifices became famous sanctuaries of art, such as S. Maria Novella and S. Marco of Florence. But the phenomenon was general at the end of the fifteenth century, and thus the order received some of the works of the greatest artists, as for instance the "Last Supper" of Leonardo da Vinci (1497-98) in the refectory of S. Maria delle Grazie at Milan (Bossi, "Del cenacolo di Leonardo daVinci", Milan, 1910; Sant' Ambrogio, "Note epigrafiche ed artistiche intorno alla sale del Cenacolo ed al tempio di Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milano" in "Archivio Storico Lombardo", 1892). The Preachers exercised a marked influence on painting. The order infused its apostolic zeal and theological learning into the objects of art under its control, thus creating what may be called theological painting. The decoration of the Campo Santo of Pisa, Orcagna's frescoes in the Strozzi chapel and the Spanish chapel at S. Maria Novella, Florence, have long been famous (Michel, "Hist. de l'art depuis les premiers temps chrétiens jusqu'à nos jours", Paris, II, 1908; Hettner, "Die Dominikaner in der Kunstgesch. des l4. und 15. Jahrhunderts" in "Italienische Studien zur Gesch. der Renaissance", Brunswick, 1879, 99; "Renaissance und Dominikaner Kunst" in "Hist.-polit. Blatter", LXXXXIII, 1884; Perate, "Un Triomphe de la Mort de Pietro Lorenzetti", Paris, 1902; Bacciochi, "Il chiostro verde e la cappella degli Spagnuoli", Florence; Endres, " Die Verherrlichung des Dominikanerordens in der Spanischen Kapelle an S. Maria Novella zu Florenz" in "Zeitschr. f. Christliche Kunst", 1909, p. 323). To the same causes were due the numerous triumphs of St. Thomas Aquinas (Hettner, op. cit.; Berthier, "Le triomphe de Saint Thomas dans la chapelle des Espagnols à Florence", Fribourg, 1897; Ucelli, "Dell' iconografia di s. Tommaso d'Aquino", Naples, 1867). The influence of Savonarola on the artists and the art of his time was profound (Gruyer, "Les illustrations des écrits de Jérôme Savonarole et les paroles de Savonarole sur l'art", Paris, 1879; Lafenestre, "Saint François d' Assise et Savonarole inspirateurs de l'art Italien", Paris, 1911). The Dominicans also frequently furnished libretti, i.e. dogmatic or symbolic themes for works of art. They also opened up an important source of information to art with their sanctoriaux and their popularizing writings. Artistic works such as the dances of death and sybils allied with the prophets are greatly indebted to them (Neale, "L'art religieux du XIIIe siècle", Paris, 1910; Idem, "L'art religieux de la fin du moyen-âge en France", Paris, 1910). Even the mystical life of the order, in its way, exercised an influence on contemporary art (Peltzer, "Deutsche Mystik und deutsche Kunst", Strassburg, 1899; Hintze, "Der Einfluss des mystiken auf die ältere Kölner Malerschule", Breslau, 1901). Its saints and its confraternities, especially that of the Rosary, inspired many artists (Neuwbarn, "Die Verherrlichung des hl. Dominicus in der Kunst", 1906). (h) The Preachers and the Roman Church The Order of Preachers is the work of the Roman Church. She found in St. Dominic an instrument of the first rank. But it was she who inspired the establishment of the order, who loaded it with privileges, directed its general activity, and protected it against its adversaries. >From Honorius III (1216) till the death of Honorius IV (1287) the papacy was most favourable to the Preachers. Innocent IV's change of attitude at the end of his pontificate (10 May, 1254), caused by the recriminations of the clergy and perhaps also by the adhesion of Arnold of Trier to Frederick II's projects of anti-ecclesiastical reform, was speedily repaired by Alexander IV [22 Dec., 1254; ("Chart Univ. Paris", I, 263, 276; Winckelmann, "Fratris Arnoldi Ord. Præd. De correctione Ecclesiae Epistola", 1863; "Script. Ord. Praed.", II, 821 b)]. But as a general thing during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the popes remained much attached to the order, displaying great confidence in it, as is made manifest by the "Bullarium" of the Preachers. No other religious order, it would seem, ever received eulogies from the papacy like those addressed to it by Alexander IV, 23 May, 1257 (Potthast, op cit., 16,847). The order co-operated with the Church in every way, the popes finding in its ranks assistants who were both competent and devoted. Beyond doubt through its own activity, its preaching and in instruction, it was already a powerful agent of the papacy; nevertheless the popes requested of it a universal co-operation. Matthew Paris states in 1250: "The Friars Preachers, impelled by obedience, are the fiscal agents, the nuncios and even the legates of the pope. They are the faithful collectors of the pontifical money by their preaching and their crusades and when they have finished they begin again. They assist the infirm, the dying, and those who make their wills. Diligent negotiators, armed with powers of every kind, they turn all to the profit of the pope" (Matthew Paris, "Hist. Angl.", III, 317, in "Rer. Brit. Med. Æv. Script."). But the commissions of the Church to the Preachers far exceeded those enumerated by Matthew Paris, and among the weightiest must be mentioned the visitation of monasteries and dioceses, the administration of a large number of convents of nuns and the inquisitorial office. The order attempted to withdraw from its multifarious occupations, which distracted it from its chief end. Gregory IX partially yielded to their demands (25 Oct., 1239; cf. Potthast, op; cit., 10,804), but the order never succeeded in wholly winning its cause (Fontana, "Sacrum Theatrum Dominicanum" pt. II, De S. R. Ecclesiae Officialibus, Rome, 1666; "Bull. Ord. Præd.", I-II, passim; Potthast, "Regest. Pont. Rom.", Papal Register of the XIII cent. in "Bib. des Ecoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome"). The Dominicans gave to the Church many noted personages: among them during the Middle Ages were two popes, Innocent V (1276) and Benedict XI [1303-4; (Mothon, "Vie du B. Innocent V", Rome, n 1896; Fietta, "Nicolò Boccasino di Trevigi e il suo tempo", Padua, 1875; Funk, "Papst Benedikt XI", Münster, 1891; Grandjean; "Benoît XI avant son pontificat" (1240-1303) in "Mélanges archiv.-Hist. de L'école française de Rome", VIII, 219; Idem, "Recherches sur l'administration financière du pape Benoît XI", loc. cit., III, 1883, 47; Idem, "La date de la mort de Benoît XI", loc. cit. XIV, 1894, 241; Idem, "Registre de Benoît XI", Paris, 1885)]. There were twenty-eight Dominican cardinals during the first three centuries of the order's existence. Some of them were noted for exceptional services to the papacy. The earliest of them, Hugh of Saint Cher, had the delicate mission of persuading Germany to accept William of Holland after the deposition of Frederick II (Sassen, "Hugh von St. Cher em Seine Tätigkeit als Kardinal, 1244-1263", Bonn, 1908). Cardinal Latino Malabranca is famous for his legations and his pacification of Florence (1280; Davidsohn, "Gesch. von Florenz", II, Berlin, 1908, p. 152; Idem, "Forsch. zur Gesch von Florenz", IV, 1908, p. 226). Nicholas Albertini of Prato (1305-21) also undertook the pacification of Florence (1304; Bandini, "Vita del Cardinale Nicolo da Prato", Leghorn, 1757; Fineschi, "Supplemento alla vista del Cardinale Nicolò da Prato", Lucca, 1758; Perrens, "Hist. de Florence", Paris, III, 1877, 87). Cardinal Giovanni Dominici (1408-19) was the staunchest defender of the legitimate pope, Gregory XII, at the end of the Great Schism; and in the name of his master resigned is the papacy at the Council of Constance (Rossler, "Cardinal Johannes Dominici, O.Pr., 1357-1419", Freiburg, 1893; Mandonnet, "Beiträge zur. Gesch. des Kardinals Giovanni Dominici" in "Hist. Jahrbuch.", 1900; Hollerbach, "Die Gregorianische le Partei, Sigismund und das Konstanzer Konzil" in. "Römische Quartalschrift", XXIII-XXIV, 1909-10). Cardinal John de Torquemada (Turrecremata, 1439-68), an eminent theologian, was one of the strongest defenders of the pontifical rights at the time of the Council of Basle (Lederer, "Johann von Torquemada sein Leben und seine Schriften", Freiburg, 1879; Hefele, "Conciliengesch.", VIII) Many important officials were furnished to the Church: Masters of the Sacred Palace (Catalamus, "De magistro sacri palatii apostolici" Rome, 1751); pontifical penitentiaries (Fontana, "Sacr. Theatr Dominic", 470; 631, "Bull. O. P.", VIII, 766, Poenitentiarii; Goller, "Die päpstliche Ponitentiarii vor ihrem Ursprung bis zu ihrer Umgestaltung unter Pius VII", Rome, 1907-11); and especially pontifical inquisitors. The defense of the Faith and the repression of heresy is essentially an apostolic and pontifical work. The Preachers also furnished many delegate judges holding their powers either from the bishops or from the pope, but the order as such had no mission properly so called, and the legislation for the repression of heresy was in particular absolutely foreign to it. The extreme dangers run by the Church at the beginning of the thirteenth century owing to the progress of the Albigensians and Cathari impelled the papacy to labour for their repression. It first urged the bishops to act, and the establishment of synodal witnesses was destined to make their mission more effective, but the insufficiency of their arrangement induced Gregory IX to advise the bishops to make use of the Preachers and finally doubtless owing to the lack of zeal displayed by many bishops, to create inquisitorial judges by pontifical delegation. The Preachers were not chosen de jure but de facto and successively in the various provinces of the order. The pope usually charged the Dominican provincials with the nomination of inquisitorial officers whose jurisdiction ordinarily coincided with the territory of the Dominican province. In their office the inquisitors were removed from the authority of their order and dependent only on the Holy See. The first pontifical inquisitors were invariably chosen from the Order of Preachers, the reason being the scarcity of educated and zealous clerics. The Preachers, being vowed to study and preaching, were alone prepared for a ministry, which required both learning and courage. The order received this like many other pontifical commissions, only with regret. The master general, Humbert of Romans declared that the friars should flee all odious offices and especially the Inquisition (Opera, ed. Berthier, II, 36) The same solicitude to remove the order from the odium of the inquisitorial office impelled the provincial chapter of Cahors (1244) to forbid that anything should accrue to the friars from the administration of the Inquisition, that the order might not be slandered. The provincial chapter of Bordeaux (1257) even forbade the religious to eat with the inquisitors in places where the order had a convent (Douais, "Les Frères Prêcheurs en Gascogne", Paris-Auch, 1885, p. 64). In countries where heresy was powerful, for instance in the south of France and the north of Italy, the order had much to endure, pillage, temporary expulsion, and assassination of the inquisitors. After the putting to death of the inquisitors at Avignonet (28 May, 1242) and the assassination of St. Peter of Verona (29 April, 1242) ("Vitae fratrum", ed. Reichart, 231; Perein, "Monumenta Conventus Tolosani", Toulouse, 1693, II, 198, Acta SS., 29 April) the order, whose administration had much to suffer from this war against heresy, immediately requested to be relieved of the inquisitorial office. Innocent IV refused (10 April, 1243; Potthast, 11,083), and the following year the bishops of the south of France petitioned the pope that he would retain the Preachers in the Inquisition ("Hist. gén. du Languedoc", III, ed. in folio, proof CCLIX, Vol. CCCCXLVI). Nevertheless the Holy See understood the desire of the Preachers; several provinces of Christendom ceased to be administered by them and were confided to the Friars Minor viz., the Pontifical States, Apulia, Tuscany, the March of Trevisa and Slavonia, and finally Provence (Potthast, 11,993, 15,330, 15,409, 15,410, 18,895, 20,169; Tanon, "Hist. des tribunaux de l'inquisition en France" Paris, 1893; Idem, "Documents pour servir a l'hist. de l'Inquisition dans le Languedoc", Paris, 1900; Vacandard, "L'Inquisition", Paris, 1907; Lea, "Hist. of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages" New York-London, 1888, French tr., Paris, 1900; Frédéricq, "Corpus documentorum Inquisitionis hæreticæ pravitatis Neerlandicæ", Ghent, 1900; Amabile, "Il santo officio della Inquizione in Napoli" Citta di Castello, 1892; Canzons, "Hist. de l'Inquisition en France", Paris, 1909; Jordan, "La responsabilité de l'Eglise dans la répression de l'hérésie au moyen-âge" in "Annales de Philosophie chrét.", CLIV, 1907, p. 225). The suppression of heresy which had been especially active in certain more affected parts of Christendom, diminished notably in the second half of the thirteenth century. The particular conditions prevailing in Spain brought about the reestablishment of the Inquisition with new duties for the inquisitor general. These were exercised from 1483 to 1498 by Thomas of Torquemada, who reorganized the whole scheme of suppression, and by Diego de Deza from 1498 to 1507. These were the first and last Dominican inquisitors general in Spain (Lea, "Hist. of the Inquisition of Spain", New York, 1906, Cotarelo y Valledor, "Fray Diego de Deza", Madrid, 1905). (i) The Friars Preachers and the Secular Clergy The Preachers, who had been constituted from the beginning as an order of clerics vowed to ecclesiastical duties with a view to supplementing the insufficiency of the secular clergy, were universally accepted by the episcopate, which was unable to provide for the pastoral care of the faithful and the instruction of clerics. It was usually the bishops who summoned the Preachers to their dioceses. The conflicts which broke out here and there during the thirteenth century were not generally due to the bishops but to the parochial clergy who considered themselves injured in their temporal rights because of the devotion and generosity of the faithful towards the order. As a general thing compromises were reached between the convents and the parishes in which they were situated and peaceful results followed. The two great contests between the order and the secular clergy broke out in France during the thirteenth century. The first took place at the University of Paris, led by William of Saint-Amour (1252-59), and was complicated by a scholastic question. The episcopate had no share in this, and the church supported with all its strength the rights and privileges of the order, which emerged victorious (Mandonnet, "Siger de Brabant", I, 70, 90; Perrod, "Etude sur la vie et les uvres de Guillaume de Saint-Amour" in "Mémoires de la société d'émulation de Jura", Lons-le-Saunier, 1902, p. 61; Seppelt, "Der Kampf der Bettelorden an der Universität Paris in der Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts" in "Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen", Breslau, III, 1905; VII, 1909). The strife broke out anew in the north of France after the privilege of Martin IV, "Ad fructus uberes" (13 Dec., 1281), and lasted until the Council of Paris in 1290. It was to a large extent conducted by Guillaume de Flavacourt, Bishop of Amiens, but in this instance also the two great mendicant orders triumphed over their adversaries, thanks to the energetic assistance of two cardinal legates (Denifle-Chatelain, "Chart. Univ. Paris" I, passim; Finke, "Des Pariser National Konzil 1290" in "Römische Quartalschrift", 1895, p. 171; Paulus, "Welt und Ordensclerus beim Ausgange des XIII. Jahrhunderts in Kampfe um die Pfarr-Rechte", Essen-Ruhr, 1900). The order gave many of its members to the episcopate, but endeavoured to prevent this. Sts. Dominic and Franeis seem to have disapproved of the accession of their religious to eeelesiastical dignities ("Speculum perfectionis", ed. Sabatier, Paris, 1898, p. 75; Thomas of Celano, "Legenda secunda S. Francisci", III, lxxxvi). Jordanus of Saxony the immediate successor of St. Dominic, forbade all acceptance of election or postulation to the episcopate, under pain of excommunication, without special permission of the pope, the general chapter, and the master general ("Acta Cap. Gen.", ed. Reichert, 4). During his administration he resisted with all his strength and declared that he would rather see a friar buried than raised to the episcopate ("Vitæ Fratrum", ed. Reichert, 141, 143, 209). Everyone knows the eloquent letter which Humbert of Romans wrote to Albertus Magnus to dissuade him from aecepting the nomination to the See of Ratisbon (1260; Peter of Prussia, "Vita B. Alberti Magni", Antwerp, 1621; p. 253). But all this opposition could not prevent the nomination of a great many to high ecclesiastical dignities. The worth of many religious made them so prominent that it was impossible that they should not be suggested for the episcopate. Princes and nobles who had sons or kinsmen in the order often laboured for this result with interested motives, but the Holy See especially saw in the accession of Dominicans to the episcopate the means of infusing it with new blood. From the accession of Gregory IX the appointment of Dominicans to dioceses and archdioceses became an ordinary thing. Hence until the end of the fifteenth century about fifteen hundred Preachers were either appointed or translated to dioceses or archdioceses, among them men remarkable for their learning, their competent administration, their zeal for souls, and the holiness of their lives. (Eubel, "Hierarchia catholica", I-II; "Bull Ord. Præd.", I-IV; "Script. Ord. Præd.", I, p. xxi; Cavalieri, "Galleria de' sommi Pontefici, Patriarchi, Areivescovi, e Vescovi dell' ordine de' Predicatori", Benevento, 1696; Vigna, "I veseovi domenicani Liguri ovvero in Liguria", Genoa, 1887.) (j) The Preachers and Civil Society During the Middle Ages the Preachers influenced princes and communities. Princes found them to be prudent advisers, expert ambassadors, and enlightened confessors. The French monarchy was much attached to them. As early as 1226 Jordanus of Saxony was able to write, in speaking of Blanche of Castile "The queen tenderly loves the friars and she has spoken with mc personally and familiarly about her affairs" (Bayonne, "Lettres du B. Jourdain de Saxe" Paris-Lyons 1865, p. 66). No prince was more devoted to the order than St. Louis, nor did any grant it more favours. The French monarchy sought most of its confessors during the Middle Ages from the Order of Preachers (Chapotin, "A travers l'histoire dominicaine: "Les princes français du Moyen Age et l'ordre de Saint Dominique", Paris, 1903, p. 207; Idem, "Etudes historiques sur la province dominicaine de France", Paris, 1890, p. 128). It was the entrance of Humbert II, Dauphin of Vienna, into the order, which gained Dauphiny for France (Guiffrey, "Hist. de la réunion du Dauphiné à la France" Paris, 1878). The Dukes of Burgundy also sought their confessors from the order (Chapotin, op. cit. 190). The kings of England did likewise and frequently employed its members in their service. (Palmer; "The Kings's Confessors" in "The Antiquary", London, 1890, p. 114; Tarett, "Friars Confessors of the English Kings" in "The Home Counties Magazine", XII, 1910, p. 100). Several German emperors were much attached to the order nevertheless the Preachers did not hesitate to enter into conflict with Frederick II and Louis of Bavaria when these princes broke with the Church (Opladen, "Die Stellung der deutschen Könige zu den Orden im dreizethnten Jahrhundert" Bonn, 1908; Paulus, "Thomas von Strassburg und Rudolph von Sachsen. Ihre Stellung zum Interdikt" in "Hist. Jahrbuch.", XIII, 1892, 1; "Neues Archiv. der Geschellschaft für altere deutsche Geschictskunde", XXX, 1905, 447). The kings of Castile and Spain invariably chose their confessors from among the Preachers ("Catalogo de los religiosos Dominicos qui hen servido e a los Señores de Castilla, de Aragon, y de Andalucia, en el empleo de sus Confessores de Estado", Madrid, 1700). The kings of Portugal likewise sought their directors from the same source (de Sousa, "Historia de S. Domingos particulor de Reino, e conquistas de Portugal" Lisbon, 1767; Grégoire, "Hist. des confesseurs les empereurs, des rois et d'autres princes", Paris, 1824). The first to be established in the centres of cities, the Dominicans exercised a profound influence on municipal life, especially in Italy. A witness at the canonization of St. Dominic in 1233 expresses the matter when he says that nearly all the cities of Lombardy and the Marches placed their affairs and their statutes in the hands of the Preachers, that they might arrange and alter them to their taste and as seemed to them fitting. The same was true of the extirpation of wars, the restoration of peace, restitution for usury, hearing of confessions and a multitude of benefits which would be too long to enumerate ("Annales Ord. Præd.", Rome, 1756, append., col. 128). About this time the celebrated John of Vicenza exercised powerful influence in the north of Italy and was himself podestà of Verona (Sutter, "Johann von Vicenza und die italienisehe Friedensbewegung im Jahre 1233", Freiburg, 1891; Ital. tr., Vicenza, 1900; Vitali, "I Domenicani nella vita italiana del secolo XIII", Milan, 1902; Hefele, "Die Bettelorden und das religiöse Volksleben Ober-und Mittelitaliensim XIII. Jahrhundert", Leipzig-Berlin, 1910). An idea of the penetration of the order into all social classes may be formed from the declaration of Pierre Dubois in 1300 that the Preachers and the Minors knew better than anyone else the condition of the world and of all social classes ("De recuperatione Terre Sancte", ed. Langlois, Paris, 1891, pp. 51, 74, 84). The part played by Catherine of Siena in the pacification of the towns of Central Italy and the return of the papacy from Avignon to Rome is well known. "She was the greatest figure of the second half of the fourteenth century, an Italian, not only a saint, a mystic, a miracle-worker, but a statesman, and a great statesman, who solved for the welfare of Italy and all Christendom the most difficult and tragic question of her time" (Gebhart "Une sainte homme d'état, Ste Catherine de Sienne"; in "Revue Hebdomadaire", 16 March, 1907, 257). It was the Dominican Bishop of Geneva Adémar de la Roche, who granted that town its liberties and franchise in 1387 (Mallet, "Libertés, franchises, immunités, et coutumes de la ville de Genève promulgés par évêque Adémar Fabri le 23 Mai, 1387" in "Mémoires et documents de la société d'histoire et d'archéologie de Genève", Geneva, II, 1843, p. 270). Finally reference must be made to the profound influence exercised by Girolamo Savonarola (1498) on the political life of Florence during the last years of the fifteenth century (Vilari, "La Storia di Girolamo Savonarola e dé suoi tempi", Florence, 1887; Luotto, "Il vero Savonarola", Florence, 1897). (k) The Preachers and the Faithful During the thirteenth century the faithful were almost without pastoral care and preaching. The coming of the Preachers was an innovation which won over the people eager for religious instruction. What a chronicler relates of Thuringia was the case almost everywhere: "Before the arrival of the Friars Preachers the word of God was rare and precious and very rarely preached to the people. The Friars Preachers preached alone in every section of Thuringia and in the town of Erfurt and no one hindered them" (Koch, "Graf Elger von Holmstein", Gotha, 1865, pp. 70, 72). About 1267 the Bishop of Amiens, Guillaume de Flavacourt, in the war against heresy already mentioned, declared that the people refused to hear the word of God from any save the Preachers and Minors (Bibl. de Grenoble, MS. 639, fol. 119). The Preachers exercised a special influence over the piously inclined of both sexes among the masses, so numerous in the Middle Ages, and they induced to penance and continence a great many people living in the world, who were commonly called Beguins, and who lived either alone or in more or less populous communities. Despite the order's attraction for this devout, half-lay, half-religious world, the Preachers refused to take it under their jurisdiction in order not to hamper their chief activity nor distort their ecclesiastical ideal by too close contact with lay piety. The General Chapters of 1228 and 1229 forbade the religious to give the habit to any woman or to receive her profession, or to give spiritual direction to any community of women not strictly subject to some authority other than that of the order ("Archiv. f. Litt. a Kirchengesch.", I, 27; Bayonne, "Lettres du B. Jourdain de Saxe", 110). But the force of circumstances prevailed, and, despite everything, these clients furnished the chief elements of the Penitential Order of St. Dominic, who received their own rule in 1285, and of whom more has been said above (Mosheim, "De Beghardis et Beguiniabus", Leipzig, 1720; Le Grand "Les Béguines de Paris", 1893; Nimal, "Les Beguinages", Nivelles, 1908). The Order especially encouraged congregations of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, which developed greatly, especially in Italy. Many of them had their headquarters in convents of the Preachers, who administered them spiritually. After the Penitential movement of 1260 confraternities were formed commonly called Disciplinati, Battuti, etc. Many of them originated in Dominican churches (there is no general historical work on this subject). In 1274, during the Council of Lyons, Gregory X confided to the Dominicans the preaching of the Holy Name of Jesus, whence arose confraternities of that name (Bull. Ord. Præd., VIII, 524). Finally the second half of the fifteenth century saw the rapid development of confraternities of the Holy Rosary under the influence of the Preachers ("Acta Sanctae Sedis nec non magistrorum et capitulorum generalium sacri ordinis Prædicatorum pro Societate SS. Rosarii ", Lyons, 1890). With the object of developing the piety of the faithful the Preachers allowed them to be buried in the habit of the order (Cantimpratanus, "De bono universali apum", lib. II, viii, n. 8). From the time of Jordanus of Saxony they issued letters of participation in the spiritual goods of the order. The same general established at Paris the custom of the evening sermon (collatio) for the students of the University, in order to turn them aside from dissipation, which custom passed to all the other universities ("Vita fratrum", ed. Reichert, 327). (l) The Preachers and the Foreign Missions During the Middle Ages the Order of Preachers exercised considerable activity within the boundaries of Christendom and far beyond. The evangelization of heathen countries was confided to the nearest Dominican provinces. At the beginning of the fourteenth century the missions of Asia became a special group, the congregation of Friars Pilgrims for Christ. Some of the remote provinces, especially those of Greece and the Holy Land, were recruited from volunteers throughout the order. Besides the work of evangelization the religious frequently assumed the mission of ambassador or agent to schismatic or pagan princes, and Friars Preachers frequently occupied sees in partibus infidelium. A number of them, faithful to the order's doctrinal vocation, composed works of all kinds to assist their apostolate to defend the Christian Faith, to inform the Roman Church or Latin princes concerning the condition of the East, and to indicate measures to be taken against the dangers threatening Christianity. Finally they frequently shed their blood in these inhospitable and unfruitful countries. The province of Spain laboured for the conversion of the Arabs of the Peninsula, and in 1256 Humbert of Romans described the satisfactory results (H. de Romanis, "Opera", ed. Berthier, II, 502). In 1225 the first Spanish Dominicans evangelized Morocco and the head of the mission, Brother Dominic, was consecrated in that year first Bishop of Morocco (Analecta Ord. Præd., III, 374 sqq.). Some years later they were already established at Tunis ["Mon. Ord. Præd.: Hist.", IV (Barmusidiana) fasc. II, 29]. In 1256 and the ensuing years Alexander IV, at the instance of St. Raymond of Pennafort, gave a vigorous impulse to this mission (Potthast, 16,438; 17,187; 17,929). In the north of Europe the province of England or that of Dacia carried its establishments as far as Greenland (Telié, "L'évangelization de l'Amérique avant Christophe Colomb" in "Compte rendu du congrès scient. intern. des Catholiques", 1891, sect. hist., 1721). As early as 1233 the province of Germany promoted the crusade against the Prussians and the heretical Stedingers, and brought them to the Faith (Schomberg, "Die Dominikaner im Erzbistum Bremen", Brunswick, 1910, 14; "Bull. Ord. Præd.", I, 61; H. de Romanis, "Opera", II, 502). The province of Poland, founded by St. Hyaeinth (1221), extended its apostolate by means of this saint as far as Kieff and Dantizig. In 1246 Brother Alexis resided at the Court of the Duke of Russia, and in 1258 the Preachers evangelized the Ruthenians (Abraham, "Powstanie organizacyi Kosicio lacinskiego na Rusi", Lemberg, 1904; Rainaldi, "Annal. eccl.", ad ann. 1246, n. 30; Potthast, 17,186; Baracz, "Rys dziejó Zakonn Kaznodzie jskiego w Polsce" Lemberg, 1861; Comtesse de Flavigny, "Saint Hyacinthe et ses compagnons", Paris, 1899). The province of Hungary, founded in 1221 by Bl. Paul of Hungary, evangelized the Cumans and the people of the Balkans. As early as 1235-37 Brother Richard and his companions set out in quest of Greater Hungary -- the Hungarian pagans still dwelling on the Volga ("Vitæ Fratrum", ed. Reichert, 305; "De inventa Hungaria Magna tempore Gregorii IX", ed. Endlicher, in "Rerum Hungaricarum Monumenta", 248; Ferrarius, "De rebus Hungaricæ Provinciæ S. Ord. Præd.", Vienna, 1637). The province of Greece, founded in 1228, occupied those territories of the empire of the East which had been conquered by the Latins, its chief centre of activity being Constantinople. Here also the Preachers laboured for the return of the schismatics to ecclesiastical unity ("Script. Ord. Præd.", I, pp. i, xii, 102, 136, 156, 911; Potthast, 3198; "Vitæ fratrum", 1218). The province of the Holy Land established in 1228, occupied all the Latin conquest of the Holy Land besides Nicosia and Tripoli. Its houses on the Continent were destroyed one after the other with the defeat of the Christians, and at the beginning of the fourteenth century the province was reduced to the three convents on the Island of Cyprus ("Script. Ord. Præd.", I, pp. i, xii; Balme, "La Province dominicaine de Terre-Sainte de 1277 à 1280" in "Archives de l'Orient Latin"; Idem, "Les franciscains et les dominicains à Jérusalem au treizième et au quatorzième siècle", 1890, p. 324). The province of the Holy Land was the starting point for the evangelization of Asia during the thirteenth century. As early as 1237 the provincial, Philip, reported to Gregory IX extraordinary results obtained by the religious; the evangelization reached Jacobites and Nestorians, Maronites and Saracens (Script. Ord. Præd., I, 104). About the same time the Friars established themselves in Armenia and in Georgia ("Bull. Ord. Præd.", I, 108, "Script. O P.", I, 122; H. de Romanis, "Opera" II, 502 Vinc. Bellovacensis, "Speculum historiale", l. b XXI, 42; Tamarati, "L'Eglise Géorgienne des origines jusqu'à nos jours", Rome, 1910, 430). The missions of Asia continued to develop through out the thirteenth century and part of the fourteenth and missionaries went as far as Bagdad and India [Mandonnet, "Fra Ricoldo de Monte Croce" in "Revue bib.", I, 1893; Balme, "Jourdain Cathala de Sévérae, Evêque de Coulain" (Quilon), Lyons, 1886]. In 1312 the master general, Béranger de Landore, organized the missions of Asia into a special congregation of "Friars Pilgrims", with Franco of Perugia as vicar general. As a base of evangelization they had the convent of Pera (Constantinople), Capha, Trebizond, and Ncgropont. Thence they branched out into Armenia and Persia. In 1318 John XXII appointed Franco of Perugia Archbishop of Sultanieh, with six other Dominicans as suffragans. During the first half of the fourteenth century the Preachers occupied many sees in the East. When the missions of Persia were destroyed in 1349, the Preachers possessed fifteen monasteries there, and the United Brethren (see below) eleven monasteries. In 1358 the Congregation of Pilgrims still had two convents and eight residences. This movement brought about the foundation, in 1330, of the United Brethren of St. Gregory the Illuminator. It was the work of Bl. Bartolommeo Petit of Bologna, Bishop of Maragha, assisted by John of Kerni. It was formed by Armenian religious who adopted the Constitution of the Dominicans and were incorporated with the order after 1356. Thirty years after their foundation the United Brethren had in Armenia alone 50 monasteries with 700 religious. This province still existed in the eighteenth century [Eubel, "Die während des 14. Jahrhunderts im Missionsgebiet der Dominikanel und Franziskaner errichteten Bistümer" in "Festchrift des deutschen Campo Santo in Rom", Freiburg i. Br., 1897, 170; Heyd, "Die Kolonien der römischen Kirche, welche die Dominikaner und Franziskaner im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert in dem von der Tataren beherrschten Ländern Asiens und Europas gregründet haben" in "Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie", 1858; Tournebize, "Hist. politique et religieuse de l'Arménie", Paris, s. d (1910) 320; André-Marie, "Missions dominicaines dans l'Extrême Orient", Lyons and Paris, 1865 Mortier, "Hist. des maîtres généraux de l'ordre des Frères Prêcheurs", I, IV]. (m) The Preachers and Sanctity It is characteristic of Dominican sanctity that its saints attained holiness in the apostolate, in the pursuit or promotion of learning, administration, foreign missions, the papacy, the cardinalate, and the episcopate. Until the end of the fifteenth century the order in its three branches gave to the Church nine canonized saints and at least seventy-three blessed. Of the first order (the Preachers) are St. Dominic, St. Peter of Verona, martyr, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Raymond of Pennafort, St. Vincent Ferrer, St. Antoninus of Florence. Among the Dominican saints in general there is a predominance of the intellectual over the emotional qualities; their mystical life is more subjective than objective; and asceticism plays a strong part in their holiness. Meditation on the sufferings of Christ and His love was common among them. Mystic states, with the phenomena which accompany them, were ordinary, especially in convents of women in German countries. Many received the stigmata in various forms. St. Thomas Aquinas and Meister Eckhart were, from different standpoints, the greatest medieval theorists concerning the mystical state (Giffre de Rechac, "Les vies et actions mémorables des saints canonisés de l'ordre des Frères Prêcheurs et de plusieurs bienheureux et illustres personnages du même ordre", Paris, 1647; Marchese, "Sagro diario domenicano", Naples, 1668, 6 vols. in fol.; Manoel de Lima, "Agiologio dominico", Lisbon, 1709-54, 4 vols. in fol.; "Année dominicaine", Lyons, 1883-1909, 12 vols. in 4; Imbert-Gourbeyre, "La Stigmatisation", Clermont-Ferrand, 1894; Thomas de Vallgormera, "Mystica theologia D. Thomae", Barcelona, 1662; Turin, 1911, re-ed. Berthier). (2) Modern Period The modern period consists of the three centuries between the religious revolution at the beginning of the sixteenth century (Protestantism) and the French Revolution with its consequences. The Order of Preachers, like the Church itself, felt the shock of these destructive revolutions but its vitality enabled it to withstand them successfully. At the beginning of the sixteenth century the order was on the way to a genuine renaissance when the Revolutionary upheavals occurred. The progress of heresy cost it six or seven provinces and several hundreds of convents, but the discovery of the New World opened up a fresh field of activity. Its gains in America and those which arose as a consequence of the Portuguese conquests in Africa and the Indies far exceeded the losses of the order in Europe, and the seventeenth century saw its highest numerical development. The sixteenth century was a great doctrinal century, and the movement lasted beyond the middle of the eighteenth. In modern times the order lost much of its influence on the political powers, which had universally fallen into absolutism and had little sympathy for the democratic constitution of the Preachers. The Bourbon Courts of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were particularly unfavourable to them until the suppression of the Society of Jesus. In the eighteenth century there were numerous attempts at reform which created, especially in France, geographical confusion in the administration. During the eighteenth century the tyrannical spirit of the European Powers and, still more, the spirit of the age lessened the number of recruits and the fervour of religious life. The French Revolution ruined the order in France, and the crises which more or less rapidly followed considerably lessened or wholly destroyed numerous provinces. (a) Geographical Distribution and Statistics The modern period saw a great change in the geographical distribution of provinces and the number of religious in the order. The establishment of Protestantism in Anglo-Saxon countries brought about during the sixteenth century, the total or partial disappearance of certain provinces. The provinces of Saxony, Dacia, England, and Scotland completely disappeared, that of Teutonia was mutilated; that of Ireland sought refuge in various houses on the Continent. The discovery and evangelization of America opened up vast territories, where the first Dominican missionaries established themselves as early as 1510. The first province, with San Domingo and the neighbouring islands for its territory, was erected, under the name of the Holy Cross, in 1530. Others followed quickly -- among them St. James of Mexico (1532), St. John Baptist of Peru (1539), St. Vincent of Chiapa (1551), St. Antoninus of New Granada (1551), St. Catherine of Quito (1580), St. Lawrence of Chile (1592). In Europe the order developed constantly from the middle of the sixteenth century till the middle of the eighteenth. New provinces or congregations were formed. Under the government of Serafino Cavalli (1571-78) the order had thirty-one provinces and five congregations. In 1720 it had forty-nine provinces and four congregations. At the former date there were about 900 convents; at the latter, 1200. During Cavalli's time the order had 14,000 religious, and in 1720 more than 20,000. It seems to have reached its greatest numerical development during the seventeenth century. Mention is made of 30,000 and 40,000 Dominicans; perhaps these figures include nuns; it does not seem probable that the number of Preachers alone ever exceeded 25,000. The secularization in Austria-Hungary under Joseph II began the work of partial suppression of convents, which was continued in France by the Committee of Regulars (1770) until the Convention (1793) finally destroyed all religious life in that country. The Napoleonic conquest overthrew many provinces and houses in Europe. Most of them were eventually restored; but the Revolution destroyed partially or wholly the provinces of Portugal (1834), Spain (1834), and Italy (1870). The political troubles brought about by the revolt of Latin America from the mother country at the beginning of the nineteenth century partially or wholly destroyed several provinces of the New World ("Script. Ord. Præd.", II, p. I, "Analecta Ord. Præd.", I sqq.; "Dominicanus orbis descriptus"; Mortier, "Hist. des maîtres généraux", V sqq.; Chapotin, "Le dernier prieur du dernier couvent", Paris, 1893; Rais, "Historia de la provincia de Aragón, orden de Predicadores desde le año 1803 haste el de 1818", Saragossa, 1819; 1824). (b) Administration of the Order During the modern period the Preachers remained faithful to the spirit of their organization. Some modifications were necessitated by the general condition of the Church and civil society. Especially noteworthy was the attempt, in 1569, of St. Pius V, the Dominican pope, to restrict the choice of superiors by inferiors and to constitute a sort of administrative aristocracy (Acta Cap. Gener., V, 94). The frequent intervention of popes in the government of the order and the pretensions of civil powers, as well as its great development, diminished the frequency of general chapters; the rapid succession of masters general caused many chapters to be convened during the seventeenth century; in the eighteenth century chapters again became rare. The effective administration passed into the hands of the general assisted by pontifical decrees. During these three centuries the order had many heads who were remarkable for their energy and administrative ability, among them Thomas de Vio (1508-18), Garcia de Loaysa (1518-24), Vincent Giustiniani (1558-70), Nicolo Ridolfi (1629-44), Giovanni Battista de' Marini (1650-69), Antonin Cloche (1686-1720), Antonin Brémond (1748-55), John Thomas de Boxadors (Mortier, "Hist. des maîtres généraux", V sq.; "Acta cap. gen.", IV sq.; "Chronicon magistrorum generalium"; "Regula S. Augustini et Constitutiones Ord. Præd.", Rome, 1695; Paichelli, "Vita del Rmo P. F. Giov. Battista de' Marini", Rome, 1670; Messin, "Vita del Rmo P F. Antonino Cloche", Benevento, 1721; "Vita Antonini Bremondii" in "Annales Ord. Præd.", Rome, 1756, I, p. LIX). (c) Scholastic Organization The scholastic organization of the Dominicans during this modern period tended to concentration of studies. The conventual school required by the Constitutions disappeared, at least in its essentials, and in each province or congregation the studies were grouped in particular convents. The studia generalia multiplied, as well as convents incorporated with universities. The General Chapter of 1551 designates 27 convents in university towns where, and where only, the religious might take the degree of Master in Theology. Through the generosity of Dominicans in high ecclesiastical offices large colleges for higher education were also established for the benefit of certain provinces. Among the most famous of these were the College of St. Gregory at Valladolid, founded in 1488 by Alonzo of Burgos, adviser and confessor of the kings of Castile (Bull. O. P., IV, 38); that of St. Thomas at Seville, established in 1515 by Archbishop Diego de Deza ("Historia del colegio major de Ste Tomás de Sevilla", Seville, 1890). The Preachers also established universities in their chief provinces in America -- San Domingo (1538), Santa Fé de Bogotá (1612), Quito (1681), Havana (1721) -- and even in the Philippines, where the University of Manila (1645) is still flourishing and in their hands. During the sixteenth and following centuries the schedule of studies was more than once revised, and the matter extended to meet the needs of the times. Oriental studies especially received a vigorous impulse under the generalship of Antonin Brémond (Fabricy, "Des titres primitifs de la Révélation", Rome, 1772, II, 132; "Acta. Cap. Gen.", IV-VII; "Bull. O. P.", passim; V. de la Fuente, "La enseñanza Tomistica en España", Madrid, 1874; Contarini " Notizie storiche circa gli publici professori nello studio di Padova scelti dall' ordine di San Domenieo", Venice, 1769). (d) Doctrinal Activity The doctrinal activity of the Preachers continued during the modern period. The order, closely connected with the events of the Reformation in German countries, faced the revolutionary movement as best it could, and by preaching and writing deserved what Dr. Paulus has said of it: "It may well be said that in the difficult conflict through which the Catholic Church had to pass in Germany in the sixteenth century no other religious order furnished in the literary sphere so many champions, or so well equipped, as the Order of St. Dominic" ("Die deutschen Dominikaner in Kampfe gegen Luther, 1518-1563", Freiburg i. Br., 1903). The order was conspicuous by the number and influence of the Dominican bishops and theologians who took part in the Council of Trent. To a certain extent Thomistic doctrine predominated in the discussions and decisions of the council, so that Clement VII, in 1593, could say, when he desired the Jesuits to follow St. Thomas, that the council approved and accepted his works (Astrain, "Historia de la Compañia de Jésus en la asistencia de España", III, Madrid, 1909, 580). The "Catechismus ad Parochos", the composition of which had been ordered by the council, and which was published at the command of Pius V (1566), is the work of Dominican theologians (Reginaldus, "De catechismi romani auctoritate dissertatio", Naples, 1765). The Spanish Dominican School of the sixteenth century, inaugurated by Francisco de Vitoria (d. 1540), produced a series of eminent theologians: Melchior Cano (1560), the celebrated author of "De locis theologicis"; Domingo Soto (1500); Bartolomé de Medina (1580); Domingo Bañez. This. line of theologians was continued by Tomás de Lemos (1629); Diego Alvarez (1635); Juan de S. Tomás (1644), ["Script. O.P.", II, s. vv.; P. Getino, "Historia de un convento" (St. Stephen of Salamanca), Vergara, 1904 Ehrle, "Die Vatikanischen Handschriften der Salamanticenser Theologen des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts" in "Der Katholik", 64-65, 1884-85; L. G. Getino, "El maestro Fr. Francisco de Vitoria" in "La Ciencia tomista", Madrid, I, 1910, 1; Caballero, "Vida del Illmo. dr. D. Fray Melchor Cano", Madrid, 1871; Alvarez, "Santa Teresa y el P. Bañez", Madrid, 1882]. Italy furnished a contingent of Dominican theologians of note, of whom Thomas de Vio Cajetan (d. 1534) was incontestably the most famous (Cossio, "II cardinale Gaetano e la riforma", Cividale, 1902). Franceseo Silvestro di Ferrara (d. 1528) left a valuable commentary on the "Summa contra Gentiles " (Script. O. P., II, 59). Chrysostom Javelli, a dissenter from the Thomistic School, left very remarkable writings on the moral and political sciences (op. cit., 104). Catharinus (1553) is a famous polemicist, but an unreliable theologian (Schweizer, "Ambrosius Catharinus Politus, 1484-1553, ein Theologe des Reformations-zeitalters", Münster, 1910). France likewise produced excellent theologians -- Jean Nicolai (d. 1673); Vincent de Contenson (d. 1674); Antoine Reginald (d. 1676); Jean-Baptiste Gonet (d. 1081); Antoine Gondin (d. 1695); Antonin Manoulié (d. 1706); Noël Alexandre (Natalie Alexander) (d. 1724); Hyacinthe de Graveson (d. 1733); Hyacinthe Serry (d.1738) ("Seript. O. P.", II; Hurter "Nomenelator", IV; H. Serry, "Opera omnia", I, Lyons, 1770, p. 5). From the sixteenth century to the eighteenth the Thomistic School upheld by the authority of Dominican general chapters and theologians, the official adhesion of new religious orders and various theological faculties, but above all by the Holy See, enjoyed an increasing and undisputed authority. The disputes concerning moral theology which disturbed the Church during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, originated in the theory of probability advanced by the Spanish Dominican Bartolomé de Medina in 1577. Several theologians of the order adopted, at the beginning of the seventeenth century the theory of moral probability; but in consideration of the abuses which resulted from these doctrines the General Chapter of 1656 condemned them, and after that time there were no more Probabilists among the Dominicans. The condemnations of Alexander VII (1665, 1667), the famous Decree of Innocent XI, and various acts of the Roman Church combined to make the Preachers resolute opponents of Probabilism. The publication of Concina's "Storia del probabilismo" in 1743 renewed the controversy. He displayed enormous activity, and his friend and disciple, Giovanni Vicenzo Patuzzi (d. 1769) defended him in a series of vigorous writings. St. Alphonsus Liguori felt the consequences of these disputes, and, in consideration of the position taken by the Holy See, greatly modified his theoretical system of probability and expressed his desire to adhere to the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas (Mandonnet, "Le décret d'Innocent XI contre le probabilisme", in "Revue Thomiste" 1901-03; Ter Haar, "Des Decret des Papstes Innocenz XI über den Probabilismus", Paderborn, 1904; Concina, "Della storia del Probabilismo e del Rigorismo", Lucca, 1743; Mondius, "Studio storico-critico sul sistema morale di S. Alfonso M. de Liguori", Monza, 1911; Dölinger-Reuseh, "Gesch. der Moralstreitigkelten", Nordlingen, 1889). (e) Scientific productions The literary activity of the Preachers of the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries was not confined to the theological movement noticed above, but shared in the general movement of erudition in the sacred sciences. Among the most noteworthy productions were the works of Pagnini (d. 1541) on the Hebrew text of Scripture; his lexicons and grammars were famous in their day and exercised a lasting influence (Script. O. P., II 114); Sixtus of Siena (d. 1569), a converted Jew created the science of introduction to the sacred Books with his "Bibliotheca Sancta" (Venice, 1566; op. cit., 206); Jacques Goar, liturgist and Orientalist published the "Euchologium sive rituale Græeorum" (Paris, 1647), a work which, according to Renaudot, was unsurpassed by anything in its time (Hurter, "Nomenclat. litt.", III, 1211). François Combefis (d. 1679) issued editions of the Greek Fathers and writers (op. cit., IV, 161). Michel le Quien, Orientalist, produced a monumental work in his "Oriens Christianus". Vansleb (d. 1679) was twice sent by Colbert to the Orient, whence he brought a large number of MSS. for the Bibliothèque du Roi (Pougeois "Vansleb", Paris, 1869). Thomas Mammachi (d. 1792) left a large unfinished work, "Origines et Antiquitates Christianæ " (Rome, 1753-57). In the historical field mention must be made of Bartholomew de Las Casas (d. 1566) who left a valuable "Historia de las Indias" (Madrid, 1875), Noël Alexandre (d. 1724) left an ecclesiastical history which was long held in esteem [Paris, 1676-89; (Dict. de Théol. Cath., I, 769)]. Joseph Augustin Orsi (d. 1761) wrote an "Historia eelesiastica" which was continued by his confrère Filippo Angelo Becchetti (d. 1814). The last edition (Rome, 1838); numbers 50 volumes (Kirchenlex., IX, 1087). Nico, las Coeffeteau was, according to Vaugelas, one of the two greatest masters of the French language at the beginning of the eighteenth century (Urbain, "Nicolas Coeffeteau, dominicain, évêque de Marseille, un des fondateurs de la prose française, 1574-1623", Paris, 1840). Thomas Campanella (d. 1639) won renown by his numerous writings on philosophy and sociology as well as by the boldness of his ideas and his eventful life (Dict. de théol. Bath., II, 1443). Jacques Barelier (d. 1673) left one of the foremost botanical works of his time, which was edited by A. y de Jussieu, "Icones plantarum per Galliam, Hispaniam et Italiam observatarum ad vivum exhibitarum" [Paris, 1714; (Script. O. P., II, 645)]. (f) The Preachers and Christian Society During the modern period the order performed countless services for the Church. Their importance may be gathered from the fact that during this period it gave to the Church two popes, St. Pius V (1566-72) and Benedict XIII (1724-30), forty cardinals, and more than a thousand bishops and archbishops. From the foundation of the Roman Congregations in the sixteenth century a special place was reserved for the Preachers; thus the titulars of the Commissariat of the Holy Office and the secretary of the Index were always chosen from this order. The title of Consultor of the Holy Office also belonged by right to the master general and the Master of the Sacred Palace (Gams,("Series episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae", Ratisbon, 1873; Falloux, "Histoire de Saint Pie V", Paris, 1858; Borgia, "Benedicti XIII vita", Rome, 1741; Catalano, "De secretario Indicis", Rome 1751). The influence of the Preachers on the political powers of Europe was unequally exercised during this period: they remained confessors of the kings of Spain until 1700; in France their credit decreased especially under Louis XIV, from whom they had much to suffer ("Catalogo de los religiosos dominicanos confessores de Estado, 1700"; Chapotin, "La guerre de succession de Poissy, 1660-1707", Paris, 1892). (g) The Preachers and the Missions The missions of the Preachers reached their greatest development during the modern period. They were fostered, on the one hand, by the Portuguese conquests in Africa and the East Indies and, on the other, by the Spanish conquests in America and Western Asia. As early as the end of the fifteenth century Portuguese Dominicans reached the West Coast of Africa and, accompanying the explorers, rounded the Cape of Good Hope to settle on the coast of East Africa. They founded temporary or permanent missions in the Portuguese African settlements and went in succession to the Indies, Ceylon, Siam, and Malacca. They made Goa the centre of these missions which in 1548 were erected into a special mission of the Holy Cross, which had to suffer from the British conquest, but continued to flourish till the beginning of the nineteenth century. The order gave a great many bishops to these regions [Joao dos Santos, "Ethiopia oriental", Evora, 1609; re-edited Lisbon, 1891; Cacegas-de Sousa, "Historia de S. Domingo partidor do reino e eonquistas de Portugal", Lisbon, 1767 (Vol. IV by Lucas de Santa Catharina); André Marie, "Missions dominicaines dans l'extrême Orient", Lyons-Paris, 1865]. The discovery of America soon brought Dominican evangelization in the footsteps of the conquistadores, one of them Diego de Deza, was the constant defender of Christopher Columbus, who declared (letter of 21 Dec. 1504) that it was to him the Sovereigns of Spain owed the possession of the Indies (Mandonnet, "Les dominicains et la découverte de l'Amérique", Paris 1893). The first missionaries reached the New World in 1510, and preaching was quickly extended throughout the conquered countries, where they organized the various provinces already mentioned and found in Bartolomé de las Casas who took the habit of the order, their most powerful assistant in the defence of the Indians. St. Louis Bertrand (d. 1581) was the great apostle of New Granada, and St. Rose of Lima (d. 1617) the first flower of sanctity in the New World (Remesal "Historia de la provincia de S. Vicente de Chiapa y Guatemala", Madrid, 1619; Davila Padilla "Historia de la fundacion y discorso de la provincia de Santiago de Mexico", Madrid, 1592; Brussels 1625; Franco, "Segunda parte de la historia de provincia de Santiago de Mexico", 1645, Mexico re-ed. Mexico, 1900; Melendez, "Tesores verdadero de la Indias en la historia de la gran provincia de S Juan Bautista del Peru", Rome, 1681; Alonso d' Zamora, "Historia de la provineia de San Antonio del nuevo reyno de Granada", Barcelona, 1701; Helps, "Life of las Casas, the Apostle of the Indies" London, 1883; Gutierrez, "Fray Bartolomé de las Casas sus tiempos y su apostolado", Madrid, 1878; Fabie, "Vida y escritos de Fray Bartolomé de las Casas", Madrid, 1879; Wilberforce, "Life of Louis Bertrand", Fr. tr. Folghera, Paris, 1904; Masson, "Sainte Rose, tertiaire dominicaine, patronne du Nouveau Monde", Lyons, 1898). Dominican evangelization went from America to the Philippines (1586) and thence to China (1590), where Gaspar of the Holy Cross, of the Portuguese Congregation of the Indies, had already begun to work in 1559. The Preachers established themselves in Japan (1601), in Tonking (1676), and in the Island of Formosa. This flourishing mission passed through persecutions, and the Church has raised its numerous martyrs to her altars [Ferrando-Fonseca, "Historia de los PP. Dominicos a las isles Filipinas, y en sus misiones de Japón, China, Tungkin y Formosa", Madrid, 1870; Navarrete, "Tratados historicos, politicos, ethicos y religiosos de la monarquia de China", Madrid, 1676-1679, tr., London, 1704; Gentili, "Memorie di un missionario domenicano nella Cina", 1887; Orfanel, "Historia eelesiastica de los succesos de la christiandad de Japón desde 1602 que entró en el la orden de Predicadores, haste el año de 1620", Madrid, 1633; Guglielmotti, "Memorie delle missioni cattoliche nel regno del Tunchino", Rome, 1844; Arias, "El beato Sanz y companeros martires", Manila, 1893; "I martiri annamiti e chinesi (1798-1856)", Rome, 1900; Clementi, "Gli otto martiri tonchinesi dell' ordine di S. Domenico", Rome, 1906]. In 1635 the French Dominicans began the evangelization of the French Antilles, Guadaloupe, Martinique etc., which lasted until the end of the eighteenth century (Du Tertre, "Hist. générale des Antilles", Paris, 1667-71; Labat "Nouveau voyage aux isles de l'Amérique", Paris 1742). In 1750 the Mission of Mesopotamia and Kurdistan was founded by the Italian religious; it passed to the Province of France (Paris) in 1856 (Goormachtigh, "Hist. de la mission Dominicaine en Mésopotamie et Kurdistan", in "Analecta O. P." III, 271). (h) Dominican Saints and Blessed From the beginning of the sixteenth century members of the Order of St. Dominic eminent for sanctity were the subjects of twenty-one canonizations or beatifications. Some of the beatifications included a more or less large number at one time: such were the Annamite martyrs, who formed a group of twenty-six beati canonized 21 May, 1900, by Leo XIII, and the martyrs of Tonking, who numbered eight, the last of whom died in 1861, and who were canonized by Pius X, 28 Nov., 1905. Five saints were canonized during this period; St. John of Gorkum (d. 1572),, martyr; St. Pius V (d. 1572), the last pope canonized; St. Louis Bertrand (d. 1581), missionary in the New World; St. Catherine de' Ricci (d. 1589), of the second order, and St. Rose of Lima (d. 1617), tertiary, the first American saint. (See general bibliography of saints in section Middle Ages above.) (3) Contemporaneous Period The contemporaneous period of the history of the Preachers begins with the different restorations of provinces under taken after the revolutions which had destroyed the order in several countries of the Old World and the New. This period begins more or less early in the nineteenth century, and it cannot be traced down to the present day without naming religious who are still living and whose activity embodies the present life of the order. The revolutions not having totally destroyed certain of the provinces, nor decimated them, simultaneously, the Preachers were able to take up the laborious work of restoration in countries where the civil legislation did not present insurmountable obstacles. During this critical period the number of Preachers seems never to have sunk below 3500. The statistics for 1876 give 3748 religious, but 500 of these had been expelled from their convents and were engaged in parochial work. The statistics for 1910 give a total of very nearly 4472 religious both nominally and actually engaged in the proper activities of the order. They are distributed in 28 provinces and 5 congregations, and possess nearly 400 convents or secondary establishments. In the revival movement France held a foremost place, owing to the reputation and convincing power of the immortal orator, Henri-Dominique Lacordaire (1802-61). He took the habit of a Friar Preacher at Rome (1839), and the province of France was canonically erected in 1850. From this province were detached the province of Lyons, called Occitania (1862), that of Toulouse (1869), and that of Canada (1909). The French restoration likewise furnished many labourers to other provinces, to assist in their organization and progress. >From it came the master general who remained longest at the head of the administration during the nineteenth century, Père Vincent Jandel (1850-72). Here should be mentioned the province of St. Joseph in the United States. Founded in 1805 by Father Dominic Fenwick, afterwards first Bishop of Cincinnati, Ohio (1821-32), this province has developed slowly, but now ranks among the most flourishing and active provinces of the order. In 1910 it numbered 17 convents or secondary houses. In 1905 it established a large house of studies at Washington. The province of France (Paris) has produced a large number of preachers, several of whom became renowned. The conferences of Notre-Dame-de-Paris were inaugurated by Père Lacordaire. The Dominicans of the province of France furnished most of the orators: Lacordaire (1835-36, 1843-51), Jacques Monsabré (1869-70, 1872-90), Joseph Ollivier (1871, 1897), Thomas Etourneau (1898-1902). Since 1903 the pulpit of Notre Dame has again been occupied by a Dominican. Père Henri Didon (d. 1900) was one of the most esteemed orators of his time. The province of France displays greater intellectual and scientific activity than ever, the chief centre being the house of studies at present situated at Kain, near Tournai, Belgium, where are published "L'Année Dominicaine" (founded 1859), "La Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques" (1907), and "La Revue de la Jeunesse" (1909). The province of the Philippines, the most populous in the order, is recruited from Spain, where it has several preparatory houses. In the Philippines it has charge of the University of Manila, recognized by the Government of the United States, two colleges, and six establishments; in China it administers the missions of North and South Fo-Kien, in the Japanese Empire, those of Formosa and Shikoku, besides establishments at New Orleans, at Caracas (Venezuela) and at Rome. The province of Spain has seventeen establishments in the Peninsula and the Canaries, as well as the missions of Urubamba (Peru). Since 1910 it has published at Madrid an important review, "La Ciencia Tomista". The province of Holland has a score of establishments, and the missions of Curaçao and Puerto Rico. Other provinces also have their missions. That of Piedmont has establishments at Constantinople and Smyrna; that of Toulouse, in Brazil; that of Lyons, in Cuba, that of Ireland, in Australia and Trinidad; that of Belgium, in the Belgian Congo, and so on. Doctrinal development has had an important place in the restoration of the Preachers. Several institutions besides those already mentioned have played important parts. Such is the Biblical school at Jerusalem, open to the religious of the order and to secular clerics, and which publishes the "Revue Biblique", so highly esteemed in the learned world. The faculty of theology of the University of Freiburg, confided to the care of the Dominicans in 1890, is flourishing and has about 250 students. The Collegium Angelicum, established at Rome (1911) by Hyacinth Cormier (master general since 1902), is open to regulars and seculars for the study of the sacred sciences. To the reviews mentioned above must be added the "Revue Thomiste", founded by Père Thomas Coconnier (d. 1908), and the "Analecta Ordinis Prædicatorum" (1893). Among the numerous writers of the order in this period are: Cardinals Thomas Zigliara (d. 1893) and Zephirin González (d. 1894), two esteemed philosophers; Father Alberto Guillelmotti (d. 1893), historian of the Pontifical Navy, and Father Heinrich Denifle, one of the most famous writers on medieval history (d. 1905). In 1910 the order had twenty archbishops or bishops, one of whom, Andreas Frühwirth, formerly master general (1892-1902), is Apostolic nuncio at Munich (Sanvito, "Catalogus omnium provinciarum sacri ordinis praedicatorum", Rome, 1910; "Analecta O. P.", Rome, 1893--; "L'Année Dominicaine", Paris, 1859--). In the last two publications will be found historical and bibliographical information concerning the history of the Preachers during the contemporaneous period. B. THE SECOND ORDER; DOMINICAN SISTERS The circumstances under which St. Dominic established the first convent of nuns at Prouille (1206) and the legislation given the second order have been related above. As early as 1228 the question arose as to whether the Order of Preachers would accept the government of convents for women. The order itself was strongly in favour of avoiding this ministry and struggled long to maintain its freedom. But the sisters found, even among the Preachers, such advocates as the master general, Jordanus of Saxony (d. 1236), and especially the Dominican cardinal, Hugh of St. Cher (d. 1263), who promised them that they would eventually be victorious (1267). The incorporation of monasteries with the order continued through the latter part of the thirteenth and during the next century. In 1288 the papal legate, Giovanni Boccanazzi, simultaneously placed all the Penitent Sisters of St. Mary Magdalen in Germany under the government of the provincial of the Preachers, but this step was not final. The convents of sisters incorporated with the order were especially numerous in the province of Germany The statistics for 1277 show 58 monasteries already incorporated, 40 of which were in the single province of Teutonia. The statistics for 1303 give 149 convents of Dominican nuns, and these figures increased during the succeeding centuries. Nevertheless, a certain number of monasteries passed under the jurisdiction of bishops. In the list of convents drawn up during the generalship of Serafino Cavalli (1571-78) there are only 168 monasteries. But the convents of nuns are not indicated for most provinces, and the number should really be much higher. The Council of Trent placed all the convents of nuns under the jurisdiction of bishops, but the Preachers frequently provided these houses with chaplains or almoners. The statistics for 1770 give 180 monasteries, but they are incomplete. The revolutions, which affected the ecclesiastical situation in most Catholic countries from the end of the eighteenth century, brought about the suppression of a great many monasteries; several, however, survived these disturbances, and others were re-established. In the list for 1895 there are more than 150 monasteries including some of the Third Order, which are cloistered like the Second Order. These monasteries are most numerous in Spain. In Germany the convents of nuns in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries witnessed the development of an intense mystical life, and several of these houses have preserved accounts of the life of the sisters, usually in the vernacular. The Dominican sisters, instructed and directed by an order of preachers and teachers, were remarkable not only for spiritual but also for intellectual culture. In the course of seven centuries various nuns have left literary and artistic works which bear witness to the culture of some of these monasteries ("Script. O. P.", I, pp. i-xv; II, Pp. i-xix, 830; "Bull. O. P.", passim; Mortier, "Hist. des maitres généraux", passim; Danzas, "Etudes sur les temps primitifs de l'ordre de St. Dominique",IV, Poitiers-Paris (1877); "Analecta O. P.", passim; Greith, "Die deutsche Mystik im Prediger Orden", Freiburg i. Br., 1861; de Villermont, "Un groupe mystique allemand", Brussels, 1907). C. THE THIRD ORDER Neither St. Dominic nor the early Preachers wished to have under their jurisdiction -- and consequently under their responsibility -- either religious or lay associations. We have seen their efforts to be relieved of the government of nuns who, nevertheless, were following the rule of the order. But numerous laymen, and especially lay women, who were leading in the world a life of penance or observing continence, felt the doctrinal influence of the order and grouped themselves about its convents. In 1285 the need of more firmly uniting these lay elements and the idea of bringing under the direction of the Preachers a portion of the Order of Penance led the seventh master general, Muñon de Zamora, at the instance of Honorius IV to draw up the rule known as that of the Penance of St. Dommic. Inspired by that of the Brothers of Penance, this rule had a more ecclesiastical character and firmly subordinated the conduct of the brothers to the authority of the Preachers. Honorius IV confirmed the foundation by the collation of a privilege (28 Jan., 1286). The former master general of the Friars Minor, Jerome d'Ascoli, having become pope in 1288 under the name of Nicholas IV, regarded the action of his predecessor and of the master general of the Friars-Preachers as a kind of defiance of the Friars Minor who considered themselves the natural protectors of the Brothers of Penance, and by his letters of 17 August, 1289, he sought to prevent the desertion of the Brothers of Penance. Muñon de Zamora discharged his office of master general as it had been confided to him by Martin IV. The Order of Preachers protested with all its might against what it regarded as an injustice. These events retarded the development of the Dominican Third Order, a portion of the Preachers remaining un favourable to the institution. Nevertheless, the Third Order continued to exist; one of its fraternities, that of Siena, was especially flourishing, a list of its members from 1311 being extant The sisters numbered 100 in 1352, among them she who was to become St. Catherine of Siena. They numbered 92 in 1378. The reforming movement of Raymund of Capua, confessor and historian of St. Catherine, aimed at the spread of the Third Order; in this Thomas Caffarini of Siena was especially active. The Dominican Third Order received new approbation from Boniface IX, 18 January, 1401, and on 27 April of the following year the pope published its rule in a Bull, whereupon its development received a fresh impetus. It never became very widespread, the Preachers having sought quality rather than number of tertiaries. St. Catherine of Siena, canonized in 1461, is the patroness of the Third Order, and, following the example of her who has been called the Joan of Arc of the papacy, the Dominican tertiaries have always manifested special devotion to the Roman Church. Also in imitation of their patroness, who wrote splendid mystical works, they endeavoured to acquire a special knowledge of their religion, as befits Christians incorporated with a great doctrinal order. The Third Order has given several blessed to the Church, besides St. Catherine of Siena and St. Rose of Lima. For several centuries there have been regular convents and congregations belonging to the Third Order. The nineteenth century witnessed the establishment of a large number of regular congregations of tertiaries devoted to works of charity or education. In 1895 there were about 55 congregations with about 800 establishments and 20,000 members. In the United States there are flourishing convents at Sinsinawa (Wisconsin), Jersey City, Traverse (Michigan), Columbus (Ohio), Albany (New York), and San Francisco (California). In 1852 Père Lacordaire founded in France a congregation of Priests for the education of youth called the Third Teaching Order of St. Dominic. It is now regarded as a special province of the Order of Preachers, and had flourishing and select colleges in France at Oullins (1853), Sorèze (1854), Arceuil (1863), Arcachon (1875), Paris (Ecole Lacordaire 1890). These houses have ceased to be directed by Dominicans since the persecution of 1903. The teaching Dominicans now have the Collège Lacordaire at Buenos Aires, Champittet at Lausanne (Switzerland), and San Sebastian (Spain). During the Paris Commune four martyrs of the teaching order died in company with a priest of the First Order, 25 May, 1871. One of them, Père Louis Raphael Captier was an eminent educator (Mandonnet, "Les règles et le gouvernement de l'ordo de Poenitentia au XIIIe siècle" in "Opuscules de critique historique", IV, Paris, 1902; Federici, "Istoria de' Cavalieri Gaudenti", Venice, 1787). P. MANDONNET Preadamites Preadamites The supposed inhabitants of the earth prior to Adam. Strictly speaking, the expression ought to be limited to denote men who had perished before the creation of Adam; but commonly even Coadamites are called Preadamites, provided they spring from a stock older than Adam. The question whether we can admit the existence of Preadamites in the strict sense of the word, i.e. the existence of a human race (or human races) extinct before the time of Adam or before the Divine action described in Gen., i, 2 sqq., is as little connected with the truth of our revealed dogmas as the question whether one or more of the stars are inhabited by rational beings resembling man. Palmieri ("De Creatione", Prato, 1910, p. 281, thes. xxx) does not place any theological censure on the opinion maintaining the past existence of such Preadamites, and Fabre d'Envieu ("Les Origines de la terre et de l'homme", Paris, 1873, lib. XI, prop. 1) defends the theory as probable. But the case is quite different with regard to the view upholding the existence of Preadamites taken in the common acceptation of the term. It maintains that the men existing before Adam continued to coexist with Adam, and his progeny, thus destroying the unity of the human race. Palmieri (loc. cit.) brands it as heretical, and Father Pesch ("De Deo creante et elevante", Freiburg, 1909, n. 154) endorses this censure; Esser (Kirchenlex., s. v. Prüadamiten) considers it as only theologically certain that there were no Coadamites who were not the progeny of Adam and Eve. According to the nature of the arguments advanced in favour of the heretical Preadamite theory, we may divide it into scientific and Scriptural Preadamism. I. SCIENTIFIC PREADAMISM There are no scientific arguments which prove directly that the progeny of a Preadamite race coexisted with the descendants of Adam. The direct conclusion from scientific premises is either the great antiquity of the human race or its multiplicity. In either case, or even in the combination of both, the existence of Preadamites depends on a new non-scientific premise, which is at best only an assumption. From the great number of men, from their racial varieties, from the difference of languages, we cannot even infer that all men cannot spring from a common stock, while the ancient national traditions of the Oriental nations, and the palæontological finds do not even show that the human race existed before our Biblical times; much less do these premises furnish any solid basis for the Preadamite theory. (For the unity of the human race and its antiquity see Human Race.) II. SCRIPTURAL PREADAMISM Pesch (loc. cit.) considers it doubtful whether Origen adhered to the Preadamite theory, but leaves no room for doubt as to Julian the Apostate. But these opinions are only a matter of historical interest. In 1555, however, Isaac de La Peyrère, a Calvinist of a noble family of Bordeaux and a follower of the Prince of Condé, published in close succession two works: "Præadamitæ, seu Exercitationes super versibus 12, 13, et 14 ep. Pauli ad Romanos", and "Systema theologicum ex Præadamitarum hypothesi. Pars prima". He maintained that Adam is not the father of the whole human race, but only of the Chosen People. The Jews spring from Adam and Eve, while the Gentiles are the descendants of ancestors credated before Adam. The creation of these latter took place on the sixth day, and is related in Gen., i, 26 sqq., while Adam was formed after the rest on the seventh day as narrated in Gen., ii, 7. Adam and his progeny were to live and develop in Paradise, but they were to observe the law of Paradise. The sin of Adam was more grievous than the sins of the Gentiles; for he sinned against the law, while the Gentiles sinned only against nature. This distinction the writer bases on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, v. 12-14: "Until the law [given to Adam]", so La Peyrère explains the passage, "sin [committed by the Gentiles] was in the world; but sin [of the Gentiles] was not imputed, when the law was not [given to Adam]". Again, those "who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam" are the Preadamite Gentiles. La Peyrère confimed his hypothesis by an appeal to other Scriptural passages: Cain's fear of being killed (Gen., iv, 14), his flight, his marriage, his building of a city (Gen., iv, 15, 16), are pointed out as so many indications of the existence of other men than Adam and Eve. The author also claims that ancient Jewish and Mohammedan tradition favours his Preadamite theory. But La Peyrère's proofs are not solid. (1) Scripture itself points out that the creation of man in Gen., i, 26 sqq., is identical with that mentioned in Gen., ii, 7, for according to Gen., ii, 5, "there was not a man to till the earth"; according to Gen., ii, 20, "for Adam there was not found a helper like himself"; according to iii, 20, "Adam called the name of his wife Eve: because she was the mother of all the living". Scripture, therefore, knows of no men created before Adam. (2) The appeal to the incidents in the history of Cain loses its force, if we remember that they happened about 120 years after Adam had been driven from Paradise: at that time, the progeny of Adam must have amounted to several thousand souls, so that Cain's fear and flight and his building of a primitive city are easily explained. (3) The difficulty arising from Cain's marriage was satisfactorily explained by St. Augustine ("De civit. dei", XV, xvi; cf. Epiphanius, "Hær.", xxxix, 6), who points out that necessity compelled the immediate offspring of Adam and Eve to marry even their sisters. (4) The context renders La Peyrère's explanation of Rom., v, 12-14, impossible. If the law mentioned in the passage refers to the law given to Adam in Paradise, and not to the Mosaic Law, the phrase "but death reigned from Adam unto Moses" is meaningless, and the whole force of the Apostle's argument is destroyed. (5) Finally, La Peyrère's appeal to the traditions of the Kabbalists, Chaldeans etc., has been investigated and found wanting by R. Simon ("Lettres choisies", II, Amsterdam, 1730, ii, xxvii). It is, therefore, not astonishing that La Peyrère's Preadamism proved to be a nine days' wonder and did not survive its author. The theory was strongly opposed from the beginning by such scholars as Maresius, Hoornbeek, and Voetius on the part of the Reformed Church, and by the Lutheran theologians Calovius, Quenstedt, and Hollarius. The author himself renounced his error, and became a Catholic, and a member of the Oratory. In more recent times a political or social Preadamism has been introduced by Dominic M'Causland ("Adam and the Adamite, or the Harmony of Scripture and Ethnology", London, 164) and Reginald Stuart Poole ("The Genesis of the Earth and of Man", London, 1860), who follow the ethnological views of such authorities as Morton, Nott, Gliddon, and Agassiz. They maintain that Adam is the progenitor of the Caucasian race, while the other races descend from Preadamite ancestry, having either a common or various parentage. The pro-slavery sentiment prevalent in certain parts of America indirectly supported such Preadamite theories. But their truth must be judged in the light of what has been said about scientific and Scriptural Preadamism. Natalis Alexander, Hist. eccles.,I (Bingen, 1785), 103 sqq., diss. iii, De Adam et Eva. As to Scriptural Preadamism, see the various dogmatic treatises on Creation (Pesch, Palmieri, Perrone etc.), where they treat of the unity of the human race. For scientific Preadamism see Gla, Repertorium der kathol. theol. Literatur, I, i (Paderborn, 1895), 218 sqq.; for Preadamism in the strict sense: Reusch, Bibel u. Natur (4th ed., Bonn, 1876), 437; Rauch, Einheit der Menschengeschlectes (Augsburg, 1873); Hettinger, Apologie, II, i (4th ed., Freiburg, 1872), 221-304; Winchell, Preadamites, or a Demonstration of Evidence of Men before Adam (Chicago, 1880). A.J. Maas Prebend Prebend The right of a member of a chapter to his share in the revenues of the cathedral; also the share to which he is entitled; in general, any portion of the cathedral revenues set aside for the support of the clergy attached to it (semi-prebends) even for those who are not members of the chapter. They are regarded as benefices and governed by the same laws. Precaria Precaria ( Preces, prayers). A precaria is a contract granting to a petitioner the use and usufruct of a revenue-bearing ecclesiastical property for a specified time, or during the life of the grantee, and principally for services rendered the Church. This contract (tit. XIV, lib. III of the Decretals) is based on the "precarium" of the Roman Law (De precario, XLIII, xxvi); it differed from it inasmuch as the "precarium" could have for its object either moveable or fixed goods and was revocable at the pleasure of the proprietor. Both contracts left to the owner the proprietorship of the goods. This contract, beside depriving the Church of its revenues, threatened the extinction of her proprietary rights, especially when she was compelled to grant the precaria, at royal request, or rather order (precaria verbo regis). The Council of Meaux (825) prescribed for this reason the renewal of these concessions every five years. It ceased at the death of the grantee, or at the expiration of the allotted period, after which it could be revoked at the desire of the grantor. See FRANKS; LAICIZATION; PROPERTY, ECCLESIASTICAL; also the canonists on De Precario, lib. III, tit. xiv. A. BOUDINHON Precedence Precedence (Lat. præcedere, to go before another). Precedence signifies the right to enjoy a prerogative of honour before other persons; e.g. to have the most distinguished place in a procession, a ceremony, or an assembly, to have the right to express an opinion, cast a vote, or append a signature before others, to perform the most honourable offices. Questions of precedence sometimes give rise to controversies. In both civil and ecclesiastical legislation they are regulated by laws and rules. In canon law the general rule is that precedence is determined by rank in the hierarchy both of jurisdiction and of order. Where rank is equal it is determined by priority of foundation: Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure (Regula juris 54, in VI). With regard to colleges (collegia), precedence is determined by the quality of the person to whom the college is attached. The order of precedence is regulated as follows: the pope always takes first rank, after him come cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, exempt bishops, suffragan bishops, titular bishops, and prelates nullius. In these categories priority of ordination and promotion determines precedence, among bishops or archbishops the date of their first promotion to the episcopal or archiepiscopal dignity. Custom or privilege may derogate from this rule. A Decree of Propaganda (15 Aug., 1858) grants to the Archbishop of Baltimore the right of precedence in the United Staes (Collectio Lacensis, III, 572), In their own diocese bishops have precedence before strange bishops and archbishops, but not before their own metropolitan. Metropolitan chapters have precedence before cathedral chapters, and the latter before collegiate chapters. The secular clergy according to the importance of their office or the date of their ordination precede the regular clergy. Canons regular take the first place among the regular clergy, then come clerics regular, the monastic orders, and the mendicant orders. Among the mendicants the Dominicans take first place outside of processions; in processions, the acquired right of precedence or that appertaining to priority of establishment in a town must be respected. This last rule applies also to confraternities, but in processions of the Blessed Sacrament the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament has precedence. The Third Orders have precedence of confraternities. Questions of precedence at funerals have given rise to numerous decisions of the Congregation of Rites (see "Decreta S.S. Rituum Congregationis", Rome, 1901, V, Index generalis, V Præcedentia). The provisory solution of questions of precedence in processions arising between regulars belongs to the diocesan bishop. The Congregation of Rites decides concerning those with regard to liturgical ceremonies; the Congregatio Cæremonialis regulates the precedence of the papal court. FERRARIS, Prompta Bibliotheca (Paris, 1861), Vo Præcedentia, VI, 559 sq.; HINSCHIUS, System d. kath. Kirchenrechts, II (Berlin, 1869-95), 376; SANTI, Prælectiones juris canonici, I (Ratisbon, 1898), 378-80; CHASSANEUS, Catologus gloriæ mundi, excellentias et præeminentias onnium fere statuum continens (Paris, 1527); CRUSIUS, De præeminentia, sessione, præcedentia (Bremen, 1665); BAART, Legal Formulary (New York, 1898); TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906). A. VAN HOVE Precentor Precentor (Latin Præcentor, from præ, before- cantor singer). A word describing sometimes an ecclesiastical dignitary, sometimes an administrative or ceremonial officer. Anciently, the precentor had various duties: he was the first or leading chanter, who on Sundays and greater feasts intoned certain antiphons, psalms, hymns, responsories etc.; gave the pitch or tone to the bishop and dean at Mass (the succentor performing a similar office to the canons and clerks); recruited and taught the choir, directed its rehearsals and supervised its official functions; interpreted the rubrics and explained the ceremonies, ordered in a general way the Divine Office and sometimes composed desired hymns, sequences, and lessons of saints. He was variously styled capiscol (caput scholæ, head of the choir-school), prior scholæ, magister scholæ, and primicerius (a word of widely different implications). Victor of St. Hugo tells us that in the care of the primicerius were placed the acolytes, exorcists, lectors, and psalmists (chanters). In the Middle Ages the principal dignitaries of cathedral, collegiate chapters, and monastic orders, imitated the example of St. Gregory the Great in acting as directors of chant-schools. The schola was always in attendance when the bishop officiated in his cathedral, and to the precentor was assigned a place near the bishop and high in dignity. His office was obviously one demanding much learning and executive ability, and his dignity corresponded with his duties. In the cathedrals of England, France, Spain, and Germany, he ranked sometimes next to the dean, sometimes next to the archdeacon. In some instances his sphere of activity was much broader, including the duty of installing deans, canons, and other dignitaries; and in some monasteries, the duties of librarian and registrar. But from the fourteenth century his title and dignity were largely handed over to incumbents whose musical knowledge did not fit them for the duties to which the name of precentor owed its origin; the dignities remained, but the duties became obscured. "In France, some chapters retain traces of the dignity of Precentor, and one may see sometimes an archdeacon, sometimes a titular or honorary canon, carrying the baton cantoral, the insignia of his office"(Migne, "Dict. de Droit Canon", s.v. Chantre). This "baton cantoral" is a silver or white staff. "In the dioceses of Aix, Carcassonne, Coutances, Dijon, Metz, Orléans, the dignity of Precentor is still the highest in the chapter.... Some chapters have sub-chanters, those of Arras being among the honorary resident canons" (Migne, "Dict. de Jurisprudence", s.v. Grand Chantre, where also the quoted statutes of the Bishop of Dijon may serve to illustrate the modern idea of the office of precentor: "The Précenteur or Grand Chantre is the head of the choir and . . . brings the antiphon to the bishop when officiating pontifically. Sacristans, chanters, choir-boys, and employés of the Cathedral are placed under his surveillance. He will also preserve order and silence in the sacristy"). In the Anglican Church the precentor directs the choir, his stall in the cathedral corresponding with that of the dean. CURWEN, Studies in Worship Music (London, 1888), 141-8, 170-2, gives interesting details of the duties of precentor in the Scotch Presbyterian Churches; For Præcentrix, Præcentorissa, etc., see DU CANGE, Glossarium, s.v. Præcentor; VENABLES in Dict. Christ. antiq., s.v. H.T. HENRY Canonical Precept Canonical Precept ( Precept: From the Lat. præceptum from præcipere, to command). Precept, in its common acceptation, is opposed to counsel, inasmuch as the former imposes an obligation, while the latter is a persuasion. In ecclesiastical jurisprudence, the word precept is used: + In opposition to law. A law is always binding, even after the death of the legislator until it is revoked; a precept is obligatory only during the lifetime or office of the precipient. A law directly affects the territory of the legislator, and thence passes to the subjects dwelling in it; a precept directly affects the persons of the inferiors and is independent of locality. Finally, a law is promulgated for a whole community, present and future, while a precept is directed to individuals and ceases with them. + As a term in extra-judicial processes. When a grave fault has been committed by a cleric, it is the duty of the bishop, after making an informal inquiry into the matter, to give the delinquent two successive monitions or warnings. If he does not thereupon amend, the bishop proceeds to the issuance of a canonical precept, as directed by the Decree "Cum Magnopere" (1884). The precept, under pain of nullity, must be in writing, state plainly what is to be done or avoided by the delinquent, and mention the specific punishment to be inflicted if the precept go unheeded. The accused is then cited before the chancellor of the episcopal court, and the latter, in presence of the vicar-general or two witnesses, ecclesiastical or lay, must serve the precept upon him. An official record of this fact is then to be drawn up and signed by all concerned, including the delinquent if he so wishes. The witnesses may be bound by oath to observe secrecy as to the proceedings. If the accused contumaciously refuses to appear, the precept may be served upon him by a trust-worthy person or sent by registered mail. If even these measures are not possible, the precept may be posted publicly as an intimation to the delinquent. If he fails to amend after receiving the precept, a formal trial may then be instituted. SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, III (New York, 1888); FERRARIS, Bibliotheca Canonica, V (Rome, 1889), s.v. Lex, art. I; BAART, Legal Formulary (New York, 1898). WILLIAM H.W. FANNING Precious Blood Precious Blood The blood of our Divine Saviour. Jesus, at the Last Supper, ascribes to it the same life-giving power that belongs to His flesh (see EUCHARIST). The Apostles, St. Peter (I Peter, i, 2, 19), St. John (I John, i, 7; Apoc. i, 5 etc.), and above all St. Paul (Rom., iii, 25; Eph., i, 7; Hebr., ix, x) regard it as synonymous with Jesus's Passion and Death, the source of redemption. The Precious Blood is therefore a part of the Sacred Humanity and hypostatically united to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. In the fifteenth century some theologians, with a view of determining whether the blood shed by the Saviour during His Passion remained united to the Word or not, raised the point as to whether the Precious Blood is an essential part or only a concomitant of the Sacred Humanity. If an essential part, they argued, it could never be detached from the Word; if a concomitant only, it could. The Dominicans held the first view, and the Franciscans the second. Pius II, in whose presence the debate took place, rendered no doctrinal decision on the point at issue, However, chiefly since the Council of Trent (Sess, XIII, c. 3) called the body and blood of Jesus "partes Christi Domini the trend of theological thought has been in favour of the Dominican teaching. Suarez and de Lugo look askance at the Franciscans' view, and Faber writes: "It is not merely a concomitant of the flesh, an inseparable accident of the body. The blood itself, as blood, was assumed directly by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity" (Precious Blood, i). The blood shed during the triduum of the Passion therefore reunited to the body of Christ at the Resurrection, with the possible exception of a few particles which instantly lost their union to the Word and became holy relics to be venerated but not adored. Some such particles may have adhered and yet adhere to the instruments of the Passion, e.g. nails, scourging pillar, Scala Sancta. Several places like Saintes, Bruges, Mantua etc. claim, on the strength of ancient traditions, to possess relics of the Precious Blood, but it is often difficult to tell whether the traditions are correct. Viewed as a part of the Sacred Humanity hypostatically united to the Word, the Precious Blood deserves latreutical worship or adoration. It may also like the Heart or the Wounds from which it flowed, be singled out for special honour, in a way that special honour was rendered it from the beginning by St. Paul and the Fathers who so eloquently praised its redeeming virtue and rested on it the Christian spirit of self-sacrifice. As Faber remarks, the lives of the saints are replete with devotion to the Precious Blood. In due course of time the Church gave shape and sanction to the devotion by approving societies like the Missionaries of the Precious Blood; enriching confraternities like that of St. Nicholas in Carcere, in Rome, and that of the London Oratory; attaching indulgences to prayers and scapulars in honour of the Precious Blood; and establishing commemorative feasts of the Precious Blood, Friday after the fourth Sunday in Lent and, since Pius IX, the first Sunday of July. BENEDICT XIV, De servorum Dei Beatificatione, II, 30; IV, ii, 10, de Festis, I, 8 (Rome, 1747); FABER, The Precious Blood (Baltimore, s.d.); HUNTER, Outlines of Dogm. Theol. (New York, 1896); IOX, Die Reliquien des Kostb. Blutes (Luxemburg, 1880); BERINGER, Die Ablässe (12th ed., Paderborn, 1900). J.F. SOLLIER Feast of the Most Precious Blood Feast of the Most Precious Blood For many dioceses there are two days to which the Office of the Precious Blood has been assigned, the office being in both cases the same. The reason is this: the office was at first granted to the Fathers of the Most Precious Blood only. Later, as one of the offices of the Fridays of Lent, it was assigned to the Friday after the fourth Sunday in Lent. In many dioceses these offices were adopted also by the fourth Provincial Council of Baltimore (1840). When Pius IX went into exile at Gaeta (1849) he had as his companion the saintly Don Giovanni Merlini, third superior general of the Fathers of the Most Precious Blood. Arrived at Gaeta, Merlini suggested that His Holiness make a vow to extend the feast of the Precious Blood to the entire Church, if he would again obtain possesion of the papal dominions. The pope took the matter under consideration, but a few days later sent his domestic prelate Jos. Stella to Merlini with the message: "The pope does not deem it expedient to bind himself by a vow; instead His Holiness is pleased to extend the feast immediately to all Christendom". This was 30 June, 1849, the day the French conquered Rome and the republicans capitulated. The thirtieth of June had been a Saturday before the first Sunday of July, wherefore the pope decreed (10 August, l849) that henceforth every first Sunday of July should be dedicated to the Most Precious Blood. ULRICH F. MUELLER Archconfraternity of the Most Precious Blood Archconfraternity of the Most Precious Blood Confraternities which made it their special object to venerate the Blood of Christ first arose in Spain. In the life of the Carmelite lay brother, Francis of the Infant Jesus (d. 1601), mention is made of such a confraternity as existing in Valencia. A few years later they must have been quite numerous, for it is said of the Carmelite Anna of St. Augustine (d. 1624), that "she received with hospitality those who went about collecting alms for the confraternities of the Precious Blood erected in many places". Ravenna, Italy possessed one at a very early date. Another was erected in Rome under Gregory XIII and confirmed by Sixtus V, but merged later on with the Gonfalour. The archconfraternity as it now exists owes its origin to Mgr. Albertini, then priest at San Nicola in Carcere, Rome, where since 1708 devotions in honour of the Precious Blood had been held. Deeply moved by the temporal and spiritual misery caused by the French Revolution, he united, 8 December, 1808, into a society such as were willing to meditate frequently on the Passion and to offer up to the Divine Father the Blood of His Son, in expiation of their sins, for the conversion of sinners, for the great wants of the Church, and the souls in purgatory. He composed for them the "Chaplet of the Precious Blood" which they were to recite during his daily Mass. The confraternity was canonically erected by Pius VII through his cardinal vicar, 27 February, 1809, raised to the rank of an archconfraternity, 26 September, 1815, and enriched with numerous indulgences. Pius IX increased the privileges, 19 January, 1850, and 30 September, 1852. In England it was erected in the church of St. Wilfrid, Staffordshire, 1847, but was transferred to the church of the London Oratory (12 August, 1850). Previous to this it had been introduced into America by the Passionists, and canonically erected in the numerous houses and parishes founded by them after their arrival (1844). As a rule they enroll such as desire it at the end of their missions. SEEBERGER, Key to the Spiritual Treasure (Collegeville, Ind.), 1-11, 372-80, 462; BERINGER, Die Ablässe (Paderborn), 607-10. ULRICH F. MUELLER Congregation of the Most Precious Blood Congregation of the Most Precious Blood An association of secular priests living in community, whose principal aim is to give missions and retreats. The members take no vows but are held together by the bond of charity only and by a promise "not to leave the community without permission of the lawful superior". The congregation was founded at the desire of Pius VII after his return from exile by [Saint] Gaspare del Bufalo. Distressed at the spiritual condition of Rome, the pope determined that missions should be held throughout the Papal States and selected del Bufalo and a few other zealous priests to undertake the task (1814), assigning to them the convent of San Felice at Giano, where a foundation was made 15 Aug., 1815. New houses were opened, and in 1820 six missions were established in the Compagna for the conversion of the banditti. The growth of the society was checked at the election of Leo XII (1823), who, misinformed as to the work of the congregation and its founder, was unfavourable. He objected to the proposed name, "Congregation of the Most Precious Blood", as a novelty; but the society was finally cleared of all accusations and P. Betti justified the name from Scripture and the Fathers. [Saint] Gaspare was succeeded by Don Biagio Valentini, a member of the society since 1817. His successor, the Ven. Giovanni Merlini (the process of whose beatification has been begun in Rome), was a native of Spoleto and a friend of Pius IX, whose exile at Gaeta he shared. Through the influence of the pope, several new houses were opened in Italy, and one each in Alsace and Bavaria. The mother-house was established in the convent of the Crociferi, Maria in Trivio. Merlini died 13 January, 1873, and was succeeded by Don Enrico Rizzoli. Under his rule the Italian Government (1860, 1866, 1870) confiscated, among others, Maria in Trivio, since when the fathers who are in charge of this church have to rent a few rooms in their own house. In the convent garden a Methodist church was erected, but owing to the scanty attendance it was soon closed and is now used as a theatre. The Government confiscated the revenues of the seminary at Albano and suppressed altogether twenty-five houses. The Kulturkampf closed the houses in Alsace and Bavaria. Rizzoli was succeeded by Mgr Caporali, in 1890 consecrated Archbishop of Otranto; Mgr Salvatore Palmieri, to whom the Government refused the exequatur when he was named Archbishop of Rossano, but later acquiesced in his preconization as Archbishop of Brindisi (1893); Aloysius Biaschelli; the present general is Very Rev. Hyacinthe Petroni. The congregation was introduced into America (1844) at the request of Bishop Purcell of Cincinnati, by Rev. Francis de S. Brunner (q.v.). It conducts a college (Collegeville, Ind.) and parishes in Ohio (Dioceses of Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo), Indiana (Diocese of Fort Wayne), Missouri (Diocese of St. Joseph and Kansas City), Illinois (Archdiocese of Chicago), Nebraska (Diocese of Lincoln). The chief work of the order is the giving of missions and assisting the secular parish clergy on occasions such as tridua, Forty Hours devotions, retreats, etc. The novitiate is at Burkettsville, Ohio. In America candidates pass through a year of probation, after which they are admitted either as brothers, and then take the promise of fidelity, or as students, to follow a six years' course in classical studies. Such of the students as receive the degree A.B. enter the seminary, and after the first year of philosophy give the promise of fidelity. After five years more of study, they are ordained, and a year later become eligible to full membership. If the ballot is favourable, they are admitted and invested with the missionary's insignia (a large ebony crucifix with brass figure and brass chain, worn over the heart). In Europe the method of adopting members is somewhat different, since there none are admitted before they are at least students of philosophy; often priests join the congregation. The present statistics for the congregation are: Italy, 3 provinces, 15 houses, the principal ones being at Rome (Santa Maria in Trivio), Albano, and San Paolo; Spain, 1 province, 2 houses; North America, 1 province with a seminary at Carthagena, Ohio, seat of the provincial; a college at Collegeville, Ind., with 300 students; novitiate at Burkettsville, Ohio; parishes and missions: Ohio, 19; Indiana, 4; Missouri, 6; Nebraska, 2. The house at Shellenberg (Liechtenstein) belongs to the American province. There are in the American province 110 priests, 20 seminarians, 75 collegians, 70 lay-brothers, 35 novices, 17 convents, and 44 missions and stations. [ Note: Gaspare, or Caspar del Bufalo (1786-1837) was canonized in 1954 by Pope Pius XII. He died at Albano on 28 December, a victim of cholera, and is commemorated on 2 January.] Knights of the Precious Blood At Mantua in 1608 a knight-order of the Precious Blood, which received the approval of Paul V, was founded by Vincente del Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua. Its aim was to protect the sacred relic of the Precious Blood. The members wore on a golden ribbon a remonstrance, representing two angels holding up a vase containing three drops of blood. The Dukes of Mantua were grandmasters, until Emperor Joseph I declared the dukedom abolished; the order was then dissolved. The sacred relic is said to have disappeared since 1848. [See also: ORDERS, THE MILITARY, and REDEEMER, KNIGHTS OF THE.] There is no bibliography for the European provinces; for America: BRUNNER, Wo sind sie, welche in die Kloster nach Amerika ausgewandert sind? (Tubingen, 1856); Leben und Wirken des P.F.S. Brunner, II (Carthagena, 1882). As to the lives of some of the early members in Italy, Brevi Cenni sulla vita e le virtu di alcuni Membri della Congregazione del Prezioso Sangue (1880); on the activity of the American priests, Nuntius Aulae, I-X. ULRICH F. MUELLER Congregations of the Precious Blood Congregations of the Precious Blood I. BERNADINES OF THE PRECIOUS BLOOD A congregation of nuns, no longer in existence, founded by Mother Ballou with the assistance of St. Francis de Sales, as an offshoot of the reformed Cistercianesses. II. DAUGHTERS OF THE PRECIOUS BLOOD The Daughters of the Precious Blood were founded by Maria Seraphina Spiehermans at Sittard, Holland, 1862, and approved by a Decree of Leo XIII, 12 July, 1890. Their main object is the education of girls, and the care of the sick. They wear a red girdle, and on a red ribbon a cross with the initials F. P. S. (Filia Pretiosi Sanguinis--daughter of the Precious Blood). Leo XIII appointed Cardinal Mazzella as their cardinal protector. The mother-house is in Koningbosch, Diocese of Roermond. They assist especially the Missionary Fathers of the Holy Ghost in German East Africa. As yet they have made no foundation in the United States. SISTER ADORERS OF THE PRECIOUS BLOOD A congregation of nuns established 14 September, 1861, by Right Rev. Joseph La Rocque, then Bishop of St. Hyacinthe (Prov. Quebec, Canada), with the co-operation of Mgr. J. S. Raymond, then superior of the seminary of St. Hyacinthe. The foundress, Mere Catherine- Aurelie du Precieux Sang, commonly called Mere Caouette or Mother Catherine, died, 6 July, 1905, at the mother-house in St. Hyacinthe, of which she was then superioress. The object of the institution is two-fold: the glorification of the Precious Blood, and the salvation of souls. "To adore, to repair, to suffer", is the watch-word given to the sisters by the foundress. She was joined by Sister Euphrasie de Joseph, her cousin, Sister Sophie de l'Incarnation, niece of Monsignor Raymond, and Sister Elizabeth de l'Immaculee Conception, a convert. The constitutions of the institute were approved by Leo XIII, 20 October, 1896. The order is contemplative, and the sisters maintain perpetual adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. The Office is recited daily: on Thursday, the Office of the Blessed Sacrament, which is also chanted when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed; every first Sunday of the month, and during the Forty-Hours devotion, which by a special privilege of Pius IX is held four times yearly. On Saturday the Office of the Blessed Virgin is said, and on all other days that of the Precious Blood. Matins and Lauds are recited at midnight. The institute is governed by the mother superior, aided by her councillors, and in certain cases by the chapter of the community. The councillors and the mother superior are elected for a term of five years. Houses are independent of one another in government, recruiting, and training their members. The novitiate lasts two years. The choir and lay sisters make perpetual vows; the tourières (out-sisters) pronounce their vows for a year only, being allowed to renew them afterwards on the Feast of the Precious Blood. The choir sisters dress in white, with a red scapular and cincture on which are painted in white the instruments of the Passion; for Communion, and before the Blessed Sacrament when exposed, they wear a white mantle. Hence their popular name, "the white nuns". The lay sisters have the same costume, but the dress is black. The costume of the tourières is all black, as their functions call them out of the cloister. The institute subsists on alms and on the work of some of the sisters, who make everything requisite for the service of the altar, and other pious articles. The institute also directs the Confraternity and the Guard of Honour of the Precious Blood, and spiritual retreats for ladies. From the mother-house at St. Hyacinthe have sprung many branches: Toronto (Ontario, Canada), 1867; Montreal (Quebec, Canada), 1874; Ottawa (Canada), 1887; Three Rivers (Quebec, Canada), 1889; Brooklyn (New York), 1890; Portland (Oregon), 1891; Sherbrooke (Quebec, Canada), 1895; Nicolet (Quebec, Canada), 1896; Manchester (N.H.), 1898; Havana (Cuba), 1902; Levis (Quebec, Canada), 1906; and Joliette (Quebec, Canada), 1907. IV. SISTERS OF THE PRECIOUS BLOOD A congregation of nuns founded at Gurtweil, Baden. In 1857 Rev. Herman Kessler, the pastor, who had long desired to establish a home for destitute children and a normal school for the training of religious teachers, asked for six members of the community of the Sisters of the Precious Blood from Ottmarsheim, Alsace. They responded and began their work with twelve poor children under the direction of Father Kessler. Under the auspices of Archbishop von Vicari of Freiburg, a novitiate and normal school were established; the latter was affiliated with the educational department of Karlsruhe. Other schools and academies were opened. In 1869 Bishop Junker of Alton, Ill., asked for sisters for his diocese. In 1870 a number of sisters sailed for Belle Prairie (now Piopolis) in the Diocese of Alton. Meantime Bishop Baltes succeeded Bishop Junker; he entrusted to them several parochial school and promised further assistance on condition that the community should establish itself permanently in his diocese subject to his authority. Mother Augustine, superior of the mother-house at Gurtweil, apprehended a premature separation from Gurtweil, and was also opposed to limiting the sisters' activity to one diocese only. She went to St. Louis where through the efforts of Father Muehlsiepen, Vicar- General of St. Louis, the Sisters of the Precious Blood were received into the Archdiocese of St. Louis (1872) and obtained charge of a number of schools in Missouri and Nebraska. In 1873 the Kulturkampf had reached its climax and the entire community was expelled; some went to Rome, others settled in Bosnia, Hungary, while the greater number joined their sisters in America. A mother-house was established in O'Fallon, St. Charles County, Mo., completed in 1875. News arrived that Mother Clementine, mistress of novices, with a few professed sisters and the entire novitiate had resolved to follow the dictates of Bishop Baltes and establish a mother-house in his diocese. Consequently a new novitiate was begun in O'Fallon. The novitiate of Mother Clementine's branch was established at Ruma in 1876. They conduct schools in the Archdiocese of St. Louis, the Dioceses of Alton, Belleville, Oklahoma, St. Joseph, and Wichita. They number (1911): professed sisters, 230; novices, 20; candidates, 30; schools, 51; orphans, 150; pupils, 49,430. The O'Fallon community was incorporated (1878) under the laws of the State of Missouri with the right of succession, under the legal title of St. Mary's Institute of O'Fallon, Mo. The sisters conduct schools in the Archdiocese of St. Louis, and in the Dioceses of Alton, Kansas City, Lincoln, and Omaha. They number (1911): professed sisters, 179; novices, 17; candidates, 11; academy, 1; schools, 20; pupils, 2943. V. SISTERS OF THE PRECIOUS BLOOD Founded in the canton of Grisons, Switzerland, in 1833, by Maria Anna Brunner, and her son Rev. Francis de Sales Brunner (q.v.). They were inspired to the undertaking by a visit to Rome, during which they were much impressed by the devotion to the Most Precious Blood as practised by the congregation of [Saint] Gaspare del Bufalo. The rule was founded on that of St. Benedict and approved by the Bishop of Chur, the object of the community being the adoration of the Most Precious Blood and the education of youth, including the care of orphans and homeless or destitute girls. The sisters became affiliated with the Society of Priests of the Precious Blood, of which Father Brunner was a member, and on his being sent to America to establish his congregation there he enabled the sisters also to make a foundation, first at St. Alphonsus, near Norwalk, and permanently at New Riegel, Ohio. In 1886 Archbishop Elder found it advisable to revise the rule drawn up by Father Brunner in order to adapt it to altered conditions, and this revision, besides extending the time of adoration through the day as well as the night, increased the teaching force of the community, who were thus enabled to take charge of a larger number of parochial schools. In this year, also, the sisters were separated from the society of priests, with which it had hitherto been affiliated, and made a separate congregation with a superior general under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Cincinnati. The present mother-house is at Maria Stein, Ohio. They conduct schools in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, and in the Dioceses of Cleveland, Ft. Wayne, Kansas City, Nashville, St. Joseph, and Tucson. The statistics for 1911 are: professed sisters, 592; novices, 48; postulants, 26; pupils, 6954. HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden u. Kongregationen der kathol. Kirche, III (Paderborn, 1908), 399, 476. ULRICH F. MUELLER SISTER AIMEE DE MARIE SISTER MARY VICTORIA Humbert-Guillaume de Precipiano Count Humbert-Guillaume de Precipiano Born at Besançon, 1626; died at Brussels, 7 June, 1711. Having studied the classics at Constance, philosophy in his native town, and theology in the Jesuit college, Louvain, he graduated as Licenciate in Law and Doctor of Theology at the University of Dôle. He was named successively canon, archdeacon, and dean of the metropolitan chapter of Besançon; commendatory Abbot of Bellevaux in Burgundy; and was then appointed ecclesiastical councillor at the Court of Dôle by Philip IV of Spain, La Franche-Comté being a Spanish dependency. In 1667 Philip sent him to the imperial Diet of Ratisbon as plenipotentiary for Burgundy. After 1672 he resided at Madrid as chief councillor for the affairs of the Netherlands and Burgundy. Ten years later he was raised to the See of Bruges, and consecrated on 21 March, 1683. For seven years he laboured zealously to maintain the purity of the Faith and the rights of the Church, and to check the spread of Jansenism. In 1690 he was offered the Archbishopric of Mechlin, which he accepted only upon the express order of the pope. At Mechlin his life was a constant struggle against the doctrines which were being actively disseminated by the French refugees, Arnauld, Quesnel, and others (see JANSENIUS AND JANSENISM). In union with his suffragans, the archbishop began by insisting on the oath formulated by Alexander VII as a necessary condition for admission to Holy orders, benefices, and ecclesiastical positions. Three episcopal assemblies held under his presidency at Brussels in 1691, 1692, and 1697, confirmed this regulation. The second (1692) moreover, to prevent all subterfuges regarding the distinction of law and fact, had made certain additions to the formulary. Through Dr. Hennebel, the Jansenists lodged a protest at Rome, and succeeded in having their claim upheld by Innocent XII. The pope ordered the adoption of the precise words of the Alexandrine oath as being quite sufficient since it condemned the five propositions "in the obvious sense which the words of the propositions express, and which our predecessors condemned". Thereupon, men of bad faith declared that the Constitution of Alexander VII and the obligations it imposed had been changed, and that it was no longer necessary to reject the propositions "in sensu auctoris". The bishops communicated with Rome to obtain a more drastic and efficacious remedy; and the pope, now better informed, authorized them to proceed, not only in virtue of their own authority but also as delegates of the Holy See, against all who by word or writing opposed the well-known decisions of the sovereign authority. The archbishop at once censured and prohibited seventy-one defamatory pamphlets of Jansenistic origin; but, as the propaganda in favour of the "Augustinus" continued and moral suasion proved entirely ineffectual, he sought the intervention of the secular power. Quesnel, Gerberon, and Brigode, the distributor of their writings, were arrested at Brussels, by order of Philip V, and confined to the archiepiscopal palace (1703). Quesnel escaped to Holland, but his vast correspondence was seized and judicial proceedings against him begun. All the documents connected therewith were published under the title "Causa Quesnelliana" (Brussels, 1705). They form one of the most valuable sources of the authentic history of Jansenism. In 1705, the Archbishop of Mechlin was one of the first to publish in his diocese the Bull "Vineam Domini Sabbaoth", in which Clement XI condemned the theory of respectful silence (see JANSENIUS AND JANSENISM), and his action elicited the congratulations of the sovereign pontiff. At Mechlin as at Bruges, Precipiano had to fight in defence of the right of asylum attached to certain places or religious houses, and at Mechlin his efforts were at first completely thwarted by the civil power. As a last resort he was forced to excommunicate the procurator-general and the members of the Grand Conseil; the magistrates replied by imposing on him an enormous fine, and the heavy penalty of "aquæ et ignis interdictio". Through the personal intervention of Philip V, who esteemed the prelate highly, the quarrel was ended without encroachment on the rights of the Church, or dishonour to their doughty champion. DE RAM, Synodicum Belgicum, I (Mechlin, 1828); DE SCHREVEL Biogr. nat. de Belgique, XVIII (Brussels, 1905); CLAESSENS, Hist. des archevêques de Malines (Louvain, 1881); PROOST, Hist. du droit d'asile en Belgique (Ghent, 1870). J. FORGET. Preconization Preconization (Lat. præconizare, to publish, from præco, herald, public crier) This word means: 1. in its strict juridical sense the ratification in a public consistory of the choice made by a third person of a titular of a consistorial benefice, for example a bishopric. The pope approves the election or postulation of the titular made by a chapter, or ratifies the presentation of a candidate made by the civil power. This preconization is preceded by an informative process, which according to the present discipline is raised by the Consistorial Congregation for the countries not under Congregation of Propaganda, but the information is furnished by the Secretary of State if the question at hand refers to sees situated outside of Italy; 2. some authors define preconization as the report made in the above-mentioned informative process by the cardinals at the consistory (Bargilliat, 'Prælectionas juris canonici", I, Paris, 1907, 467); 3. again, preconization is considered the announcement to the pope that in an approaching consistory a cardinal will propose in the name of the head of a State the candidate whom the latter himself has designated for a see (André, "Cours de droit canon", s. v. Préconization, V, Paris, 1860, 340); 4. finally, preconization is also the act by which the pope ratifies, in a consistory, a nomination of a bishop which has been made previously by a decree of the Consistorial Congregation. According to a Decree of the Congregation of Rites, 8 June, 1910 ("Acta Apostolicæ Sedis", 1910, 580) the date of the anniversary of the election of a bishop is no longer that of his preconization in the consistory, but that of the decree or letter by which he is appointed. SÄGMÜLLER, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1900) 264; HINSCHIUS, System des katolischen Kirchenrechts, II (Berlin, 1878), 673; and canonists generally, apropos of the nomination of bishops. A. VAN HOVE. Predestinarianism Predestinarianism Predestinarianism is a heresy not unfrequently met with in the course of the centuries which reduces the eternal salvation of the elect as well as the eternal damnation of the reprobate to one cause alone, namely to the sovereign will of God, and thereby excludes the free co-operation of man as a secondary factor in bringing about a happy or unhappy future in the life to come. I. CHARACTER AND ORIGIN The essence of this heretical predestinarianism may be expressed in these two fundamental propositions which bear to each other the relation of cause and effect: + the absolute will of God as the sole cause of the salvation or damnation of the individual, without regard to his merits or demerits; + as to the elect, it denies the freedom of the will under the influence of efficacious grace while it puts the reprobate under the necessity of committing sin in consequence of the absence of grace. The system in its general outlines may thus be described: the question why some are saved while others are damned can only be answered by assuming an eternal, absolute, and unchangeable decree of God. The salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate are simply the effect of an unconditional Divine decree. But if those who are predestined for eternal life are to attain this end with metaphysical necessity, and it is only such a necessity that can guarantee the actual accomplishment of the Divine will, God must give them during their lifetime efficacious graces of such a nature that the possibility of free resistance is systematically excluded, while, on the other hand, the will, under the influence of grace, is borne along without reluctance to do what is right and is forced to persevere in a course of righteousness to the hour of death. But from all eternity God has also made a decree not less absolute whereby he has positively predestined the non-elect to eternal torments. God can accomplish this design only by denying to the reprobate irresistibly efficacious graces and impelling their will to sin continually, thereby leading them slowly but surely to eternal damnation. As it is owing to the will of God alone that heaven is to be filled with saints, without any regard to their merits, so also it is owing to that same will of God that hell is to be filled with the reprobate, without any regard to their foreseen sins and demerits and with such only as God has eternally, positively, and absolutely destined for this sad lot. In any case sin is the most efficacious means of infallibly bringing to hell, with some appearance of justice, those who are positively destined for reprobation. In its further development Predestinarianism admits of a harsher and of a milder form according as its adherents by insisting exclusively on the salvific will of God push positive reprobation into the background or endeavour to hide under a pious phraseology what is most offensive in their doctrine, i. e. God's supposed relation towards sin. And yet this element forms the keystone of the whole system. For the all-important question is: Can God the all just absolutely and positively predestine anyone to hell? Can the all holy incite and force anyone to sin with the intention of consigning him to eternal damnation? The denial of the universality of the salvific will of God and the restriction of the merits of Christ's passion to the elect are only natural consequences of the fundamental principles of this heresy. The history of dogma shows that the origin of heretical Predestinarianism must be traced back to the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of St. Augustine's views relating to eternal election and reprobation. But it was only after the death of this great doctor of the Church (430) that this heresy sprang up in the Church of the West, whilst that of the East was preserved in a remarkable manner from these extravagances. Beginning from the anonymous author of the second part of the so-called "Prædestinatus" (see below) up to Calvin, we find that all the adherents of this heresy have taken refuge behind the stout shield of Augustinism. The question therefore to be answered at present is this: Did St. Augustine teach this heresy? We do not wish to gainsay that St. Augustine in the last years of his life fell a victim to an increased rigorism which may find its psychological explanation in the fact that he was called to be the champion of Christian grace against the errors of Pelagianism and Semipelagianism. Still the point at issue is whether he, in order to establish the predestination of the just, gave up his former position and took refuge in the so-called "irresistible grace" (gratia irresistibilis) which in the just and in those who persevere destroys free will. Not only Protestant historians of dogma (as Harnack) but also a few Catholic scholars (Rottmanner, Kolb) even up to the present time have thought that they found in his works evident indications of such a strange view. But among most of the modern students of St. Augustine the conviction is constantly gaining ground that the African Doctor at no time of his life, not even shortly before his death, embraced this dangerous view of grace which Jansenism claims to have inherited from him. Even the Protestant writer E. F. K. Müller emphasizes the fact that St. Augustine, with regard to the liberty of the will in all conditions of life, "never renounced his repudiation of Manichæism, a step which had caused him so severe a struggle" (Realencyk. für prot. Theologie, Leipzig, 1904, XV, 590). The only ambiguous passage containing the expressions "unavoidable and invincible" (De corrept. et gratia XII, xxxviii: indeclinabiliter et insuperabiliter) does not refer, as is clear from the context, to Divine grace but to the weak will which by means of grace is made invulnerable against all temptations, even to the point of being unconquerable, without, however, thereby losing its native freedom. Other difficult passages must likewise be explained in view of the general fundamental principles of the saint's teaching and especially of the context and the logical connexion of his thoughts (cf. J. Mausbach, "Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus", LI, 25 sq.; Freiburg, 1909). Hence St. Augustine, when towards the end of his life he wrote his "Retractations", did not take back anything in this matter, nor had he any reason for doing so. But as to God's relation to sin, nothing was further from the thoughts of the great doctor than the idea that the Most Holy could in any way or for any purpose force the human will to commit sin. It is true that God foresees sin, but He does not will it; for He must of necessity hate it. St. Augustine draws a sharp distinction between proescire and proedestinare, and to him the infallible foreknowledge of sin is by no means synonymous with a necessitating predestination to sin. Thus he says of the fall of Adam (De corrept. et gratia, 12, 37), "Deo quidem præsciente, quid esset Adam facturus injuste; præsciente tamen, non ad hoc cogente" (cf. Mausbach, ibid. 208 sq.). The question whether and in how far St. Augustine assumed, in connexion with the absolute predestination of the elect, what was later on known as the negative reprobation of the damned, is quite distinct from our present question and has nothing to do with heretical Predestinarianism. II. THE WORK "PRÆDESTINATUS" That the Pelagians after their condemnation by the Church had a great interest in exaggerating to their ultimate heretical consequences those ideas of St. Augustine which may easily be misunderstood, that thereby they might under the mask of orthodoxy be enabled to combat more effectually not only the ultra-Augustinian but also the whole Catholic doctrine on grace, is clearly proved by a work written by an anonymous author of the fifth century. This work, edited by Sirmond for the first time in 1643 in Paris under the title of "Prædestinatus" (P. L., LIII, 579 sq.), is divided into three parts. The first part contains a catalogue of ninety heresies (from Simon Magus to the Hoeresis Proedestinatorum) and is nothing less than a barefaced plagiarism from St. Augustine's work "De Hæresibus" and original only in those passages where the writer touches on personal experiences and Roman local traditions (cf. A. Faure, "Die Widerlegung der Häretiker im I. Buch des Prædestinatus", Leipzig, 1903). The second part is according to the assertion of the author of the work a treatise circulated (though falsely) under the name of St. Augustine which fell into his hands; this treatise, under the form of a violent polemic against the Pelagians, puts forward ultra-Augustinian views on predestination and thus affords a welcome opportunity to a Pelagian to attack both the one-sided exaggerations of the pseudo-Augustine and the Catholic doctrine on grace of the true St. Augustine. As a matter of fact this favourable opportunity is seized upon by the author in the third and last part, where he reveals his real purpose. Adhering closely to the text of the second part he subtlely endeavours to refute not only Predestinarianism but also (and this is the main point), St. Augustine's doctrine on grace, although for the sake of appearances and to protect himself from attack, Pelagianism is nominally condemned in four anathemata (P. L., LIII, 665). All the older literature concerning this inferior compilation may now be considered as superseded by the recent scholarly work of Schubert, "Der sog. Prædestinatus, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Pelagianismus" (Leipzig, 1903). We need not, however, entirely accede to the opinion of Schubert that the whole pseudo-Augustine produced in the second part is nothing but a clumsy forgery of the anonymous Pelagian author himself, who put up a straw man in order the more easily to overthrow him. But there can be no doubt as to the meaning, the spirit, and purpose of this manoeuvre. We have to do with a skilful defence of Pelagianism against the doctrine on grace as taught by St. Augustine. And the authorship points rather to Rome than to southern Gaul (perhaps Arnobius the Younger). This work, written probably about a.d. 440, emanated from the group of Pelagians closely associated with Julian of Eclanum. It is not impossible that a friend of Julian living in Rome conceived the hope of making the pope more favourable to Pelagianism by means of this work. III. LUCIDUS AND GOTTSCHALK Toward the middle of the fifth century heretical Predestinarianism in its harshest form was defended by Lucidus, a priest of Gaul, about whose life in all other respects history is silent. According to his view God positively and absolutely predestined some to eternal death and others to eternal life, in such a manner that the latter have not to do anything to secure their eternal salvation, since Divine grace of itself carries them on to their destiny. As the non-elect are destined for hell, Christ did not die for them. When Faustus, Bishop of Riez, ordered Lucidus to retract, he abandoned his scandalous propositions and even notified the Provincial Synod of Arles (c. 473) of his submission (cf. Mansi, "Concil. Collect.", VII, 1010). It seems that within half a century the Predestinarian heresy had completely died out in Gaul, since the Second Synod of Orange (529), although it solemnly condemns this heresy, still speaks only hypothetically of its adherents; "si sunt, qui tantum malum credere velint" (cf. Denzinger, "Enchirid.", tenth ed., Freiburg, 1908, n. 200). The controversy was not renewed till the ninth century when Gottschalk of Orbais, appealing to St. Augustine, aroused a long and animated dispute on predestination, which affected the whole Frankish Empire. Rabanus Maurus (about 840) wrote a refutation of Gottschalk's teaching and clearly summed it up in the following proposition (P. L., CXII, 1530 sqq.): As the elect, predestined by the Divine foreknowledge and absolute decree, are saved of necessity, so in the same way the eternally reprobate become the victims of predestination to hell. Through the efforts of Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, the Synod of Quierzy (849) compelled Gottschalk, whose enforced stay in the Order of St. Benedict had cost him dearly, to burn his writings with his own hand, and silenced him by imprisoning him for life in the monastery of Hautvilliers near Reims. At the present time, however, scholars, because of two extant professions of faith (P. L., CXXI, 347 sq.), are inclined to free the eccentric and obscure Gottschalk from the charge of heresy, and to interpret in an orthodox sense his ambiguous teaching on "double predestination" (gemina proedestinatio). It was an unhappy thought of Hincmar to ask the pantheistic John Scotus Eriugena to write a refutation of Gottschalk, as this only served to sharpen the controversy. To the great sorrow of Charles the Bald the whole western part of the Frankish Empire resounded with the disputes of bishops, theologians, and even of some synods. The Canons of the Provincial Synod of Valence (855) may be taken as an expression of the then prevailing views on this subject; they emphasize the fact that God has merely foreseen from eternity and not foreordained the sins of the reprobate, although it remains true that in consequence of their foreseen demerits he has decreed from eternity the eternal punishment of hell (cf. Denzinger, loc. cit., nn. 320-25). It was essentially on this basis that the bishops of fourteen ecclesiastical provinces finally came to an agreement and made peace in the Synod of Tousy held in 860 (cf. Schrörs, "Hinkmar von Reims", 66 sq., Freiburg, 1884). The teaching of the Middle Ages is generally characterized on the one hand by the repudiation of positive reprobation for hell and of predestination for sin, on the other by the assertion of Divine predestination of the elect for heaven and the co-operation of free will; this teaching was only for a short time obscured by Thomas Bradwardine, and the so-called precursors of the Reformation (Wyclif, Hus, Jerome of Prague, John Wesel). IV. THE REFORMATION Heretical Predestinarianism received a new and vigorous impulse at the outbreak of the Reformation. Luther having denied the freedom of the will in sinful man as also freedom in the use of grace, logically placed the eternal destiny of the individual solely and entirely in the hands of God, who without any regard to merit or demerit metes out heaven or hell just as He pleases. Zwingli endeavoured to obviate the grave consequences that this principle necessarily produces in the moral order by the vain excuse that "just as God incited the robber to commit murder, so also He forces the judge to impose the penalty of death on the murderer" (De provid. Dei, in "Opera" ed. Schuler, IV, 113). Melanchthon taught expressly that the treason of Judas was just as much the work of God as was the vocation of St. Paul (cf. Trident., Sess. VI, can. vi, in Denzinger, n. 816). Calvin is the most logical advocate of Predestinarianism pure and simple. Absolute and positive predestination of the elect for eternal life, as well as of the reprobate for hell and for sin, is one of the chief elements of his whole doctrinal system and is closely connected with the all-pervading thought of "the glory of God". Strongly religious by nature and with an instinct for systematizing, but also with a harsh unyielding character, Calvin was the first to weave the scattered threads which he thought he had found in St. Paul, St. Augustine, Wyclif, Luther, and Bucer, into a strong network which enveloped his entire system of practical and theoretical Christianity. Thus he became in fact the systematizer of the dread doctrine of predestination. Although Calvin does not deny that man had free will in paradise, still he traces back the fall of Adam to an absolute and positive decree of God (Instit., I, 15, 8; III, 23, 8). Original sin completely destroyed the freedom of will in fallen man; nevertheless, it is not the motive of the decretum horribile, as he himself calls the decree or reprobation. Calvin is an uncompromising Supralapsarian. God for His own glorification, and without any regard to original sin, has created some as "vessels of mercy", others as "vessels of wrath". Those created for hell He has also predestined for sin, and whatever faith and righteousness they may exhibit are at most only apparent, since all graces and means of salvation are efficacious only in those predestined for heaven. The Jansenistic doctrine on redemption and grace in its principal features is not essentially different from Calvinism. The unbearable harshness and cruelty of this system led to a reaction among the better-minded Calvinists, who dreaded setting the "glory of God" above his sanctity. Even on so strictly Calvinistic a soil as Holland, Infralapsarianism, i. e. the connexion of reprobation with original sin, gained ground. England also refused to adhere to the strictly Calvinistic Lambeth Articles (1595), although in later years their essential features were embodied in the famous Westminster Confession of 1647 which was so strenuously defended by the English Puritans. On the other hand the Presbyterian Church in the United States has endeavoured to mitigate the undeniable harshness of Calvinism in its revision of its Confession in May, 1903, in which it also emphasizes the universality of the Divine love and even does not deny the salvation of children who die in infancy. Besides works already quoted, cf. WEIZSÄCKER, Das Dogma von der göttlichen Vorherbestimmung im 9. Jahrhundert in Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie (1859), 527 sq.; DIECKHOFF, Zur Lehre von der Bekehrung und von der Prädestination (Rostock, 1883); JACQUIN, La question de La prédestination au Ve et VIe siècle in Revue de l'histoire ecclésiastique (1904), 265 sq., 725 sq.; (1906), 269 sq. KÖSTLIN, Luthers Theologie (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1901); DIECKHOFF, Der missourische Prädestinianismus und die Concordienformel (Rostock, 1885); SCHEIBE, Calvins Prädestinationslehre (Halle, 1897); VAN OPPENRAAIJ, La prédestination de l'église réformée des Pays-Bas (Louvain, 1906); MÜLLER, Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirchen, s. v. Erwählung (Leipzig, 1903); for further references see Realencyklopädie für prot. Theol., XV, 586 sq. (Leipzig, 1904); GRISAR, Luther, I (Freiburg, 1911), 149 sq. J. POHLE. Predestination Predestination Predestination (Lat. proe, destinare), taken in its widest meaning, is every Divine decree by which God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially those which directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man's free will. It includes all historical facts, as for instance the appearance of Napoleon or the foundation of the United States, and particularly the turning-points in the history of supernatural salvation, as the mission of Moses and the Prophets, or the election of Mary to the Divine Motherhood. Taken in this general sense, predestination clearly coincides with Divine Providence and with the government of the world, which do not fall within the scope of this article (see Divine Providence). I. NOTION OF PREDESTINATION Theology restricts the term to those Divine decrees which have reference to the supernatural end of rational beings, especially of man. Considering that not all men reach their supernatural end in heaven, but that many are eternally lost through their own fault, there must exist a twofold predestination: (a) one to heaven for all those who die in the state of grace; (b) one to the pains of hell for all those who depart in sin or under God's displeasure. However, according to present usages to which we shall adhere in the course of the article, it is better to call the latter decree the Divine "reprobation", so that the term predestination is reserved for the Divine decree of the happiness of the elect. A. The notion of predestination comprises two essential elements: God's infallible foreknowledge (proescientia), and His immutable decree (decretum) of eternal happiness. The theologian who, following in the footsteps of the Pelagians, would limit the Divine activity to the eternal foreknowledge and exclude the Divine will, would at once fall into Deism, which asserts that God, having created all things, leaves man and the universe to their fate and refrains from all active interference. Though the purely natural gifts of God, as descent from pious parents, good education, and the providential guidance of man's external career, may also be called effects of predestination, still, strictly speaking, the term implies only those blessings which lie in the supernatural sphere, as sanctifying grace, all actual graces, and among them in particular those which carry with them final perseverance and a happy death. Since in reality only those reach heaven who die in the state of justification or sanctifying grace, all these and only these are numbered among the predestined, strictly so called. From this it follows that we must reckon among them also all children who die in baptismal grace, as well as those adults who, after a life stained with sin, are converted on their death-beds. The same is true of the numerous predestined who, though outside the pale of the true Church of Christ, yet depart from this life in the state of grace as catechumens, Protestants in good faith, schismatics, Jews, Mahommedans, and pagans. Those fortunate Catholics who at the close of a long life are still clothed in their baptismal innocence, or who after many relapses into mortal sin persevere till the end, are not indeed predestined more firmly, but are more signally favoured than the last-named categories of persons. But even when man's supernatural end alone is taken into consideration, the term predestination is not always used by theologians in an unequivocal sense. This need not astonish us, seeing that predestination may comprise wholly diverse things. If taken in its adequate meaning (proedestinatio adoequata or completa), then predestination refers to both grace and glory as a whole, including not only the election to glory as the end, but also the election to grace as the means, the vocation to the faith, justification, and final perseverance, with which a happy death is inseparably connected. This is the meaning of St. Augustine's words (De dono persever., xxxv): "Prædestinatio nihil est aliud quam præscientia et præparatio beneficiorum, quibus certissime liberantur [i. e. salvantur], quicunque liberantur" (Predestination is nothing else than the foreknowledge and foreordaining of those gracious gifts which make certain the salvation of all who are saved). But the two concepts of grace and glory may be separated and each of them be made the object of a special predestination. The result is the so-called inadequate predestination (proedestinatio inadoequata or incompleta), either to grace alone or to glory alone. Like St. Paul, Augustine, too, speaks of an election to grace apart from the celestial glory (loc. cit., xix): "Prædestinatio est gratiæ præparatio, gratia vero jam ipsa donatio." It is evident, however, that this (inadequate) predestination does not exclude the possibility that one chosen to grace, faith, and justification goes nevertheless to hell. Hence we may disregard it, since it is at bottom simply another term for the universality of God's salvific will and of the distribution of grace among all men (see Grace). Similarly eternal election to glory alone, that is, without regard to the preceding merits through grace, must be designated as (inadequate) predestination. Though the possibility of the latter is at once clear to the reflecting mind, yet its actuality is strongly contested by the majority of theologians, as we shall see further on (under sect. III). From these explanations it is plain that the real dogma of eternal election is exclusively concerned with adequate predestination, which embraces both grace and glory and the essence of which St. Thomas (I, Q. xxiii, a. 2) defines as: "Præparatio gratiæ in præsenti et gloriæ in futuro" (the foreordination of grace in the present and of glory in the future). In order to emphasize how mysterious and unapproachable is Divine election, the Council of Trent calls predestination "hidden mystery". That predestination is indeed a sublime mystery appears not only from the fact that the depths of the eternal counsel cannot be fathomed, it is even externally visible in the inequality of the Divine choice. The unequal standard by which baptismal grace is distributed among infants and efficacious graces among adults is hidden from our view by an impenetrable veil. Could we gain a glimpse at the reasons of this inequality, we should at once hold the key to the solution of the mystery itself. Why is it that this child is baptized, but not the child of the neighbour? Why is it that Peter the Apostle rose again after his fall and persevered till his death, while Judas Iscariot, his fellow-Apostle, hanged himself and thus frustrated his salvation? Though correct, the answer that Judas went to perdition of his own free will, while Peter faithfully co-operated with the grace of conversion offered him, does not clear up the enigma. For the question recurs: Why did not God give to Judas the same efficacious, infallibly successful grace of conversion as to St. Peter, whose blasphemous denial of the Lord was a sin no less grievous than that of the traitor Judas? To all these and similar questions the only reasonable reply is the word of St. Augustine (loc. cit., 21): "Inscrutabilia sunt judicia Dei" (the judgments of God are inscrutable). B. The counterpart of the predestination of the good is the reprobation of the wicked, or the eternal decree of God to cast all men into hell of whom He foresaw that they would die in the state of sin as his enemies. This plan of Divine reprobation may be conceived either as absolute and unconditional or as hypothetical and conditional, according as we consider it as dependent on, or independent of, the infallible foreknowledge of sin, the real reason of reprobation. If we understand eternal condemnation to be an absolute unconditional decree of God, its theological possibility is affirmed or denied according as the question whether it involves a positive, or only a negative, reprobation is answered in the affirmative or in the negative. The conceptual difference between the two kinds of reprobation lies in this, that negative reprobation merely implies the absolute will not to grant the bliss of heaven while positive reprobation means the absolute will to condemn to hell. In other words, those who are reprobated merely negatively are numbered among the non-predestined from all eternity; those who are reprobated positively are directly predestined to hell from all eternity and have been created for this very purpose. It was Calvin who elaborated the repulsive doctrine that an absolute Divine decree from all eternity positively predestined part of mankind to hell and, in order to obtain this end effectually, also to sin. The Catholic advocates of an unconditional reprobation evade the charge of heresy only by imposing a twofold restriction on their hypothesis: (a) that the punishment of hell can, in time, be inflicted only on account of sin, and from all eternity can be decreed only on account of foreseen malice, while sin itself is not to be regarded as the sheer effect of the absolute Divine will, but only as the result of God's permission; (b) that the eternal plan of God can never intend a positive reprobation to hell, but only a negative reprobation, that is to say, an exclusion from heaven. These restrictions are evidently demanded by the formulation of the concept itself, since the attributes of Divine sanctity and justice must be kept inviolate (see GOD). Consequently, if we consider that God's sanctity will never allow Him to will sin positively even though He foresees it in His permissive decree with infallible certainty, and that His justice can foreordain, and in time actually inflict, hell as a punishment only by reason of the sin foreseen, we understand the definition of eternal reprobation given by Peter Lombard (I. Sent., dist. 40): "Est præscientia iniquitatis quorundam et præparatio damnationis eorundem" (it is the foreknowledge of the wickedness of some men and the foreordaining of their damnation). Cf. Scheeben, "Mysterien des Christentums" (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1898), 98--103. II. THE CATHOLIC DOGMA Reserving the theological controversies for the next section, we deal here only with those articles of faith relating to predestination and reprobation, the denial of which would involve heresy. A. The Predestination of the Elect He who would place the reason of predestination either in man alone or in God alone would inevitably be led into heretical conclusions about eternal election. In the one case the error concerns the last end, in the other the means to that end. Let it be noted that we do not speak of the "cause" of predestination, which would be either the efficient cause (God), or the instrumental cause (grace), or the final cause (God's honour), or the primary meritorious cause, but of the reason or motive which induced God from all eternity to elect certain definite individuals to grace and glory. The principal question then is: Does the natural merit of man exert perhaps some influence on the Divine election to grace and glory? If we recall the dogma of the absolute gratuity of Christian grace, our answer must be outright negative (see Grace). To the further question whether Divine predestination does not at least take into account the supernatural good works, the Church answers with the doctrine that heaven is not given to the elect by a purely arbitrary act of God's will, but that it is also the reward of the personal merits of the justified (see Merit). Those who, like the Pelagians, seek the reason for predestination only in man's naturally good works, evidently misjudge the nature of the Christian heaven which is an absolutely supernatural destiny. As Pelagianism puts the whole economy of salvation on a purely natural basis, so it regards predestination in particular not as a special grace, much less as the supreme grace, but only as a reward for natural merit. The Semipelagians, too, depreciated the gratuity and the strictly supernatural character of eternal happiness by ascribing at least the beginning of faith (initium fidei) and final perseverance (donum perseverantioe) to the exertion of man's natural powers, and not to the initiative of preventing grace. This is one class of heresies which, slighting God and His grace, makes all salvation depend on man alone. But no less grave are the errors into which a second group falls by making God alone responsible for everything, and abolishing the free co-operation of the will in obtaining eternal happiness. This is done by the advocates of heretical Predestinarianism, embodied in its purest form in Calvinism and Jansenism. Those who seek the reason of predestination solely in the absolute Will of God are logically forced to admit an irresistibly efficacious grace (gratia irresistibilis), to deny the freedom of the will when influenced by grace and wholly to reject supernatural merits (as a secondary reason for eternal happiness). And since in this system eternal damnation, too, finds its only explanation in the Divine will, it further follows that concupiscence acts on the sinful will with an irresistible force, that there the will is not really free to sin, and that demerits cannot be the cause of eternal damnation. Between these two extremes the Catholic dogma of predestination keeps the golden mean, because it regards eternal happiness primarily as the work of God and His grace, but secondarily as the fruit and reward of the meritorious actions of the predestined. The process of predestination consists of the following five steps: (a) the first grace of vocation, especially faith as the beginning, foundation, and root of justification; (b) a number of additional, actual graces for the successful accomplishment of justification; (c) justification itself as the beginning of the state of grace and love; (d) final perseverance or at least the grace of a happy death; (e) lastly, the admission to eternal bliss. If it is a truth of Revelation that there are many who, following this path, seek and find their eternal salvation with infallible certainty, then the existence of Divine predestination is proved (cf. Matt., xxv, 34; Apoc., xx, 15). St. Paul says quite explicitly (Rom., viii, 28 sq.): "we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints. For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the first born amongst many brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified." (Cf. Eph., i, 4--11.) Besides the eternal "foreknowledge" and foreordaining, the Apostle here mentions the various steps of predestination: "vocation", "justification", and "glorification". This belief has been faithfully preserved by Tradition through all the centuries, especially since the time of Augustine. There are three other qualities of predestination which must be noticed, because they are important and interesting from the theological standpoint: its immutability, the definiteness of the number of the predestined, and its subjective uncertainty. (1) The first quality, the immutability of the Divine decree, is based both on the infallible foreknowledge of God that certain, quite determined individuals will leave this life in the state of grace, and on the immutable will of God to give precisely to these men and to no others eternal happiness as a reward for their supernatural merits. Consequently, the whole future membership of heaven, down to its minutest details, with all the different measures of grace and the various degrees of happiness, has been irrevocably fixed from all eternity. Nor could it be otherwise. For if it were possible that a predestined individual should after all be cast into hell or that one not predestined should in the end reach heaven, then God would have been mistaken in his foreknowledge of future events; He would no longer be omniscient. Hence the Good Shepherd says of his sheep (John, x, 28): "And I give them life everlasting; and they shalt not perish forever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand." But we must beware of conceiving the immutability of predestination either as fatalistic in the sense of the Mahommedan kismet or as a convenient pretext for idle resignation to inexorable fate. God's infallible foreknowledge cannot force upon man unavoidable coercion, for the simple reason that it is at bottom nothing else than the eternal vision of the future historical actuality. God foresees the free activity of a man precisely as that individual is willing to shape it. Whatever may promote the work of our salvation, whether our own prayers and good works, or the prayers of others in our behalf, is eo ipso included in the infallible foreknowledge of God and consequently in the scope of predestination (cf. St. Thomas, I, Q. xxiii, a. 8). It is in such practical considerations that the ascetical maxim (falsely ascribed to St. Augustine) originated: "Si non es prædestinatus, fac ut prædestineris" (if you are not predestined, so act that you may be predestined). Strict theology, it is true, cannot approve this bold saying, except in so far as the original decree of predestination is conceived as at first a hypothetical decree, which is afterwards changed to an absolute and irrevocable decree by the prayers, good works, and perseverance of him who is predestined, according to the words of the Apostle (II Pet., i, 10): "Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election." God's unerring foreknowledge and foreordaining is designated in the Bible by the beautiful figure of the "Book of Life" (liber vitoe, to biblion tes zoes). This book of life is a list which contains the names of all the elect and admits neither additions nor erasures. From the Old Testament (cf. Ex., xxxii, 32; Ps. lxviii, 29) this symbol was taken over into the New by Christ and His Apostle Paul (cf. Luke, x, 20; Heb., xii, 23), and enlarged upon by the Evangelist John in his Apocalypse [cf. Apoc., xxi, 27: "There shall not enter into it anything defiled ... but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb" (cf. Apoc., xiii, 8; xx, 15)]. The correct explanation of this symbolic book is given by St. Augustine (De civ. Dei, XX, xiii): "Præscientia Dei quæ non potest falli, liber vitæ est" (the foreknowledge of God, which cannot err, is the book of life). However, as intimated by the Bible, there exists a second, more voluminous book, in which are entered not only the names of the elect, but also the names of all the faithful on earth. Such a metaphorical book is supposed wherever the possibility is hinted at that a name, though entered, might again be stricken out [cf. Apoc., iii, 5: "and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life" (cf. Ex., xxxii, 33)]. The name will be mercilessly cancelled when a Christian sinks into infidelity or godlessness and dies in his sin. Finally there is a third class of books, wherein the wicked deeds and the crimes of individual sinners are written, and by which the reprobate will be judged on the last day to be cast into hell (cf. Apoc., xx, 12): "and the books were opened; ... and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books according to their works". It was this grand symbolism of Divine omniscience and justice that inspired the soul-stirring verse of the Dies iroe according to which we shall all be judged out of a book: "Liber scriptus proferetur: in quo totum continetur". Regarding the book of life, cf. St. Thomas, I, Q. xxiv, a. 1--3, and Heinrich-Gutberlet, "Dogmat. Theologie", VIII (Mainz, 1897), section 453. (2) The second quality of predestination, the definiteness of the number of the elect, follows naturally from the first. For if the eternal counsel of God regarding the predestined is unchangeable, then the number of the predestined must likewise be unchangeable and definite, subject neither to additions nor to cancellations. Anything indefinite in the number would eo ipso imply a lack of certitude in God's knowledge and would destroy His omniscience. Furthermore, the very nature of omniscience demands that not only the abstract number of the elect, but also the individuals with their names and their entire career on earth, should be present before the Divine mind from all eternity. Naturally, human curiosity is eager for definite information about the absolute as well as the relative number of the elect. How high should the absolute number be estimated? But it would be idle and useless to undertake calculations and to guess at so and so many millions or billions of predestined. St. Thomas (I, Q. xxiii, a. 7) mentions the opinion of some theologians that as many men will be saved as there are fallen angels, while others held that the number of predestined will equal the number of the faithful angels. Lastly, there were optimists who, combining these two opinions into a third, made the total of men saved equal to the unnumbered myriads of berated spirits. But even granted that the principle of our calculation is correct, no mathematician would be able to figure out the absolute number on a basis so vague, since the number of angels and demons is an unknown quantity to us. Hence, "the best answer", rightly remarks St. Thomas, "is to say: God alone knows the number of his elect". By relative number is meant the numerical relation between the predestined and the reprobate. Will the majority of the human race be saved or will they be damned? Will one-half be damned the other half saved? In this question the opinion of the rigorists is opposed to the milder view of the optimists. Pointing to several texts of the Bible (Matt., vii, 14; xxii, 14) and to sayings of great spiritual doctors, the rigorists defend as probable the thesis that not only most Christians but also most Catholics are doomed to eternal damnation. Almost repulsive in its tone is Massillon's sermon on the small number of the elect. Yet even St. Thomas (loc. cit., a. 7) asserted: "Pauciores sunt qui salvantur" (only the smaller number of men are saved). And a few years ago, when the Jesuit P. Castelein ("Le rigorisme, le nombre des élus et la doctrine du salut", 2nd ed., Brussels, 1899) impugned this theory with weighty arguments, he was sharply opposed by the Redemptorist P. Godts ("De paucitate salvandorum quid docuerunt sancti", 3rd ed., Brussels, 1899). That the number of the elect cannot be so very small is evident from the Apocalypse (vii, 9). When one hears the rigorists, one is tempted to repeat Dieringer's bitter remark: "Can it be that the Church actually exists in order to people hell?" The truth is that neither the one nor the other can be proved from Scripture or Tradition (cf. Heinrich-Gutberlet, "Dogmat. Theologie", Mainz, 1897, VIII, 363 sq.). But supplementing these two sources by arguments drawn from reason we may safely defend as probable the opinion that the majority of Christians, especially of Catholics, will be saved. If we add to this relative number the overwhelming majority of non-Christians (Jews, Mahommedans, heathens), then Gener ("Theol. dogmat. scholast.", Rome, 1767, II, 242 sq.) is probably right when he assumes the salvation of half of the human race, lest "it should be said to the shame and offence of the Divine majesty and clemency that the [future] Kingdom of Satan is larger than the Kingdom of Christ" (cf. W. Schneider, "Das andere Leben", 9th ed., Paderborn, 1908, 476 sq.). (3) The third quality of predestination, its subjective uncertainty, is intimately connected with its objective immutability. We know not whether we are reckoned among the predestined or not. All we can say is: God alone knows it. When the Reformers, confounding predestination with the absolute certainty of salvation, demanded of the Christian an unshaken faith in his own predestination if be wished to be saved, the Council of Trent opposed to this presumptuous belief the canon (Sess. VI, can. xv): "S. q. d., hominem renatum et justificatum teneri ex fide ad credendum, se certo esse in numero prædestinatorum, anathema sit" (if any one shall say that the regenerated and justified man is bound as a matter of faith to believe that he is surely of the number of the predestined, let him be anathema). In truth, such a presumption is not only irrational, but also unscriptural (cf. I Cor., iv, 4; ix, 27; x, 12; Phil., ii, 12). Only a private revelation, such as was vouchsafed to the penitent thief on the cross, could give us the certainty of faith: hence the Tridentine Council insists (loc. cit., cap. xii): "Nam nisi ex speciali revelatione sciri non potest, quos Deus sibi elegerit" (for apart from a special revelation, it cannot be known whom God has chosen). However, the Church condemns only that blasphemous presumption which boasts of a faithlike certainty in matters of predestination. To say that there exist probable signs of predestination which exclude all excessive anxiety is not against her teaching. The following are some of the criteria set down by the theologians: purity of heart, pleasure in prayer, patience in suffering, frequent reception of the sacraments, love of Christ and His Church, devotion to the Mother of God, etc. B. The Reprobation of the Damned An unconditional and positive predestination of the reprobate not only to hell, but also to sin, was taught especially by Calvin (Instit., III, c. xxi, xxiii, xxiv). His followers in Holland split into two sects, the Supralapsarians and the Infralapsarians, the latter of whom regarded original sin as the motive of positive condemnation, while the former (with Calvin) disregarded this factor and derived the Divine decree of reprobation from God's inscrutable will alone. Infralapsarianism was also held by Jansenius (De gratia Christi, l. X, c. ii, xi sq.), who taught that God had preordained from the massa damnata of mankind one part to eternal bliss, the other to eternal pain, decreeing at the same time to deny to those positively damned the necessary graces by which they might be converted and keep the commandments; for this reason, he said, Christ died only for the predestined (cf. Denzinger, "Enchiridion", n. 1092-6). Against such blasphemous teachings the Second Synod of Orange in 529 and again the Council of Trent had pronounced the ecclesiastical anathema (cf. Denzinger, nn. 200, 827). This condemnation was perfectly justified, because the heresy of Predestinarianism, in direct opposition to the clearest texts of Scripture, denied the universality of God's salvific will as well as of redemption through Christ (cf. Wis., xi, 24 sq.; I Tim., ii, 1 sq.), nullified God's mercy towards the hardened sinner (Ezech., xxxiii, 11; Rom., ii, 4; II Pet., iii, 9), did away with the freedom of the will to do good or evil, and hence with the merit of good actions and the guilt of the bad, and finally destroyed the Divine attributes of wisdom, justice, veracity, goodness, and sanctity. The very spirit of the Bible should have sufficed to deter Calvin from a false explanation of Rom., ix, and his successor Beza from the exegetical maltreatment of I Pet., ii, 7--8. After weighing all the Biblical texts bearing on eternal reprobation, a modern Protestant exegete arrives at the conclusion: "There is no election to hell parallel to the election to grace: on the contrary, the judgment pronounced on the impenitent supposes human guilt .... It is only after Christ's salvation has been rejected that reprobation follows" ("Realencyk. für prot. Theol.", XV, 586, Leipzig, 1904). As regards the Fathers of the Church, there is only St. Augustine who might seem to cause difficulties in the proof from Tradition. As a matter of fact he has been claimed by both Calvin and Jansenius as favouring their view of the question. This is not the place to enter into an examination of his doctrine on reprobation; but that his works contain expressions which, to say the least, might be interpreted in the sense of a negative reprobation, cannot be doubted. Probably toning down the sharper words of the master, his "best pupil", St. Prosper, in his apology against Vincent of Lerin (Resp. ad 12 obj. Vincent.), thus explained the spirit of Augustine: "Voluntate exierunt, voluntate ceciderunt, et quia præsciti sunt casuri, non sunt prædestinati; essent autem prædestinati, si essent reversuri et in sanctitate remansuri, ac per hoc prædestinatio Dei multis est causa standi, nemini est causa labendi" (of their own will they went out; of their own will they fell, and because their fall was foreknown, they were not predestined; they would however be predestined if they were going to return and persevere in holiness; hence, God's predestination is for many the cause of perseverance, for none the cause of falling away). Regarding Tradition cf. Petavius, "De Deo", X, 7 sq.; Jacquin in "Revue de l'histoire ecclésiastique", 1904, 266 sq.; 1906, 269 sq.; 725 sq. We may now briefly summarize the whole Catholic doctrine, which is in harmony with our reason as well as our moral sentiments. According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events (cf. Denzinger, n. 1784), all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact (Denz., n. 607). Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil (Denz., n. 797). Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all (Denz., n. 794), not only for the predestined (Denz., n. 1096), or for the faithful (Denz., n. 1294), though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption (Denz., n. 795). Though God preordained both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect (Denz., n. 322), yet, on the other hand, He predestined no one positively to hell, much less to sin (Denz., nn. 200, 816). Consequently, just as no one is saved against his will (Denz., n. 1363), so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness (Denz., nn. 318, 321). God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins (Denz., n. 322), though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners (Denz., n. 807), or pass over those who are not predestined (Denz., n. 827). As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true Christians and members of the Church, just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity and of the Church (Denz., nn. 628, 631). Without special revelation no one can know with certainty that he belongs to the number of the elect (Denz., nn. 805 sq., 825 sq.). III. THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES Owing to the infallible decisions laid down by the Church, every orthodox theory on predestination and reprobation must keep within the limits marked out by the following theses: (a) At least in the order of execution in time (in ordine executionis) the meritorious works of the predestined are the partial cause of their eternal happiness; (b) hell cannot even in the order of intention (in ordine intentionis) have been positively decreed to the damned, even though it is inflicted on them in time as the just punishment of their misdeeds; (c) there is absolutely no predestination to sin as a means to eternal damnation. Guided by these principles, we shall briefly sketch and examine three theories put forward by Catholic theologians. A. The Theory of Predestination ante proevisa merita This theory, championed by all Thomists and a few Molinists (as Bellarmine, Suarez, Francis de Lugo), asserts that God, by an absolute decree and without regard to any future supernatural merits, predestined from all eternity certain men to the glory of heaven, and then, in consequence of this decree, decided to give them all the graces necessary for its accomplishment. In the order of time, however, the Divine decree is carried out in the reverse order, the predestined receiving first the graces preappointed to them, and lastly the glory of heaven as the reward of their good works. Two qualities, therefore, characterize this theory: first, the absoluteness of the eternal decree, and second, the reversing of the relation of grace and glory in the two different orders of eternal intention (ordo intentionis) and execution in time (ordo executionis). For while grace (and merit), in the order of eternal intention, is nothing else than the result or effect of glory absolutely decreed, yet, in the order of execution, it becomes the reason and partial cause of eternal happiness, as is required by the dogma of the meritoriousness of good works (see Merit). Again, celestial glory is the thing willed first in the order of eternal intention and then is made the reason or motive for the graces offered, while in the order of execution it must be conceived as the result or effect of supernatural merits. This concession is important, since without it the theory would be intrinsically impossible and theologically untenable. But what about the positive proof? The theory can find decisive evidence in Scripture only on the supposition that predestination to heavenly glory is unequivocally mentioned in the Bible as the Divine motive for the special graces granted to the elect. Now, although there are several texts (e. g. Matt., xxiv, 22 sq.; Acts, xiii, 48, and others) which might without straining be interpreted in this sense, yet these passages lose their imagined force in view of the fact that other explanations, of which there is no lack, are either possible or even more probable. The ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans in particular is claimed by the advocates of absolute predestination as that "classical" passage wherein St. Paul seems to represent the eternal happiness of the elect not only as the work of God's purest mercy, but as an act of the most arbitrary will, so that grace, faith, justification must be regarded as sheer effects of an absolute, Divine decree (cf. Rom., ix, 18: "Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth"). Now, it is rather daring to quote one of the most difficult and obscure passages of the Bible as a "classical text" and then to base on it an argument for bold speculation. To be more specific, it is impossible to draw the details of the picture in which the Apostle compares God to the potter who hath "power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour" (Rom., ix, 21), without falling into the Calvinistic blasphemy that God predestined some men to hell and sin just as positively as he pre-elected others to eternal life. It is not even admissible to read into the Apostle's thought a negative reprobation of certain men. For the primary intention of the Epistle to the Romans is to insist on the gratuity of the vocation to Christianity and to reject the Jewish presumption that the possession of the Mosaic Law and the carnal descent from Abraham gave to the Jews an essential preference over the heathens. But the Epistle has nothing to do with the speculative question whether or not the free vocation to grace must be considered as the necessary result of eternal predestination to celestial glory [cf. Franzelin, "De Deo uno", thes. lxv (Rome, 1883)]. It is just as difficult to find in the writings of the Fathers a solid argument for an absolute predestination. The only one who might be cited with some semblance of truth is St. Augustine, who stands, however, almost alone among his predecessors and successors. Not even his most faithful pupils, Prosper and Fulgentius, followed their master in all his exaggerations. But a problem so deep and mysterious, which does not belong to the substance of Faith and which, to use the expression of Pope Celestine I (d. 432), is concerned with profundiores difficilioresque partes incurrentium quoestionum (cf. Denz., n. 142), cannot be decided on the sole authority of Augustine. Moreover, the true opinion of the African doctor is a matter of dispute even among the best authorities, so that all parties claim him for their conflicting views [cf. O. Rottmanner, "Der Augustinismus" (Munich, 1892); Pfülf, "Zur Prädestinationslehre des hl. Augustinus" in "Innsbrucker Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie", 1893, 483 sq.]. As to the unsuccessful attempt made by Gonet and Billuart to prove absolute predestination ante proevisa merita "by an argument from reason", see Pohle, "Dogmatik", II, 4th ed., Paderborn, 1909, 443 sq. B. The Theory of the Negative Reprobation of the Damned What deters us most strongly from embracing the theory just discussed is not the fact that it cannot be dogmatically proved from Scripture or Tradition, but the logical necessity to which it binds us, of associating an absolute predestination to glory, with a reprobation just as absolute, even though it be but negative. The well-meant efforts of some theologians (e. g. Billot) to make a distinction between the two concepts, and so to escape the evil consequences of negative reprobation, cannot conceal from closer inspection the helplessness of such logical artifices. Hence the earlier partisans of absolute predestination never denied that their theory compelled them to assume for the wicked a parallel, negative reprobation -- that is, to assume that, though not positively predestined to hell, yet they are absolutely predestined not to go to heaven (cf. above, I, B). While it was easy for the Thomists to bring this view into logical harmony with their proemotio physica, the few Molinists were put to straits to harmonize negative reprobation with their scientia media. In order to disguise the harshness and cruelty of such a Divine decree, the theologians invented more or less palliative expressions, saying that negative reprobation is the absolute will of God to "pass over" a priori those not predestined, to "overlook" them, "not to elect" them, "by no means to admit" them into heaven. Only Gonet had the courage to call the thing by its right name: "exclusion from heaven" (exclusio a gloria). In another respect, too, the adherents of negative reprobation do not agree among themselves, namely, as to what is the motive of Divine reprobation. The rigorists (as Alvarez, Estius, Sylvius) regard as the motive the sovereign will of God who, without taking into account possible sins and demerits, determined a priori to keep those not predestined out of heaven, though He did not create them for hell. A second milder opinion (e. g. de Lemos, Gotti, Gonet), appealing to the Augustinian doctrine of the massa damnata, finds the ultimate reason for the exclusion from heaven in original sin, in which God could, without being unjust, leave as many as He saw fit. The third and mildest opinion (as Goudin, Graveson, Billuart) derives reprobation not from a direct exclusion from heaven, but from the omission of an "effectual election to heaven"; they represent God as having decreed ante proevisa merita to leave those not predestined in their sinful weakness, without denying them the necessary sufficient graces; thus they would perish infallibility (cf. "Innsbrucker Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie", 1879, 203 sq.). Whatever view one may take regarding the internal probability of negative reprobation, it cannot be harmonized with the dogmatically certain universality and sincerity of God's salvific will. For the absolute predestination of the blessed is at the same time the absolute will of God "not to elect" a priori the rest of mankind (Suarez), or which comes to the same, "to exclude them from heaven" (Gonet), in other words, not to save them. While certain Thomists (as Bañez, Alvarez, Gonet) accept this conclusion so far as to degrade the "voluntas salvifica" to an ineffectual "velleitas", which conflicts with evident doctrines of revelation, Suarez labours in the sweat of his brow to safeguard the sincerity of God's salvific will, even towards those who are reprobated negatively. But in vain. How can that will to save be called serious and sincere which has decreed from all eternity the metaphysical impossibility of salvation? He who has been reprobated negatively, may exhaust all his efforts to attain salvation: it avail's him nothing. Moreover, in order to realize infallibly his decree, God is compelled to frustrate the eternal welfare of all excluded a priori from heaven, and to take care that they die in their sins. Is this the language in which Holy Writ speaks to us? No; there we meet an anxious, loving father, who wills not "that any should perish, but that all should return to penance" (II Pet., iii, 9). Lessius rightly says that it would be indifferent to him whether he was numbered among those reprobated positively or negatively; for, in either case, his eternal damnation would be certain. The reason for this is that in the present economy exclusion from heaven means for adults practically the same thing as damnation. A middle state, a merely natural happiness, does not exist. C. The Theory of Predestination post proevisa merita This theory defended by the earlier Scholastics (Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus), as well as by the majority of the Molinists, and warmly recommended by St. Francis de Sales "as the truer and more attractive opinion", has this as its chief distinction, that it is free from the logical necessity of upholding negative reprobation. It differs from predestination ante proevisa merita in two points: first, it rejects the absolute decree and assumes a hypothetical predestination to glory; secondly, it does not reverse the succession of grace and glory in the two orders of eternal intention and of execution in time, but makes glory depend on merit in eternity as well as in the order of time. This hypothetical decree reads as follows: Just as in time eternal happiness depends on merit as a condition, so I intended heaven from all eternity only for foreseen merit. -- It is only by reason of the infallible foreknowledge of these merits that the hypothetical decree is changed into an absolute: These and no others shall be saved. This view not only safeguards the universality and sincerity of God's salvific will, but coincides admirably with the teachings of St. Paul (cf. II Tim., iv, 8), who knows that there "is laid up" (reposita est, apokeitai) in heaven "a crown of justice", which "the just judge will render" (reddet, apodosei) to him on the day of judgment. Clearer still is the inference drawn from the sentence of the universal Judge (Matt., xxv, 34 sq.): "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat" etc. As the "possessing" of the Kingdom of Heaven in time is here linked to the works of mercy as a condition, so the "preparation" of the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity, that is, predestination to glory is conceived as dependent on the foreknowledge that good works will be performed. The same conclusion follows from the parallel sentence of condemnation (Matt., xxv, 41 sq.): "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat" etc. For it is evident that the "everlasting fire of hell" can only have been intended from all eternity for sin and demerit, that is, for neglect of Christian charity, in the same sense in which it is inflicted in time. Concluding a pari, we must say the same of eternal bliss. This explanation is splendidly confirmed by the Greek Fathers. Generally speaking, the Greeks are the chief authorities for conditional predestination dependent on foreseen merits. The Latins, too, are so unanimous on this question that St. Augustine is practically the only adversary in the Occident. St. Hilary (In Ps. lxiv, n. 5) expressly describes eternal election as proceeding from "the choice of merit" (ex meriti delectu), and St. Ambrose teaches in his paraphrase of Rom., viii, 29 (De fide, V, vi, 83): "Non enim ante prædestinavit quam præscivit, sed quorum merita præscivit, eorum præmia prædestinavit" (He did not predestine before He foreknew, but for those whose merits He foresaw, He predestined the reward). To conclude: no one can accuse us of boldness if we assert that the theory here presented has a firmer basis in Scripture and Tradition than the opposite opinion. Besides the works quoted, cf. PETER LOMBARD, Sent., I, dist. 40-41: ST. THOMAS, I, Q. xxiii; RUIZ, De proedest. et reprobatione (Lyons, 1828); RAMÍREZ, De proed. et reprob. (2 vols., Alcalá, 1702); PETAVIUS, De Deo, IX--X; IDEM, De incarnatione, XIII; LESSIUS, De perfectionibus moribusque divinis, XIV, 2; IDEM, De proed. et reprob., Opusc. II (Paris, 1878); TOURNELY, De Deo, qq. 22-23; SCHRADER, Commentarii de proedestinatione (Vienna, 1865); HOSSE, De notionibus providentioe proedestinationisque in ipsa Sacra Scriptura exhibitis (Bonn, 1868); BALTZER, Des hl. Augustinus Lehre über Prädestination und Reprobation (Vienna, 1871); MANNENS, De voluntate Dei salvifica et proedestinatione (Louvain, 1883); WEBER, Kritische Gesch. der Exegese des 9 Kap. des Römerbriefes (Würzburg, 1889). Besides these monographs cf. FRANZELIN, De Deo uno (Rome, 1883); OSWALD, Die Lehre von der Gnade, d. i. Gnade, Rechtfertigung, Gnadenwahl (Paderborn, 1885); SIMAR, Dogmatik, II, section 126 (Freiburg, 1899); TEPE, Institut. theol., III (Paris, 1896); SCHEEBEN-ATZBERGER, Dogmatik, IV (Freiburg, 1903); PESCH, Proel. Dogmat., II (Freiburg, 1906); VAN NOORT, De gratia Christi (Amsterdam, 1908); POHLE, Dogmatik, II (Paderborn, 1909). J. POHLE Preface Preface (Lat. Præfatio). The first part of the Eucharistic prayers (Anaphora or Canon) in all rites, now separated from the rest by the singing of the "Sanctus". HISTORY. -- According to the idea of thanksgiving which, after the example of the Last Supper (Matt., xxvi, 27; Mark, xiv, 23; Luke xxii, 17, 19; I Cor., xi, 24). forms a fundamental element of the Eucharistic service, all liturgies begin the Anaphora, the consecration-prayer, by thanking God for His benefits. Almost every account we have of the early liturgy mentions this (Didache ix, 2-3; x, 2-4; xiv, 1; Justin "I Apol." LXV, iii, 5; LXVII, v). Clement of Rome quotes a long example of such a thanksgiving-prayer (I Cor., lx-lxi). So prominent was this idea that it has supplied the usual name for the whole service (Eucharist, eucharistia). The thanksgiving-prayer enumerated the benefits for which we thank God, beginning generally with the creation, continuing through the orders of nature and grace, mentioning much of Old Testament history, and so coming to the culminating benefit of Christ's Incarnation, His Life and Passion, in which the story of the Last Supper brings us naturally to the words of institution. In most of the earliest liturgies this enumeration is of considerable length (e.g. Apost. Const., VIII; XII, iv-xxxix; Alexandria, see Brightman, infra, 125-33; Antioch, ibid., 50-2). It is invariably preceded by an invitation to the people: "Lift up your hearts", and then: "Let us give thanks to the Lord", or some such formula. The people having answered: "It is right and just", the celebrant continues, taking up their word: "It is truly right and just first of all to praise [or to thank] thee"; and so the thanksgiving begins. Such is the scheme everywhere. It is also universal that at some moment before the recital of the words of institution there should be a mention of the angels who, as Isaias said, praise God and say: "Holy, holy holy" etc., and the celebrant stops to allow the people to take up the angels' words (so already Clem., "I Cor." xxxiv, 6-7, and all liturgies). He then continues his thanksgiving-prayer. But the effect of this interruption is to cut off the part before it from the rest. In the Eastern rites the separation is less marked; the whole prayer is still counted as one thing -- the Anaphora. In the West the Sanctus has cut the old Canon completely in two; the part before it, once counted part of the Canon (see CANON OF THE MASS), is now, since about the seventh century (Ord. Rom., I, 16), considered a separate prayer, the Preface. The dislocation of the rest of the Canon which no longer continues the note of thanksgiving but has part of its Intercession (Te igitur) immediately after the Sanctus, and its silent recital, whereas the Preface is sung aloud, have still more accentuated this separation. Nevertheless, historically the Preface belongs to the Canon; it is the first part of the Eucharistic prayer, the only part that has kept clearly the idea of giving thanks. The name Præfatio" (from præfari) means introduction, preface (in the usual sense) to the Canon. In the Leonine and Gelasian books this part of the Canon has no special title. It is recognised by its first words: "Vere dignum" (Leonine) or the initials "V.D." (Gelasian). In the Gregorian Sacramentary it is already considered a separate prayer and is headed "Præfatio". Walafrid Strabo calls it "præfatio actionis" )"actio" for Canon; "De eccl. rerum exord. et increm." in P.L., CXIV, 948). Sicardus of Cremona says it is "sequentis canonis prælocutio et præparatio" (Mitrale in P.L., CCXIII, 122). Durandus writes a whole chapter about the Preface (De div. off., IV, xxxiii). He explains its name as meaning that it "precedes the principal sacrifice". The first Roman Prefaces extant are those in the Leonine Sacramentary. They already show the two characteristic qualities that distinguish the Roman Preface from the corresponding part of other rites, its shortness and changeableness. The old thanksgiving (before the Sanctus) contained a long enumeration of God's benefits, as in Clement of Rome and the Apostolic Constitutions. It is so still in the Eastern rites. At Rome, before the Leonine book was written, this enumeration was ruthlessly curtailed. Nothing is left of it but a most general allusion: "always and everywhere to thank thee". But the mention of the angels which introduces the Sanctus had to remain. This, comparatively detailed, still gives the Roman Preface the character of a prayer chiefly about the angels and makes it all seem to lead up to the Sanctus, as the medieval commentators notice (e.g. Durandus, ibid.). The corresponding prayer in Apost. Const. (VIII) contains two references to the angels, one at the beginning where they occur as the first creatures (VIII, viii), the other at the end of the commemoration of Old Testament history (originally written in connection with Isaias's place in it) where they introduce the Sanctus (XII, xxvii). It seems probable, that at Rome with the omission of the historical allusions these two references were merged into one. The "Et ideo" then would refer to the omitted list of favours in the Old Testament (at present it has no special point). So we should have one more connection between the Roman Rite and the Apost. Const. (see MASS, LITURGY OF). The other special note of our Preface is its changeableness. Here, too, the East is immovable, the West changes with the calendar. The Preface was originally as much part of the variable Proper as the Collect. The Leonine book supplies Prefaces all through for the special Masses; it has 267. The Gelasian has 54; the Gregorian has 10 and more than 100 in its appendix. In these varied Prefaces allusions to the feast, the season, and so on, take the place of the old list of Divine favours. The preface after the ekphonesis of the Secret (Per omnia sæcula sæculorum -- here as always merely a warning) begins with a little dialogue of which the versicles or equivalent forms are found at this place in every liturgy. First "Dominus vobiscum" with its answer. The Eastern rites, too, have a blessing at this point. "Sursum corda" is one of the oldest known liturgical formulas (St. Cyprian quotes it and its answer, "De Orat. Dom.", xxxi, in "P.L.", IV, 539; Apost. Const.: Ano ton noun). It is an invitation to the people eminently suitable just before the Eucharistic prayer begins. Brightman (infra, 556) quotes as its source Lam., iii, 41. Equally old and universal is the people's answer: "Habemus [corda] ad Dominum" a Greek construction: Echomen pros ton kyrion, meaning: "we have them [have placed them] before the Lord". Then follows the invitation to give thanks, which very early included the technical idea of "making the Eucharist": "Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro". So with verbal variations in all rites. The Jewish form of grace before meals contains the same form: "Let us give thanks to Adonai our God" (in the Mishna, "Berachoth", 6). The people answer with an expression that again must come from the earliest age: "Dignum et iustum est". This, too, is universal (Apost. Const.: Axion kai dikaion). Its reduplication suggests a Hebrew parallelism. The celebrant takes up their word and begins the preface always: "Vere dignum et iustum est" (Apost. Const.: Axion hos alythos kai dikaion). The beginning of the Roman Preface is approached among the others most nearly by Alexandria. Our present common Preface represents the simplest type, with no allusions; all the old list of benefits is represented by the words "per Christum Dominum nostrum" only. This is the Preface given in the Canon of the Gelasian book (ed. Wilson, p.234). Most of the others are formed by an intercalation after these words. But there are three types of Preface distinguished by their endings. The first and commonest introduces the angels thus: "per quem maiestatem tuam laudant angeli"; the second (e.g. for Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, Apostles) begins that clause: "et ideo cum angelis"; the third and rarest (now only the Whit-Sunday Preface) has: "Quapropter . . . sed et supernæ virtutes". The Trinity Preface ("quam laudant angeli") is a variant of the first form. All end with the word: "dicentes" (which in the first and second form refers to us, in the third form to the angels), and the people (choir) continue the sentence: "Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus", etc. There are many prayers for other occasions (chiefly blessings and consecrations) formed on the model of the Preface, with the "Sursum corda" dialogue, beginning "Vere dignum" etc. From their form one would call them Prefaces, though not Eucharistic ones. Such are the ordination prayers, two at the consecration of a church, the blessing of the font, of palms (but this was once a Mass Preface), part of the præconium paschale. They are imitations of the Eucharistic Preface, apparently because its solemn form (perhaps its chant) made it seem suitable for other specially solemn occasions too. The Leonine, Gelasian, and Gregorian Sacramentaries have our ordination prayers, but not yet cast into this Preface form. But through the Middle Ages the Preface form was very popular, and a great number of blessings are composed in it. This is only one more case of the common medieval practice of modelling new prayers and services on others already well-known and popular (compare the hymns written in imitation of older ones, etc.). II. THE PREFACE IN OTHER RITES The name "Præfatio" is peculiar to Rome and to Milan, which has borrowed it from Rome. In no other rite is there a special name; it is simply the opening clauses of the Anaphora. In the Syrian-Byzantine-Armenian group, though this part of the Eucharistic prayer is still longer than the Roman Preface and has kept some list of benefits for which we thank God, it is comparatively short. The Byzantine Liturgy of St. Basil has a fairly long form. As usual, there is a much shorter form in that of St. Chrysostom. The Armenian form is the shortest and mentions only the Incarnation. But in the Egyptian group of liturgies the whole Intercession prayer is included in what we should call the Preface, so that this part is very long. This is the most conspicuous characteristic of the Alexandrine type. The prayer begins in the usual way with a list of favours (creation of the world and of man, the Prophets, Christ). Then abruptly the Intercession begins ("And we pray and entreat thee . . ."); joined to it are the memory of the saints and the diptychs of the dead, and then equally abruptly, the thanksgiving is resumed and introduces the Sanctus (Brightman, 125-132). It is clear that this represents a later amalgamation; the two quite different prayers are joined awkwardly, so that the seams are still obvious. In all Eastern rites the Preface, or rather what corresponds to it, is said silently after the first dialogue, ending with an ekphonesis to introduce the Sanctus (the Alexandrine Liturgy has another ekphonesis in its Intercession). This accounts for its being less important an element of the service than in the West. The Gallican Rite had a great number of Prefaces for feasts and seasons. Even more than in the old Roman Liturgy this prayer was part of the Proper, like the Collects and Lessons. But it was not called a Preface. Its heading in the Gallican books was "Contestatio" or "Immolatio"; the Mozarabic title is "Inlatio". These names really apply to the whole Eucharistic prayer and correspond to our name Canon (Inlatio -- Anaphora). But as later parts had special names ("Vere Sanctus", "Post sanctus", "Post pridie", etc.), these general titles were eventually understood as meaning specially the part before the Sanctus. Now the Mozarabic "Inlatio" may be taken as equivalent to the Roman "Præfatio". The Ambrosian Rite has adopted the Roman name. Both Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites keep the Gallican peculiarity of a vast number of Prefaces printed each as part of the Proper. III. PRESENT USE The Roman Missal now contains eleven Prefaces. Ten are in the Gregorian Sacramentary, one (of the Blessed Virgin) was added under Urban II (1088-99). The pope himself is reported to have composed this Preface and to have sung it first at the Synod of Guastalla in 1094. The Prefaces form a medium between the unchanging Ordinary and the variable Proper of the Mass. They vary so little that they are printed in the Ordinary first with their solemn chants, then with the ferial chants, and lastly without notes for Low Mass. The appendix of the new (Vatican) Missal gives a third "more solemn" chant for each, merely a more ornate form of the solemn chant, to be used ad libitum. Otherwise the solemn chant is to be used for semi-doubles and all days above that, the simple chant for simples, ferias, and requiems. The Preface is chosen according to the usual rule for all proper parts of the Mass. If the feast has one, that is used; otherwise one takes that of the octave or season. All days that do not fall under one of these classes have the common Preface, except that Sundays that have no special Preface have that of the Holy Trinity (so the decree of Clement XIII, 3 Jan., 1759). Requiems have the common Preface, as also votive Masses, unless these latter come under a category that has a proper one (e.g., of the Blessed Virgin, the Holy Ghost, etc.). Votive Masses of the Blessed Sacrament, like Corpus Christi, have the Christmas Preface. There are other extensions of use (the Preface of the Holy Cross for the Sacred Heart, etc.), all of which are noted in the Propers of the Missal and in the Calendar. At High Mass after the last Secret the celebrant at the middle of the altar, resting his hands on it, sings: "Per omnia sæcula sæculorum" etc.; the choir answers each versicle. He lifts up the hands at "Sursum corda"; at "Gratias agamus" he joins them, and at "Deo nostro" looks up and then bows. At "Vere dignum" he lifts the hands again and so sings the Preface through. After "dicentes" he joins them and bowing says the Sanctus in a low voice, while the choir sings it. The deacon and subdeacon stand in line behind him all the time, bow with him at the words "Deo nostro", and come to either side to say the Sanctus with him. At Low Mass all is said, the server answering the dialogue at the beginning. BRIGHTMAN, "Eastern Liturgies" (Oxford, 1896); FELTOE, "Sacramentarium Leonianum" (Cambridge, 1896); WILSON, "The Gelasian Sacramentary" (Oxford, 1894); "Sacramentum Gregorianum" and "Ordines Romani" in "P.L"., LXXVIII; GIHR, "Das heilige Messopfer" (Freiburg im Br., 1897), pp. 513-524; RIETSCHEL, "Lehrbuch der Liturgik", I (Berlin, 1900) 378-380; LE VAVASSEUR, "Manuel de Liturgie," I (Paris, 1910), 297-298; 467-468. ADRIAN FORTESCUE Prefect Apostolic Prefect Apostolic (Lat. proefectus, one put over or in charge of something) During the last few centuries it has been the practice of the Holy See to govern either through prefects Apostolic, or through vicars Apostolic (q. v), many of the territories where no dioceses with resident bishops exist. These territories are called respectively prefectures Apostolic and vicariates Apostolic. This had been done by the Holy See when, owing to local circumstances, such as the character and customs of the people, the hostility of the civil powers and the like, it was doubtful whether an episcopal see could be permanently established. The establishing of a mere prefecture Apostolic in a place supposes that the Church has attained there only a small development. A fuller development leads to the foundation of a vicariate Apostolic, i. e., the intermediate stage between a prefecture and a diocese. A prefect Apostolic is of lower rank than a vicar; his powers are more limited, nor has he, as a rule, the episcopal character, as is ordinarily the case with a vicar Apostolic. The duties of a prefect Apostolic consist in directing the work of the mission entrusted to his care; his powers are in general those necessarily connected with the ordinary administration of such an office, as, for instance, the assigning of missionaries, the making of regulations for the good management of the affairs of his mission, and the like. Moreover, he has extraordinary faculties for several cases reserved otherwise to the Apostolic See, such as, for instance, absolutions from censures, dispensations from matrimonial impediments. He has also the faculty of consecrating chalices, patens, and portable altars, and some prefects Apostolic have the power to administer Confirmation. The prefects Apostolic we have described so far have independent territories and are subject only to the Holy See. Sometimes, when a vicariate or a diocese extends over a very large territory, in which the Catholic population is unequally distributed, the Holy See places a portion of such territory in charge of a prefect Apostolic; in which case the faculties of the prefect are more limited, and in the exercise of his office he depends on the vicar Apostolic or the bishop, whose consent he needs for the exercise of many of his functions, and to whose supervision his administration is subject. With a view to still better protecting the authority of the local vicar Apostolic or bishop, it was proposed in the Vatican Council to abolish this second class of prefects Apostolic having jurisdiction over districts within the limits of a vicariate or diocese of the Latin Rite; but the existing order remained unchanged owing to the interruption of that Council. As to the same class of prefects Apostolic within the limits of territories subject to Oriental Churches, Leo XIII abolished them by a Decree of the Propaganda (12 Sept., 1896), and substituted superiors with special dependence on the delegates Apostolic (q. v.) of the respective places. There are (1911) 66 prefectures Apostolic: Europe, 5; Asia, 17; North America, 3; South America, 11; Africa, 23; Oceania, 7. BAART, The Roman Court (New York), nn. 357-8; BOUIX, De curia romana (Paris, 1880), 648; Collectanea S. Congr. de Prop. Fide (Rome, 1893), nn. 15, 243-60; Gerarchia cattolica (Rome, 1911); PUTZER, Comment. in facult. apost. (New York, 1898), n. 245; SCHNEEMANN, Coll. Lacensis, VII (Freiburg, 1870-90), 684. 693; ZITELLI, Apparat. jur. eccl. (Rome, 1888), 138. HECTOR PAPI. Prelate Prelate Real Prelate, the incumbent of a prelature, i.e., of an ecclesiastical office with special and stable jurisdiction in foro externo and with special precedence over other ecclesiastical offices; or, honorary, with distinctions of this ecclesiastical dignity without the corresponding office. The original prelates are the bishops as possessors of jurisdiction over the members of the Church based on Divine institution. Apart from the bishops, the real prelates include: + (1) those who have quasi-episcopal, independent jurisdiction over a special territory separated from the territory of a diocese (proelatus nullius, sc. dioeceseos), as is the case with the abbeys and provostships of monasteries (Monte Cassino, Einsiedein, St. Maurice in the Canton of Wallis, etc.); + (2) those who have offices in the administration of dioceses, and enjoy an independent and proper jurisdiction (e.g., the earlier archdeacons, the provosts and deans of cathedral and collegiate churches, in so far as these still exercise a regular, personal jurisdiction; + (3) abbots and provosts of monasteries, even when they administer no territory with episcopal powers, but have merely the permanent, supreme distinction of the monastery; + (4) titular bishops, both those who in the vicariates Apostolic and other territories have supreme ecclesiastical administration, and those who have simply received episcopal consecration without jurisdiction over a special district, such as certain officials in Rome, consecrating bishops, etc.; + (5) the highest officials of the Roman offices, who, in addition to the cardinals, have a prominent share in the direction of the Roman Church, and thus have a special relation to the person of the pope. In consequence of the extent of the government of the Church, prelates are especially numerous in Rome. The most important real prelates of the papal curia are: the three highest officials of the Camera Apostolica (vice-camerlengo, general auditor, and treasurer) and the Majordomo of the Vatican, who are called prelati di fiocchetti; the secretaries of the congregations of cardinals, the regent of the papal chancery, the regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, and certain other high officials of the congregations of the Curia; the members of the College of Prothonotaries Apostolic de numero participantium, the auditors of the Rota, the clerics of the Apostolic Chamber, the referendaries of the Siqnatura justitioe. In the Constitution "Inter ceteras" of 11 June, 1659, Alexander VII laid down the conditions under which these real prelatures might be accepted. The dignity granted by the pope with mention of these conditions is called "prælatura justitiæ"; when the conditions are not imposed in the granting of the dignity, the latter is called "prælatura gratiæ". To the real prelates belong, therefore, although no jurisdiction in foro externo is attached to their offices, all the highest palace officials, who perform a constant service in the retinue of the pope and in the offices created for that purpose. The appointment to these offices confers of itself the prelature. Such officials are the Papal Almoner, the Secretary of Latin Briefs and Briefs to the Princes, the substitute of the Cardinal Secretary of State, the four real Privy Chamberlains, the real Privy Chaplains of the Pope. A second class of prelates are those on whom the title and rank of the prelature are conferred with the corresponding dress and privileges, but without the office or court service otherwise attached to it. These are: + (1) the prothonotaries Apostolic other than the real ones (see PROTHONOTARY APOSTOLIC); + (2) the papal domestic prelates (Antistes urbanus, Proelatus urbanus, Proelatus domesticus), who are appointed to this dignity by papal Brief. They have the right of wearing the garb of a prelate and of using in Solemn High Mass the special candle (palmatoria), but not the other episcopal insignia (Motu Proprio "Inter multiplices" of Pius X, 21 February, 1905, in "Acta S. Sedis", XXXVII, 491, sq.); + (3) the supernumerary privy chamberlains (Camerieri segreti sopra-numerarii), honorary chamberlains and chaplains, who may on special occasions wear the same garb as the officiating chamberlains of the pope. All prelates have the title "Monsignore" and a special costume (purple) corresponding to their rank; the higher prelates enjoy in addition other special privileges. TAMBURINI, De iure abbatum et aliorum proelatorum tam regularium quam soecularium episcopis inferiorum (3 vols., Lyons, 1640); BANGEN, Die Römische Kurie, ihre gegenwärtige Zusammensetzung u. ihre Geschäftsgang (Münster, 1854); HILLING, Die Römische Kurie (Paderborn, 1906); BATTANDIER, Annuaire pontifical catholique. (Paris, 1898-); TROMBETTA, De iuribus et privilegiis proelatorum Romanoe Curioe (Sorrento, 1906); BAART, The Roman Court (Milwaukee, 1895); TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906). J. P. KIRSCH. Joseph Henri Marie de Premare Joseph Henri Marie de Prémare Joseph Henri Marie de Prémare, missionary and sinologist, born at Cherbourg, 17 July, 1666; died at Macao, 17 Sept., 1736; entered the Society of Jesus 17 Sept., 1683, and departed for China in 1698. He laboured as missionary chiefly in the province Kwang-si. When the Christian faith was proscribed by Emperor Yong-tching, in January, 1724, Prémare was confined with his colleagues in Canton. A still more rigorous edict banished him to Macao. In his retirement he studied profoundly the language and literature of China, and in the opinion of sinologists he, of all the older missionaries, best succeeded in grasping their peculiarities and beauties. His principal work is entitled: "Notitia linguæ sinicæ"; in simple form it explains the rules and usage of the vulgar Chinese language (siao shue), and the style of the written, literary language (wen tchang). The famous English sinologist, James Legge, calls it "an invaluable work, of which it could hardly be possible to speak in too high terms". Father de Prémare is one of the missionaries who furnished Father Jean-Baptiste du Halde with the material for his "Description de la Chine" (Paris, 1735). We owe him, in particular, the translation of the maxims taken from the Shu-King (Du Halde, II, 298); of eight odes of the Shi-King (II, 308); of the "Orphan of the House of Tchao", a Chinese tragedy (III, 341); the notes on the course of study, literary degrees and examinations of the Chinese (II, 251); etc. In "Lettres Edifiantes et Curieuses" we find many letters from Father Prémare. A much greater number of his writings are unedited, preserved, chiefly, at the National Library (Paris). Many undertake the defence of figurism, the name of a singular system of interpreting ancient Chinese books, the inventor of which was Father Joachim Bouvet. Following Bouvet, Prémare thought he discovered in the Chinese King (see CHINA) suggestions of Christian doctrines and allusions to the mysteries of Christianity. The written Chinese words and characters are to him but symbols that hide profound senses. The three or four missionaries who adopted these ideas of Bouvet were never authorized to publish them in book form. The most important work which Father de Prémare wrote in their defence has only recently appeared, translated from the Latin by M. Bonnetty, director of the "Annales de philosophie chrétienne", aided by Abbé Perny, formerly missionary to China. It is entitled: "Vestiges choisis des principaux dogmes de la religion chrétienne, extraits des anciens livres chinois" (Paris, 1878). DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliothèque des écrivains de la Compagnie de Jésus, VI, 1196-1201; IX, 784; CORDIER, Bibliotheca Sinica, I; BRUCKER, Etudes religieuses, 6 ser., III, 425 (1877). JOSEPH BRUCKER. Premonstratensian Canons Premonstratensian Canons ( Canonici Regulares PrÆmonstratenses). Founded in 1120 by St. Norbert at Prémontré, near Laon, France. At first they were not bound by any fixed rule, charity being the bond of their union, and the example of their founder their rule of life. After a while Norbert unfolded his mind to his disciples on the special regulations which they should adopt. He told them that he had already consulted learned bishops and holy abbots; that by some he was advised to lead an eremitical life, by others a monastic life, or else to join the Cistercian Order. He added that, if he had to follow his own inclinations, he preferred the canonical life of the Apostles, but that, before all, they must pray to know and do the will of God. It was then that St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, appeared to him and gave him his rule, saying: "I am Augustine, Bishop of Hippo; behold here the rule which I have written; if your fellow-brethren, my sons, shall have observed it well, they shall stand without fear in the presence of Christ on the terrible day of the last judgment". As all agreed to the choice of a canonical institute, Norbert composed a fourmulary of their profession, which they pronounced on the Feast of Christmas, 1121. To this formulary St. Norbert added fastings, abstinence, and other works of mortification, together with some pious customs and practices peculiar to monastic orders, whereby his order became, as it were, monastico-canonical. The five particular ends of the Norbertine Order are: Laus Dei in choro (the singing of the Divine Office); Zelus animarum (zeal for the salvation of souls); Spiritus jugis poe;nitentiæ (the spirit of habitual penance); Cultus Eucharisticus (a special devotion to the Holy Eucharist); Cultus Marianus (a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin, mostly to her Immaculate Conception). The two first arise from the nature of a canonical order, which is both contemplative and active. The third is taken from monastic orders. The fourth and fifth are characteristic of the Norbertine Order, to which these special devotions were bequeathed by the founder. The title of the first chapter of the "Statuta", "De tremendo altaris Sacramento", seems to indicate that devotion to the Holy Eucharist as a sacrifice and sacrament would have the first place in the heart of a son of St. Norbert. St. Norbert wrote an Office in honour of the Immaculate Conception which contained these words: "Ave, Virgo quæ Spiritu Sancto præservante, de tanto primi parentis peccato triumphasti innoxia!" The third chapter of the "Statuta" begins with these words: "Horæ Deiparæ Virginis Mariæ, candidi ordinis nostri patronæ singularis, etc." Guerenus writes in his commentaries on the Canticle of Canticles: "St. Norbert, with his holy Order, was raised up by Divine Providence to render conspicuous in his day two mysteries, the Blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady". As to the second end, zeal for souls, the preface to the "Statuta" says: "Our order is the propogation of God's glory; it is zeal for souls, the administration of the sacraments, service in the Church of God. Our order is to preach the Gospel, to teach the ignorant, to have the direction of parishes, to perform pastoral duties, etc." At the time of St. Norbert the clergy were not numerous, often badly prepared for their ministry, and dissolute. Besides, there were numerous villages without church or priest. What was needed was clerical training to impart piety and learning. The order has had its share in the carrying out of this good work, and the Norbertine Abbeys have been called, by popes and bishops, seminaries of missionaries and parish priests. From its beginning the order has accepted parishes which were, and are still, in many cases administered by Norbertine priests. That the Order of Prémontré may obtain benefices and administer parishes was again decided by Benedict XIV by the Bull "Oneroso" of 1 Sept., 1750. COMPOSITION OF THE ORDER The order is composed of three classes: (1) priests and clerics under an abbot or provost; (2) nuns who embrace the Rule of St. Norbert; (3) members of the third Order of St. Norbert. Both priests and nuns have a two years' novitiate and make solemn vows. In some countries Norbertine nuns are now bound by simple vows only. In the monasteries there are laybrothers and laysisters who likewise make their vows. The members of the Third Order, originally called fratres et sorores ad succurrendum, wear the white scapular under their secular dress and have certain prayers to say. The spirit of the Third Order must evidently be the spirit of the order itself. The members should possess zeal for souls, love mortification, and practise and promote an enlightened devotion to the Holy Eucharist and to the Immaculate Conception. As a modern author (Duhayon, S. J., "La Mine d'or", c. v) says: "By the institution of the Third Order in the midst of the stream of temporal anxieties St. Norbert has introduced the religious life into the family circle. Nobody before St. Norbert had conceived the idea of realizing in the Church a state of life which should be midway between the cloister and the world, or in other words a religious order which should penetrate into the Christian homes.... After his death it was imitated by other founders, especially by St. Francis and St. Dominic". PROPAGATION OF THE ORDER The order increased very rapidly and, in the words of Adrian IV, it spread its branches from sea to sea. Before the death of Hugh of Fosse, the first abbot general, a hundred and twenty abbots were present at the general chapter. Of the first disciples, nearly all became abbots of new foundations, and several were raised to the episcopal dignity. Development was chiefly effected through the foundation of new abbeys, but several religious communities already in existence wished to adopt the constitutions of Prémontré and were affiliated to and incorporated with the order. We have already mentioned the names of abbeys founded in France, Belgium, and Germany, but colonies of the sons of St. Norbert were sent to nearly every country of Europe and even to Asia. In 1130 King Stephen gave them his castle on the River Keres, and thus was founded the Abbey of St. Stephen, the first of numerous monasteries in Hungary. Almaric, who had shared in St. Norbert's apostolate, a famous preacher in aid of the Crusades, was requested by Innocent II to preach in Palestine. At the head of a chosen band of Norbertines he set out in 1136 for the Holy Land, where he was hospitably received by Fulco of Anjou, King of Jerusalem, and by William, Patriarch of the Holy City. In the following year Almaric founded the Abbey of St. Abacuc. Henry Zdik, Bishop of Olmütz, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He visited St. Abacuc and was so much touched by what he saw that he asked to be received into the order. Having obtained some religious, he returned to Bohemia and founded the Abbey of Mount Sion at Strahov, Prague. This abbey flourished so much that it was called the seminary of bishops, having given eight bishops to Prague, ten to Olmütz, and some to other dioceses; a patriarch (John of Luxemburg) to Aquileia, and a cardinal (John of Prague) to the Church. In 1141 the Abbey of St. Samuel, near Jerusalem, was founded, and in 1145 another at Bethlehem. The abbeys were destroyed in 1187, when many of the religious were put to the sword or perished in the fire. Those who escaped founded a new community at Acre; but in 1291 this place, the last stronghold of the Christians in the Holy Land, was taken by the Sultan Saraf, who cut to pieces the abbot, Egide de Marle, and put the religious, twenty-six in number, to death. In 1147 Abbot Walter of Laon led a colony to Portugal and founded the Abbey of St. Vincent, near Lisbon. Two young Spanish noblemen, Sanchez de Assures and Dominic, while travelling in France, had heard of St. Norbert. They went to Prémontré and were admitted to the order by St. Norbert. Ordained priests, they were sent to preach in Spain, and having obtained a few religious from La Case-Dieu, an abbey in Gascony, they founded in 1143 the Abbey of Retorta, the first in Spain. In 1149 the mother-house sent some of its religious to found the Abbey of St. Samuel at Barletta, in Apulia, Italy. At the same time sons of St. Norbert went forth from one abbey or another to found new houses in Great Britain and Ireland, Poland, Denmark, Norway, and even Riga on the Baltic Sea. In addition, sixteen cathedral chapters were composed of Norbertine canons, under a bishop elected by them. One of these was Candida Casa or Whithorn, in Scotland. It is impossible to give the exact number of abbeys, priories, and convents of nuns, so much do the various lists differ from one another. Perhaps the oldest list known is that which was made for the general chapter of 1320, and given by Le Paige. The most complete has been compiled by Hugo, the annalist of the order. Some authors say that there were 1300 abbeys and 500 convents of nuns, whithout counting the smaller residences, but these figures seem to be much exaggerated. However, whatever these lists may mean, they show the prodigious fecundity of the order during the first two centuries of its existence. ORGANIZATION The highest authority of the order is centered in the general chapter. The abbot general presides over it, but he owes obedience to it. The abbot general has the power to make the canonical visitation of any abbey, but his abbey is visited by the three principal abbots of the order, viz. by the Abbots of Laon, Floreffe, and Cuissy. The abbots are elected for life in a manner prescribed by the "Statuta". The abbot names his prior and other officials of his abbey. In certain matters he has to obtain the consent of the majores de domo. The abbeys were divided into circaries (provinces), named after the countries in which they were situated. Each circary had a visitor and the most important had also a vicar-general named by the abbot general. Hugo in his "Annales" gives the names of each abbey and convent and of the circary to which they belonged. The four large volumes of the "Annales" give a description and an historical notice of each abbey and hence they supply very important information to the student of the history of the order. Hugo had also prepared and nearly completed, when he died in 1739, two more volumes, the first of which was to treat of learned persons of the order and of the books they had written; the second was to give the lives of sons and daughters of St. Norbert, who had been canonized or beatified, or who were deemed to have had the note of sanctity. The Rev. Leo Goovaerts, of the Norbertine Abbey of Averbode, Belgium, has since published a "Dictionnaire bio-bibliographique", in which he gives the names of over three thousand authors, a notice of their lives, and a description of the books they had written. George Lienhardt, Abbot of Roggensburg, gives in his "Hagiologia" the names of hundreds of persons whose holiness of life constitutes the brightest ornament of the Order of St. Norbert. LOSS OF FIRST FERVOUR; CAUSES AND REMEDIES The spiritual fervour, so remarkable and edifying in the first two centuries, had gradually been growing cold. A number of religious communities were no longer animated by the spirit of St. Norbert. With the gradual disappearance of manual labour, intellectual activity, and certain observances, spiritual progress was retarded and even a kind of spiritual stagnation set in, to the great detriment of these communities. Affluence was another cause of this weakness. The first religious had cleared part of the forests, and by making the land more productive had created more resources, while the charity of benefactors had also increased the revenues, and with this affluence arose also a spirit of worldliness; but another evil was that this affluence excited the rapacity of covetous men in Church and State. The superiors of some houses had become more lax in abolishing abuses, and so irregularities had gradually crept in. Owing to the distance of many houses from the mother-house at Prémontré and also to national aspirations, cohesion, the strength of any society, had been weakened in the order; already in Saxony, England, and Spain a tendency was observed to form separate congregations with regulations of their own. With the approval of the popes the austere rule, especially with regard to perpetual abstinence from flesh meat, was mitigated first in 1290, then in the constitutions of 1505, and again in those of 1630, but in spite of these mitigations, the "statuta" composed and approved in the time of St. Norbert have remained substantially the same as they were in the beginning. At the beginning of the seventeenth century a new spirit seemed to animate the whole order, but especially in Lorraine, where the venerable Abbot Lairvelz succeeded in reforming forty abbeys and in introducing into them the observances of the primitive constitutions. It was seen that the order was full of vitality and doing good and useful work. To encourage the studies of their religious, colleges were established near some university, as at Rome, Louvain, Paris, Cologne, Prague, Madrid, Salamanca, and elsewhere. To these colleges and universities young religious were sent. After the completion of their studies they returned to the abbey, where they taught philosophy and theology. COMMENDATORY ABBOTS To speak of one country only, the concordat between Leo X and Francis I in 1516, which gave power to the King of France to nominate bishops, abbots, and other Church dignitaries, was abused to such an extent that, with reference to abbeys alone, bishops, secular priests, and even laymen were put at the head of an abbey, and sometimes of two or more abbeys. They took possession of all the temporalities, and frequently cared nothing for the material and spiritual welfare of the abbey. And all this was done when Lutherans and Calvinists were making the fiercest attacks on the Catholic religion, and when earnest men were pleading for reform in Catholic institutions. Hugo, the annalist of the order, who gives the lists of abbeys and of the abbots elected by the order or commendatory, shows how far the evil had prevailed for more than two hundred years. Taiée (vol. II, 195) in his "Etude sur Prémontré" (Laon, 1874), writes that in 1770, of the 92 Norbertine abbeys and priories in France, 67 were given in commendam and only 25 had abbots or priors of the order. LOSS OF ABBEYS Owing to a decree of the general chapter numerous convents of nuns had already disappeared before the end of the twelfth century. As to abbeys and priories the continuous wars in many countries, and in the East the invasions of Tatars and Turks, made community life almost impossible and ruined many abbeys. The wars and the heresies of Hus and Luther destroyed several abbeys. The Abbey of Episcopia in the Isle of Cyprus was taken by Islam in 1571. The Hussites took possession of several houses in Moravia and Bohemia; the Lutherans, in Saxony, Prussia, Denmark, and Sweden; the Calvinists, in Holland; and Henry VIII in England and Ireland. In Hungary many were destroyed by Solyman. With all these losses the order had still in 1627 twenty-two provinces or circaries, and Lienhardt gives a list of 240 houses still in existence in 1778. Joseph II of Austria suppressed many houses and put others under commendatory abbots, but Leopold, Joseph's successor, restored nine abbeys and with these he incorporated others. The French Revolution suppressed in 1790 all religious houses in France, in 1796 in Belgium, and afterwards all those in the occupied provinces of the Rhine. Only a few houses were still existing (9 in the Austrian Empire, 3 in Russian Poland, and 15 in Spain), but the abbeys in Spain were suppressed by the revolution which convulsed that country in 1833. The dispersed religious of the Belgian Province had long wished to reassemble and form new communities, but they were not allowed to do so under the Dutch Government (1815-30). When Belgium was separated from Holland and made into a separate kingdom, freedom of religion was granted, and the surviving religious, now well advanced in years, revived community life and reconstituted five Norbertine houses in Belgium (see Backx.) The religious of the confiscated abbey of Berne in Holland founded a new abbey at Heeswijk. The Abbey of Berne-Heeswijk has founded St. Norbert's Priory at West De Pere, Wisconsin, U.S.A. To the priory is attached a flourishing classical and commercial college. The Abbey of Grimbergen in Belgium obtained possession of the former Norbertine Abbey of Mondaye in France, and founded a new abbey. Mondaye in turn founded the priories of St. Joseph at Balarin (Department of Gers) and of St. Peter at Nantes. The Abbey of Tongerloo has founded three priories in England, viz.: Crowle, Spalding, and Manchester. The same abbey has also sent missionaries to Belgian Congo, Africa, where the Prefecture of Ouellé (Wellé) has been confided to them. The prefecture has four chief centres: Ibembo, Amadi, Gombari, and Djabar, with many stations served from each centre. The Abbey of Averbode founded three Priories in Brazil (Pirapora, Jaguarão, and Petropolis), with a college attached to each priory. The abbey of the Park, near Louvain, has also sent to Brazil several priests who have charge of parishes and do missionary work. The Abbey of Brimbergen founded a house of the order at Wetaskiwin, in Alberta, Canada. The Priory of West De Pere has been made independent, with a novitiate of its own. The other priories are attached to the abbey by which they were founded. In 1856 a new congregation of Norbertine canons, since incorporated with the order, was formed at Frigolet. Frigolet founded Conques and St-Jean de Cole in France, and Storrington and Weston-Bedworth in England. The abbeys in Hungary have jointly founded at Budapest a college where young religious of these abbeys study under Norbertine professors, and also follow the university lectures in order to obtain the diploma required to become professors in one of the six colleges conducted by these abbeys. The order also possesses a college in Rome (Via di Monte Tarpeo) for Norbertine students at the Gregorian University. The procurator of the order resides at this college, of which he is also the rector. At the death of Lécuy in 1834, the last Abbot General of Prémontré, the order was left without a spiritual head. In 1867 Jerome Zeidler, Abbot of Strahov, was elected, but he died in Rome during the Vatican Council. At a general chapter held in Vienna in 1883 Sigismond Stary, Abbot of Strahov, was elected. At his death he was succeeded by Norbert Schachinger, Abbot of Schlägl, in Austria. STATISTICS The following statistics show the present state of the order in each circary. Particulars are also given having reference to some convents of nuns who, though no longer under the jurisdiction of the order, are or have been related to it. The figures have been taken from printed catalogues published in December, 1910, or from letters since received. When the desired information had not arrived in time, a catalaogue of a former year has been consulted. Circary of Brabant (Belgium and Holland).-Averbode Abbey: priests, 82; clerics and novices, 20; lay brothers, 36; of these 27 priests and 21 lay brothers have been sent to Brazil, and 2 priests and 3 lay brothers to Veile in Denmark. Grimbergen Abbey: priests, 37; clerics, 5; lay brothers, 7; of these, 4 priests are in Canada. Park-Louvain Abbey: priests, 44; clerics, 4; of these, 8 priests in Brazil. Postel Abbey: priests, 25; clerics, 2; of these, 1 priest in Belgian Congo, and 1 in Brazil. Tongerloo Abbey: priests, 77; clerics, 19; lay brothers, 29; of these, 14 priests and 5 lay brothers are in England; 10 priests and 10 lay brothers in Belgian Congo. Berne-Heeswijk Abbey: priests, 41; clerics, 12; lay brothers, 9; a flourishing college with 100 students is attached to the abbey. St. Norbert's Priory, West De Pere, Wisconsin, U.S.A.: priests, 19; clerics, 3; lay brothers, 4; and a college conducted by the fathers. Circary of France.-The Abbey of Mondaye and other houses are confiscated. Some of the dispersed religious formed a new house at Bois-Seigneur-Isaac, near Nivelles, Belgium: priests, 27; clerics, 7; lay brothers, 4. Circary of Provence.-The Abbey of Frigolet and all other houses are confiscated. The dispersed religious bought the former Norbertine Abbey of Leffe, Dinant, Belgium: priests, 28; clerics, 7; lay brothers, 8; of these, 4 priests in France; 8 priests and 2 clerics in England; and 2 priests in Madagascar. Circary of Austria.-Geras Abbey: priests, 26; clerics, 4. Neu-Reisch Abbey in Moravia: priests, 11; clerics, 2. Schlägl: priests, 43; clerics, 3. Sellau Abbey, Bohemia: priests, 20; clerics, 5; Strahov Abbey, Prague: priests, 67; clerics, 8. Tepl Abbey, Bohemia: priests, 82; clerics, 13; the college of Pilsen is conducted by the abbey (professors, 10; students, 380). Wilten Abbey, Tyrol: priests, 45; clerics, 3; lay brothers, 3. Circary of Hungary.-Csorna Abbey: priests, 38; clerics, 12; the abbey conducts and supplies professors to the gymnasium of Keszthely (15 professors, 325 students), Szombathely (15 professors, 400 students). Jaszo Abbey: priests, 73; clerics, 37; the abbey conducts the following gymnasia and supplies the professors: Kassa, 50 students; another at Kassa, 460 students; Grosswardein (Nagy-Várad), 530 students; Rozsnyo, 200 students. These two abbeys have a college for their religious, who study at the University of Budapest: 17 students are at Budapest, and six clerics at the University of Fribourg. Convents of Norbertine Nuns (the Second Order).-Oosterhout Priory, Holland, 48 nuns. Neerpelt Priory, Belgium, 23 nuns. Bonlieu Abbey, nuns expelled from France, reassembled at Grimbergen, Belgium, 36 nuns. Le Mesnil-St-Denis Priory, Seine et Oise, France, 31 nuns. Abbey of St. Sophia, Toro, Spain, 22 nuns. Abbey of St. Maria near Zamora, Villoria de Orbigo, Spain, 16 nuns. Zwierzyniec, near Cracow, Austrian Poland, 47 nuns. Imbramowice Abbey, Russian Poland: for a great many years the nuns were not allowed to admit novices, but some years ago leave was given with great restrictions by the Russian government to admit a few. The Abbey of Czerwinsko, where there were only six very old nuns, was suppressed and the nuns sent to Imbramowice. Several novices were admitted, and at present there are at this convent 9 nuns. Priory of Berg Sion, near Utznach, in the Diocese of St. Gall, Switzerland, 30 nuns. Convent of Norbertine Nuns, Third Order, St. Joseph's at Heiligenberg, near Olmütz, with branch house St. Norbert's, at Prague. Congregation of Norbertine Sisters; mother-house at Duffel, Belgium, with branch houses. Heimbucher, Orden und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1907). F.M. Geudens Premontre Abbey of Prémontré Located about twelve miles west of Laon, Department of Aisne, France; founded by St. Norbert. The land had belonged to the Abbey of St. Vincent, to whom it had been given by a former Bishop of Laon. Religious of St. Vincent's had tried in vain to cultivate it. As shown in the charter of donation the place was called Præmonstratus, or pratum monstratum, Pré-montré, probably from a clearing made in the forest, but the name has easily lent itself to the adapted meaning of locus pr monstratus, a place foreshown, as for example in the life of St. Godfrey, one of St. Norbert's first disciples (1127): "Venit ad locum vere juxta nomen suum, a Domino pr monstratum, electum et prædestinatum" (Acta SS., II January). A venerable tradition says that the Bishop of Laon and St. Norbert visited Prémontré about the middle of January and that the bishop gave the white habit to St. Norbert on 25 January, the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. At the conclusion of the Council of Liège (1131), Innocent II and St. Norbert came to Laon and remained with Bishop Bartholomew. They also visited the Abbey of Prémontré and were rejoiced to see some five hundred religious -- priests, clerics, and lay-brothers -- all united in the observance of their duties under Abbot Hugh of Fosse. In the general chapter of 1141 it was decided to remove the convents of nuns to at least one league's distance from the abbeys of men. Hugh died on 10 Feb., 1161, and was succeeded by Philip, then Abbot of Belval in Argonne. John II founded in 1252 a college or house of studies for Norbertine clerics at the University of Paris. At the death of Virgilius, forty-third Abbot General of Prémontré, Cardinal Francis of Pisa had intrigued so much at the Court of Rome that he succeeded in being named commendatory Abbot of Prémontré, and in 1535 took possession of the abbey and all its revenues. Cardinal Francis was succeeded by Cardinal d'Este, the pope's legate in France, who held the abbey in commendam until he died in 1572. Taiée ("Etude sur Prémontré", Laon, 1874, 210) calls these two cardinals les fléauz de Prémontré. After the death of Cardinal d'Este a free election was held and Jean Des Pruets, Doctor of the Sorbonne, an earnest and zealous priest, was elected, and his election confirmed by Gregory XIII, 14 Dec., 1572. With admirable zeal and prudence Des Pruets undertook the difficult task of repairing the financial losses and of promoting conventual discipline at Prémontré and other houses of the order. He died 15 May, 1596, nd was succeeded by two zealous abbots, Longpré and Gosset; but the latter was succeeded by Cardinal Richelieu, as commendatory abbot. The last abbot general, L'Ecuy, was elected in 1781. At the French Revolution the confiscated Abbey of Prémontré was bought by a certain Cagnon, who demolished several buildings and sold the material. Having passed through several hands, the property was bought by Mgr de Garsignies, Bishop of Laon and Soissons, whose successor sold it to the Department of Aisne, by whom the buildings were converted into an asylum. Of the old abbey as it was from the twelfth to the sixteenth century hardly anything remains, but three large buildings of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are still standing. A part of one of these buildings is used as a church, dedicated to St. Norbert. HUGO, Annales Pr monstratenses (Nancy); MADELAINE, Histoire de St-Norbert (Lille, 1886); GEUDENS, Life of St. Norbert (London, 1886); TAIÉE, Prémontré, Etnde sur l'Abbaye (Laon, 1872); MADELAINE, L'Abbaye de Prémontré en 1882 (Caen); VALISSANT, Histoire de Prémontré (Laon, 1876). F.M. GEUDENS Presbyterianism Presbyterianism Presbyterianism in a wide sense is the system of church government by representative assemblies called presbyteries, in opposition to government by bishops (episcopal system, prelacy), or by congregations (congregationalism, independency), in its strict sense, Presbyterianism is the name given to one of the groups of ecclesiastical bodies that represent the features of Protestantism emphasized by Calvin. Of the various churches modelled on the Swiss Reformation, the Swiss, Dutch, and some German are known as the Reformed; the French as Huguenots (q. v.); those in Bohemia and Hungary by their national names; the Scotch, English, and derived churches as Presbyterian. There is a strong family resemblance between all these churches, and many of them have given their adherence to an "Alliance of the Reformed Churches throughout the World holding the Presbyterian System", formed in 1876 with the special view of securing interdenominational cooperation in general church work. I. DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES The most important standards of orthodox Presbyterianism are the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and "Catechisms" of 1647 (see FAITH, PROTESTANT CONFESSIONS OF). Their contents, however, have been more or less modified by the various churches, and many of the formulas of subscription prescribed for church officials do not in practice require more than a qualified acceptance of the standards. The chief distinctive features set forth in the Westminster declarations of belief are Presbyterian church government, Calvinistic theology, and absence of prescribed forms of worship. A. Polity Between the episcopal and congregational systems of church government, Presbyterianism holds a middle position, which it claims to be the method of church organization indicated in the New Testament. On the one hand, it declares against hierarchical government, holding that all clergymen are peers one of another and that church authority is vested not in individuals but in representative bodies composed of lay (ruling) elders and duly ordained (ruling and teaching elders). On the other hand, Presbyterianism is opposed to Congregational independency and asserts the lawful authority of the larger church. The constitutions of most of the churches provide for four grades of administrative courts: the Session, which governs the congregation; the Presbytery, which governs a number of congregations within a limited territory; the Synod, which governs the congregations within a larger territory; and the General Assembly, which is the highest court. Generally the church officers include, besides the pastor, ruling elders and deacons. These officers are elected by the congregation, but the election of the pastor is subject to the approval of the presbytery. The elders with the pastor as presiding officer form the session which supervises the spiritual affairs of the congregation. The deacons have charge of certain temporalities, and are responsible to the session. B. Theology The Westminster Confession gives great prominence to the question of predestination, and favours the infralapsarian view of reprobation. It teaches the total depravity of fallen man and the exclusion of the non-elect from the benefits of Christ's atonement. But within the last thirty years there has been a tendency to mitigate the harsher features of Calvinistic theology, and nearly all the important Presbyterian churches have officially disavowed the doctrines of total depravity and limited redemption. Some have even gone so far as to state a belief that all who die in infancy are saved. Such passages of the standards as proclaim the necessity of a union between Church and State and the duty of the civil magistrate to suppress heresy have also to a great extent been eliminated or modified. In its doctrine on the Sacraments the Presbyterian Church is thoroughly Calvinistic. It holds that baptism is necessary to salvation not as a means (necessitate medii), but only as something that has been commanded (necessitate proecepti). It teaches that Christ is present in the Lord's Supper not merely symbollically, as Zwingli held, nor, on the other hand, substantially, but dynamically or effectively and for believers only. C. Worship No invariable forms are recognized in the conduct of public services. Directories of worship have been adopted as aids to the ordering of the various offices but their use is optional. The services are generally characterized by extreme simplicity and consist of hymns, prayers, and readings from the Scriptures. In some of the churches instrumental music is not allowed nor the use of any other songs than those contained in the Book of Psalms. The communion rite is administered at stated intervals or on days appointed by the church officers. Generally the sermon is the principal part of the services. In Europe and in some American churches the minister wears a black gown while in the pulpit. Of recent years certain Presbyterian missionary societies in the United States and Canada have used a form of Mass and other services according to the Greek liturgy in their missions for Ruthenian immigrants II. HISTORY The Presbyterian, like the Reformed churches, trace their origin to Calvin. The claims to historical continuity from the Apostles through the Waldenses and the Scotch Culdees have been refuted by Presbyterian scholars. It was in the ecclesiastical republics of Switzerland that the churches holding the Presbyterian polity were first established. John Knox (q. v.), who had lived with Calvin at Geneva, impressed upon the Scottish Reformation the ideas of his master, and may be regarded as the father of Presbyterianism as distinct from the Reformed churches. In 1560 a Confession of Faith which he drew up was sanctioned by the Scotch Parliament, which also ratified the jurisdiction exercised by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. This was the beginning of the Kirk or the Scotch Establishment. There have been many divisions among the Presbyterians of Scotland, but to-day nearly all the elements of Presbyterianism in that country have been collected into two great churches: the Established Church and the United Free Church (see SCOTLAND, ESTABLISHED CHURCH OF). After Scotland the important centres of Presbyterianism are England, Ireland, Wales, the British colonies, and the United States. A. England There was a strong Presbyterian tendency among certain English Reformers of the sixteenth century. For a time men like Cranmer, Latimer, and Hooper would have reconstructed the church after the manner of Geneva and Zurich but during the reign of Elizabeth the "prelatical" system triumphed and was firmly maintained by the sovereign. This policy was opposed by the Puritans who included both Presbyterians and Congregationalists. Towards the close of Elizabeth's reign, the Presbyterians secretly formed an organization out of which grew in 1572 the first English presbytery. During the reigns of James I and Charles I the struggle between the Established Church and Presbyterianism continued. In 1647 the Long Parliament abolished the prelacy and Presbyterianism was established as the national religion. In the same year the Westminster Assembly of divines presented to Parliament its Confession of Faith. With the restoration of the monarchy (1660), the State Church became once more episcopal. English Presbyterianism now began to decline. Its principle of government was quite generally abandoned for independent administration and during the eighteenth century most of its churches succumbed to rationalism. But during the latter part of the nineteenth century there was a revival of Presbyterianism in England. Those who belonged to the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland coalesced in 1876 with the English Presbyterian Synod (an independent organization since the Scotch disruption of 1843), forming the Presbyterian Church of England, which is a very active body. B. Wales The "Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Church" had its origin prior to, and independent of, English Methodism. Its first organization was effected in 1736, and it shared the enthusiasm of the Methodists of England under the Wesleys, but differed from them in doctrine and polity, the English being Arminian and episcopal, the Welsh, Calvinistic and presbyterian. A Confession of Faith adopted in 1823 follows the Westminster Confession, but is silent as to election and the asperities of the Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation. In 1864 a General Assembly was organized. The Welsh Presbyterians give great attention to home and foreign missions. C. Ireland The history of Presbyterianism in Ireland dates from the Ulster plantation during the reign of James I. The greater part of Ulster had been confiscated to the crown, and thither emigrated a large number of Scotch Presbyterians. At first they received special consideration from the Government, but this policy was reversed whilst William Laud was Archbishop of Canterbury. The independent life of Presbyterianism in Ireland began with the formation of the Presbytery of Ulster in 1642, but its growth was checked for a time after the Stuart restoration in 1660. During the eighteenth and early part of the nineteenth century there was a general departure from the old standards and Unitarian tendencies caused various dissensions among the Ulster Presbyterians. There are still two Presbyterian bodies in Ireland that are Unitarian. The disruption in the Scottish churches and other causes produced further divisions, and to-day there are, exclusive of the two mentioned above, five Presbyterian bodies in Ireland, the most important of which is the Presbyterian Church of Ireland. D. Colonial and Missionary Churches Presbyterianism in Canada dates its origin from 1765, when a military chaplain began regular ministrations in Quebec. There was very little growth, however, until the early part of the nineteenth century, when British immigration set in. Before 1835 there were six independent organizations. The disruption of 1843 in Scotland had its echo in Canada, and secessionist bodies were formed, but during the sixties four organic unions prepared the way for the consolidation in 1875 of all the important bodies into one denomination, the Presbyterian Church in Canada. There remain only two small organizations not affiliated with this main body. The Canadian Church maintains many educational institutions and carries on extensive mission work. Its doctrinal standards are latitudinarian. Canada has the largest of the colonial churches, but there are important Presbyterian organizations in the other British possessions. In Australia Presbyterianism may be dated from the formation of the Presbytery of New South Wales in 1826. There have been several divisions since then, but at present all the churches of the six provinces are federated in one General Assembly. In New Zealand the church of North Island, an offshoot of the Scottish Kirk, organized 1856, and the church of South Island (founded by Scottish Free Churchmen, 1854) have consolidated in one General Assembly. There is a considerable number of Scotch and English Presbyterians in S. Africa. In 1909 they proposed a basis of union to the Wesleyan Methodists, Congregationalists, and Baptists, but thus far without result. In Southern India a basis of union was agreed on by the Congregationalists, Methodists, and Presbyterians in July, 1908. There are Presbyterian churches organized by British and American missionaries in various parts of Asia, Africa, Mexico, S. America, and the West Indies. E. United States In tracing the history of Presbyterianism in the United States, the churches may be divided into three groups: + (1) the American churches, which largely discarded foreign influences; + (2) the Scottish churches directly descended from Presbyterian bodies in Scotland; + (3) the Welsh church, a descendant of the Calvinistic Methodist church of Wales. (1) The American Churches The earliest American Presbyterian churches were established in Virginia, New England, Maryland, and Delaware during the seventeenth century and were chiefly of English origin. The man who brought the scattered churches into organic unity, and who is considered as the apostle of American Presbyterianism, was Rev. Francis Makennie from the Presbytery of Laggan, Ireland. With six other ministers he organized in 1706 the Presbytery of Philadelphia, which ten years later was constituted a synod. Between 1741 and 1758 the synod was divided into two bodies, the "Old Side" and the "New Side", because of disagreements as to the requirements for the ministry and the interpretation of the standards. During this period of separation the College of New Jersey, later Princeton University, was established by the "New Side", with Rev. John Witherspoon, afterwards a signer of the Declaration of Independence, as first president. In 1788 the synod adopted a constitution, and a general assembly was established. The dissolution of the Cumberland Presbytery by the Synod of Kentucky led to the formation in 1810 of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. From controversies regarding missionary work and doctrinal matters two independent branches resulted (1837), the "Old School" and the "New School". Both lost most of their southern presbyteries when anti-slavery resolutions were passed. The seceders united to form a southern church known since 1865 as the Presbyterian Church in the United States. Fraternal relations exist between the northern and the southern churches, who are kept apart especially by their different policies as to the races. In the Cumberland church the coloured members were organized into a separate denomination in 1869. That same year the "Old School" and the "New School" reunited forming the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, the largest and most influential of the Presbyterian bodies in America. Since then its harmony has been seriously threatened only by the controversy as to the sources of authority in religion, and the authority and credibility of the Scriptures (1891-4). This difficulty terminated with the trials of Prof. Charles A. Briggs and Prof. H. P. Smith, in which the court declared its loyalty to the views of the historic standards. In 1903 the church revived the Confession of Faith, mitigating "the knotty points of Calvinism". Its position became thereby essentially the same as that of the Cumberland church (white), and three years later (1906) the two bodies entered into an organic union. A part of the Cumberland church, however, repudiated the action of its general assembly and still undertakes to perpetuate itself as a separate denomination. (2) The Scottish Churches (a) Seceders The second secessionist body from the established church of Scotland, the Associated Synod (Seceders), organized through its missionaries in 1753 the Associate Presbytery of Pennsylvania. Not long after another separatist body of Scotland, the Old Covenanter Church (Cameronians), founded a daughter church in America known as the Reformed Presbytery (1774). In 1782 these new seceder and covenanter bodies united under the name of Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Some members of the former body refused to enter this union and continued the Associate Presbytery of Pennsylvania. There were secessions from the united organization in 1801, and 1820. In 1858 nearly all these various elements were brought together in the United Presbyterian Church of North America. Two bodies that remain outside this union are the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, which since 1821 has maintained an independent existence, and the Associate Synod of North America, a lineal descendant of the Associate Presbytery of Pennsylvania, founded in 1858 by those who preferred to continue their own organization rather than enter into the union effected that year. (b) Cameronians or Covenanters. The Reformed Presbytery, which merged with the Associate Presbytery in 1782, was renewed in an independent existence in 1798 by the isolated covenanters who had taken no part in the union of 1782. This renewed presbytery expanded into a synod in 1809. In 1833 there was a division into two branches, the "Old Lights" (synod) and the "New Lights" (general synod), caused by disagreements as to the attitude the church should take towards the Constitution of the United States. In 1840 two ministers, dissatisfied with what they considered laxity among the "Old Lights", withdrew from the synod, and formed the "Covenanted Reformed Church" which has been several times disorganized and counts only a handful of members. In 1883 dissatisfaction with a disciplinary decision of the general synod (New Lights) caused the secession of a small number of its members, who have formed at Allegheny, Pa., the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States and Canada. Negotiations for a union of the general synod and the synod were made in 1890, but were unsuccessful. (3) The Welsh Church The first organization of a Welsh Calvinistic Methodist church in the United States was at Remsen, N. Y., in 1824. Four years later a presbytery was established, and the growth of the denomination has kept pace with the increase in the Welsh population. The English language is fast gaining control in the church services. III. STATISTICS The Presbyterian denomination throughout the world, exclusive of the Reformed churches, numbers over 5,000,000 communicants. Of these the United States has 1,897,534 (12 bodies); Scotland, 1,233,226 (6 bodies); Canada, 289,556 (3 bodies); Wales, 195,000; Ireland, 112,481 (4 bodies); England, 90,808 (2 bodies); Australia, 50,000; New Zealand, 28,000; Jamaica, 12,017; S. Africa, 11,323. BENSON, Non-Catholic Denominations (New York, 1910). 91-117; LYON, A Study of the Sects (Boston, 1891), 99-109; New Schaff-Herzog Encyc. of Religious Knowledge, IX (New York, 1911), s. v. I. A. -- HODGE, Discussions in Church Polity (New York, 1878); IDEM, What is Presbyterian Law as Defined by the Church Courts? (Philadelphia, 1882); THOMPSON, The Historic Episcopate (Philadelphia, 1910). B. -- SCHAFF, The Creeds of Christendom (New York, 1905), I, 669-817; III, 600-76; HODGE, Systematic Theology (3 vols., New York, 1885); SMITH, The Creed of the Presbyterians (New York, 1901); Encyc. of Religion and Ethics, III (New York, 1911), see Confessions. C. -- BAIRD, Eutaxia. or the Presbyterian Liturgies (New York, 1855); SHIELDS, Liturgia Expurgata (New York, 1844); The Book of Common Worship (Philadelphia, 1906). II. -- KERR, The People's History of Presbyterianism (Richmond, 1888); BROADLEY, The Rise and Progress of Presbyterianism; DRYSDALE, History of Presbyterianism in England (London, 1889); REID, A History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (3 vols., Belfast, 1867); PATTON, Popular History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (New York. 1900); THOMPSON, A History of the Presbyterian Churches in the United States (New York, 1895) in Am. Church Hist. Ser., VI, bibliog., xi-xxxi; Amer. Church Hist. Ser., XI, 145-479. III. -- STEPHENS, The Presbyterian Churches (Philadelphia, 1910); ROBERTS, The Presbyterian Handbook (Philadelphia, 1911). J. A. McHugh. Presbytery Presbytery The part of the church reserved for the higher clergy was known in antiquity by various names, among them presbyterium, because of its occupation during the liturgical functions by the priests attached to a church, arranged in a half-circle round the bishop. The presbytery was also known as apsis, exedra, concha, designations referring to its form; bema from the fact that it was elevated above the level of the nave and in consequence reached by a stairway of a few steps; tribuna because of its location and general resemblance to the tribunal in civil basilicas whence the magistrates administered justice. These various names were, in the Middle Ages, mostly superseded by the term choir, which in turn yielded to the modern term sanctuary. The presbytery was separated from the rest of the church by rails (cancelli). Eusebius, in his dedication oration at Tyre (H.E., X, iv), describes this feature of the church and its objects: "the Holy of Holies, the altar", he explains, was inclosed with wooden lattice-work, accurately wrought with artistic carving to render it "inaccessible to the multitude". In Constantinople, as appears from the episode related by Theodoret in which the actors were Theodosius the Great and St. Ambrose, the emperor was accustomed to remain within the precincts of the presbytery during the celebration of the liturgy, but in the West this was not permitted (Theodoret, H.E., V, 17). The Council in Trullo (canon lxix), following an ancient tradition, specifically excepts the emperor from the general rule reserving the presbytery to the clergy. From this strict prohibition relative to the laity the term adyta (inaccessible) came to be used of the presbytery. Presbyterium also denoted a body of priests taken collectively. In modern times the house of the clergy is frequently called the presbytery (presbytère). BINGHAM, Antiquities of the Christian Church, V. III, b. 8 (Oxford, 1855). MAURICE M. HASSETT Prescription Prescription (Lat. proe, before, and scribere, to write, in later legal Latin involving the idea of limitation) A prescription is a method created by law for acquiring ownership or ridding oneself of certain burdens on the fulfilment of fixed conditions. It is, therefore, either acquisitive or liberating, the former being frequently termed usucaption. Prescription has its origin in enactments of the civil law which have been confirmed by the canon law and which so far as the principle underlying them is concerned are universally acknowledged to be perfectly valid in conscience. Public good demands that provision should be made for security of title to property as well as for the prevention of litigation as much as possible. Hence the State, using its right of eminent domain, may for grave reasons of the common welfare transfer ownership from one individual to another or release from lawful obligations. A person, therefore, who has under the proper conditions acquired real estate by prescription may retain it with a safe conscience even though the former owner were to appear and claim it. Prescription, deriving its value from positive law, presupposes certain conditions in order to produce the effect attributed to it. Moralists are agreed that the object, the ownership of which is to pass, must be open to prescription. It must be something that may be made the subject matter of private barter and to which it is possible to gain a title recognized by both natural and positive law. Thus one could not secure dominion over a public highway on pretence that prescription had operated in his behalf. The reason is that the authority of the law cannot be invoked, without which the process falls. 2. The beneficiary must act in good faith. The civil codes are not so explicit in demanding this, but in conscience it is essential. This simply means that a man must be honestly convinced that what he has in his possession really belongs to him. The Fourth Lateran Council requires this in no uncertain terms. Prescription cannot legitimize theft or detention of property known to be that of another. It may be noted, however, that when the scope of the prescription is to free one from certain servitudes, and the attitude of him who profits by it need only be passive, then. "good faith" is interpreted to mean that he should not hinder the other party exercising his right; he is not bound to warn him that prescription is running against him. This has its application in rural districts and with regard to such matters as the right to fish, to draw water, to pasture, and the like. Bad faith on the part of a decedent will prevent his immediate and sole heir from availing himself of prescription. The heir is then juridically one person with the deceased and must take over the latter's obligations. Consequently he can no more benefit by it than could his predecessor. In addition the good faith which is indispensable for prescription postulates in the possessor of a thing some sort of title to it. It need not be a true title because then there would be no need of prescription. It must have the semblance of a good title, such as the purchase of something which did not as a matter of fact belong to the seller, or at least there must be valid ground for supposing the existence of a title as in the case of things acquired by inheritance. From the point of view of the law, prescription is unintelligible without the fact of possession, whether this last stand for the holding of some thing or the enjoyment of some right. Either way the possession referred to must be accompanied by a veritable proprietary state of mind and is not satisfied by fiduciary relations such as trusteeship or by those of deposit, rental, and the like. Theologians exact as necessary qualities of this possession that it should be peaceable, that is, not assailed by lawsuits, sure, uninterrupted, and open, that is, not clandestine. Much stress is laid on the fact of possession by the common law which regards it as the very foundation of prescription. Tenure of property, other requisites being verified, will confer a right by prescription not only to the land or buildings as the case may be but also to such income as may have been derived from them in the meantime. The plea of prescription cannot be successfully advanced unless it can be shown that possession has been had over a period of time stipulated by law. This space is different for different kinds of goods. The canon law allows prescription of movables on proof of possession for three years with at least a supposed title; without other title than that they have been held a long time, possession for thirty years is required. Against immovable ecclesiastical property prescription may be used only after possession for forty years, whilst a special provision demands an hundred years when the action lies against the Roman Church. The civil law in various countries exhibits such substantial differences in fixing this requirement that there is no way to summarize it. In general a longer time is required for immovable than movable property. In the United States of America many of the States exact twenty years for immovables; in Maine forty years are necessary, whilst in others the time sinks to seven or even five years as in California. In England rights of common and all other profits from land become absolute and indefeasible after sixty years. The same is true of rights of way and easements in general after forty years. Moreover, prescriptive rights may be extinguished and will be presumed to have lapsed when they have not been used for twenty years, or sometimes even less. SLATER, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906); SABETTI, Compendium theol. moral. (Ratisbon, 1902); BALLERINI, Opus theol. morale (Prato, 1899). JOSEPH F. DELANY. Presence of God Presence of God Doctrinal All solid devotion and devotional practices must be founded upon the truths of faith, and these truths must be borne in mind when treating of the presence of God from an ascetical and devotional point of view. First, it is of faith that God is present by His Essence everywhere and in all things by reason of His Immensity. (Creed of St. Athanasius; Council of Lateran, c. "Firmiter"; Vatican Council, Sess. III, c. 1.) It is also of faith that God is in an especial manner really and substantially present in the souls of the just. This indwelling of God in the souls of the just is attributed by what theologians call appropriation to the Holy Ghost, but in reality it is common to the three Divine Persons. Ascetical To put ourselves in the presence of God, or to live in the presence of God, as spiritual writers express it, means to become actually conscious of God as present, or at least so to live as though we were thus actually conscious. It is a simple act which involves the impression of the unseen Being with whom we have immediate relation and familiar converse, whose goodness towards us is assured, and who loves us with an everlasting love; who exercises a particular providence among us, who is present everywhere and "who", in the words of Cardinal Newman, "is heart-reading, heart-changing, ever accessible and open to penetration" (Grammar of Assent, 112). The simple child as well as the advanced contemplative may thus represent God as present to the mind, and live in the consciousness of His presence. It is only the angels and blessed who can behold the face of God. The servant of God or the devout soul may be mindful of His presence in another way, namely, by the exercise of reason directed by faith. He sees God in the earth, the sea, the air and in all things; in heaven where He manifests His glory, in hell where He carries out the law of His justice. He thinks of Him as present in all things within us and without us, and especially as dwelling secretly in his innermost soul, hidden from all our senses, yet speaking, as it were, to the conscience with a voice that is in us but not of us; the voice of One who is with us yet over us. Devotional One may therefore practise the devotion of living in the presence of God: + by a lively faith in that Divine presence, that God is near us and within us as Elias says: "the Lord liveth. . . in whose sight I stand" (III Kings, xvii, 1; cf. IV Kings, iii, 14); + when distracted the mind may be easily brought back to the remembrance of God's presence by the simple reflection: "The Lord is here"; "The Lord sees me"; + when occupied with conversation or business by breathing from time to time some secret aspiration or affection for God and then keeping the mind recollected; + in dereliction of spirit, by keeping God in mind more faithfully, knowing that nothing can come between Him and the soul but grave sin, through which His special operation in the soul by grace ceases. Men may be said to come to God as they become more like Him in goodness, and to withdraw from Him, when they become unlike Him by their wickedness. As the immediate preparation for mental prayer, it is fitting and necessary "to place ourselves in the presence of God". This is to be done by an act of faith in the Divine presence, from which should follow: + an act of adoration; + an act of humility; + an act of sorrow or contrition; + an act of petition for light and grace. These acts may be made in the interior of the soul. BLOSIUS, Institutio Spiritualis, English version by WILBERFORCE (London, 1900); DEVINE, A Manual of Mystical Theology (London, 1903); ST. FRANCIS DE SALES, Treatise on the Love of God; TYRRELL, Hard Sayings (London, 1898); LESSIUS, De perfectionibus divinis: de Immensitate Dei; VALLGONERA, Mystica Theologia Divi Thomae (Turin, 1890). ARTHUR DEVINE Prescription in Civil Jurisprudence Prescription In Civil Jurisprudence Prescription "in some form and under some name" is said to have existed as a part of the municipal law of every civilized nation, except the Jewish [Angell, "A treatise on the limitations of actions" (Boston, 1876), 5; Broom, "A selection of legal maxims" (London, 1911), 690; Domat, "The Civil law in its natural order", tr. Strahan (Boston, 1850), sections 2183, 2184], and Devas, "Political Economy" (London, 1901), 491, remarks that "the doctrine of prescription in economics as well as in politics is essential to social welfare." It is in accord with public policy that ownership of things which the law considers capable of ownership (Broom, op. cit., 279) should not remain forever uncertain, and that litigation should not be immortal, litigants themselves being mortal (Voet, cited on title page, Brown, "The law of limitation as to real property," London, 1869), and their muniments of title perishable (Angell, op. cit., 2). In the old Roman law usucapio (rem usu capio) was the process by which a Roman citizen's possession of a corporeal thing during a length of time defined by law "ripened . . . into full ownership" (dominium) ["The Institutes of Justinian", tr. Sandars (London, 1898), II, tit. VI; Pothier, "Pandectæ Justinianeæ", XLI, tit. III, 1, 11]. " Fundus", remarks Cicero (Oratio pro Cæcina, 26), " a patre relinqui potest, at usucapio fundi, hoc est, finis solicitudinis ac periculi litium, non a patre relinquitur sed a legibus", the land is derived from the ancestor, but its quiet enjoyment from usucaption. This method of assurance of title was not open to foreigners (peregrini); nor could it be applied to provincial land (solum provinciale), for in such land Roman law recognized no right of ownership, but right of possession only. To supply these defects there was provided under the empire, in favour of foreigners and of possessors of provincial land during a defined time, a written formula of defence or exception, otherwise called a proescriptio, the longi temporis or longoe possessionis proescriptio. Taken alone, the word proescriptio simply signified a formula available to defendants in a legal action for the purpose of limiting its inquiry ("The Institutes of Justinian", Introduction, sect. 104), and possession remained no more than a defence until a law of Justinian allowed a right of action founded on possession for thirty years [Girard, "Manuel élémentaire de droit romain" (Paris, 1901), 300, 298], the longissimi temporis possessio [Leage, "Roman Private Law" (London, 1906), 142]. The operation of usucapio was subject to some restrictions similar to those of canon law prescription. A purchaser in good faith and for full value from a thief would not, by usucaption, acquire ownership in the thing stolen, nor would ownership thus accrue to one who acquired possession, knowing that the thing really belonged to another (Leage, op. cit., 135, 136). Nor could property be gained by usucapio or right of possession by proescriptio, in a thing taken by violence (Girard, op. cit., 298; cf. as to proescriptio, 299, note 3). The law of Justinian just referred to conferred ownership on a possessor in good faith, but only if no violence had been used (Leage, op. cit., 142). "Length of time", remarks Domat, "does not secure unjust, possessors from the guilt of sin, . . . on the contrary, their long possession is only a continuance of their injustice." But this authority on the modern civil law holds that "civil policy does not permit that possessors be molested after a long possession, or that they be obliged to make good their titles or even to declare the origin of their possession. For the pretext of inquiring after unjust possessors would disturb the peace and quiet of just and lawful possessors" (note to section 2209). In English law the term prescription is applied to rights only which are defined to be incorporeal hereditaments, such as a right of way or a common or an advowson. "No prescription", remarks Blackstone, "can give a title to lands and other corporeal substances of which more certain evidence may be had" (Commentaries, II, 264, 266; III, 250). According to English law if a legal beginning be possible [English Law Reports, 17 Appeal cases (1882), 648; Brown, op. cit., 139], it will be presumed from use during the defined time, such length of use establishing a conclusive presumption that even a person whose use had commenced wrongfully has procured a legal title [Broom, op. cit., 689; Lightwood, "A treatise on possession of land" (London, 1894), 153]. But this presumption only holds against a person who is deemed capable of asserting his rights and who is not under legal disability; for contra non valentem agere nulla currit proescriptio (Broom, op. cit., 696). Against those unable to act the maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt -- the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights -- does not apply [ibid., 689; Wood, "A treatise on the limitation of actions" (Boston, 1901), 416, 417]. The use necessary to gain right by prescription must not only be long, but "without force, without secrecy, as of right and without interruption" (Wood, op. cit., 418, note), " nec vi, nec clam nec precario" ("The Institutes of Justinian", II, tit. iii). Until, as to most instances, altered by modern statutes, the period required to make a prescription good by English law was "time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary", and the law deemed memory to run as far back at least as the commencement of the reign of Richard I (a.d. 1189) [Stephen, "New Commentaries on the Laws of England" (London, 1908), I, 468, 470; Horwood, "Year Books of the reign of King Edward the First" (London, 1866), 136, 426]. In this requirement of time, prescription and that other immemorial right known as custom were alike. But prescription differs from custom in being personal, while custom is local and for many persons, "generally as an undefined class but of a particular locality" (Brown, op. cit., 213). The English law term for the acquiring of title to land by long possession and claim is adverse possession. In England, during the early Norman period, the discretion of the judges regulated the time within which possessors of land might be disturbed in their possession. Afterwards by various statutes the dates of certain important events, such as the return of King John from Ireland, the coronation of Henry III, or, similarly to prescription, the commencement of the reign of Richard I, limited the commencement of various actions to recover land (Lightwood, op. cit., 154, 155). The earliest statute defining a certain number of years as a limitation to an action affecting land was a statute of 32 Henry 8 [Carson, "Real property statutes" (London, 1902), 124]. Possession of land necessary to gain title by adverse possession must be "so open, notorious and important as to operate as a notice to all parties that it is under a claim of right"; the possessor "must possess, use and occupy the land as owner and as an owner would do," not as would a mere trespasser (Wood, op. cit., 583, 584). CHARLES W. SLOANE. Order of the Presentation Order of the Presentation An Order founded at Cork, Ireland, by Nano (Honoria) Nagle (see below). In 1775 she entered with some companions on a novitiate for the religious life. With them she received the habit 29 June, 1776, taking the name of Mother Mary of St. John of God. They made their first annual vows 24 June, 1777. The foundress had begun the erection of a convent close to that which she had built for the Ursulines, and it was opened on Christmas Day, 1777. They adopted as their title "Sisters of the Sacred Heart", which was changed in 1791 to that of "Presentation Sisters". Their habit was similar to that of the Ursulines. The second superioress was Mother Mary Angela Collins. Soon after her succession a set of rules, adapted from that of St. Augustine, was drawn up by Bishop Moylan, and approved by Pius VI in Sept., 1791. This congregation of teaching sisters was raised to the status of a religious order by Pius VII in 1800. Communities from Cork were founded at Killarney in 1793; Dublin in 1794; and at Waterford in 1798. A second convent at Cork was established in 1799, by Sister M. Patrick Fitzgerald; and a convent at Kilkenny in 1800, by Sister M. Joseph McLoughlan. At the present day, there are 62 convents, and about 1500 sisters. Each community is independent of the mother-house, and subject only to its own superioress and the bishop of its respective diocese. The schools, under the British Government Board, have for their first object the Catholic and moral training of the young, which is not interfered with by the Government. The secular system followed is the "National", superseded, in many cases, by the "Intermediate", both of which ensure a sound English education; to which are added domestic economy, Latin, Irish, French, and German. The average attendance of children in each of the city convents of Dublin, Cork, and Limerick is over 1200; that in the country convents between 300 and 400, making a total of 22,200 who receive an excellent education gratis. For girls who are obliged to earn a living, work-rooms have been established at Cork, Youghal, and other places, where Limerick lace, Irish points and crochet are taught. The first foreign country to receive a Presentation Convent was Newfoundland in 1829, when Sisters Josephine French and M. de Sales Lovelock went from Galway. There are now fourteen houses of the order on the island and about twenty in the United States, the first of which was founded at San Francisco by Mother Xavier Cronin from Kilkenny in 1854. In 1833 a house was founded by Mother Josephine Sargeant from Clonmel at Manchester, England, from which sprang two more, one at Buxton and one at Glossop. Their schools are well attended; the number of children, including those of an orphanage, being about 1400. India received its first foundation in 1841, when Mother Xavier Kearney and some sisters from Rahan and Mullingar established themselves at Madras. Soon four more convents in the presidency were founded from this, and in 1891 one at Rawal Pindi. Their schools are flourishing, comprising orphanages, and day and boarding-schools, both for Europeans and natives. At Rawal Pindi the sisters do much good work among the Irish soldiers, who go to them for religious instruction. In 1866 Mother Xavier Murphy and some sisters left Fermoy for a first foundation at Hobart Town, Tasmania, under the auspices of its first archbishop, Dr. Murphy. There is a branch of this house at Launceston. St. Kilda, Melbourne, received sisters from Kildare in 1873, and Wagga Wagga a year later, with Mother M. John Byrne at their head. From these two houses numerous others branched forth to all parts of Australia; to-day there are over twenty convents, about 500 nuns, and thousands of children attending their schools. M. DE SALES WHYTE. PRESENTATION ORDER IN AMERICA About half a century after its establishment, the Presentation Order sent four sisters from the Galway convent to Newfoundland, at the request of Dr. Fleming, Vicar Apostolic of the island. The mother-house is at St. John's; there are now (1911) thirteen convents, 120 nuns, and over 2000 pupils. In November, 1854, some Presentation Nuns arrived at San Francisco from Ireland. Mother M. Teresa Comerford and her sisters had great initial difficulties; but Archbishop Alemany succeeded in interesting prominent Catholics of the city in their work, and in course of time two fine convents were built within the city limits, besides convents at Sonoma and Berkeley. The earthquake of 1906 destroyed both of their convents in the city, with practically their entire contents; but the sisters have courageously begun their work afresh, and bid fair to accomplish as much good work as in the past. The Presentation Convent, St. Michael's, New York City, was founded 8 Sept., 1874, by Mother Joseph Hickey, of the Presentation Convent, Terenure, Co. Dublin, with two sisters from that convent, two from Clondalkin, and seven postulants. Rev. Arthur J. Donnelly, pastor of St. Michael's Church, on completing his school building, went to Ireland in 1873 to invite the Presentation Nuns to take charge of the girls' department. The consent of the nuns having been obtained, Cardinal Cullen applied to the Holy See for the necessary Brief authorizing the nuns to leave Ireland and proceed to New York, which was accorded by Pius IX. The work of the nuns at St. Michael's has been eminently successful. From 1874 to 1910 there have been entered on the school register 16,781 names. In 1884 the sisters took charge of St. Michael's Home, Green Ridge, Staten Island, where over two hundred destitute children are cared for. In 1886 Mother Magdalen Keating, with a few sisters, left New York at the invitation of Rev. P. J. Garrigan, afterwards Bishop of Sioux City, and took charge of the schools of St. Bernard's Parish, Fitchburg, Massachusetts. The mission proved most flourishing, and has branch houses in West Fitchburg and Clinton, Massachusetts; Central Falls, Rhode Island; and Berlin, New Hampshire. The order was introduced into the Diocese of Dubuque by Mother M. Vincent Hennessey in 1874. There are now branch-houses at Calmar, Elkader, Farley, Key West, Lawler, Waukon, Clare, Danbury, Whittemore, and Madison, Nebraska. The order came to Fargo, North Dakota, in 1880 under Mother Mary John Hughes, and possesses a free school, home, and academy. St. Colman's, Watervliet, New York, was opened in 1881, the sisters having charge of the flourishing orphanage. In 1886 some sisters from Fargo went to Aberdeen, South Dakota, and since then, under the guidance of Mother M. Joseph Butler, they have taken charge of schools at Bridgewater, Bristol, Chamberlain, Elkton, Jefferson, Mitchell, Milbank, and Woonsocket, besides two hospitals. There are in the United States 438 members of the order, who conduct 32 parochial schools, attended by 6909 pupils; 5 academies, with 416 pupils; 3 orphanages, with 519 inmates; 2 hospitals. MOTHER M. STANISLAUS. Nano Nagle (HONORIA) The foundress of the Presentation Order, born at Ballygriffin, Cork, Ireland, 1728; died at Cork, 20 April, 1784. After an elementary education in Ireland, where Catholic schools were then proscribed, she went to France for further studies, where some of her kinsmen were living in the suite of the exiled King James, and entered on a brilliant social life in the court circles of the capital. One morning, when returning from a ball, she was struck by the sight of crowds of working-men and women waiting for a church to be opened for early Mass. A few weeks later she returned to Ireland, and only the stringent laws then in force against Catholic educational activity prevented her from consecrating herself at once to the Christian training of Irish children, who were growing up in ignorance of their Faith. A short time spent as a postulant at a convent in France confirmed her belief that her mission lay rather in Ireland, a conviction strengthened by the advice of her directors. Her first step on returning to Ireland was to familiarize herself with the work of some ladies who had privately organized a school in Dublin, and, on the death of her mother and sister, she went to Cork, where in the face of the most adverse conditions she began her crusade against the ignorance and vice there prevalent. Her first pupils were gathered secretly, and her part in the undertaking having been discovered, it was only after a period of opposition that she secured the support of her relatives. In less than a year, however, she had established two schools for boys and five for girls, with a capacity for about two hundred. The foundress herself conducted the classes in Christian doctrine and instructed those preparing for First Communion, searching the most abandoned parts of the city for those in need of spiritual and temporal help. Her charity extended also to aged and infirm women, for whom she established an asylum at Cork, and especially to working-women, whose perseverance in faith and virtue was a source of solicitude to her. The demands of her numerous charitable undertakings proving excessive for her resources, she solicited contributions from house to house, at the cost of much humiliation. For the purpose of perpetuating her work she decided to found a convent; and a community of Ursulines, young Irishwomen trained especially for the purpose, was sent to Cork in 1771, although they did not venture to assume their religious garb for eight years. As the Ursuline Rule, with which Nano had not thoroughly acquainted herself, did not permit entire consecration to the visitation of the sick and the education of poor children, she resolved to form a community more peculiarly adapted to the duties she had taken up, while remaining a devoted friend of the Ursulines. In 1775 she founded the Presentation Order (see above). She set an example of charity and self-abnegation to her community, giving seven hours daily to the class-room and four to prayer, in addition to the demands of her duties as superior and her work of visitation. It was said there was not a single garret in Cork that she did not know. Her austerities and the persistence with which she continued her labours in the most inclement weather brought on a fatal illness; she died exhorting her community to spend themselves for the poor. Her remains were interred in the cemetery of the Ursuline convent she had built. Florence Rudge McGahan. Religious Congregations of the Presentation Religious Congregations of the Presentation (1) Daughters of the Presentation, founded in 1627 by Nicolas Sanguin (b. 1580; d. 1653), Bishop of Senlis, a prelate who was atoning by a life of sanctity for the errors of an ill-spent youth. Having given himself unstintingly to the service of the plague- stricken during a pest which devastated Senlis during the early years of his episcopate, he turned his attention to the foundation of a teaching order to combat the prevailing ignorance and the resulting vice in the diocese. Two young women from Paris, Catherine Dreux and Marie de la Croix, began the work of teaching in 1626 and the following year were formed into a religious community, which shortly afterwards was enclosed under the Rule of St. Augustine. The opposition of the municipal authorities gave way before the Bull of erection granted by Urban VIII (4 Jan., 1628) and letters patent of Louis XIII granted in 1630, the year in which the first solemn profession was held. In 1632 papal permission was obtained for two of Bishop Sanguin's sisters and a companion to leave for a time their monastery of Moncel of the Order of St. Clare, to form the new community in the religious life. Seven years later they were received as members into the new order, over which they presided for more than thirty years. The congregation did not survive the Revolution, although under Bonaparte one of the former members organized at Senlis a school which was later taken over by the municipality. The habit was black serge over a robe of white serge, with a white guimpe, a black bandeau, and veil. The original constitutions seem to have been altered by Mgr Sanguin's nephew and successor in the See of Senlis, owing to the frequent reference made in them to the devotion of the Slavery of Our Lady, which was suppressed by the Church. (2) Sisters of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin, founded in 1684 by [Blessed] Marie Poussepin at Sainville in the Diocese of Chartres, for teaching and the care of the sick. At the time of the religious disturbances in France, over seventeen hundred sisters were engaged in France, Spain, South America, and Asiatic Turkey, where they have charge of a number of schools and protectories for girls. At Agua de Dios in Colombia they care for a colony of lepers. In 1813 the mother-house was established at Saint-Symphorien near Tours. [ Note: In 1897, the congregation was affiliated with the Order of Preachers, and became formally known as the Dominican Sisters of Charity of the Presentation of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Tours. The foundress, Marie Poussepin (1653-1744), was beatified by Pope John Paul II on 20 November, 1994. Her feast day is observed on 14 October.] (3) Sisters of the Presentation of Mary, also called White Ladies, founded in 1796 at Montpezat by [Blessed] Marie Rivier (d. 1838), assisted by the Abbe Pontannier, for the instruction of poor girls. The first novitiate was opened at Thueys, near Aubenas, but the mother-house was permanently established at Bourg-Saint-Andéol in the Diocese of Viviers. The congregation soon spread over France and in 1853 a house was established in Canada. At the time of the dispersion of the religious orders in France the congregation numbered two thousand members in charge of schools and orphan asylums. The Polish mother-house is at Cracow. [ Note: The foundress, Anne Marie Rivier (b. 19 Dec., 1768; d. 3 Feb., 1838), was beatified by Pope John Paul II on 23 May, 1982. See also: PRESENTATION OF MARY, CONGREGATION OF THE.] (4) Sisters of the Presentation of Our Lady, founded at Ghent in 1805 by Miss Weewauters, in religion Mother Mary Augustine, and Canon de Decker (d. 1874) for the education of girls. The mother- house is at Saint-Nicolas, on which are dependent a number of filial houses, with about two hundred members. HEIMBUCHER, Orden u. Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1907); HELYOT, Dict. des Ordres rel. (Paris, 1859); Vie de M. Rivier (Avignon, 1842). FLORENCE RUDGE MCGAHAN Right of Presentation Right of Presentation Out of gratitude for the foundation or endownment of churches and benefices, the Church grants founders, if they wish to reserve it, the right of patronage, the first and chief privilege of which is the right of presenting a cleric for the benefice. Presentation therefore means the naming to the ecclesiastical authorities of a suitable cleric, thereby conferring on the latter the right to have the vacant benefice. Like election and nomination presentation confers on the cleric presented a real right (jus ad rem), so that the ecclesiastical superior entrusted with the institution may not give the benefice to another. There are many forms of the right of patronage; here we need refer only to the right of ecclesiastical patronage belonging to ecclesiastical bodies as such, e.g. a chapter, and to the right of lay-patronage, possessed by laymen or ecclesiastics in their private capacity. Hence there exist notable differences in the manner of exercising the right of patronage, as might naturally be expected, especially when we remember that the foundations or endowments giving rise to the right of ecclesiastical patronage are made with property already belonging to the Church (see Patron and Patronage). Theoretically no special form of presentation is necessary: it suffices if the act signifies the presentation, and excludes anything that might indicate a collation of the benefice, and if there is no simony; in practice it is made in writing, generally after voting has taken place or an arrangement has been made, when the patron is not an individual and when there are co-patrons. It is communicated to the ecclesiastical superior, usually the bishop, who has to perform the canonical institution. The patron exercises his right personally if past the age of puberty (fourteen or twelve years respectively), although he may act by an attorney; if he has not attained this age, he must act through those who have authority over him: mother, guardian, protector. If the patron is an individual, he makes the presentation by himself; if it is a college, e. g. a chapter, a secret vote is taken and an absolute majority is required; if the co-patrons act individually, as when the different members of a family are called on to present a candidate, the most important point is to observe all the regulations governing the foundation; account is taken of the branches of the family and of the persons in each branch, in which case a relative majority is sufficient. A ballot is resorted to also when the patronage is exercised by a numerous community, e. g. the men of a parish who have attained their majority. In case of a tie, the bishop selects one of the candidates proposed. As to the suitability of the candidate, see Patron and Patronage. Often, in virtue of a local law, as in Austria, the patron must select from a list of suitable candidates three for ecclesiastical patrons. By the acceptance of the presentation, the cleric presented acquires immediately the right to the benefice, if the patronage is ecclesiastical; but the right is definitive only, if the patronage is lay, on the expiration of the four months allowed the patron to exercise his right of presentation, unless the bishop has already proceeded to the institution. On learning of the presentation and acceptance, the bishop examines into the fitness of the candidate, whom he admits or rejects according to the case; if he admits him, he gives him canonical institution, regularly within two months; if he rejects, the patron may present another, unless in the previous instance he had knowingly presented an unfit candidate (cf. Lib. III, Decret., tit. xxxviii, "De jure patronatus"; Conc. Trid. Sess. VII, c. 13; Sess. XXIV, c. 18; Sess. XXV, c. 9, de Ref.; see also Benefice). See commentaries on De jure patronatus, III, xxxviii, and VI; Ferraris, Prompta bibliotheca, s. v. Beneficia, a. III and V; s. v. Juspatronatus; SÄgmÜller, Lehrbuch d. kathol. Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1909), § 84. A. Boudinhon Presentation Brothers Presentation Brothers In the early part of the nineteenth century when the Penal Laws were relaxed, and the ban which was placed on the Catholic education of youth in Ireland during a long period of persecution was removed, great efforts were made to employ the opportunities which a comparative freedom placed within the reach of Irish Catholics, and several new religious congregations of both men and women sprang into existence. Amongst these was the Institute of Presentation Brothers founded [in 1802] by [Blessed] Edmund Ignatius Rice. The Brothers continued a diocesan congregation approved of by Rome until 1889, when a change was effected in the constitution of the body with a view to its more rapid development. With the sanction of the bishops under whom the Brothers then laboured, all the houses of the Institute were united under a superior-general and Leo XIII approved and confirmed the new constitutions. The rapid spread of the order since then has been very marked. It now has several branches in each of the provinces of Ireland, and is also established in England and Canada. The Brothers conduct colleges, primary schools, industrial schools, and orphanages. A new novitiate and training college has been erected at Mount St. Joseph, Cork. The superior-general resides there. The Commissioners of National Education, after investigating the methods of training adopted by the institute, fully approved of them and recognized the training college. In the colleges, special attention is paid to the teaching of experimental science. Classes are taught in connection with the Intermediate Education Board and Technical Department. Students are prepared for the Civil Service as well as for the National University. In the industrial schools and orphanages, in addition to the ordinary school studies, various trades are taught, as also agriculture and horticulture. Moreover, all the boys get a two years' course in manual instruction. [ Note: Edmund Ignatius Rice (b. 1762; d. 29 August, 1844), the founder of both the Presentation Brothers and the Irish Christian Brothers, was beatified by Pope John Paul II in Rome on 6 October, 1996.] BROTHER DE SALES Congregation of the Presentation of Mary Congregation of the Presentation of Mary This congregation, devoted to the education of young girls, was founded in 1796 at Theuyts, Ardeche, France, by the [Blessed] Mother Marie Rivier. The mother-house is now at Saint-Andeol, Ardeche. The superior general is the Mother Marie Ste-Honorine. The provincial house in Canada was founded on 18 October, 1853, by Mgr Jean-Charles Prince, first Bishop of St. Hyacinthe. It is also the mother-house and the religious make their vows there. The first six religious, with Mother Marie St-Maurice as superior, settled at Ste-Marie de Monnoir, where Rev. E. Crevier, pastor of this parish, had prepared a convent for them. They opened a boarding-school and a class for day pupils; both of these are very prosperous at the present time. In 1855 the novitiate was transferred to St. Hugues (in the county of Bagot), and in 1858 it was definitively located at St. Hyacinthe in a convent which was occupied up to this time by the Sisters of the Congregation of Notre Dame of Montreal. This house was of insufficient accommodation and the community was obliged to erect, not far from the seminary, a large building of which they took possession in 1876. The house occupied since 1858 then became an academy. Later it was necessary to add a large annex to the first building. The students were installed there in 1907. The provincial house is at the same time the mother-house of the institution in Canada. The Congregation of the Presentation of Mary comprises 30 houses in Canada and 16 in the United States, educating 13,670 children. [ Note: The foundress, Anne Marie Rivier (b. 19 Dec., 1768; d. 3 Feb., 1838), was beatified by Pope John Paul II on 23 May, 1982.] SISTER MARY ST. DAVID Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary The Protoevangel of James, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, and other apocryphal writings (Walker, "Apocryph. Gosp.", Edinburgh, 1873) relate that Mary, at the age of three, was brought by her parents to the Temple, in fulfillment of a vow, there to be educated. The corresponding feast originated in the Orient, probably in Syria, the home of the apocrypha. Card. Pitra (Anal. Spici. Solesmensi, p. 265) has published a great canon (liturgical poem) in Greek for this feast, composed by some "Georgios" about the seventh or eighth century. The feast is missing in the earlier Menology of Constantinople (eighth century); it is found, however, in the liturgical documents of the eleventh century, like the "Calend. Ostromiranum" (Martinow, "Annus græco-slav.", 329) and the Menology of Basil II (e'ísodos tes panagías Theotókon). It appears in the constitution of Manuel Comnenos (1166) as a fully recognized festival during which the law courts did not sit. In the West it was introduced by a French nobleman, Philippe de Mazières, Chancellor of the King of Cyprus, who spent some time at Avignon during the pontificate of Gregory XI. It was celebrated in the presence of the cardinals (1372) with an office accommodated from the office chanted by the Greeks. In 1373 it was adopted in the royal chapel at Paris, 1418 at Metz, 1420 at Cologne. Pius II granted (1460) the feast with a vigil to the Duke of Saxony. It was taken up by many dioceses, but at the end of the Middle Ages, it was still missing in many calendars (Grotefend, "Zeitrechnung", III, 137). At Toledo it was assigned (1500) by Cardinal Ximenes to 30 September. Sixtus IV received it into the Roman Breviary, Pius V struck it from the calendar, but Sixtus V took it up a second time (1 September, 1585). In the province of Venice it is a double of the second class with an octave (1680); the Passionists and Sulpicians keep it as a double of the first class; the Servites, Redemptorists, Carmelites, Mercedarians, and others as a double of the second with an octave. In the Roman Calendar it is a major double. The Greeks keep it for five days. In some German dioceses, under the title "Illatio", it was kept 26 November (Grotefend, III, 137). Kellner, Heortologie (Freiburg, 1901); Nilles, Kal. Man. (Innsbruck, 1897); Holweck, Fasti Mariani (Freiburg, 1892). F.G. Holweck Prester John Prester John Name of a legendary Eastern priest and king. FIRST STAGE The mythical journey to Rome of a certain Patriarch John of India in 1122, and his visit to Callistus II, cannot have been the origin of the legend. Not until much later, in a manuscript dating from the latter part of the fifteenth-century "Tractatus pulcherrimus" (Zarncke), do we find the patriarch and priest united in one person. The first combination of the two legends appears at the end of the twelfth century, in an apocryphal book of devotions called the "Narrative of Eliseus". The first authentic mention of Prester John is to be found in the "Chronicle" of Otto, Bishop of Freising, in 1145. Otto gives as his authority Hugo, Bishop of Gabala. The latter, by order of the Christian prince, Raymond of Antioch, went in 1144 (after the fall of Edessa) to Pope Eugene II, to report the grievous position of Jerusalem, and to induce the West to send another crusade. Otto met the Syrian prelate at Viterbo, where in the pope's presence he learned that a certain John, who governed as priest and king in the Far East, had with his people become converted to Nestorianism. A few years earlier he had conquered the brother monarchs of Media and Persia, Samiardi. Prester John had emerged victorious from the terrible battle that lasted three days, and ended with the conquest of Ecbatana; after which the victor started for Jerusalem to rescue the Holy Land, but the swollen waters of the Tigris compelled him to return to his own country. He belonged to the race of the three Magi, their former kingdoms being subject to him. His enormous wealth was demonstrated by the fact that he carried a sceptre of pure emeralds. It is doubtful if the West gave unreserved credence to this tale, judging from the long silence of its chronicles. Some twenty years later there came to light in unaccountable ways letters from this mysterious personage to the Byzantine emperor Manuel, Barbarossa, and other princes, which roused extravagant hopes. About a hundred manuscripts of the letter to Manuel of Constantinople are still extant (with many variants), and afford an interesting insight into this exceedingly complicated fiction. This wild medieval tale contains the principal incidents of the long Alexander legend. This letter is probably a Nestorian forgery. From that time it was believed that a Christian kingdom existed in the Far East, or in the heart of Asia. The legend furnished a wealth of material for the poets, writers, and explorers of the Middle Ages. In England Sir John Mandeville exploited it to excess. In Germany Wolfram von Eschenbach, in "Parsifal", was the first to unite the legend of the Holy Grail with this history of Prester John. He found many and more extravagant imitators (e.g. Albrecht von Scharfenstein in "Jüngere Titurel"). It is questionable whether the letter of Pope Alexander III, dated from the Rialto in Venice in 1177 and beginning with the words "Alexander episcopus (or Papa), servus servorum Dei, carissimo in Christi filio Joanni, illustro et magnifico Indorum regi", has anything to do with Prester John. The pope had heard many rumours of a powerful Christian ruler in the East. His physician in ordinary, Philippus, on returning from those parts, brought him further information. The pope sent his confidant to the king with the much-discussed letter, and an invitation to enter the Roman Church; also a caution against boastfulness about his vast power and wealth. Provided that he listened to this warning, the pope would willingly grant his two requests (apparently, to cede him a church in Rome, and to accord him certain rights in the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem). The result of this mission is not known; but judging from the details in the letter, it is certain that the recipient was no mythical personage. The pope may have recognized him as the Presbyter of the legend, but this is uncertain. Historical foundation of the origin of the legend. Otto von Freising does not mention the exact year of the battle between the Eastern conqueror and the Persian sultan; he only remarks that in 1145 it had taken place "ante non multos annos". On the other hand, there is found in the Annals of Admont (1181), part of which, as far as 1141, are a continuation of Otto's chronicle, the following note: "Johannes presbyter rex Armeniae et Indiae cum duobus regibus fratribus Persarum et Medorum pugnavit et vicit". Minute research has shown that in that year the Persian Sultan Sanjar was completely vanquished by a conqueror from the east, not very far from the ancient Ecbatana. The Arabic historian Ibn-el-Athir (1160-1233) says that, in the year of the Hegira of 536 (1141), Sanjar, the most powerful of the Seljuk princes, had mortally offended his vassal the Shah of Kharezm. The latter called to his assistance Ku Khan, or Korkhan of China (Chinese, Yeliutasche), who had come in 1122 from Northern China at the head of a mighty army. Korkhan killed Sanjar and 100,000 of his men. The Arabic versions are substantially corroborated by other Asiatic historians of that epoch: by the Syrian writer Abulfaradsch (on account of his Jewish descent called Bar Hebraeus, 1226-86), by the Arabic Abulfeda (1273-1331), the Persian Mirkhond (1432-89) etc. It is not certain whether the Spanish Jew, Benjamin of Tudela, who travelled in Central Asia in 1171, refers to this event. If so, the hypothesis based on the researches of d'Avezac, Oppert, Zarncke, and Yule becomes a certainty, i.e. the land of this uncertain and shifting legend is the kingdom of Karakhitai (1141-1218), founded in Central Asia by the priest-king of the tale. The disputed points are the name, the religion, and the priestly character of the mysterious personage. Independently of the much earlier work of d Avezac, Oppert thinks that Ku-Khan, Korkhan or Corchan (Coirchan), as the East-Asian conqueror is called in the chronicles, could easily have become Jorchan, Jochanan, or in Western parlance, John; this name was then very popular, and was often given to Christian and Mohammedan princes (Zarncke). History knows nothing about the Christianity of Yeliutasche. Yet it is clear that the league of the West against the Mohammedans stirred up the oppressed Christians on the borders of Tatar Asia to look for a deliverer. The sacerdotal character of the legendary king still offers an unsolved riddle. SECOND STAGE The political aspect of the legend again came forward in the thirteenth century. In November 1219, Damietta was conquered by the crusaders. In the spring of 1221 the report was circulated among the victors that in the East, King David, either the son or nephew of the Presbyter, had placed himself at the head of three powerful armies, and was moving upon the Mohammedan countries. An Arabic prophecy foretold that when Easter fell on 3 April, the religion of Mohammed would be abolished. This occurred in 1222, and many expected that King David and his host would offer their support to the long-awaiting army of Frederick II. The enthusiasm that this announcement created in the camp at Damietta led to a premature outbreak of the Franks against Cairo, and the defeat of the army. The historical germ is easily discovered. King David is no other than the Mongolian conqueror Jenghiz Khan, who at this time with three legions pushed forward towards the West, and in a most sanguinary battle annihilated the power of Islam in Central Asia. He and many of his successors were favourable to the Christians, and averse to the Mohammedans; the Mongol Kingdom also surpassed all Asiatic principalities by its display; but the name of David given to the Eastern conqueror still remains unexplained. THIRD STAGE The horrible slaughter committed by the Mongols soon proved that they were no pious pilgrims bound for the Holy Sepulchre, still less were they Christians. After a short time the legend assumed another form. It said that the Mongolians were the wild hordes mentioned in the Presbyter's letter to Manuel. They had risen up against their own ruler, King David, murdering both him and his father. The "Speculum historiale" of Vincent of Beauvais says: "In the year of our Lord 1202, after murdering their ruler [David] the Tatars set about destroying thc people". Certain historical facts form the basis of this remarkable report. Bar Hebraeus mentions that in 1006 the Mongolian tribe of the Keriats in Upper Asia had become Christians (Nestorians). According to the account of Rubruquis, thc Franciscan, these Keriats were related to the Naymans, another Mongolian shepherd tribe, and paid tribute to their ruler Coirchan; they also were Nestorian Christians, and in that vicinity were considered the countrymen of Prester John. The prince of thc Keriats, Unc-Khan, was in 1202 completely subject to the superior power of Jenghiz Khan, who meanwhile was on the friendliest terms with his family, thus giving the Keriats a certain amount of independence. Marco Polo speaks of Unc-Khan as the great prince who is called Prester John, the whole world speaking of his great power". In 1229 the celebrated missionary John of Monte Corvino converted a Nestorian prince belonging to this tribe, who afterwards served Mass for him (Rex Gregorius de illustri genere Magni Regis qui dictus fuit Presbyter Johannes)). And yet neither he nor the other missionaries, who at this time were trying to convert the Mongolian princes of Upper Asia, paid much attention to the extravagant embellishments of the legend. One of these missionaries, Odoricus de Foro Julii, wrote "that not a hundredth part of the things related of Prester John were true". For centuries the Prince of the Keria was looked upon as the Prester John of the legend. The papal librarian Assemani and the geographer Ritter justified this scientific hypothesis by a mass of original documents. It is undoubtedly true, that in this explanation of the legend many of its peculiarities are more clearly brought out; e.g. the sacerdotal character of the hero; for according to Rubruquis, the Nestorians of that locality were accustomed to dedicate to the priesthood even the children in their cradles. The main point, however, is still unexplained, namely, the origin of the legend; the account of Rubruquis, however, carefully considered, supports the Oppert-Zarncke hypothesis, and elucidates the transition of the legend from the Karakhitai, to the Keria. Zarncke meanwhile agrees with Oppert only in essentials, and in many points sharply and unjustly criticizes his colleague. Oppert is an Orientalist, Zarncke is not. FOURTH STAGE With the collapse of the Mongol Kingdom, hitherto the setting for this legend, the latter, finding no favourable background in Upper or Middle Asia, was shifted to the hill country of the Caucasus, or to indefinite parts of India. It is true that all earlier accounts of the Presbyter designated India as his kingdom, but in the Middle Ages the term India was so vague that the legend obtained in this way no definite location. But in the fourteenth century there appeared many real or fictitious accounts of voyages (Zarncke), which pointed to the modern East Indies as the kingdom of the Priest-King. The most important document of this, or a somewhat later period, is the afore-mentioned "Tractatus pulcherrimus". In some maps, especially a Catalonian published in 1375, we find Christian kingdoms given in India. In another map of 1447, towers are to be found at the foot of the Caucasus, and underneath is written: "The Presbyter, King John built these towers to prevent [the Tatars] from reaching him". The Admont Annals (1181) had already spoken of the Presbyter as King of Armenia. Professor Brun of Odessa supports the hypothesis founded on these and other plausible grounds, namely that the Armenian general, Ivane, who in 1124 gained a great victory over the Crescent, was the first Presbyter John (Zeitsch. f. Erdkunde, 1876, 279). FIFTH STAGE Marco Polo speaks of the country called Abascia as part of India, meaning probably Abyssinia. Many scholars (among others Yule) are of the opinion that Pope Alexander's enigmatical letter was sent to the Negus of Ethiopia; at a much earlier time it was customary to see in him the Presbyter of the legend. In 1328 the Christian bishop John of Columbo (not Colombo) in India, designated the Negus as Prester John: quem vos vocatis Prestre Johan. In Jerusalem at the beginning of the fifteenth century the Abyssinian priests described their country to the Christian Portuguese merchants as the Kingdom of Prester John. The Grand Master of the Knights of Rhodes expressed the same opinion in a letter written to King Charles VII of France in 1448. This interpretation was most popular at the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century, on account of the voyages of discovery made by the Portuguese, who at first persistently sought the Presbyter's kingdom along the whole African coast (Vasco de Gama even carried with him letters of introduction to this supposed Christian ruler), and believed that in Ethiopia they had at last fallen in with him. As a matter of fact, the Christian Kingdom of Abyssinia had for centuries successfully withstood the onslaughts of Islam. The Negus combined in his person a kind of spiritual with temporal power, and the name of John recurs in a remarkable manner in the long line of princes of that land. The oldest map, discovered by P. Joseph Fischer, on which America is mentioned (1507), places the Presbyter's country in Asia (Province of Thebet; Tibet) in the following words: "This is the land of the good King and lord, known as Prester John, lord of all Eastern and Southern India, lord of all the kings of India, in whose mountains are found all kinds of precious stones." On the Carta Marina (1516) it is placed in Africa: "Regnum Habesch et Habacci Presbiteri Joh. sive India Maior Ethiopie" etc. In later times it was the general opinion that Abyssinia was the Presbyter's native land, "Terra do Preste", as the Portuguese called it. Only towards the end of the seventeenth century did this opinion disappear. In Leutholf's great work on Abyssinia (Frankfort, 1681) it is said that the land had been wrongly named the Presbyter's kingdom. The legend had a stimulating effect on Portuguese discoverers, and indirectly encouraged the missionary activity of Franciscans and Dominicans in Central Asia and China, the conversion of the Mongolian ruler being often their goal. Some also exhibited a certain scientific interest in the solution of the legend; the narrative of Rubruquis, for instance, is still the starting point for all modern research. YULE, Cathay and the Way Thither, 173 sq.; Marco Polo (2nd ed.), I, 229-33; II, 539-43; RITTER, Erdkunde von Asien (2nd ed., Berlin, l838); D'AVEZAC, Recueil de Voyages et de Mémoires publié par la Société de Géographie, IV (Paris, 1839), 547-64; OPPERT, Der Presbyter Johannes in Sage und Gesch. (2nd ed., Berlin, 1870); ZARNCKE, Fünf Leipziger Programme (1873-75), the first four revised by the same author in vol. XVII of Abhandl. der k. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wissenschaften, vol. Vll, phil-histor. Klasse 1879, Der Priester Johannes, I. Abh., p. 827-1030, II. Abh. in vol. XIX, vol. VIII, phil-histor. Klasse 1883-86; Ostasiatischer Loyd, XV (1902), 1819 sq. ALOIS STOCKMANN Thomas Preston Thomas Preston ( Alias Roger Widdrington). Benedictine, d. in the Clink prison, 5 April, 1640. He studied first at the English College in Rome, his professor of theology being the distinguished Jesuit Vasquez. He was professed in the Benedictine Order in 1590 at Monte Cassino, being then a priest of mature age, and, says Weldon, a learned and virtuous man. He was sent on the English mission in 1603, landing at Yarmouth, and lived with Dom Sigebert Buckley (the last survivor of the monks of Westminster) until the latter's death in 1610. Before this he had been indicted at the Middlesex Sessions for the crime of being a priest, and the year after Dom Buckley's death he seems to have been in prison, as he delegated his authority to two other monks. Expelled from England three years later, he took part at Reims in the negotiations for the union of the English monks of Monte Cassino, Valladolid, and the old English Congregation. He returned to England and was again imprisoned, first in the Clink, on the south side of the Thames, and later in the Archbishop of Canterbury's palace at Croydon. In one prison or another he wrote, under the assumed name of Widdrington, several works treating of the oath of allegiance proposed by King James I, of which (together with many other Benedictines and secular priests) he was an upholder and apologist against the Jesuits. Weldon says that Preston "evermore disowned" the books written under the name of Widdrington, but there is no doubt that he was the author of them. Towards the end of his life, however, he seems to have altered his views, or at any rate to have made full submission on the question of the oath to the authorities of Rome. Reyner, Apostolatus Benedictinorum in Anglia (Douai, 1626), app., ii, ix; Weldon, Chronological Notes concerning the Eng. Congr. O. S. B. (Stanbrook, 1881), 40, 43, 46, 76, 94, 95, 180; Oliver, Collections Illustrating the Hist. of the Catholic Religion (London, 1857), 521, 522; Foley, Records of the English Province S. J., ser. I (London, 1877), 258, note; Milner, Supplementary Memoirs of English Catholics (London, 1820), 33; Berington, Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani (Birmingham, 1793), 121, 156; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. s. v. Preston, Thomas, O. S. B. D. O. Hunter-Blair. Preston, Thomas Scott Thomas Scott Preston The Vicar-General of New York, prothonotary Apostolic, chancellor, distinguished convert, author, preacher, and administrator born at Hartford, Connecticut, 23 July, 1824; died at New York, 4 Nov., 1891. From his youth he was serious, pious, and zealous. He studied in the Episcopalian general seminary, located at Ninth Avenue and Twentieth Street, New York, where he was recognized as the leader of the High Church party. In 1846 he received deacon's orders, and served in this capacity at Trinity Church, the Church of the Annunciation in West Fourteenth Street, and at Holy Innocents, West Point. In 1847 he was ordained presbyter by Bishop Delancey of Western New York, his own bishop having refused to advance him to this order on account of his ritualistic views. He believed himself now a validly ordained priest of the English branch of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, and served for some time at St. Luke's, Hudson Street, New York, hearing confessions and urging frequent Holy Communion. He was a deep student of the early history of the Church and of the Fathers, and thus gradually began to feel the branch theory untenable. He was convinced of the truth of Catholicity, as well as of his obligation to embrace it, before he had ever read a professedly Catholic book, or spoken to a priest. He was baptized and received into the Church on 14 November, 1849. In the autumn of 1850 he was ordained priest, and assigned to duty in the cathedral. In 1851 he was appointed pastor of Yonkers with out-missions at Dobbs Ferry and Tarrytown. In 1853 he became secretary to Archbishop Hughes, and chancellor of the diocese. He was appointed pastor of St. Ann's in 1863, and was promoted in 1872 to be vicar-general. During the absence of Archbishop Corrigan in 1890 he was administrator of the diocese. He founded and directed for many years the Sisters of the Divine Compassion. He was a man of exquisite refinement, of tender piety, and of intense loyalty. His Advent and Lenten conferences attracted multitudes from all parts of the city. His works are: "Reason and Revelation" (New York, 1868); "The Divine Paraclete" (1879); "Ark of the Covenant" (1860) "The Divine Sanctuary" (1887); "Gethsemani (1887); "The Sacred Year" (1885); "Vicar of Christ" (1878); "The Protestant Reformation" (1879); "Protestantism and the Church" (1882); "Protestantism and the Bible" (1888); "Christian Unity" (1881); "The Watch on Calvary" (1885) "Christ and the Church" (1870); "God and Reason" (1884); "Devotion to the Sacred Heart". PRESTON, Remembrances of My Brother Thomas; BRANN, The Rt. Rev. Thomas S. Preston, Vicar General (New York); Catholic Family Almanac (1893); Monsignor Preston's Views (New York, 1890); CORNELL, Beginnings of the Church in Yonkers (Yonkers, 1893); Golden Jubilee of St. Ann's Parish (1902). MICHAEL J. LAVELLE. Presumption Presumption (Lat. praesumere, "to take before", "to take for granted"). Presumption is here considered as a vice opposed to the theological virtue of hope. It may also be regarded as a product of pride. It may be defined as the condition of a soul which, because of a badly regulated reliance on God's mercy and power, hopes for salvation without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins without repenting of them. Presumption is said to offend against hope by excess, as despair by defect. It will be obvious, however, to one who ponders what is meant by hope, that this statement is not exact. There is only a certain analogy which justifies it. As a matter of fact we could not hope too much, assuming that it is really the supernatural habit which is in question. Suarez ("De spe", disp. 2a, sect. 3, n. 2) enumerates five ways in which one may be guilty of presumption, as follows: 1. by hoping to obtain by one's natural powers, unaided, what is definitely supernatural, viz. eternal bliss or the recovery of God's friendship after grievous sin (this would involve a Pelagian frame of mind); 2. a person might look to have his sins forgiven without adequate penance (this, likewise, if it were based on a seriously entertained conviction, would seem to carry with it the taint of heresy); 3. a man might expect some special assistance from Almighty God for the perpetration of crime (this would be blasphemous as well as presumptuous); 4. one might aspire to certain extraordinary supernatural excellencies, but without any conformity to the determinations of God's providence. Thus one might aspire to equal in blessedness the Mother of God; 5. finally, there is the transgression of those who, whilst they continue to lead a life of sin, are as confident of a happy issue as if they had not lost their baptismal innocence. The root-malice of presumption is that it denies the supernatural order, as in the first instance, or travesties the conception of the Divine attributes, as in the others. Theologians draw a sharp distinction between the attitude of one who goes on in a vicious career, precisely because he counts upon pardon, and one whose persistence in wrongdoing is accompanied, but not motivated, by the hope of forgiveness. The first they impeach as presumption of a very heinous kind; the other is not such specifically. In practice it happens for the most part that the expectation of ultimate reconciliation with God is not the cause, but only the occasion, of a person's continuing in sinful indulgence. Thus the particular guilt of presumption is not contracted. SLATER, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); RICKABY, Moral Teaching of St. Thomas (London, 1896); ST. THOMAS, Summa (Turin, 1885); BALLERINI, Opus Theol. Morale (Prato, 1899). JOSEPH F. DELANY Presumption Presumption (IN CANON LAW) A term signifying a reasonable conjecture concerning something doubtful, drawn from arguments and appearances, which by the force of circumstances can be accepted as a proof. It is on this presumption our common adage is based: "Possession is nine points of the law". Presumption has its place in canon law only when positive proofs are wanting, and yet the formulation of some judgment is necessary. It is never in itself an absolute proof, as it only presumes that something is true. Canonists divide presumption into; + (1) presumption of law (juris), or that which is deduced from some legal precept or authority expressed in law or based upon precedents or similarities, and + (2) presumption of a judge or man (judicis or hominis), when the law is silent on the subject and an opinion must be formed according to the way that circumstances and indications would affect a prudent man or judge. There are several sub-varieties of presumption of law. Thus, it is called presumption of law alone (juris tantum) when a thing is judged to be so until the contrary is proved. Hence the legal formulæ: "Everyone is presumed innocent until his guilt is proved"; "Once bad always bad" (i. e. in the same species of ill-doing, if amendment is not certain); "What is known in a remote place is known in a neighbouring place", and others similar. It is denominated presumption juris et de jure, when the law so strongly supports the presumption that it is held to be certain in judicial proceedings. Against such a presumption no proofs are admitted except the evident truth. Thus, goods described in the inventory made by a guardian are presumed to belong to the possessions of the deceased, nor would the later testimony of the guardian himself to the contrary ordinarily be admitted. As to the presumption judicis or Hominis, it is called (a) vehement, when the probability is very strongly supported by most urgent conjectures. Thus, a birth would be held illegitimate, which took place eleven months after a husband's decease. A vehement presumption is considered equivalent to a full proof in civil causes of not too great importance. As to whether it should have sufficient effect in criminal causes to produce the condemnation of an accused person, canonists do not agree. It is termed (b) probable, when it arises from less urgent and only less probable conjectures and indications. Such presumption is looked on as merely a semi-proof, unless it be sustained by public rumour, in which case it is held as sufficient proof. Finally, it is denominated (c) rash, or temerarious, if it rests on insufficient conjectures or scarcely probable arguments. Such presumption is to be entirely rejected as a proof. The foundation of these legal presumptions is to be sought in the natural conclusions drawn from the ordinary happenings of common life and the consideration of the motives that usually sway men in given circumstances. The general rules are thus formulated: "What is natural is presumed to be in the person or case in question"; "Change is not to be presumed"; "Presumption is to be formed from the favourable side". As to effects, when there is question of presumption juris, it abstracts from the necessity of proof; not so presumption hominis. A judge can follow the first in civil cases even when doubt remains, not so the second. The former places the burden of proof on the adversary, but the latter does not. Finally, the first is considered of itself equivalent to proof, while the second needs corroboration from something extraneous to itself. TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (New York, 1906), s. v. Presumption; FERRARIS, Bibliotheca canonica, VI (Rome, 1890), s. v. Proesumptio. WILLIAM H. W. FANNING. Pretorium Pretorium This name is derived from the Latin prætorium, in later Greek tò praitórion. Originally prætorium signified the general's or prætor's tent in Roman camps; then it was applied to the military council sitting there in judgment, and later to the official residence of the provincial governor, a palace or castle. In the Gospel (v. g., Matt., xxvii, 27) it denotes the building Pilate occupied at the time of Christ's Passion. There were two castles of this kind, both built by Herod. The first rose on the site of the tower of Birah, or tower of the House (II Esd., ii, 8; cf. I Mach., xiii, 53), called Baris by Josephus ("Ant. Jud.", XV, xi, 4; "Bell. Jud.", I, iii, 3). The tower of Baris stood on a rocky mass about 350 feet long and 130 feet wide, cut perpendicularly to a height of 30 feet on the south side, at a distance of a hundred yards from the north-west corner of the Temple enclosure, and to a height of 15 feet on the north, where it was separated from Mount Bezetha by a ditch nearly 200 feet wide. On this rock, now occupied by the Turkish barracks, Herod built a new fortress. Between the rock and the Temple enclosure he made two wide courts surrounded with porticoes. The castle, called Antonia in honour of Mark Antony, is described by Josephus in glowing terms (Bell. Jud., V, v, 8). Some years later, Herod built a second palace, on the northern brow of Mount Sion, at the western extremity of the town. That Pilate resided in one of these two castles when Jesus was brought before him can scarcely be doubted; and the early tradition which locates the pretorium in the fortress of Antonia is well supported by history and archæology. During the Paschal solemnities, riots and sedition often broke out amongst the Jews in the precincts of the Temple; the Roman soldiers were therefore held under arms at the different porticoes, watching the populace, to suppress any attempted insurrection, the Temple being the watch-tower of the city, as the Antonia was of the Temple (Bell. Jud., V, v, 8). In case of sedition the Temple was accessible only from the Antonia (cf. Bell. Jud., II, xv, 5, 6; VI, i-iii). Pilate came from Cæsarea to Jerusalem solely to look after the Jews assembled around the sanctuary, and in such circumstances he would naturally have resided in the Antonia. St. John (xix, 13) tells us that the paved court, in Greek Lithostrotos, where our Lord was sentenced to death, bore the significant name of Gabbatha, in Syro-Chaldean (from Heb. gaphiphta, i. e. the raised). So interesting a place could not have been forgotten by the first Christians. In the year 340, St. Cyril of Jerusalem reminded his flock, as a well-known fact, that the house of Caiphas and the pretorium of Pilate had remained "unto that day a heap of ruins by the might of Him who hung upon the Cross" (Catech., xiii, xxxviii, xxxix). Now, the western palace of Herod was spared by Titus, and served as a citadel to the legion left to garrison the Upper City (Bell. Jud., VII, i, 1). During the rebellion of the Jews under Bar-Cocheba, Julius Severus took it by assault; but Hadrian rebuilt it and made of it the citadel of Ælia Capitolina (Eutychius of Alex., "Annales"). Whereas the Antonia was utterly destroyed by Titus (Bell. Jud., VI, ii, 7), and history tells of no building raised upon its ruins before the fifth century. In 333 the Bordeaux pilgrim mentions Golgotha as being on his left as he was walking from Mount Sion towards the northern Gate: "On the right", he says, "we perceive, down in the valley, walls where once stood the house of pretorium of Pilate. There the Lord was judged before His Passion." The Brevarius of Jerusalem (c. 436) mentions in the pretorium "a great basilica called St. Sophia, with a chapel, cubiculum, where our Lord was stripped of his garments and scourged". Peter the Iberian (c. 454) went down from Golgotha "to the basilica named after Pilate", and thence to that of the Paralytic, and then to Gethsemane. The local tradition remained constant, showing at all times up to the present day the pretorium of Pilate to have been in the Antonia. Of this fortress there still remain three piers and two archivolts of the triple gateway, which gave access to the castle. The central arch, which crosses the street, and which from the sixteenth century only has been called Arch of the Ecce Homo, measures 20 feet. The smaller one, on the north, is enclosed in the new church of the Ecce Homo (1); the small southern arch has disappeared. The gateway extends 66 feet. To the east of the Arch of the Ecce Homo is a court paved with rectangular stone blocks, over 15 inches thick. It measures about 130 feet by 95 feet, and is bordered at the east end by foundation walls of ancient buildings. This is the outer court or the Lithostrotos. On the day of Christ's trial, the Jews could not penetrate further amongst pagan dwellings without contracting a legal defilement. On this pavement stands the chapel of the Condemnation (2), restored in the twelfth century and rebuilt in 1904. The chapel of the Flagellation (3) rises about 100 feet more to the east; it dates probably from the fifth century, but has been three times rebuilt. On the rock of Baris, the natural site of the royal palace, was the tribunal, "the inner court", called "the court of the pretorium" in the Syrian Version (Mark, xv, 16). The chapel of the Crowning with Thorns (5), built in the twelfth century, is still well preserved. The basilica of St. Sophia (6), reconstructed in the twelfth century, stood towards the east. It was transformed later into a Turkish tribunal, and finally razed to the ground in 1832, when new barracks were erected. 12404aax.gif Wilson and Warren, The Recovery of Jerusalem (London, 1871); Warren and Conder, Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem (London, 1884); GuÉrin, Jerusalem (Paris, 1889); Meistermann, Le prétoire de Pilate (Paris, 1902); Idem, New Guide to the Holy Land (London, 1907). Barnabas Meistermann Pride Pride Pride is the excessive love of one's own excellence. It is ordinarily accounted one of the seven capital sins. St. Thomas, however, endorsing the appreciation of St. Gregory, considers it the queen of all vices, and puts vainglory in its place as one of the deadly sins. In giving it this pre-eminence he takes it in a most formal and complete signification. He understands it to be that frame of mind in which a man, through the love of his own worth, aims to withdraw himself from subjection to Almighty God, and sets at naught the commands of superiors. It is a species of contempt of God and of those who bear his commission. Regarded in this way, it is of course mortal sin of a most heinous sort. Indeed St. Thomas rates it in this sense as one of the blackest of sins. By it the creature refuses to stay within his essential orbit; he turns his back upon God, not through weakness or ignorance, but solely because in his self-exaltation he is minded not to submit. His attitude has something Satanic in it, and is probably not often verified in human beings. A less atrocious kind of pride is that which imples one to make much of oneself unduly and without sufficient warrant, without however any disposition to cast off the dominion of the Creator. This may happen, according to St. Gregory, either because a man regards himself as the source of such advantages as he may discern in himself, or because, whilst admitted that God has bestowed them, he reputes this to have been in response to his own merits, or because he attributes to himself gifts which he has not; or, finally, because even when these are real he unreasonably looks to be put ahead of others. Supposing the conviction indicated in the first two instances to be seriously entertained, the sin would be a grievous one and would have the added guilt of heresy. Ordinarily, however, this erroneous persuasion does not exist; it is the demeanour that is reprehensible. The last two cases generally speaking are not held to constitute grave offences. This is not true, however, whenever a man's arrogance is the occasion of great harm to another, as, for instance, his undertaking the duties of a physician without the requisite knowledge. The same judgment is to be rendered when pride has given rise to such temper of soul that in the pursuit of its object one is ready of anything, even mortal sin. Vainglory, ambition, and presumption are commonly enumerated as the offspring vices of pride, because they are well adapted to serve its inordinate aims. Of themselves they are venial sins unless some extraneous consideration puts them in the ranks of grievous transgressions. It should be noted that presumption does not here stand for the sin against hope. It means the desire to essay what exceeds one's capacity. JOSEPH F. DELANY Priene Priene A titular see of Asia Minor, suffragan of Ephesus. The foundation of the town of Priene dates from the period when the Carians, Leleges and Lycians, were sole masters of the country. Later it was occupied by the Ionians and became one of the twelve cities of Ionia. It was a holy city, and chose the leader of the Panionian feasts. Its temple of Athena, built by Alexander, contained an ancient statue of that goddess. Situated on the southern slope of Mount Mycale, it never attained great development, although it had at first two harbours and a fleet. In the time of Augustus it was already forty stadia from the sea because of the inroads of the Meander. It was conquered by the Lycian King Ardys, then by Cyrus, and remained subject to the Persians till the time of Alexander. Priene endured great hardships under the Persian general Tabates and later under Hiero, one of its citizens. After regaining autonomy, it remained attached to the Ionic confederation. It was the birthplace of the philosopher Bias. The "Notitiae episcopatuum" mentions it as a suffragan of Ephesus until the thirteenth century. Four of its bishops are known: Theosebius, present at the Council of Ephesus (431); Isidore, who was living in 451; Paul, present at the Council of Constantinople (692); Demetrius, in the twelfth century. The beautiful ruins of Priene are at Samsoon Kalessi, near the Greek village of Kelitesh in the vilayet of Smyrna, about two miles from the sea. LE QUIEN, Oriens christ., I, 717; CHANDLER, Travels, 200 etc.; LEAKE, Asia Minor (London, 1834), 239, 352; FELLOWS, Asia Minor (London, 1852), 268 etc.; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman geogr. (London, 1878), s. v., bibliography of ancient authors; MANNERT, Geogr. d. Grieschen u. Romer, III (1825 sq.), 264; TEXIER, Asie Mineure (Paris, 1862), 342-45; ECKEL, Doctrina rei num., II (Leipzig, 1842), 536. S. PÉTRIDÈS Priest Priest This word (etymologically "elder", from presbyteros, presbyter) has taken the meaning of "sacerdos", from which no substantive has been formed in various modern languages (English, French, German). The priest is the minister of Divine worship, and especially of the highest act of worship, sacrifice. In this sense, every religion has its priests, exercising more or less exalted sacerdotal functions as intermediaries between man and the Divinity (cf. Heb., v, 1: "for every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins"). In various ages and countries we find numerous and important differences: the priest properly so called may be assisted by inferior ministers of many kinds; he may belong to a special class or caste, to a clergy, or else may be like other citizens except in what concerns his sacerdotal functions; he may be a member of a hierarchy, or, on the contrary, may exercise an independent priesthood (e.g. Melchisedech, Heb., vii, 1-33); lastly, the methods of recruiting the ministers of worship, the rites by which they receive their powers, the authority that establishes them, may all differ. But, amid all these accidental differences, one fundamental idea is common to all religions: the priest is the person authoritatively appointed to do homage to God in the name of society, even the primitive society of the family (cf. Job, i, 5), and to offer Him sacrifice (in the broad, but especially in the strict sense of the word). Omitting further discussion of the general idea of the priesthood, and neglecting all reference to pagan worship, we may call attention to the organization among the people of God of a Divine service with ministers properly so-called: the priests, the inferior clergy, the Levites, and at their head the high-priest. We know the detailed regulations contained in Leviticus as to the different sacrifices offered to God in the Temple at Jerusalem, and the character and duty of the priests and Levites. Their ranks were recruited, in virtue not of the free choice of individuals, but of descent in the tribe of Levi (especially the family of Aaron), which had been called by God to His ritual service to the exclusion of all others. The elders (presbyteroi) formed a kind of council, but had no sacerdotal power; it was they who took counsel with the chief priests to capture Jesus (Matt., xxvi, 3). It is this name presbyter (elder) which has passed into the Christian speech to signify the minister of Divine service, the priest. The Christian law also has necessarily its priesthood to carry out the Divine service, the principal act of which is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the figure and renewal of that of Calvary. This priesthood has two degrees: the first, total and complete, the second an incomplete participation of the first. The first belongs to the bishop. The bishop is truly a priest (sacerdos), and even a high-priest; he has chief control of the Divine worship (sacrorum antistes), is the president of liturgical meetings; he has the fullness of the priesthood, and administers all the sacraments. The second degree belongs to the priest (presbyter), who is also a sacerdos, but of the second rank ("secundi sacerdotes" Innocent I ad Eugub.); by his priestly ordination he receives the power to offer sacrifice (i.e. to celebrate the Eucharist), to forgive sins, to bless, to preach, to sanctify, and in a word to fulfil the non-reserved liturgical duties or priestly functions. In the exercise of these functions, however, he is subject to the authority of the bishop to whom he has promised canonical obedience; in certain cases even he requires not only authorization, but real jurisdiction, particularly to forgive sins and to take care of souls. Moreover, certain acts of the sacerdotal power, affecting the society of which the bishop is the head, are reserved to the latter -- e.g. confirmation, the final rite of Christian initiation, ordination, by which the ranks of the clergy are recruited, and the solemn consecration of new temples to God. Sacerdotal powers are conferred on priests by priestly ordination, and it is this ordination which puts them in the highest rank of the hierarchy after the bishop. As the word sacerdos was applicable to both bishops and priests, and one became a presbyter only by sacerdotal ordination, the word presbyter soon lost its primitive meaning of "ancient" and was applied only to the minister of worship and of the sacrifice (hence our priest). Originally, however, the presbyteri were the members of the high council which, under the presidency of the bishop, administered the affairs of the local church. Doubtless in general these members entered the presbyterate only by the imposition of hands which made them priests; however, that there could be, and actually were presbyteri who were not priests, is seen from canons 43-47 of Hippolytus (cf. Duchesne, "Origines du culte chretien", append.), which show that some of those who had confessed the Faith before the tribunals were admitted into the presbyterium without ordination. These exceptions were, however, merely isolated instances, and from time immemorial ordination has been the sole manner of recruiting the presbyteral order. The documents of antiquity show us the priests as the permanent council, the auxiliaries of the bishop, whom they surround and aid in the solemn functions of Divine Worship. When the bishop is absent, he is replaced by a priest, who presides in his name over the liturgical assembly. The priests replace him especially in the different parts of the diocese, where they are stationed by him; here they provide for the Divine Service, as the bishop does in the episcopal city, except that certain functions are reserved to the latter, and the others are performed with less liturgical solemnity. As the churches multiplied in the country and towns, the priests served them with a permanent title, becoming rectors or titulars. Thus, the bond uniting such priests to the cathedral church gradually became weaker, whereas it grew stronger in the case of those who served in the cathedral with the bishop (i.e. the canons); at the same time the lower clergy tended to decrease in number, inasmuch as the clerics passed through the inferior orders only to arrive at the sacerdotal ordination, which was indispensable for the administration of the churches and the exercise of a useful ministry among the faithful. Hence ordinarily the priest was not isolated, but was regularly attached to a definite church or connected with a cathedral. Accordingly, the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, cap. xvi, renewing canon vi of Chalcedon) desires bishops not to ordain any clerics but those necessary or useful to the church or ecclesiastical establishment to which they are to be attached and which they are to serve. The nature of this service depends especially on the nature of the benefice, office, or function assigned to the priest; the Council in particular desires (cap. xiv) priests to celebrate Mass at least on Sundays and holydays, while those who are charged with the care of souls are to celebrate as often as their office demands. Consequently, it is not easy to say in a way applicable to all cases what are the duties and rights of a priest; both vary considerably in individual cases. By his ordination a priest is invested with powers rather than with rights, the exercise of these powers (to celebrate Mass, remit sins, preach, administer the sacraments, direct and minister to the Christian people) being regulated by the common laws of the church, the jurisdiction of the bishop, and the office or charge of each priest. The exercise of the sacerdotal powers is both a duty and a right for priests having the care of souls, either in their own name (e.g. parish priests) or as auxiliaries (e.g. parochial curates). Except in the matter of the care of souls the sacerdotal functions are likewise obligatory in the case of priests having any benefice or office in a church (e.g. canons); otherwise they are optional, and their exercise depends upon the favour of the bishop (e.g. the permission to hear confessions or to preach granted to simple priests or to priests from outside the diocese). As for the case of a priest who is entirely free, moralists limit his obligations, as far as the exercise of his sacerdotal powers is concerned, to the celebration of Mass several times a year (St. Alphonsus Liguori, l. VI, no. 313) and to the administration of the sacraments in case of necessity, in addition to fulfilling certain other obligations not strictly sacerdotal (e.g. the Breviary, celibacy). But canonical writers, not considering such a condition regular, hold that the bishop is obliged in this case to attach such a priest to a church and impose some duty on him, even if it be only an obligatory attendance at solemn functions and processions (Innocent XIII, Constitution "Apostolici ministerii", 23 March, 1723; Benedict XIII, Const. "In supremo", 23 Sept., 1724; Roman Council of 1725, tit. vi, c. ii). As to the material situation of the priest, his rights are clearly laid down by canon law, which varies considerably with the actual condition of the Church in different countries. As a matter of principle, each cleric ought to have from his ordination to the sub-diaconate a benefice, the revenues of which ensure him a respectable living and, if he is ordained with a title of patrimony (i.e. the possession of independent means sufficient to provide a decent livelihood), he has the right to receive a benefice as soon as possible. Practically the question seldom arises in the case of priests, for clerics are ordinarily ordained with the title of ecclesiastical service, and they cannot usefully fill a remunerated post unless they are priests. Each priest ordained with the title of ecclesiastical service has therefore the right to ask of his bishop, and the bishop is under an obligation to assign him, a benefice or ecclesiastical office which will ensure him a respectable living; in this office the priest has therefore the right to collect the emoluments attached to his ministry, including the offerings which a legitimate custom allows him to receive or even demand on the occasion of certain definite functions (stipends for Masses, curial rights for burial, etc.). Even when old or infirm, a priest who has not rendered himself unworthy and who is unable to fulfil his ministry remains a charge on his bishop, unless other arrangements have been made. It is thus apparent that the rights and duties of a priest are, in the concrete reality, conditioned by his situation. (See BENEFICE; PASTOR; PARISH PRIEST; PRIESTHOOD.) See bibliography to ORDERS, HOLY, and PRIESTHOOD; consult also PHILLIPS, Droit ecclesiastique (French tr., Paris, 1850), 36; MANY, Proelectiones de sacra ordinatione (Paris, 1905), n. 16; and the collections of ZAMBONI and of PALLOTTINI, s.v. Presbyteri (simplices). A. BOUDINHON Assistant Priest Assistant Priest The assistant priest (presbyter assistens, anciently called capellanus) is the first and highest in dignity of the ministers who assist the bishop in pontifical functions. Where there are cathedral chapters, ordinarily the first dignitary acts as assistant priest; but if the bishop only assists at a service, then the first canon after the dignitaries should serve in this capacity. If a priest preaches at pontifical Mass, the preacher should also be assistant priest. A cardinal-bishop acts as assistant priest for the pope. By privilege, prothonotaries de numero participantium and mitred abbots may have an assistant priest when they celebrate pontifical Mass; and so also, but with some restrictions, supernumerary prothonotaries and prothonotaries ad instar. Certain dignitaries and canons in virtue of ancient custom are similarly privileged, and finally the Sacred Congregation of Rites tolerates the custom of having an assistant priest at a priest's first solemn Mass. While assisting the celebrant the assistant priest wears the cope and amice over his surplice or rochet; but while assisting the bishop presiding at the throne he wears his regular choral dress. At the throne his stool is place on the platform of the throne, regularly at the right and a little in front of the first assistant deacon. When the celebrant uses the faldstool, the assistant priest sits on the bench at the deacon's right; but when the celebrant uses the bench, the assistant priest sits on a stool placed at the end of the bench and usually at the right of the deacon. His chief duty is to attend to the book, which he holds for most of the parts which the celebrant sings, and at the altar he turns the leaves, points out the text, etc. He ministers the ring, presents the towel, and receives the kiss of peace first, from the celebrant, and conveys it to the choir. At the throne he also ministers the incense and incenses the bishop. Sometimes it is his duty to publish the episcopal indulgences. When the bishop presides at the throne, part of the time the assistant priest occupies his place at the throne, and part of the time his regular place in the choir, and then he ministers the incense, incenses the bishop, and brings the kiss of peace from the celebrant to the bishop. In other pontifical functions besides the Mass and the Divine Office his duties are similar to those described. Caeremoniale Episcoporum (Ratisbon, 1902); MARTINUCCI, Manuale sacrarum caerimoniarum (Rome, 1879); DE HERDT, Praxis pontificalis (Louvain, 1904); LE VAVASSEUR, Les Fonctions pontificales (Paris, 1904); Ceremonial of the Church (Philadelphia, 1894) 313. J.F. GOGGIN The High Priest The High Priest The high-priest in the Old Testament is called by various names: + the priest (Num., iii, 6); + the great priest (Lev., xxi, 10); + the head priest (IV Kings, xxv, 18); + the anointed priest (Lev., iv, 3): Gr., Archiereus (Lev., iv, 3), also in later books and New Testament. In the Old Testament ho hiereus (Num., iii, 6); hiereus ho protos (IV Kings, xxv, 18); ho hiereus ho megas (Lev., xxi, 10), are the common forms. A coadjutor or second priest was mentioned in IV Kings, xxv, 18. Aaron and his sons were chosen by God to be priests, Aaron being the first high-priest and Eleazar his successor; so that, though the Scripture does not say so explicitly, the succession of the eldest son to the office of high-priest became a law. The consecration of Aaron and his sons during seven days and their vestments are described in Ex., xxviii, xxix (cf. Lev., viii 12; Ecclus., xlv, 7 sqq.). Aaron was anointed with oil poured on his head (Lev., viii, 12); hence he is called "the priest that is anointed" (Lev., iv, 3). Some texts seem to require anointing for all (Ex., xxx, 30; Lev., x, 7; Num., iii, 3), but Aaron was anointed with oil in great profusion, even on the head (Ex., xxix, 7), to which reference is made in Ps. cxxxii, 2, where it is said that the precious ointment ran down upon his beard and "to the skirt of his garment". The ointment was made of myrrh, cinnamon, calamus, cassia, and olive oil, compounded by the perfumer or apothecary (Ex., xxx, 23-25; Josephus, "Ant.", III, viii, 3), and not to be imitated nor applied to profane uses (Ex., xxx, 31-33). After the Exile anointing was not in use: both high-priests and priests were consecrated by simple investiture. The rabbis held that even before the Exile the high-priest alone was anointed by pouring the sacred oil "over him" and applying it to his forehead over the eyes "after the form of the Greek X" (Edersheim, "The Temple, Its Ministry and Service at the Time of Jesus Christ", 71). No age is specified, and thus youth was no impediment to the appointment by Herod of Aristobulus to the high-priesthood, though the latter was in his seventeenth year (Josephus, "Antiq.", XV, iii, 3). Josephus gives a list of eighty-three high-priests from Aaron to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans (Ant., XX, x). They were in the beginning chosen for life, but later removed at will by the secular power (Jos., "Ant.", XV, iii, 1; XX, x), so that "the numbers of the high-priests from the days of Herod until the day when Titus took the Temple and the city, and burnt them, were in all twenty-eight; the time also that belonged to them was one hundred and seven years" (Jos., "Ant.", XX, x). Thus one-third of the high-priests of fifteen centuries lived within the last century of their history: they had become the puppets of the temporal rulers. The frequency of change in the office is hinted at by St. John (xi, 51), where he says that Caiphas was "the high-priest of that year". Solomon deposed Abiathar for having supported the cause of Adonias, and gave the high-priesthood to Sadoc (III Kings, ii, 27, 35): then the last of Heli's family was cast out, as the Lord had declared to Heli long before (I Kings, ii, 32). It seems strange, therefore, that Josephus (Ant., XV, iii, 1) states that Antiochus Epiphanes was the first to depose a high-priest. It may be that he regarded Abiathar and Sadoc as holding the office conjointly, since Abiathar "the priest" and Sadoc "the priest" were both very prominent in David's reign (III Kings, i, 34; I Par., xvi, 39, 40). Josephus may have considered the act of Solomon the means of a return to unity; moreover, in the same section where he mentions the change, he says that Sadoc was high-priest in David's reign (Ant., VIII, i, 3), and adds "the king [Solomon] also made Zadok to be alone the high-priest" (Ant., VIII, i, 4). Shortly before the destruction of the Temple by the Romans the zealots chose by lot a mere rustic named Phannias as the last high-priest: thus the high-priesthood, the city and the Temple passed away together (Josephus, "Bell. Jud.", IV, iii, 8). The prominence of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple need not lead to the conclusion that the king officiated also as priest on the occasion. Smith ("Ency. Bib.", s. v. Priest) maintains this, and that the kings of Juda offered sacrifice down to the Exile, alleging in proof such passages as III Kings, ix, 25; but since priests are mentioned in this same book, for instance, viii, 10, 11 such inference is not reasonable. As Van Hoonacker shows, the prominence of the secular power in the early history of the people and the apparent absence of even the high-priest during the most sacred functions, as well as the great authority possessed by him after the Exile, do not warrant the conclusion of Wellhausen that the high-priesthood was known only in post-Exilic times. That such a change could have taken place and could have been introduced into the life of the nation and so easily accepted as a Divine institution is hardly probable. We have, however, undoubted references to the high-priest in pre-Exilic texts (IV Kings, xi; xii; xvi, 10; xxii; xxiii, etc.) which Buhl ("The New Schaff-Herzog Ency. of Religious Knowledge", s. v. High Priest) admits as genuine, not interpolations, as some think, by which the "later office may have had a historic foreshadowing". We see in them proofs of the existence of the high-priesthood, not merely its "foreshadowing". Then too the title "the second priest" in Jer., lii, 24, where the high-priest also is mentioned, is a twofold witness to the same truth; so that though, as Josephus tells us (Ant., XX, x), in the latter years of the nation's history "the high-priests were entrusted with a dominion over the nation" and thus became, as in the days of the sacerdotal Machabees, more conspicuous than in early times, yet this was only an accidental lustre added to an ancient and sacred office. In the New Testament (Matt., ii, 4; Mark, xiv, 1, etc.) where reference is made to chief priests, some think that these all had been high-priests, who having been deposed constituted a distinct class and had great influence in the Sanhedrin. It is clear from John, xviii, 13, that Annas, even when deprived of the pontificate, took a leading part in the deliberations of that tribunal. Schürer holds that the chief priests in the New Testament were ex-high-priests and also those who sat in the council as members and representatives of the privileged families from whom the high-priests were chosen (The Jewish People, Div. II, V. i, 204-7), and Maldonatus, in Matt., ii, 6, cites II Par., xxxvi, 14, showing that those who sat in the Sanhedrin as heads of priestly families were so styled. The high-priest alone might enter the Holy of Holies on the day of atonement, and even he but once a year, to sprinkle the blood of the sin-offering and offer incense: he prayed and sacrificed for himself as well as for the people (Lev., xvi). He likewise officiated "on the seventh days and new moons" and annual festivals (Jos., "Bell. Jud.", V, v, 7). He might marry only a virgin "of his own people", though other priests were allowed to marry a widow; neither was it lawful for him to rend his garments nor to come near the dead even if closely related (Lev., xxi, 10-14; cf. Josephus, "Ant.", III, xii, 2). It belonged to him also to manifest the Divine will made known to him by means of the urim and thummim, a method of consulting the Lord about which we have very little knowledge. Since the death of the high-priest marked an epoch in the history of Israel, the homicides were then allowed to return home from the city where they had found a refuge from vengeance (Num., xxxv, 25, 28). The typical character of the high-priest is explained by St. Paul (Heb., ix), where the Apostle shows that while the high-priest entered the "Holy of Holies" once a year with the blood of victims, Christ, the great high-priest, offered up His own blood and entered into Heaven itself, where He "also maketh intercession for us" (Rom., viii, 34; see Piconio, "Trip. Expos. in Heb.", ix). In addition to what other priests wore while exercising their sacred functions the high-priest put on special golden robes, so called from the rich material of which they were made. They are described in Ex., xxviii, and each high-priest left them to his successor. Over the tunic he put a one piece violet robe, trimmed with tassels of violet, purple, and scarlet (Joseph., III, vii, 4), between the two tassels were bells which rang as he went to and from the sanctuary. Their mitres differed from the turbans of the ordinary priests, and had in front a golden plate inscribed "Holy to the Lord" (Ex., xxviii, 36). Josephus describes the mitre as having a triple crown of gold, and adds that the plate with the name of God which Moses had written in sacred characters "hath remained to this very day" (Ant., VIII, iii, 8; III, vii, 6). In a note to Whiston's Josephus (Ant., III, vii, 6) the later history of the plate is given, but what became of it finally is not known. The precious vestments of the high-priest were kept by Herod and by the Romans, but seven days before a festival they were given back and purified before use in any sacred function (Jos., "Ant.", XVIII, iv, 3). On the day of atonement, according to Lev., xvi, 4, the high-priest wore pure linen, but Josephus says he wore his golden vestments (Bell. Jud., V, v, 7), and to reconcile the two Edersheim thinks that the rich robes were used at the beginning of the ceremony and changed for the linen vestments before the high-priest entered the Holy of Holies (The Temple, p.270). For additional information concerning the vestments and ornaments of the high-priest see EPHOD, ORACLE, PECTORAL, URIM AND THUMMIM. SchÜrer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, II, I 195-207; also GrÄtz and other historians; Josephus, passim; Smith, Dict. of the Bible, s. v. High-Priest; Edersheim, The Temple, Its Ministry and Service at the Time of Jesus Christ, 57-79; da Hoonacker, Le sacerdoce lÈvitique (1899), 317-83; Smith in Ency. Bib., s. v., Priest, gives the radical view; Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament (1906), 180-90, refutes Wellhausen and others of the radical school. JOHN J. TIERNEY Priesthood Priesthood The word priest (Germ. Priester; Fr. prêtre; Ital. prete) is derived from the Greek presbyteros (the elder, as distinguished from neoteros, the younger), and is, in the hieratical sense, equivalent to the Latin sacerdos, the Greek iereus, and the Hebrew kahane. By the term is meant a (male) person called to the immediate service of the Deity and authorized to hold public worship, especially to offer sacrifice. In many instances the priest is the religious mediator between God (gods) and man and the appointed teacher of religious truths, especially when these include esoteric doctrines. To apply the word priest to the magicians, prophets, and medicine-men of the religions of primitive peoples is a misuse of the term. The essential correlative of priesthood is sacrifice, consequently, mere leaders in the public prayers or guardians of shrines have no claim to the title priest. Our subject may be conveniently treated under four heads: I. The Pagan Priesthood; II. The Jewish Priesthood; III. The Christian Priesthood; IV. The Blessings arising from the Catholic Priesthood. I. THE PAGAN PRIESTHOOD A. Historically the oldest of pagan religions, the most fully developed, and the most deeply marked by vicissitude is that of India. Four divisions, distinct in history and nature, are recognizable: Vedism, Brahminism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Even in the ancient Vedic hymns a special priesthood is distinguishable, for although originally the father of the family was also the offerer of sacrifice, he usually sought the co-operation of a Brahmin. From the essential functions of praying and singing during the sacrifice arose in Vedism the three classes of sacrificing (adhvariu), singing (udgâtar), and praying priests (hotar). The four categories of soldier, priest, artisan or farmer, and slave developed formally in later Brahminism into the four rigidly distinguished castes (Dahlmann), the Brahmins meanwhile forging ahead of the soldiers to the position of chief importance. The Brahmins alone understood the intricate and difficult sacrificial ceremonial; thanks to their great knowledge and sacrifices, they exercised an irresistible influence over the gods; a pantheistic explanation of the god Brahma invested them with a divine character. The Brahmin was thus a sacred and inviolable person, and to murder him the greatest sin. Brahminism has wrongly been compared with medieval Christianity (cf. Teichmüller, "Religionsphilosophie", Leipzig, 1886, p. 528). In the Middle Ages there was indeed a priviliged priesthood, but not an hereditary priestly caste; then as now the lowest classes could attain to the highest ecclesiastical offices. Still less justified, in view of the pantheistic character of the Brahminic religion, are all attempts to trace a genetic connection between the Catholic and Indian priesthoods, since the monotheistic spirit of Catholicism and the characteristic organization of its clergy are irreconcilable with a pantheistic conception of the Deity and the unsocial temper of a caste system. The same remarks apply with even greater force to Buddhism which, through the reform introduced by King Asoka (239-23 B.C.), forced Brahminism into the background. As this reform inaugurated the reign of Agnosticism, Illusionism, and a one-sided morality, the Brahminic priesthood, with the decay of the ancient sacrificial services, lost its raison d'être. If there be no eternal substance, no Ego, no immortal soul, no life beyond, the idea of a God, of a Redeemer, of a priesthood forthwith disappears. The Buddhist redemption is merely an ascetical self-redemption wrought by sinking into the abyss of nothingness (Nirvana). The bonzes are not priests in the strict sense; nor has Buddhist monasticism anything beyond the name in common with Christian monasticism. Modern zealots for Buddhism declare with increasing boldness since Schopenhauer, that what they chiefly desire is a religion without dogma and without an alien redeemer, a service without a priesthood. It will therefore perhaps appear all the more extraordinary that Buddhism, in consequence of the efforts of the reformer Thong-Kaba, has developed in Tibet a formal hierarchy and hierocracy in Lamaism (Lama=Brahma). The monasticism and the religious services of Lamaism also present so striking a similarity with Catholic institutions that non-Catholic investigators have unhesitatingly spoken of a "Buddhist Catholicism" in Tibet. Pope and dalai-lama, Rome and the city of Lhasa are counterparts; Lamaism has its monasteries, bells, processions, litanies, relics, images of saints, holy water, rosary-beads, biship's mitre, crosier, vestments, copes, baptism, confession, mass, sacrifice for the dead. Nevertheless, since it is the interior spirit that gives a religion its characteristic stamp, we can recognize in these externals, not a true copy of Catholicism, but only a wretched caricature. And, since this religious compound undoubtedly came into existence only in the fourteenth century, it is evident that the remarkable parallelism is the result of Catholic influence on Lamaism, not vice versa. We can only suppose that the founder Thong-Kaba was educated by a Catholic missionary. Of modern Hinduism, Schanz draws a gloomy picture: "In addition to Vishnu and Siva, spirits and demons are worshipped and feared. The River Ganges is held in special veneration. The temples are often built near lakes because to all who bathe there Brahma promises forgiveness of sin. Beasts (cows), especially snakes, trees, and lifeless objects, serve as fetishes. Their offerings consist of flowers, oil, incense, and food. To Siva and his spouse bloody sacrifices are also offered. Nor are idolatry and prostitution wanting" ("Apologie d. Christentums", Freiburg, 1905, II, 84 sq.). B. In the kindred but ethically superior religion of the Iranians (Parseeism, Zoroastrianism, Mazdeism), which unfortunately never overcame the theological dualism between the good god (Ormuzd=Athura-Mazda) and the wicked anti-god (Ahriman=Angrô-Mainyu), there existed from the beginning a special priestly caste, which in the Avesta (q.v.) was divided into six classes. The general name for priest was âthravan (man of fire), and the chief duty of the priesthood was the fire-service, fire being the special symbol of Ormuzd, the god of light. After the destruction of the Persian monarchy only two categories of priests remained: the officiating (zoatar, jôtî) and the ministering (rathwi). Both were later succeeded by the Median magicians (magus), called in modern Parseeism mobed (from mogh-pati, magic-father). In addition to the maintenance of the sacred fire, the duties of the priests were the offering of sacrifices (flesh, bread, flowers, fruit), the performance of purifications, prayers, and hymns, and instructing in the holy law. Sacrificial animals were placed on a bundle of twigs in the open air, lest the pure earth should be defiled with blood. The human sacrifices, customary from time immemorial, were abolished by Zoroaster (Zarathustra). In ancient times the fire-altars were placed in the open air, and preferably on the mountains, but the modern Parsees have special fire-temples. The haoma, as the oldest sacrifice, calls for particular mention; manufactured out of the narcotic juice of a certain plant and used as a drink-offering, it was identified with the Deity Himself and given to the faithful as a means of procuring immortality. This Iranian haoma is doubtlessly identical with the Indian soma, the intoxicating juice of which (asclepias acida or sacrostemma acidum) was supposed to restore to man the immortality lost in Paradise (see EUCHARIST). When, during the reign of the Sassanides, Mithras the sun-god -- according to the later Avesta, high-priest and mediator between god and man -- had gradually supplanted the creative god Ormuzd, Persian Mithra-worship held the field almost unopposed; and under the Roman Empire it exerted an irresistible influence on the West (see MASS). C. To turn to classical antiquity, Greece never possessed an exclusive priestly caste, although from the Dorian-Ionian period the public priesthood was regarded as the privilege of the nobility. In Homer the kings also offer sacrifices to the gods. Public worship was in general undertaken by the State, and the priests were state officials, assigned as a rule to the service of special temples. The importance of the priesthood grew with the extension of the mysteries, which were embodied especially in the Orphic and Eleusinian cults. Sacrifices were always accompanied with prayers, for which as the expression of their religious sentiments the Greeks showed a special preference. But among no people in the world were religion, sacrifice, and the priesthood to such an extent the business of the State as among the ancient Romans. At the dawn of their history, their legendary kings (e.g. Numa) are themselves the sacrificial priests. Under the Republic, the priestly office was open only to the patricians until the Lex Ogulina (about 300 B.C.) admitted also the plebeians. As the special object of Roman sacrifice was to avert misfortune and win the favour of the gods, divination played in it from the earliest times an important role. Hence the importance of the various classes of priests, who interpreted the will of the gods from the flight of birds or the entrails of the beasts of sacrifice (augures, haruspices). There were many other categories: pontifices, flamines, fetiales, luperci, etc. During imperial times the emperor was the high-priest (pontifex maximus). D. According to Tacitus, the religion of the ancient Germans was a simple worship of the gods, without images; their services took place, not in temples, but in sacred groves. The priests, if one may call them such, were highly respected, and possessed judicial powers, as the Old High German word for priest, êwarte (guardians of justice), shows. But a far greater influence among the people was exercised by the Celtic priests or druids (Old Irish, drui, magician). Their real home was Ireland and Britain, whence they were transplanted to Gaul in the third century before Christ. Here they appear as a priestly caste, exempt from taxes and military service; they constitute with the nobility the ruling class, and by their activity as teachers, judges, and physicians become the representatives of a higher religious, moral, and intellectual culture. The druids taught the existence of Divine providence, the immortality of the soul, and transmigration. They appear to have had images of the gods and to have offered human sacrifices -- the latter practice may have come down from a much earlier period. Their religious services were usually held on heights and in oak-groves. After the conquest of Gaul the druids declined in popular esteem. E. The oldest religion of the Chinese is Sinism, which may be characterized as "the most perfect, spiritualistic, and moral Monotheism known to antiquity outside of Judea" (Schanz). It possessed no distinct priesthood, the sacrifices (animals, fruits, and incense) being offered by state officials in the name of the ruler. In this respect no alteration was made by the reformer Confucius (sixth century B.C.), although he debased the concept of religion and made the almost deified emperor "the Son of Heaven" and the organ of the cosmic intellect. In direct contrast to this priestless system Laotse (b. 604 B.C.), the founder of Taoism (tao, reason), introduced both monasticism and a regular priesthood with a high-priest at its head. From the first century before Christ, these two religions found a strong rival in Buddhism, although Confucianism remains even today the official religion of China. The original national religion of the Japanese was Shintoism, a strange compound of nature-, ancestor-, and hero-worship. It is a religion without dogmas, without a moral code, without sacred writings. The Mikado is a son of the Deity, and as such also high-priest; his palace is the temple -- it was only in much later times that the Temple of Ise was built. About A.D. 280 Confucianism made its way into Japan from China, and tried to coalesce with the kindred Shintoism. The greatest blow to Shintoism, however, was struck by Buddhism, which entered Japan in A.D. 552, and, by an extraordinary process of amalgamation, united with the old national religion to form a third. This fusion is known as Rio-bu-Shinto. In the Revolution of 1868, this composite religion was set aside, and pure Shintoism declared the religion of the State. In 1877 the law establishing this situation was repealed, and in 1889 general religious freedom was granted. The various orders of rank among priests had been abolished in 1879. F. With the ancient religion of the Egyptians the idea of the priesthood was inseparably bound up for many thousand years. Though the ruler for the time being was nominally the only priest, there had developed even in the ancient kingdom (from about 3400 B.C.) a special priestly caste, which in the middle kingdom (from about 2000 B.C.), and still more in the late kingdom (from about 1090 B.C.), became the ruling class. The great attempt at reform by King Amenhotep IV (died 1374 B.C.), who tried to banish all gods except the sun-god from the Egyptian religion and to make sun-worship the religion of the State, was thwarted by the opposition of the priests. The whole twenty-first dynasty was a family of priest-kings. Although Moses, learned as he was in the wisdom of the Egyptians, may have been indebted to an Egyptian model for one or two external features in his organization of Divine worship, he was, thanks to the Divine inspiration, entirely original in the establishment of the Jewish priesthood, which is based on the unique idea of Jahweh's covenant with the Chosen People (cf. "Realencyklopädie für protest. Theologie", XVI, Leipzig, 1905, 33). Still less warranted is the attempt of some writers on the comparative history of religions to trace the origin of the Catholic priesthood to the Egyptian priestly castes. For at the very time when this borrowing might have taken place, Egyptian idolatry had degenerated into such loathsome animal-worship, that not only the Christians, but the pagans themselves turned away from it in disgust (cf. Aristides, "Apol.", xii; Clement of Alexandria, "Cohortatio", ii). G. In the religion of the Semites, we meet first the Babylonian-Assyrian priests, who, under the name "Chaldeans", practiced the interpretation of dreams and the reading of the stars and conducted special schools for priests, besides performing their functions in connection with the sacrifices. Hence their division into various classes: sacrificers (nisakku), seers (bârû), exorcist (asipu) etc. Glorious temples with idols of human and hybrid form arose in Assyria, and (apart from the obligatory cult of the stars) served for astrological and astronomical purposes. Among the Syrians the cruel, voluptuous cult of Moloch and Astarte found its special home, Astarte especially (Babylonian, Ishtar) being known to the ancients simply as the "Syrian Goddess" (Dea Syria). Likewise among the semitized Phoenicians, Amonites, and Philistines these ominous deities found special veneration. Howling and dancing priests sought to appease the bloodthirsty Moloch by sacrifices of children and self-mutilation, as the analogous Galh strove to pacify the Phrygian goddess Cybele. The notorious priests of Baal of the Chanaanites were for the Jews as strong an incentive to idolatry as the cult of Astarte was a temptation to immorality. The south-Semitic religion of the ancient pagan Arabians was a plain religion of the desert without a distinct priesthood: modern Islam or Mohammedanism has a clergy (muezzin, announcer of the hours of prayer; imâm, leader of the prayers; khâtib, preacher), but no real priesthood. The west-Semitic branch of the Hebrews is treated in the next section. II. THE JEWISH PRIESTHOOD In the age of the Patriarchs the offering of sacrifices was the function of the father or head of the family (cf. Gen., viii, 20; xii, 7, etc.; Job, i, 5). But, even before Moses, there were also regular priests, who were not fathers of family (cf. Ex., xix, 22 sqq.). Hummelauer's hypothesis "Das vormosaische Priestertum in Israel", Freiburg, 1899) that this pre-Mosaic priesthood was established by God Himself and made hereditary in the family of Manasses, but was subsequently abolished in punishment of the worship of the golden calf (cf. Ex., xxxii, 26 sqq.), can hardly be scientifically established (cf. Rev. bibl. internat., 1899, pp. 470 sqq.). In the Mosaic priesthood we must distinguish: priests, Levites, and high-priest. A. Priests It was only after the Sinaitical legislation that the Israelitic priesthood became a special class in the community. From the tribe of Levi Jahweh chose the house of Aaron to discharge permanently and exclusively all the religious functions; Aaron himself and later the first-born of his family was to stand at the head of this priesthood as high-priest, while the other Levites were to act, not as priests, but as assistants and servants. The solemn consecration of the Aaronites to the priesthood took place at the same time as the anointing of Aaron as high-priest and with almost the same ceremonial (Ex., xxix, 1-37; xl, 12 sqq.; Lev., viii, 1-36). This single consecration included that of all the future descendants of the priests, so that the priesthood was fixed in the house of Aaron by mere descent, and was thus hereditary. After the Babylonian Exile strict genealogical proof of priestly descent was even more rigidly demanded, and any failure to furnish the same meant exclusion from the priesthood (I Esd., ii, 61 sq.; II Esd., vii, 63 sq.). Certain bodily defects, of which the later Talmudists mention 142, were also a disqualification from the exercise of the priestly office (Lev., xxi, 17 sqq.). Age limits (twenty and fifty years) were also appointed (II Par., xxxi, 17); the priests were forbidden to take to wife a harlot or a divorced woman (Lev., xxi, 7); during the active discharge of the priesthood, marital intercourse was forbidden. In addition to an unblemished earlier life, levitical cleanness was also indispensable for the priesthood. Whoever performed a priestly function in levitical uncleanness was to be expelled like one who entered the sanctuary after partaking of wine or other intoxicating drinks (Lev., x, 9; xxii, 3). To incur an uncleanness "at the death of his citizens", except in the case of immediate kin, was rigidly forbidden (Lev., xxi, 1 sqq.). In cases of mourning no outward signs of sorrow might be shown (e.g. by rending the garments). On entering into their office, the priests had first to take a bath of purification (Ex., xxix, 4; xl, 12), be sprinkled with oil (Ex., xxix, 21; Lev., viii, 30), and put on the vestments. The priestly vestments consisted of breeches, tunic, girdle, and mitre. The breeches (feminalia linea) covered from the reins to the thighs (Ex., xxviii, 42). The tunic (tunica) was a kind of coat, woven in a special manner from one piece; it had narrow sleeves, extended from the throat to the ankles, and was brought together at the throat with bands (Ex., xxviii, 4). The girdle (balteus) was three or four fingers in breadth and (according to rabbinic tradition) thirty-two ells long; it had to be embroidered after the same pattern and to be of the same colour as the curtain of the forecourt and the tabernacle of the covenant (Ex., xxxix, 38). The official vestments were completed by the mitre (Ex., xxxix, 26), a species of cap of fine linen. As nothing is said of foot-covering, the priests must have performed the services barefooted as Jewish tradition indeed declares (cf. Ex., iii, 5). These vestments were prescribed for use only during the services; at other times they were kept in an appointed place in charge of a special custodian. For detailed information concerning the priestly vestments, see Josephus, "Antiq.", III, vii, 1 sqq. The official duties of the priests related partly to their main occupations, and partly to subsidiary services. To the former category belonged all functions connected with the public worship, e.g. the offering of incense twice daily (Ex., xxx, 7), the weekly renewal of the loaves of proposition on the golden table (Lev., xxiv, 9), the cleaning and filling of the oil-lamps on the golden candlestick (lev., xxiv, 1). All these services were performed in the sanctuary. There were in addition certain functions to be performed in the outer court -- the maintenance of the sacred fire on the altar for burnt sacrifices (Lev., vi, 9 sqq.), the daily offering of the morning and evening sacrifices, especially of the lambs (Ex., xxix, 38 sqq.). As subsidiary services the priests had to present the cursed water to wives suspected of adultery (Num., v, 12 sqq.), sound the trumpets announcing the holy-days (Num., x, 1 sqq.), declare the lepers clean or unclean (Lev., xiii-xiv; Deut., xxiv, 8; cf. Matt., viii, 4), dispense from vows, appraise all objects vowed to the sanctuary (Lev., xxvii), and finally offer sacrifice for those who broke the law of the Nazarites, i.e. a vow to avoid all intoxicating drinks and every uncleanness (especially from contact with a corpse) and to let one's hair grow long (Num., vi, 1-21). The priests furthermore were teachers and judges; not only were they to explain the law to the people (Lev., x, 11; Deut., xxxiii, 10) without remuneration (Mich., iii, 11) and to preserve carefully the Book of the Law, of which a copy was to be presented to the (future) king (Deut., xvii, 18), but they had also to settle difficult lawsuits among the people (Deut., xvii, 8; xix, 17; xxi, 5). In view of the complex nature of the liturgical service, David later divided the priesthood into twenty-four classes or courses, of which each in turn, with its eldest member at its head, had to perform the service from one Sabbath to the next (IV Kings, xi, 9; cf. Luke, i, 8). The order of the classes was determined by lot (I Par., xxiv, 7 sqq.). The income of the priests was derived from the tithes and the firstlings of fruits and animals. To these were added as accidentals the remains of the food, and guilt-oblations, which were not entirely consumed by fire; also the hides of the animals sacrificed and the natural products and money vowed to God (Lev., xxvii; Num., viii, 14). With all these perquisites, the Jewish priests seem never to have been a wealthy class, owing partly to the increase in their numbers and partly to the large families which they reared. But their exalted office, their superior education, and their social position secured them great prestige among the people. In general, they fulfilled their high position worthily, even though they frequently merited the stern reproof of the Prophets (cf. Jer., v, 31; Ezech., xxii, 26; Os., vi, 9; Mich., iii, 11; Mal., i, 7). With the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in A.D. 70 the entire sacrificial service and with it the Jewish priesthood ceased. The later rabbis never represent themselves as priests, but merely as teachers of the law. B. Levites in the Narrow Sense It has been said above that the real priesthood was hereditary in the house of Aaron alone, and that to the other descendants of Levi was assigned a subordinate position as servants and assistants of the priests. The latter are the Levites in the narrow sense. They were divided into the families of the Gersonites, Caathites, and Merarites (Ex., vi, 16; Num., xxvi, 57), so named after Levi's three sons, Gerson, Caath, and Merari (cf. Gen., xlvi, 11; I Par., vi, 1). As simple servants of the priests, the Levites might not enter the sanctuary, nor perform the real sacrificial act, especially the sprinkling of the blood (aspersio sanguinis). This was the privilege of the priests (Num., xviii, 3, 19 sqq.; xviii, 6). The Levites had however to assist the latter during the sacred services, prepare the different oblations and keep the sacred vessels in proper condition. Among their chief duties was the constant guarding of the tabernacle with the ark of the covenant; the Gersonites were encamped towards the west, the Caathites towards the south, the Merarites towards the north, while Moses and Aaron with their sons guarded the holy tabernacle towards the east (Num., iii, 23 sqq.). When the tabernacle had found a fixed home in Jerusalem, David created four classes of Levites: servants of the priests, officials and judges, porters, and finally musicians and singers (I Par., xxiii, 3 sqq.). After the building of the Temple by Solomon the Levites naturally became its guardians (I Par., xxvi, 12 sqq.). When the Temple was rebuilt Levites were established as guards in twenty-one places around (Talmud; Middoth, I, i). In common with the priests, the Levites were also bound to instruct the people in the Law (II Par., xvii, 8; II Esd., viii, 7), and they even possessed at times certain judicial powers (II Par., xix, 11). They were initiated into office by a rite of consecration: sprinkling with the water of purification, shaving of the hair, washing of the garments, offering of sacrifices, imposition of the hands of the eldest (Num., viii, 5 sqq.). As to the age of service, thirty years was fixed for the time of entrance and fifty for retirement from office (Num., iv, 3; I Par., xxiii, 24; I Esd., iii, 8). No special vestments were prescribed for them in the Law; in the time of David and Solomon the bearers of the ark of the covenant and the singers wore garments of fine linen (I Par., xv, 27; II Par., v, 12). At the division of the Promised Land among the Twelve Tribes, the tribe of Levi was left without territory, since the Lord Himself was to be their portion and inheritance (cf. Num., xviii, 20; Deut., xii, 12; Jos., xiii, 14). In compensation, Jahweh ceded to the Levites and priests the gifts of natural products made by the people, and other revenues. The Levites first received the tithes of fruits and beasts of the field (Lev., xxvii, 30 sqq.; Num., xviii, 20 sq.), of which they had in turn to deliver the tenth part to the priests (Num., xviii, 26 sqq.). In addition, they had a share in the sacrificial banquets (Deut., xii, 18) and were, like the priests, exempt from taxes and military service. The question of residence was settled by ordering the tribes endowed with landed property to cede to the Levites forty-eight Levite towns, scattered over the land, with their precincts (Num., xxxv, 1 sqq.); of these, thirteen were assigned to the priests. After the division of the monarchy into the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Juda, many Levites from the northern portion removed to the Kingdom of Juda, which remained true to the Law, and took up their abode in Jerusalem. After the Northern Kingdom had been chastised by the Assyrian deportation in 722 B.C., the Southern Kingdom was also overthrown by the Babylonians in 606 B.C., and numbers of the Jews, including many Levites, were hurried away into the "Babylonian exile". Only a few Levites returned to their old home under Esdras in 450 (cf. I Esd., ii, 40 sqq.). With the destruction of the Herodian Temple in A.D. 70 the doom of the Levites was sealed. C. The High-priest At Jahweh's command Moses consecrated his brother Aaron first high-priest, repeated the consecration on seven days, and on the eighth day solemnly introduced him into the tabernacle of the covenant. The consecration of Aaron consisted in washings, investment with costly vestments, anointing with holy oil, and the offerings of various sacrifices (Ex., xxix). As a sign that Aaron was endowed with the fullness of the priesthood, Moses poured over his head the oil of anointing (Lev., viii, 12), while the other Aaronites, as simple priests, had only their hands anointed (Ex., xxix, 7, 29). The high-priest was for the Jews the highest embodiment of theocracy, the monarch of the whole priesthood, the special mediator between God and the People of the Covenant, and the spiritual head of the synagogue. He was the priest par excellence, the "great priest" (Greek, archiereus), the "prince among the priests", and, because of the anointing of his head, the "anointed priest". To this exalted office corresponded his special and costly vestments, worn in addition to those of the simple priests (Ex., xxviii). A (probably sleeveless) purple-blue upper garment (tunica) fell to his knees, the lower seam being ornamented alternately with small golden bells and pomegranates of coloured thread. About the shoulders he also wore a garment called the ephod; this was made of costly material, and consisted of two portions about an ell long, which covered the back and breast, were held together above by two shoulderbands or epaulets, and terminated below with a magnificent girdle. Attached to the ephod in front was the shield (rationale), a square bag bearing on the outside the names of the twelve tribes engraved on precious stones (Ex., xxviii, 6), and containing within the celebrated Urim and Thummim (q.v.) as the means of obtaining Divine oracles and prophecies. The vestments of the high-priest were completed by a precious turban (tiara), bearing on a golden frontal plate the inscription: "Sacred to Jahweh". The high-priest had supreme supervision of the Ark of the Covenant (and of the Temple), of Divine service in general and of the whole personnel connected with public worship. He presided at the Sanhedrin. He alone could perform the liturgy on the Feast of Expiation, on which occasion he put on his costly vestments only after the sacrifices were completed. He alone might offer sacrifice for his own sins and those of the people (Lev., iv, 5), enter the holy of holies (sanctum sanctorum), and seek counsel of Jahweh on important occasions. The office of high-priest in the house of Aaron was at first hereditary in the line of his first-born son Eleazar, but in the period from Heli to Abiathar (1131 to 973 B.C.) it belonged, by right of primogeniture, to the line of Ithamar. Under the rule of the Seleucidæ (from about 175 B.C.) the office was sold for money to the highest bidder. At a later period it became hereditary in the family of the Hasmon. With the destruction of the central sanctuary by the Romans, the high-priesthood disappeared. Against the foregoing account of the Mosaic priesthood, based on the Old Testament, the negative biblical critics of today make a determined stand. According to the hypothesis of Graf-Wellhausen, Moses (about 1250 B.C.) cannot be the author of the Pentateuch. He was not the Divinely appointed legislator, but simply the founder of Monolatry, for ethical Monotheism resulted from the efforts of much later Prophets. Deuteronomy D made its appearance in substance in 621 B.C., when the astute high-priest Helkias by a pious fraud palmed off on the god-fearing King Josias the recently composed "Book of the Laws" D as written by Moses (cf. IV Kings, xxii, 1 sqq.) When Esdras returned to Jerusalem from the Babylonian Exile about 450 B.C., he brought back the "Book of the Rutual" or the priest's codex P, i.e., the middle portions between Genesis and Deuteronomy, composed by himself and his school in Babylon, although it was only in 444 B.C. that he dared to make it public. A clever editor now introduced the portions relating to public worship into the old, pre-Exilic historical books, and the entirely new idea of an Aaronic priesthood and of the centralization of the cult was projected back to the time of Moses. The story of the tabernacle of the covenant is thus a mere fiction, devised to represent the Temple at Jerusalem as established in fully developed form at the dawn of Israelitic history and to justify the unity of worship. Although this hypothesis does not contest the great antiquity of the Jewish priesthood, it maintains that the centralization of the cult, the essential difference between priests and Levites, the supreme authority of the priests of the Temple at Jerusalem as compared with the so-called hill-priests (cf. Ezech., xliv, 4 sqq.), must be referred to post-Exilic times. Without entering upon a detailed criticism of these assertions of Wellhausen and the critical school (see PENTATEUCH), we may here remark in general that the conservative school also admits or can admit that only the original portion of the Pentateuch is to be accepted as Mosaic, that in the same text many repetitions seem to have been brought together from different sources, and finally that additions, extensions, and adaptations to new conditions by an inspired author of a later period are by no means excluded. It must also be admitted that, though one place of worship was appointed, sacrifices were offered even in early times by laymen and simple Levites away from the vicinity of the Ark of the Covenant, and that in restless and politically disturbed epochs the ordinance of Moses could not always be observed. In the gloomy periods marked by neglect of the Law, no attention was paid to the prohibition of hill-sacrifices, and the Prophets were often gratified to find that on the high places (bamoth) sacrifice was offered, not to pagan gods, but to Jahweh. However, the Pentateuch problem is one of the most difficult and intricate questions in Biblical criticism. The Wellhausen hypothesis with its bold assumptions of pious deceits and artificial projections is open to as great, if not greater, difficulties and mysteries as the traditional view, even though some of its contributions to literary criticism may stand examination. It cannot be denied that the critical structure has suffered a severe shock since the discovery of the Tell-el-Amarna letters dating from the fifteenth century B.C., and since the deciphering of the Hammurabi Code. The assumption that the oldest religion of Israel must have been identical with that of the primitive Semites (Polydæmonism, Animism, Fetishism, Ancestor-worship) has been proved false, since long before 2000 B.C. a kind of Henotheism, i.e., Polytheism with a monarchical head was the ruling religion in Babylon. The beginnings of the religions of all peoples are purer and more spiritual than many historians of religions have hitherto been willing to admit. One thing is certain: the final word has not yet been spoken as to the value of the Wellhausen hypothesis. III. THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD In the New Testament bishops and priests are, according to Catholic teaching, the sole bearers of the priesthood, the former enjoying the fullness of the priesthood (summus sacerdos s. primi ordinis), while the presbyters are simple priests (simplex sacerdos s. secundi ordinis). The deacon, on the other hand, is a mere attendant of the priest, with no priestly powers. Omitting all special treatment of the bishop and the deacon, we here confine our attention primarily to the presbyterate, since the term "priest" without qualification is now taken to signify the presbyter. A. The Divine Institution of the Priesthood According to the Protestant view, there was in the primitive Christian Church no essential distinction between laity and clergy, no hierarchical differentiation of the orders (bishop, priest, deacon), no recognition of pope and bishops as the possessors of the highest power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church or over its several territorial divisions. On the contrary, the Church had at first a democratic constitution, in virtue of which the local churches selected their own heads and ministers, and imparted to these their inherent spiritual authority, just as in the modern republic the "sovereign people" confers upon its elected president and his officials administrative authority. The deeper foundation for this transmission of power is to be sought in the primitive Christian idea of the universal priesthood, which excludes the recognition of a special priesthood. Christ is the sole high-priest of the New Testament, just as His bloody death on the Cross is the sole sacrifice of Christianity. If all Christians without exception are priests in virtue of their baptism, an official priesthood obtained by special ordination is just as inadmissible as the Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass. Not the material sacrifice of the Eucharist, consisting in the offering of (real) gifts, but only the purely spiritual sacrifice of prayer harmonizes with the spirit of Christianity. One is indeed forced to admit that the gradual corruption of Christianity began very early (end of first century), since it cannot be denied that Clement of Rome (Ep. ad Cor., xliv, 4), the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didache, xiv), and Tertullian (De bapt., xvii; "De præsc. hær.", xli; "De exhort. cast.", vii) recognize an official priesthood with the objective Sacrifice of the Mass. The corruption quickly spread throughout the whole East and West, and persisted unchecked during the Middle Ages, until the Reformation finally succeeded in restoring to Christianity its original purity. Then "the idea of the universal priesthood was revived; it appeared as the necessary consequence of the very nature of Christianity. . . . Since the whole idea of sacrifice was discarded, all danger of reversion to the beliefs once derived from it was removed" ("Realency cl. für prot. Theol.", XVI, Leipzig, 1905, p. 50). To these views we may answer briefly as follows. Catholic theologians do not deny that the double "hierarchy of order and jurisdiction" gradually developed from the germ already existing in the primitive Church, just as the primacy of the pope of Rome and especially the distinction of simple priests from the bishops was recognized with increasing clearness as time advanced (see HIERARCHY). But the question whether there was at the beginning a special priesthood in the Church is altogether distinct. If it is true that "the reception of the idea of sacrifice led to the idea of the ecclesiastical priesthood" (loc. cit., p. 48), and that priesthood and sacrifice are reciprocal terms, then the proof of the Divine origin of the Catholic priesthood must be regarded as established, once it is shown that the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass is coeval with the beginnings and the essence of Christianity. In proof of this we may appeal even to the Old Testament. When the Prophet Isaias foresees the entrance of pagans into the Messianic Kingdom, he makes the calling of priests from the heathen (i.e. the non-Jews) a special characteristic of the new Church (Is., lxvi, 21): "And I will take of them to be priests and Levites, saith the Lord". Now this non-Jewish (Christian) priesthood in the future Messianic Church presupposes a permanent sacrifice, namely that "clean oblation", which from the rising of the sun even to the going down is to be offered to the Lord of hosts among the Gentiles (Mal., i, 11). The sacrifice of bread and wine offered by Melchisedech (cf. Gen., xiv, 18 sqq.), the prototype of Christ (cf. Ps. cix, 4; Heb., v, 5 sq.; vii, 1 sqq.), also refers prophetically, not only to the Last Supper, but also to its everlasting repetition in commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross (see MASS). Rightly, therefore, does the Council of Trent emphasize the intimate connection between the Sacrifice of the Mass and the priesthood (Sess. XXIII, cap. i, in Denzinger, "Enchiridion", 10th ed., 957): "Sacrifice and priesthood are by Divine ordinance so inseparable that they are found together under all laws. Since therefore in the New Testament the Catholic Church has received from the Lord's institution the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist it must also be admitted that in the Church there is a new, visible and external priesthood into which the older priesthood has been changed." Surely this logic admits of no reply. It is, then, all the more extraordinary that Harnack should seek the origin of the hierarchical constitution of the Church, not in Palestine, but in pagan Rome. Of the Catholic Church he writes: "She continues ever to govern the peoples; her popes lord it like Trajan and Marcus Aurelius. To Romulus and Remus succeeded Peter and Paul; to the proconsuls the archbishops and bishops. To the legions correspond the hosts of priests and monks; to the imperial bodyguard the Jesuits. Even to the finest details, even to her judicial organization, nay even to her very vestments, the continued influence of the ancient empire and of its institutions may be traced" ("Das Wesen d. Christentums", Leipzig, 1902, p. 157). With the best of good will, we can recognize in this description only a sample of the writer's ingenuity, for an historical investigation of the cited institutions would undoubtedly lead to sources, beginnings, and motives entirely different from the analogous conditions of the Empire of Rome. But the Sacrifice of the Mass indicates only one side of the priesthood; the other side is revealed in the power of forgiving sin, for the exercise of which the priesthood is just as necessary as it is for the power of consecrating and sacrificing. Like the general power to bind and to loose (cf. Matt., xvi, 19; xviii, 18), the power of remitting and retaining sins was solemnly bestowed on the Church by Christ (cf. John, xx, 21 sqq.). Accordingly, the Catholic priesthood has the indisputable right to trace its origin in this respect also to the Divine Founder of the Church. Both sides of the priesthood were brought into prominence by the Council of Trent (loc. cit., n. 961): "If any one shall say that in the New Testament there is no visible and external priesthood nor any power of consecrating and offering the Body and Blood of the Lord, as well as of remitting and retaining sins, but merely the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, let him be anathema." Far from being an "unjustifiable usurpation of Divine powers", the priesthood forms so indispensable a foundation of Christianity that its removal would entail the destruction of the whole edifice. A Christianity without a priesthood cannot be the Church of Christ. This conviction is strengthened by consideration of the psychological impossibility of the Protestant assumption that from the end of the first century onward, Christendom tolerated without struggle or protest the unprecedented usurpation of the priests, who without credentials or testimony suddenly arrogated Divine powers with respect to the Eucharist, and, on the strength of a fictitious appeal to Christ, laid on baptized sinners the grievous burden of public penance as an indispensable condition of the forgiveness of sin. As for the "universal priesthood", on which Protestantism relies in its denial of the special priesthood, it may be said that Catholics also believe in a universal priesthood; this, however, by no means excludes a special priesthood but rather presupposes its existence, since the two are related as the general and the particular, the abstract and the concrete, the figurative and the real. The ordinary Christian cannot be a priest in the strict sense, for he can offer, not a real sacrifice, but only the figurative sacrifice of prayer. For this reason the historical dogmatic development did not and could not follow the course it would have followed if in the primitive Church two opposing trains of thought (i.e. the universal versus the special priesthood) had contended for supremacy until one was vanquished. The history of dogma attests, on the contrary, that both ideas advanced harmoniously through the centuries, and have never disappeared from the Catholic mind. As a matter of fact the profound and beautiful idea of the universal priesthood may be traced from Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryph., cxvi), Irenæus, (Adv. hær., IV, viii, 3), and Origen ("De orat.", xxviii, 9; "In Levit.", hom. ix, 1), to Augustine (De civit. Dei, XX, x) and Leo the Great (Sermo, iv, 1), and thence to St. Thomas (Summa, III, Q. lxxxii, a. 1) and the Roman Catechism. And yet all these writers recognized, along with the Sacrifice of the Mass, the special priesthood in the Church. The origin of the universal priesthood extends back, as is known, to St. Peter, who declares the faithful, in their character of Christians, "a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices", and "a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood" (I Peter, ii, 5, 9). But the very text shows that the Apostle meant only a figurative priesthood, since the "spiritual sacrifices" signify prayer and the term "royal" (regale, basileion) could have had but a metaphorical sense for the Christians. The Gnostics, Montanists, and Catharists, who, in their attacks on the special priesthood, had misapplied the metaphor, were just as illogical as the Reformers, since the two ideas, real and figurative priesthood, are quite compatible. It is clear from the foregoing that the Catholic clergy alone are entitled to the designation "priest", since they alone have a true and real sacrifice to offer, the Holy Mass. Consequently, Anglicans who reject the Sacrifice of the Mass are inconsistent, when they refer to their clergy as "priests". The preachers in Germany quite logically disclaim the title with a certain indignation. B. The Hierarchical Position of the Presbyterate The relation of the priest to the bishop and deacon may be briefly explained by stating that he is, as it were, the middle term between the two, being hierarchically the subordinate of the bishop and the superior of the deacon (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXVI, can. vi). While the pre-eminence of the bishop over the priest consists mainly in his power of ordination, that of the priest over the deacon is based on his power of consecrating and absolving (cf. Council of Trent, loc. cit., cap. iv; can. i and vii). The independence of the diaconate appears earlier and more clearly in the oldest sources than that of the priesthood, chiefly because of the long-continued fluctuation in the meaning of the titles episcopus and presbyter, which until the middle of the second century were interchangeable and synonymous terms. Probably there was a reason in fact for this uncertainty, since the hierarchical distinction between bishop and priest seems to have been of gradual growth. Epiphanius (Adv. hær., lxxv, 5) offered an explanation of this condition of uncertainty by supposing that priests were appointed in some places where there was no bishop, while in other places where no candidates for priesthood were found, the people were satisfied with having a bishop, who, however, could not be without a deacon. Cardinal Franzelin ("De eccles. Christi", 2nd ed., Rome, 1907, thes. xvi) gives good grounds for the opinion that in the Bible bishops are indeed named presbyter, but simple priests are never called episcopi. The problem is, however, far from being solved, since in the primitive Church there were not yet fixed names for the different orders; the latter must rather be determined from the context according to the characteristic functions discharged. The appeal to the usage of the pagan Greeks, who had their episkopoi and presbyteroi, does not settle the question, as Ziebarth ("Das griechische Vereinswesen", Leipzig, 1896) has shown in reply to Hatch and Harnack. Any attempt at a solution must take into account the varying use in different countries (e.g. Palestine, Asia Minor). In some places the "presbyters" may have been real bishops, in others priests in the present meaning of the term, while elsewhere they may have been mere administrative officers or worthy elders chosen to represent the local church in its external relations (see HIERARCHY OF THE EARLY CHURCH). Like the Apostolic writings, the "Didache", Hermas, Clement of Rome, and Irenæus often use the terms "bishop" and "priest" indiscriminately. In fact, it is really a moot question whether the presbyterate gradually developed as an offshoot of the episcopate--which is in the nature of things more likely and in view of the needs of the growing Church more readily understood--or whether, conversely, the episcopate had its origin in the elevation of the presbyterate to a higher rank (Lightfoot), which is more difficult to admit. On the other hand, even at the beginning of the second century, Ignatius of Antioch (Ep. ad Magnes., vi and passim) brings out with remarkable clearness the hierarchical distinction between the monarchical bishop, the priests, and the deacons. He emphasizes this triad as essential to the constitution of the Church: "Without these [three] it cannot be called the Church" (Ad Trall., iii). But, according to the law of historic continuity, this distinction of the orders must have existed in substance and embryo during the first century; and, as a matter of fact, St. Paul (I Tim., v, 17, 19) mentions "presbyters" who were subordinate to the real bishop Timothy. But in the Latin writers there is no ambiguity. Tertullian (De bapt., xvii) calls the bishop the "summus sacerdos", under whom are the "presbyteri et diaconi"; and Cyprian (Ep. lxi, 3) speaks of the "presbyteri cum episcopo sacerdotali honore conjuncti", i.e. the priests united by sacerdotal dignity with the bishop (see BISHOP). About 360, after the development of the orders had long been complete, Aërius of Pontus first ventured to obliterate the distinction between the priestly and episcopal orders and to place them on an equality with respect to their powers. For this he was ranked among the heretics by Epiphanius (Adv. hær., lxxv, 3). The testimony of St. Jerome (d. 420), whom the Scottish Presbyterians cite in behalf of the presbyteral constitution of the Church, raises some difficulties, as he appears to assert the full equality of priests and bishops. It is true that Jerome endeavoured to enhance the dignity of the priesthood at the expense of the episcopate and to refer the bishop's superiority "rather to ecclesiastical custom than to Divine regulation" (In Tit., i, 5: "Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicæ veritate presbyteris esse majores"). He desired a more democratic constitution in which the priests hitherto undeservedly slighted would participate, and he urged the correction of the abuse, widespread since the third century, by which the archdeacons, as the "right hand" of the bishops, controlled the whole diocesan administration (Ep. cxliv ad Evangel.). It is at once evident that Jerome disputes not the hierarchical rank (potestas ordinis) of the bishops but their powers of government (potestas jurisdictionis)--and this not so much in principle, but only to insist that the deacons should be dislodged from the position they had usurped and the priests established in the official position befitting their higher rank. How far Jerome was from being a follower of Aërius and a forerunner of Presbyterianism appears from his important admission that the power of ordination is possessed by the bishops alone, and not by the priests (loc. cit. in P.L., XXII, 1193: "Quid enim facit--excepta ordinatione--episcopus quod presbyter non faciat?"). By this admission Jerome establishes his orthodoxy. C. The Sacramentality of the Presbyterate The Council of Trent decreed (Sess. XXIII, can. iii, in Denzinger, n. 963): "If any one shall say that order or sacred ordination is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord. . .let him be anathema." While the synod defined only the existence of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, without deciding whether all the orders or only some fall within the definition, it is admitted that the priestly ordination possesses with even greater certainty than the episcopal and the diaconal ordination the dignity of a sacrament (cf. Benedict XIV, "De syn. dioces.", VIII, ix, 2). The three essentials of a sacrament--outward sign, interior grace, and institution by Christ--are found in the priestly ordination. As regards the outward sign, there has been a long-protracted controversy among theologians concerning the matter and form, not alone of the priestly ordination, but of the Sacrament of Holy Orders in general. Is the imposition of hands alone (Bonaventure, Morin, and most modern theologians), or the presentation of the instruments (Gregory of Valencia, the Thomists), or are both together (Bellarmine, De Lugo, Billot etc.) to be regarded as the essential matter of the sacrament? As to the priestly ordination in particular, which alone concerns us here, the difference of views is explained by the fact that, in addition to three impositions of hands, the rite includes a presentation to the candidate of the chalice filled with wine, and of the paten with the host. Concerning the latter Eugenius IV says expressly in his "Decretum pro Armenis" (1439; in Denzinger, n. 701): "The priesthood is conferred by the handing of the chalice containing wine and of the paten with bread." However, in view of the fact that in the Bible (Acts, xiii, 3; xiv, 22; I Tim., iv, 14; v, 22; II Tim., i, 6), in all patristic literature, and in the whole East the imposition of hands alone is found, while even in the West the presentation of the sacred vessels does not extend back beyond the tenth century, we are forced to recognize theoretically that the latter ceremony is unessential, like the solemn anointing of the priest's hands, which is evidently borrowed from the Old Testament and was introduced from the Gallican into the Roman Rite (cf. "Statuta ecclesiæ antiquæ" in P.L., LVI, 879 sqq.). In defence of the anointing, the Council of Trent condemned those who declared it "despicable and pernicious" (Sess. XXXIII, can. v). As regards the sacramental form, it may be accepted as probable that the prayer accompanying the second extension of hands (cheirotonia) is the essential form, although it is not impossible that the words spoken by the bishop during the third imposition of hands (cheirothesia): "Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall remit, they are remitted, etc.", constitute a partial form. The first imposition of hands by the bishop (and the priests) cannot be regarded as the form, since it is performed in silence, but it also may have an essential importance in so far as the second extension of hands is simply the moral continuation of the first touching of the head of the ordinandus (cf. Gregory IX, "Decret.", I, tit. xvi, cap. III). The oldest formularies--e.g. the "Euchologium" of Serapion of Thmuis (cf. Funk, "Didascalia", II, Tübingen, 1905, 189), the "Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions" (Funk, loc. cit., I, 520), the lately discovered "Testament of the Lord" (ed. Rahmani, Mainz, 1899, p. 68), and the Canons of Hippolytus (ed. Achelis, Leipzig, 1891, p. 61)--contain only one imposition of hands with a short accompanying prayer. In the eleventh century the Mozarabic Rite is still quite simple (cf. "Monum. liturg.", V, Paris, 1904, pp. 54 sq.), while, on the contrary, the Armenian Rite of the Middle Ages shows great complexity (cf. Conybeare-Maclean, "Rituale Armenorum", Oxford, 1905, pp. 231 sqq.). In the Greek-Byzantine Rite, the bishop, after making three signs of the cross, places his right hand on the head of the ordinandus, meanwhile reciting a prayer, and then, praying in secret, holds the same hand extended above the candidate, and invokes upon him the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost (cf. Goar, "Euchol. Græc.", Paris, 1647, pp. 292 sqq.). For other formularies of ordination see Denzinger, "Ritus Orientalium", II (Würzburg, 1864); Manser in Buchberger, "Kirchliches Handlexikon", s.v. Priesterweihe. As a sacrament of the living, ordination presupposes the possession of sanctifying grace, and therefore confers, besides the right to the actual graces of the priestly office, an increase of sanctifying grace (cf. "Decret. pro Armenis" in Denzinger, n. 701). But in all cases, whether the candidate is in the state of sanctifying grace or not, the sacrament imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual mark (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. VII, can. ix, in Denzinger, n. 852), i.e. the priestly character, to which are permanently attached the powers of consecrating and absolving--the latter, however, with the reservation that for the valid administration of the Sacrament of Penance the power of jurisdiction is also required (see CHARACTER). As the priestly character, like that imparted by baptism and confirmation, is indelible, ordination can never be repeated, and a return to the lay state is absolutely impossible (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, can. iv, in Denzinger, n. 964). That priestly ordination was instituted by Christ is proved not alone by the Divine institution of the priesthood (see above, A), but also by the testimony of Holy Writ and Tradition, which unanimously testify that the Apostles transmitted their powers to their successors, who in turn transmitted them to the succeeding generation (cf. I Tim., v, 22). Since the charismatic gifts of the "apostles and prophets" mentioned in the "Didache" had nothing to do with the priesthood as such, these itinerant missionaries still needed the imposition of hands to empower them to discharge the specifically priestly functions (see CHARISMATA). For the valid reception of the Sacrament of Orders, it is necessary that the minister be a bishop and the recipient a baptized person of the male sex. The first requisite is based on the episcopal prerogative of ordaining; the second on the conviction that baptism opens the door to all the other sacraments and that women are definitively barred from the service of the altar (cf. Epiphanius, "De hær.", lxxix, 2). St. Paul is a resolute champion of an exclusively male priesthood (cf. I Cor., xiv, 34). In this respect there is an essential difference between Christianity and Paganism, since the latter recognizes priestesses as well as priests--e.g. the hierodules of Ancient Greece, the vestal virgins of Rome, the bajaders of India, the wu of China, and the female bonzes of Japan. The early Church condemned as an absurdity the female priesthood of Montanism and of the Collyridiani, and it never regarded the Apostolic institute of deaconesses as a branch of Holy orders. For the licit reception of priestly ordination, canon law demands: freedom from every irregularity, completion of the twenty-fourth year, the reception of the earlier orders (including the diaconate), the observation of the regular interstices, and the possession of a title to ordination. In addition to the requisites for the valid and lawful reception of the priesthood the question arises as to the personal worthiness of the candidate. According to earlier canon law this question was settled by three ballots (scrutinia); it is now decided by official examination and certification. One of the most important means of securing worthy candidates for the priesthood is careful inquiry regarding vocations. Intruders in the sanctuary have at all times been the occasion of the greatest injury to the Church, and of scandal to the people. For this reason, Pope Pius X, with even greater strictness than was shown in previous ecclesiastical regulations, insists upon the exclusion of all candidates who do not give the highest promise of a life conspicuous for firmness of faith and moral rectitude. In this connection the importance and necessity of colleges and ecclesiastical seminaries for the training of the clergy cannot be too strongly emphasized. D. The Official Powers of the Priest As said above, the official powers of the priest are intimately connected with the sacramental character, indelibly imprinted on his soul. Together with this character is conferred, not only the power of offering up the Sacrifice of the Mass and the (virtual) power of forgiving sins, but also authority to administer extreme unction and, as the regular minister, solemn baptism. Only in virtue of an extraordinary faculty received from the pope is a priest competent to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation. While the conferring of the three sacramental orders of the episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate, pertains to the bishop alone, the pope may delegate a priest to administer the four minor orders, and even the subdiaconate. According to the present canon law, however, the papal permission granted to abbots of monasteries is confined to the conferring of the tonsure and the four minor orders on their subjects (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII de Ref., cap. x). Concerning the privilege of conferring the diaconate, claimed to have been given to Cistercian abbots by Innocent VIII in 1489, see Gasparri, "De sacr. ordin.", II (Paris, 1893), n. 798, and Pohle, "Dogmatik", III (4th ed., Paderborn, 1910), pp. 587 sqq. To the priestly office also belongs the faculty of administering the ecclesiastical blessings and the sacramentals in general, in so far as these are not reserved to the pope or bishops. By preaching the Word of God the priest has his share in the teaching office of the Church, always, however, as subordinate to the bishop and only within the sphere of duty to which he is assigned as pastor, curate, etc. Finally, the priest may participate in the pastoral duty in so far as the bishop entrusts him with a definite ecclesiastical office entailing a more or less extensive jurisdiction, which is indispensable especially for the valid absolution of penitents from their sins. Certain external honorary privileges, e.g. those enjoyed by cardinal-priests, prelates, ecclesiastical councillors, etc., do not enhance the intrinsic dignity of the priesthood. IV. WHAT THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD HAS DONE FOR CIVILIZATION Passing entirely over the supernatural blessings derived by mankind from the prayers of the priesthood, the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice, and the administration of the sacraments, we shall confine ourselves to the secular civilization, which, through the Catholic priesthood, has spread to all nations and brought into full bloom religion, morality, science, art, and industry. If religion in general is the mother of all culture, Christianity must be acknowledged as the source, measure, and nursery of all true civilization. The Church, the oldest and most successful teacher of mankind, has in each century done pioneer service in all departments of culture. Through her organs, the priests and especially the members of the religious orders, she carried the light of Faith to all lands, banished the darkness of paganism, and with the Gospel brought the blessings of Christian morality and education. What would have become of the countries about the Mediterranean during the epoch of the migration of the nations (from 375) if the popes, bishops, and clergy had not tamed the German hordes, converted them from Arianism to Catholicism, and out of barbarism evolved order? What Ireland owes to St. Patrick, England owes to St. Augustine, who, sent by Pope Gregory the Great, brought not only the Gospel, but also a higher morality and culture. While the light of Christianity thus burned brightly in Ireland and Britain, part of Germany was still shrouded in the darkness of paganism. Bands of missionaries from the Island of Saints now brought to the continent the message of salvation and established new centres of culture. Charlemagne's great work of uniting all the German tribes into an empire was only the glorious fruit of the seed sown by St. Boniface of Certon (d. 755) on German soil and watered with the blood of martyrs. The Church of the Middle Ages, having now attained to power, continued through her priests to propagate the Gospel in pagan lands. It was missionaries who first brought to Europe news of the existence of China. In 1246 three Franciscans, commissioned by the pope, appeared in audience before the emperor of the Mongols; in 1306 the first Christian church was built in Peking. From the Volga to the Desert of Gobi, the Franciscans and Dominicans covered the land with their missionary stations. In the sixteenth century the zeal of the older orders was rivalled by the Jesuits, among whom St. Francis Xavier must be accorded a place of honour; their achievements in the Reductions of Paraguay are as incontestable as their great services in the United States. As for the French colonies in America, the American historian Bancroft declares that no notable city was founded, no river explored, no cape circumnavigated, without a Jesuit showing the way. Even if Buckle's one-sided statement were true, viz. that culture is not the result of religion, but vice versa, we could point to the work of Catholic missionaries, who are striving to lift the savages in pagan lands to a higher state of morality and civilization, and thence to transform them into decent Christians. In the wake of religion follows her inseparable companion, morality; the combination of the two forms is the indispensable preliminary condition for the continuation and vitality of all higher civilization. The decadence of culture has always been heralded by a reign of unbelief and immorality, the fall of the Roman Empire and the French Revolution furnishing conspicuous examples. What the Church accomplished in the course of the centuries for the raising of the standard of morality, in the widest sense, by the inculcation of the Decalogue, that pillar of human society, by promulgating the commandment of love of God and one's neighbour, by preaching purity in single, married, and family life, by waging war upon superstition and evil customs, by the practice of the three counsels of voluntary poverty, obedience, and perfect purity, by holding out the "imitation of Christ" as the ideal of Christian perfection, the records of twenty centuries plainly declare. The history of the Church is at once the history of her charitable activity exercised through the priesthood. There have indeed been waves of degeneracy and immorality sweeping at times even to the papal throne, and resulting in the general corruption of the people, and in apostasy from the Church. The heroic struggle of Gregory VII (d. 1085) against the simony and incontinence of the clergy stands forth as a fact which restored to the stale-grown salt of the earth its earlier strength and flavour. The most wretched and oppressed classes of humanity are the slaves, the poor, and the sick. Nothing is in such harsh contrast to the ideas of human personality and of Christian freedom as the slavery found in pagan lands. The efforts of the Church were at first directed towards depriving slavery of its most repulsive feature by emphasizing the equality and freedom of all children of God (cf. I Cor., vii, 21 sqq.; Philem., 16 sqq.), then towards ameliorating as far as possible the condition of slaves, and finally towards effecting the abolition of this unworthy bondage. The slowness of the movement for the abolition of slavery, which owed its final triumph over the African slave-traders to a crusade of Cardinal Lavigerie (d. 1892), is explained by the necessary consideration of the economic rights of the owners and the personal welfare of the slaves themselves, since a bold "proclamation of the rights of man" would simply have thrown millions of helpless slaves breadless into the streets. Emancipation carried with it the obligation of caring for the bodily needs of the freedmen, and, whenever the experiment was made, it was the clergy who undertook this burden. Special congregations, such as the Trinitarians and the Mercedarians, devoted themselves exculsively to the liberation and ransom of prisoners and slaves in pagan, and especially in Mohammedan lands. It was Christian compassion for the weakly and languishing Indians which suggested to the Spanish monk, Las Casas, the unfortunate idea of importing the strong negroes from Africa to work in the American mines. That his idea would develop into the scandalous traffic in the black race, which the history of the three succeeding centuries reveals, the noble monk never suspected (see SLAVERY). As to the relief of the poor and sick, a single priest, St. Vincent de Paul (d. 1660), achieved more in all the branches of this work than many cities and states combined. The services of the clergy in general in the exercise of charity cannot here be touched upon (see CHARITY AND CHARITIES). It may however be noted that the famous School of Salerno, the first and most renowned, and for many centuries the only medical faculty in Europe, was founded by the Benedictines, who here laboured partly as practitioners of medicine, and partly to furnish a supply of skilled physicians for all Europe. Of recent pioneers in the domain of charity and social work may be mentioned the Irish "Apostle of Temperance", Father Theobald Matthew and the German "Father of Journeymen" (Gesellenvater), Kolping. Intimately related with the morally good is the idea of the true and the beautiful, the object of science and art. At all times the Catholic clergy have shown themselves patrons of science and the arts, partly by their own achievements in these fields and partly by their encouragement and support of the work of others. That theology as a science should have found its home among the clergy was but to be expected. However, the whole range of education lay so exclusively in the hands of the priesthood during the Middle Ages, that the ecclesiastical distinction of clericus (cleric) and laicus (layman) developed into the social distinction of educated and ignorant. But for the monks and clerics the ancient classical literature would have been lost. A medieval proverb ran: "A monastery without a library is a castle without an armory." Hume, the philosopher and historian, says: "It is rare that the annals of so uncultivated a people as were the English as well as the other European nations, after the decline of Roman learning, have been transmitted to posterity so complete and with so little mixture of falsehood and fable. This advantage we owe entirely to the clergy of the Church of Rome, who, founding their authority on their superior knowledge, preserved the precious literature of antiquity from a total extinction" (Hume, "Hist. of England", ch. xxiii, Richard III). Among English historians Gildas the Wise, Venerable Bede, and Lingard form an illustrious triumvirate. The idea of scientific progress, first used by Vincent of Lerins with reference to theology and later transferred to the other sciences, is of purely Catholic origin. The modern maxim, "Education for all", is a saying first uttered by Innocent III. Before the foundation of the first universities, which also owed their existence to the popes, renowned cathedral schools and other scientific institutions laboured for the extension of secular knowldge. The father of German public education is Rhabanus Maurus. Of old centres of civilization we may mention among those of the first rank Canterbury, the Island of Iona, Malmesbury, and York in Great Britain; Paris, Orléans, Corbie, Cluny, Chartres, Toul, and Bec in France; Fulda, Reichenau, St. Gall, and Corvey in Germany. The attendance at these universities conducted by clergymen during the Middle Ages awakens one's astonishment: in 1340 the University of Oxford had no less than 30,000 students, and in 1538, when the German universities were almost deserted, about 20,000 students, according to Luther, flocked to Paris. The elementary schools also, wherever they existed, were conducted by priests. Charlemagne had already issued the capitulary "Presbyteri per villas et vicos scholas habeant et cum summa charitate parvulos doceant", i.e. The priests shall have schools in the towns and hamlets and shall teach the children with the utmost devotion. The art of printing was received by the whole Church, from the lowest clergy to the pope, as a "holy art". Almost the whole book production of the fifteenth century aimed at satisfying the taste of the clergy for reading, which thus furthered the development of the book trade. Erasmus complained: "The booksellers declare that before the outbreak of the Reform they disposed of 3000 volumes more quickly than they now sell 600" (see Döllinger, "Die Reformation, ihre innere Entwickelung u. ihre Wirkungen", I, Ratisbon, 1851, p. 348. Early Humanism, strongly encouraged by Popes Nicholas V and Leo X, numbered among its enthusiastic supporters many Catholic clerics, such as Petrarch and Erasmus; the later Humanistic school, steeped in paganism, found among the Catholic priesthood, not encouragement, but to a great extent determined opposition. Spain's greatest writers in the seventeenth century were priests: Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Calderon, etc. At Oxford in the thirteenth century, by their skill in the natural sciences the Franciscans acquired celebrity and the Bishop Grosseteste exercised great influence. The friar, Roger Bacon (d. 1249), was famous for his scientific knowledge, as were also Gerbert of Rheims, afterwards Pope Silvester II, Albertus Magnus, Raymond Lully, and Vincent of Beauvais. Copernicus, canon of Thorn, is the founder of modern astronomy, in which even to the present day the Jesuits especially (e.g. Scheiner, Clavius, Secchi, Perry) have rendered important services. For the first geographical chart or map we are indebted to Fra Mauro of Venice (d. 1459). The Spanish Jesuit, Hervas y Panduro (d. 1809), is the father of comparative philology; the Carmelite, Paolino di san Bartolomeo, was the author of the first Sanskrit grammar (Rome, 1790). The foundation of historical criticism was laid by Cardinal Baronius (d. 1607), the monks of St. Maur, and the Bollandists. A study of the history of art would reveal a proportionately great number of the apostles of the beautiful in art among the Catholic clergy of all centuries. From the paintings in the catacombs to Fra Angelico and thence to the Beuron school we meet numerous priest, less indeed as practicing artists than as Mæcenases of art. The clergy have done much to justify what the celebrated sculptor Canova wrote to Napoleon I: "Art is under infinite obligations to religion, but to none so much as the Catholic religion." The basis on which higher culture finds its secure foundation is material or economic culture, which, in spite of modern technics and machinery, rests utimately on labour. Without the labourer's energy, which consists in the power and the will to work, no culture whatever can prosper. But the Catholic priesthood more than any other professional body has praised in word and proved by deed the value and blessing of the labour required in agriculture, mining, and the handicrafts. The curse and disdain, which paganism poured on manual labour, were removed by Christianity. Even an Aristotle (Polit., III, iii) could anathematize manual labour as "philistine", the humbler occupations as "unworthy of a free man". To whom are we primarily indebted in Europe for the clearing away of the primitive forests, for schemes of drainage and irrigation, for the cultivation of new fruits and crops, for the building of roads and bridges, if not to the Catholic monks? In Eastern Europe the Basilians, in Western the Benedictines, and later the Cistercians and Trappists, laboured to bring the land under cultivation, and rendered vast districts free from fever and habitable. Mining and foundries also owe their development, and to some extent their origin, to the keen economic sense of the monasteries. To place the whole economic life of the nations on a scientific foundation, Catholic bishops and priests early laid the basis of the science of national economy--e.g. Duns Scotus (d. 1308), Nicholas Oresme, Bishop of Lisieux (d. 1382), St. Antoninus of Florence (d. 1459), and Gabriel Biel (d. 1495). The Church and clergy have therefore truly endeavoured to carry out in every sphere and in all centuries the programme which Leo XIII in his famous Encyclical "Immortale Dei" of 1 Nov., 1885, declared the ideal of the Catholic Church: "Imo inertiæ desidiæque inimica [Ecclesia] magnopere vult, ut hominum ingenia uberes ferant exercitatione et cultura fructus". The "flight from the world", with which they are so constantly reproached, or the "hostility to civilization", which we hear so often echoed by the ignorant, have never prevented the Church or her clergy from fulfilling their calling as a civilizing agency of the first order, and thus refuting all slanders with the logic of facts. PAGAN PRIESTHOOD: Of the vast literature only a few fundamental works can be cited: General Works: MöLLER, Physical Religion (London, 1891); IDEM, Anthropological Relig. (London, 1892); IDEM, The Books of the East (Oxford, 1879-94); LIPPERT, Alligemeine Geschichte des Priestertums (2 vols., Berlin, 1883); DE LA SAUSSAYE, Lehrbuch der Religionsgesch. (2 vols., Freiburg, 1905); VOLLERS, Die Weltreligionen in ihrem geschichtl. Zusammenhang (Jena. 1907). Concerning the Indian priesthood: ASMUS, Die indogerman. Religion in den Hauptpunkten ihrer Entwickelung (2 vols., Leipzig, 1875-7); BARTH, Les religions de l'Inde (Paris, 1880); LAOUENAN, Du brahmanisme et ses rapports avec le judaïsme et le christianisme (Paris, 1888); MONIER-WILLIAMS, Brahmanism and Hinduism (London, 1891); OLDENBURG, Die Religion des Veda (Leipzig, 1894); HOPKINS, The Religions of India (London, 1895); HARDY, Die vedisch-brahman. Peroide des alten Indiens (1893); IDEM, Indische Religionsgesch. (1898); MACDONELL, Vedic Mythology (London, 1897); HILLEBRANDT, Ritual-Literatur, ved. Opfer u. Zauber (Leipzig, 1897); DAHLMANN, Der Idealismus der. ind. Religionsphilos. im Zeitalter der Opfermystik (Freiburg, 1901); DILGER, Die Erlösung des Menschen nach Hinduismus u. Christentum (1902); ROUSSELL, La religion védique (Paris, 1909). On Buddhism: COPLESTON, Buddhism primitive and present in Magadha and in Ceylon (London, 1893); WADDELL, B. of Tibet (London, 1895); DAVIDS, Buddhism, its History and Literature (London, 1896); KERN, Manual of Indian B. (London, 1898); AIKEN, The Dhamma of Gotama, the Buddha and the Gospel of Jesus the Christ (New York, 1900); SMITH, Asoka, the Buddhist Emperor of India (London, 1902); HARDY, König Asoka (1902); IDEM, Buddha (1903); SILBERNAGL, Der Buddhismus, seine Entstehung, Fortbildung u. Verbreitung (1903); SCHULTZE, Der B. als Religion der Zukunft (2nd ed., 1901); FREYDANK, Buddha u. Christus, eine Apologetik (1903); WECKER, Lamaismus u. Katholicismus (1910). On the Iranians: DARMESTETER, Ormuzd et Ahriman, leurs origines et leur histoire (Paris, 1877); SPIEGEL, Eranische Altertumskunde, II (1878); DE HARLEZ, Origines du zorastrisme (Paris, 1879); CASARTELLI, La philosophie religeuse du mazdéisme sous les Sassanides (Louvain, 1884); MENANT, Les Parses, Hist. des communautés zorastriennes de l'Inde (Paris, 1898); GASQUET, Essai sur le culte et les mystères de Mithra (Paris, 1899); JACKSON, Zoraster, the Prophet of Ancient India (New York, 1899); CUMONT, les mystères de Mithra (2nd ed., Paris, 1902; tr. London, 1903). Concerning the Greeks and Romans: REICHEL, Ueber vorhellenische Kulte (1897); GRUPPE, Griechische, Mythologie u. Religionsgesch. (Munich, 1897-1906); JENTSCH, Hellenentum u. Christentum (1903); BEURLIER, Le culte rendu aux empereurs romains (Paris, 1890); WISSOWA, Relig. u. Kultus d. Römer (1903). Concerning the Celts and Germans: BERTRAND, La religion des Gaulois (Paris, 1897); DE LA SAUSSAYE, The Religions of the Teutons (London, 1902); DOTTIN, La religion des Celtes (Paris, 1904); GRUPP, Die Kultur der alten Kelten u. Germanen (1904); ANWYL, Celtic Religion in Pre-Christian Times (London, 1906). On the Chinese and Japanese: DE HARLEZ, Les religions de la Chine (Brussels, 1901); DVORAK, Chinas Religionen (Leipzig, 1895-1903); MUNZINGER, Die Japaner (1898); HAAS, Gesch. des Christentums in Japan (Berlin, 1902). On the Egyptians: WIEDEMANN, Die Religion der alten Aegypter (1890); BRUGSCH, Aegyptologie (1891); SAYCE, The Religion of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia (London, 1892); BUDGE, The Gods of the Egyptians, (London, 1894); HEYES, Bibel u. Aegypten (1904); OTTO, Priester u. Tempel im hellenistischen Aegypten (2 vols., 1905-8); ERMAN, Die ägyptische Religion (2nd ed., Berlin, 1909). Concerning the Semites: LENORMANT, La magie chez les Chaldéens (Paris, 1871); LAGRANGE, Sur les religions sémitiques (Paris, 1903); SCHRADER, Die Keilinschriften u. das Alte Testament (3rd ed., 1903); SCHRANK, Babylonische Sühneriten mit Rücksicht auf Priester u. Büsser (1908); VINCENT, Canaan (Paris, 1907). JEWISH PRIESTHOOD: On the general question:--LIGHTFOOT, Ministerium templi in Opp., I (Rotterdam, 1699), 671 sqq.; UGOLINI, Thesaur. antiquit. sacrarum, IX, XII-XIII (Rome, 1748-52); BéHR, Symbolik des mosaischen Kultus (2 vols., Heidelberg, 1839; 2nd ed., 1 vol., 1874); KöPER, Das Priestertum des Alten Bundes (Leipzig, 1866); SCHOLZ, Die heiligen Altertümer des Volkes Israel (2 vols., Ratisbon, 1868); IDEM, Götzendienst u. Zauberwesen bei den alten Hebraern (Ratisbon, 1877); SCHéFER, Die religiösen Altertümer der Bibel (2nd ed., 1891); NOWACK, Lehrbuch der hebr. Archäologie (2 vols., Freiburg, 1894); BAUDISSIN, Gesch. des alttest. Priestertums (Berlin, 1892); GIGOT, Outlines of Jewish Hist. (New York, 1897); VAN HOONACKER, Le sacerdoce lévit. dans la Loi et dans l'hist. des Hébreux (Louvain, 1899); SCHöRER, Gesch. des jüd. Volkes im Zeitalter Christi, II (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1898), 224 sqq.; KOBERLE, Die Tempelsänger im Alten Test. (1899). For modern Biblical criticism:--WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena zur Gesch. Israels (Berlin, 1883), tr. BLACK AND MENZIES (Edinburgh, 1885); IDEM, Die Komposition des Hexateuchs u. der geschichtl. Bücher des A.T. (2nd ed., Berlin, 1899); FREY, Tod, Seelenglaube u. Seelenkult im alten Israel (1898); VOGELSTEIN, Der Kampf zwischen Priestern u. Leviten seit den Tagen des Ezechiel (Leipzig, 1899); VAN HOONACKER, Les prêtres et les Lévites dans le livre d'Ezéchiel in Rev. bibl. internat. (1899), 177 sqq.; American Journal of Theol. (1905), 76 sqq.; KENNET, Origin of the Aaronite Priesthood in Journal of Theol. Studies (Jan., 1905); MEYER, Die Israiliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme (Leipzig, 1906). Catholic works:--HUMMELAUER, Das vormosaische Priestertum in Israel (Freiburg, 1899); NIKEL, Wiederherstellung des jüd. Gemeinwesens nach dem babylon. Exil (Freiburg, 1900); DORNSTETTER, Abraham: Studien über die Anfänge des hebr. Volkes (Freiburg, 1902); Zapletal, Alttestamentliches (Freiburg, 1903); NIKEL, Genesis u. Keilschriftforschung (Freiburg, 1903); HOBERG, Moses u. der Pentateuch (Freiburg, 1905); ENGELKEMPER, Heiligtum u. Opferstätten in den Gesetzen des Pentateuch (Münster, 1908); SCHULZ, Doppelberichte im Pentateuch (Freiburg, 1908); PETERS, Die jud. Gemeinde von Elephantine-Syene u. ihr Tempel im 5. Jahrh. v. Christus (Freiburg, 1910). CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD: General Works: ST. THOMAS, Supplem., Q. xxxiv sqq., and the commentators: PETRUS SOTO, De instit. sacerdotum (Dillingen, 1568); HALLIER, De sacris electionibus et ordinationibus ex antiquo et novo jure (Paris, 1636), also in MIGNE, Cursus theol., XXIV; MORIN, Comment. de sacris Ecclesiæ ordinat. (Paris, 1655; Antwerp, 1695); OBERNDORFER, De sacr. ord. (Freising, 1759); among later works consult: KOPPLER, Priester u. Opfergabe (Mainz, 1886); GASPARRI, Tractatus canonicus de sacr. ordinat. (Paris, 1893); SCHANZ, Die Lehre von den Sakramenten d. kathol. Kirche (Freiburg, 1893); GIHR, Die Lehre von den hll. Sakramenten der kathol. Kirche, II (Freiburg, 1903); KLUGE, Die Idee des Priestertums in Israel-Juda u. im Urchristentum (1906); POURRAT, La théologie sacramentaire (Paris, 1907); SALTET, Les réordinations (Paris, 1907). The following are written rather from the ascetical standpoint: OLIER, Traité des saints ordres (7th ed., Paris, 1868); MANNING, The Eternal Priesthood (London, 1883); MERCIER, Retraite pastorale (7th ed., Brussels, 1911). Concerning the alleged pagan influences on the Catholic Sacrifice and priesthood: DOLLINGER, Heidentum u. Judentum (Ratisbon, 1857); HATCH, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, ed. by FAIRBAIRN (lONDON, 1890); ANRICH, Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum (Göttingen, 1894); WOBBERMIN, Religionsgeschichtl. Studien zur Frage der Beeinflussung des Christentums durch das antike Mysterienwesen (Berlin, 1896); CUMONT, Textes et mon. relatifs aux mystères de Mithra (Brussels, 1896-9); ROBERTSON, Christianity and Mythology (London, 1900); CHAPUIS, L'influence de l'essénisme sur les orinines chrét. in Rev. de théol. et philos. (1903), pp. 193 sqq.; CUMONT, The Mysteries of Mithra, tr. McCORMACK (London, 1903); GRILL, Die persische Mysterienreligion u. das Christentum (Leipzig, 1903); DIETERICH, Eine Mithrasliturgie (Leipzig, 1903); BLOTZER, Die heidnischen Mysterien u. die Hellenisierung des Christentums in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (1906), pp. 376 sqq., 500 sqq.; (1907), pp. 37 sqq., 182 sqq.; FEINE, Ueber Babylonische Einflüsse im Neuen Testament in Neue kirchl. Zeitschr. (1906), pp. 696 sqq.; JENSEN, Das Gilgamesch-Epos in der Weltliteratur, I (Strasburg, 1906); WENDLAND, Die hellenisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum u. Christentum (Tübingen, 1907); SOLTAU, Das Fortleben des Heidentums in der altchristl. Kirche (Berlin, 1906); DE JONG, Das antike Mysterienwesen (Leiden, 1909); CLEMEN, Religionsgeschichtl. Erklärung des Neuen Testaments (Giessen, 1909). Concerning the relations between the bishop and priests in the primitive Church consult: KURZ, Der Episkopat der höchste vom Presbyterat verschiedene Ordo (Vienna, 1877); HATCH, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches (2nd ed., London, 1882); SMITH AND CHEETHAM, Dict. of Christ. Antiq., s.v. Priest; SCHULTE-PLASSMAN, Der Episkopat ein vom Presbyterat verschiedener, selbständiger und sakramentaler Ordo (Paderborn, 1883); LONING, Die Gemeindeverfassung des Urchristentums (Halle, 1889), cf. Hist. Jahrb. der Görresgesellschaft, XII (1900), 221 sqq.; SOBKOWSKI, Episkopat und Presbyterat in den ersten christl. Jahrhund. (Würzburg, 1893); GOBET, L'origine divine de l'episcopat (Fribourg, 1898); DUNIN-BORKOWSKI, Die neueren Forschungen über die Anfänge des Episkopats (Freiburg, 1900); MICHIELS, L'origine de l'épiscopat (Louvain, 1900); WEIZSéCKER, Das apostolische Zeitalter der christl. Kirche (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1902); BRUDERS, Die Verfassung der Kirche von den ersten Jahrzehnten der apostolischen Wirksamkeit bis zum Jahre 175 nach Chr. (Mainz, 1904); KNOPF, Das nachapostolische Zeitalter (Leipzig, 1905); BATIFFOL, L'église naissante et le Catholicisme (2nd ed., Paris, 1908); HARNACK, Entstehung und Entwickelung der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts (Leipzig, 1910). For special treatment of the views of St. Jerome, consult: BLONDEL, Apologia pro sententia Hieronymi de episcopis et presbyteris (Amsterdam, 1646); KOENIG, Der katholische Priester vor 1500 Jahren: Priester und Priestertum nach Hieronymus (Breslau, 1890); SANDERS, Etudes sur S. Jérome (Paris, 1903), 296, sqq.; TIXERONT, Hist. des dogmes, II (Paris, 1909). On clerical training see bibliography under SEMINARY. ON THE BENEFITS OF THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD: For the literature of the various branches of ecclesiastical and clerical activity in the furtherance of civilization the special articles must be consulted, e.g., MISSIONS, SCHOOLS, UNIVERSITIES, etc. Only a few works can be here given. General: BALMES, Der Protestantismus verglichen mit dem Katholizismus in seinen Beziehungen zur europäischen Civilisation (Ratisbon, 1844); GUIZOT, Hist. de la civilisation en Europe (Paris, 1840); LACHAUD, La civilisation ou les bienfaits de l'eglise (Paris, 1890); LILLY, Christianity and Modern Civilization (London, 1903); Christ and Civilization, a Survey of the Influence of the Christian Religion upon the Course of Civilization (London, 1910); DEVAS, Key to the World's Progress (2nd ed., London, 1908); HETTINGER, Apologie des Christentums, V (9th ed., Freiburg, 1908); EHRHARD, Kathol. Christentum u. moderne Kultur (2nd ed., Mainz, 1906), (cf.); SADOC SZALO, Ehrhards Schrift etc., ein Beitrag zur Klärung der religiösen Frage der Gegenwart (Graz, 1909); CATHREIN, Die kathol. Weltanschauung in ihren Grundlinien mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Moral (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1910). Special works are: SCHELL, Der Katholizismus als Prinzip des Fortschritts (7th ed., Würzburg, 1909); PESCH, Die soziale Befähigung der Kirche (2nd ed., Berlin, 1897); DE CHAMPAGNY, La charité chrétienne dans les premiers siècles (Paris, 1856); COCHIN, L'abolition de l'esclavage (Paris, 1862); MARGRAF, Christentum u. Sklaverei (1865); RATZINGER, Gesch. der kirchl. Armenpflege (Freiburg, 1868); SCHAUB, Die Kathol. Charitas u. ihre Gegner (Freiburg, 1909); MONTALEMBERT, The Monks of the West (tr. Boston, 1872); WHEWELL, Hist. of the Inductive Sciences (London, 1847); WISEMAN, Science and Religion (London, 1853); MAITRE, Les écoles de l'Occident (Paris, 1858); WEDEWER, Das Christentum u. die Sprachwissenschaft (1867); ROSCHER, Principles of Pol. Economy (tr. New York, 1878); SECRETAN, Civilisation et croyance (Lausanne, 1882); DAHLMANN, Die Sprachkunde u. die Missionen (Freiburg, 1891); LILLY, Christianity and Modern Civilisation (London, 1903); PAULSEN, Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts (2 vols., Berlin, 1896); KNELLER, Christianity and the Leaders of Modern Science (tr. St. Louis, 1911); MöLLER, Nik. Kopernikus. Der Altmeister der neueren Astronomie (Freiburg, 1898); POHLE, P. Angelo Secchi, ein Lebens-u. Kulturbild (2nd ed., Cologne, 1904); WILLMANN, Gesch. des Idealismus (3 vols., Brunswick, 1908); ILGNER, Die volkswirtschaftl. Anschauungen des hl. Antonin von Florenz (Breslau, 1904). J. POHLE Confraternities of Priests Confraternities of Priests Three confraternities of priests -- the Apostolic Union, the Priests' Eucharistic League, the Priests' Communion League -- have reached a stage of unprecedented diffusion throughout the Church and receive special treatment elsewhere in this ENCYCLOPEDIA. Confraternities of a local character form the subject of this article. A confraternity is a society of persons associated for some pious object. The members are linked together by a bond of brotherhood for mutual co-operation in the pursuit of a specific object of religion or charity by means of prayer, example, and counsel. This definition will exclude societies among the clergy formed for purely scientific or literary work. The clergy funds of English dioceses, even though they include certain religious obligations towards the living and the dead, fall outside its limits. The "Societas pro clero defuncto" is a mutual engagement to pray for the deceased clergy of a district; it is an association but not a confraternity. On the other hand the numerous societies of secular clergy in all parts of Spain, called by the name of "Monte-pio", will doubtless, many of them, fall under the title of confraternity, on account of the importance assigned to the duty of visiting the sick brethren and affording them not only material aid but spiritual consolation, and administering to them the sacraments. Two or more of the associates are appointed to visit the sick at least every three days. A confraternity of priests in the strict sense of the word seeks before all else the personal sanctification of its members. Sacerdotal confraternities in different parts of the world present a close family-likeness, their common object being to preserve priests from the dangers of spiritual and social isolation, and to afford them something of that mutual support which belongs to a religious community. "Conjunctæ vires plus valent quam singulæ" is the expression by which the Holy See has recently consecrated the principle. The particular aims of priests' confraternities may be reduced to three: personal holiness, ecclesiastical learning, and mutual financial aid. The first two are universal, the third appears occasionally. The religious exercises almost invariably insisted upon are: the half-hour's meditation, Mass with preparation and thanksgiving of fifteen minutes, visit to the Blessed Sacrament, the devout recitation of the Breviary, rosary, weekly confession, monthly recollection, and biennial retreats. Ecclesiastical learning is understood to comprise the study of those subjects which are proper to the various departments of the ministry, and great importance is attached to associated study by means of conferences and discussions. Financial assistance embraces cases of sickness and old age, as well as loans, medical attendance, and legal advice. I. SPAIN The uncertainty of the position of ecclesiastics under a hostile Government has led to the display of considerable activity, of late years in different parts of Spain, in the establishment of the "Monte-pio", an association for the help of priests in sickness or old age. Such societies are to be found in the Dioceses of Córdova, Madrid-Alcalá (founded 1909), and for the clergy of the cities of Valencia (1897), Toledo (1901), León (1902), Orviedo (1903), Saragossa (1904), Palencia (1905), Astorgia (1906), Urgel (1906), Orense, Salamanca (1907), and in the districts of north Aragon, Ayerbo, and Bolea in Huesca. In Granada there is the "Refugio de San Pedro Nolasco" under the care of the religious of St. John of God for priests who by reason of age or infirmity are ordinarily unable to celebrate Mass. Should there be further accommodation after these have been provided for, priests over sixty years of age who are able to celebrate regularly are also admitted. There is a society of clergy for mutual aid in the Diocese of Majorca (established 1846) and Vitoria (1846), also in the cities of San Sebastian and Guernica; another called "La Providenza" is found in the Diocese of Tarragona. A brotherhood for mutual assistance in case of illness exists among the clergy of the town of Vich (1846) in the Diocese of Barcelona. Masses are said for all deceased members once a year, and for individual members shortly after death. The co-operative society called "The Spanish Clergy Association", established in Ambrona (Soria) for the purchase of provisions, hardly falls within the scope of the present article, nor does the society now being projected in Madrid by Fr. Armendariz for the vindication of the clergy from the calumnies of the anticlerical press. In Ciudad Real, Cadiz, and other dioceses there exists a brotherhood in which each priest prays for his fellow members. At his death his mass-register is shown to the brotherhood, and if it appears that he has faithfully offered Mass for deceased members, each living member offers a Mass for him. The brotherhoods framed upon the type of the "Associación de Sacerdotes del Obispado de Jaén", under the title of Our Lady of Capilla and St. Euphrasius, dedicate their lives to the apostolate of the working-class in any of the forms required by the present social conditions. They teach Christian doctrine in the schools; they distribute wholesome literature; they attract the young to confraternities and the practices of religion; and they are always ready for work in the confessional, so as to make it easy for people to approach the sacraments. They hold a day's retreat every month, during which the charitable duties for the next month are allotted. In case of sickness three of the associates are selected to minister spiritually to the sick brother. The "Venerable Congregación de Sacerdotes de San Felipe Neri y Nuestra Señora de la Presentación" took its rise under the invocation of St. Philip in the parish church of St. James, Valladolid, as early as the year 1645. Later on the members erected the church of the Oratory, where the congregation is now installed, and in 1609 united with the ancient but languishing confraternity of the Presentation. The personal sanctification of the associates, and as a consequence the greater spiritual profit of the faithful, form the objects of the Institute. Priests and clerics in sacred orders are eligible for admission, and on entering take an oath of fidelity to the rules which prescribe certain religious duties and in particular visitation of the sick, attendance at the funerals of the brethren, and prayers for the dead. As a type of other forms may be taken the ancient "Hermandad [Brotherhood] de San Pedro de la Ciudad de Xerez". Its aim is the performance of spiritual and corporal works of mercy. The confraternity supplies a legal adviser and two medical doctors at a low fee; moreover, it also provides decent interment for parents of the brethren, and for sacristans who have assisted the society in its charitable offices. There are likewise brotherhoods of the clergy in Seville, Puerto de S. Maria, in Santucar de Renameda, Carmina, Ecija, and in the principal cities of Andalusia. To these must be added the association of priests entitled "Hermandad de Sacerdotes operarios Diocesanos del Sagrado Corazón de Jesús", founded in 1872 by Manuel Domingo y Sol (died 1909). This association, which has received the approval of the pope, takes charge of the discipline in the seminaries, of which it has several in Spain, one in Mexico, and the Spanish College in Rome, whose late rector, Benjamin D. Miñana, became superior of the society on the death of the founder. II. PORTUGAL A confraternity has existed in Lisbon from the year 1415 with the title of "Veneravel Irmandade dos Clerigos Pobres" under the protection of the Holy Trinity and is now installed in the suppressed convent of St. Martha. It is composed of secular and regular priests and clerics in orders. Its chief works are to render special homage to the Blessed Trinity, to afford spiritual and temporal succour to the brethren, and to aid primary education. In 1887 the brotherhood took up the functions of a benefit society. III. AUSTRIA Austria possesses several confraternities of the clergy. The "Associatio Perseverantiæ Sacerdotalis", founded in 1868 for secular or regular priests, has its seat in Vienna. The aim proposed to members is their sanctification and perseverance. The zealous promotion of devotion to the Sacred Heart is a prominent feature of the association. Much is made of intercourse between members; the anniversary day of ordination is observed with fitting solemnity. The society has a monthly journal called the "Korrespondenz der Associatio" (Vienna). The "Priester-Sodalität zum heiligsten Herzen Jesu" of Botzen was established in 1866. Candidates are admitted after a year's probation. The key-note of the association is personal holiness by the thoughtful and reverent discharge of priestly duties. It supplies a guide to life by fixing a minimum for certain religious exercises likely to be crowded out: thus, meditation, twenty minutes, and when this is impossible its place is to be supplied by spiritual reading or ejaculatory prayer; confession, at least fortnightly; retreat, at least every second year, with three days' recollection other years; preparation for Mass and thanksgiving (fifteen minutes) in the church for example's sake; night prayers with the congregation. Stress is laid on regular application to the studies of the ministry; specialization is encouraged as promoting interest. Other points are: careful preparation of all instructions, zeal in the work of the confessional, special care of talented boys and of neglected children."Der Marianische Kongregation im Priester-seminar" in Brixen has for its object to foster sacerdotal piety among its members and to cultivate the ecclesiastical spirit among the students of the seminary. The means insisted on are a personal devotion to Our Lady, public devotions with sermons twice a month, and mutual admonition. Its journal is the "Priester-Konferenz-Blatt". At Innsbruck there is a confraternity connected with the Jesuit College entitled "Priestergebetsverein", consisting of priests and seminarians in theology. The essential object of the association is to maintain the bonds of spiritual companionship established in the seminary when the young priests leave to take up their pastoral work. The means employed are prayer (particularly associated devotion to the Sacred Heart) and correspondence (the periodical of the confraternity being sent to members, and members writing to the committee at least once a year). IV. FRANCE A peculiar feature of the "Association des Prêtres séculiers du Sacré-Coeur" (Issoudun, France) is its intimate relation with the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, of whose congregation it is the offspring. "Le soutien d'un prêtre, c'est le prêtre" is the principle which has guided the missionaries in founding an association whereby they may co-operate in the sanctification of the secular clergy. The confraternity was founded in 1858, blessed by Pius IX in 1860, and enriched by him with special favours in 1867 and 1874. In 1882 the roll of the association contained 700 names. At that date a journal was inaugurated, to be succeeded three years later by the monthly review entitled "Le Sacré-Coeur". Each member under the advice of his director arranges his rule of life with sufficient detail to forestall omissions and yet with a certain elasticity so as not to interfere with parochial duties [see the "Manuel" (Issoudun), published by the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart]. V. ROME The "Pia Unio S. Pauli Apostoli", established in Rome, may be accepted as an approved type of a priestly association. It dates back to 1797, when it was instituted as a confraternity of priests for the corporal and spiritual assistance of sick brethren. With the co-operation of the laity the good work extended and ultimately embraced the distinct works of fostering vocations to the priesthood, the care of the young on festival days, and the holding of discussions on moral subjects. It was reorganized by Pius X in a decree dated 26 May, 1910, and attached to the church of S. Maria della Pace. The central idea of the association is sanctification by the exercise of the sacred ministry. On the economic side financial aid is given in time of sickness and a loan committee has been projected. Provision is also made for the legal defence of the clergy when this is desirable. VI. UNITED STATES The needs of the teeming, active, and diversified population of America have called into being a number of agencies for dealing with the spiritual and social problems which are constantly arising. Mention therefore should be made here of the following societies of priests: "Association for the Protection of Belgian and Dutch Immigrants"; "Association of the Secular Polish Clergy"; "Catholic Board for Mission Work among the Coloured People"; "The Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions"; "Catholic Missionary Union", which provides funds to enable bishops to defray the expenses of giving missions to non-Catholics in their dioceses. Finally the "Priests' Total Abstinence League" appears to come nearest to the true idea of a confraternity whose central idea is self-sanctification. [See the "Catholic Directory" (Milwaukee, 1910), 725-731.] VII. SPANISH AMERICA It must suffice here to give the names of several societies of priests in certain districts of South America: Argentina, the "Associación Eclesiástica de S. Pedro" with centres at Buenos Aires and Córduba; Colombia, "Asociación de sufragios del Clero" at Bogota; Brazil, "Liga Sacerdotal Riograndeza" at Porto Alegre. In Mexico there is the "Asociación del Espíritu Santo" and the "Asociación de S. Juan Nepomuceno" at Guadalajara, and the "Asociación de Socorros mutuos de Clérigos" in the City of Mexico. VIII. GERMANY In Germany almost all the associations for priests have as their object either the cultivation of the ascetical life among the clergy or the assistance of the members in their temporal necessities. One of the most important of the pious societies is the "Associatio Perseverantiæ Sacerdotalis" (see III. AUSTRIA). The association has already been introduced into about 27 dioceses in Germany. The "Eucharistic Association of the Priests of the Adoration" was founded in 1858 for secular priests, and was canonically erected into a confraternity on 16 January, 1887. Its objects are to foster among the clergy truly priestly sentiments and a lively love and veneration for the Blessed Sacrament. Each member is to spend each week one hour without intermission in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament, and to celebrate one Mass yearly for deceased members, to whom he is also to apply once monthly the plenary indulgence granted for each hour of adoration. The official organ, "S. Eucharistia", is published in six languages; the membership is about 7000 in Germany. Among this class of associations may be also mentioned the "Priesterabstinentenband" (with its organ "Sobrietas") for promoting total abstinence, and the Katechetenvereine in Munich, etc. There are three important associations for priests with the primary object of the rendering of assistance to members in temporal matters. These are; + (1) the "Priesterverein zur Unterstützung kranker Mitglieder"; + (2) "St. Josephs-Priesterverein" in Görz; + (3) the "Pax". The first, which is essentially an insurance society, pays to sick priests three marks daily, provided they have been members for at least one year. The entrance fee varies from 2 marks to over 100 marks according to the age of the applicant; the annual tax is 10 marks. Founded in 1882 it paid 127,192 marks to 513 members in 995 cases of sickness in the first twenty-five years of its existence. The association has almost 1000 members (600 in the Archdiocese of Cologne). St. Josephs-Priesterverein in Görz (primarily an Austrian association) was founded in 1876 by Mgr Filippi in Meran, and was transferred in 1882 to Görs; its object is to secure places in sanatoria for sick priests who need to take a cure to recover their health. The fee for membership is three Kronen yearly (about 60 cents), or a single payment of fifty Kronen. The "Pax", or the "Association of the Catholic Priests of Germany", was founded in 1905 to supply good and cheap insurance for ecclesiastical corporations; the foundation of a pension fund, the affording of legal protection, and the procuring of abatements at sanatoria and hotels are also in contemplation and to some extent attained. Specially favourable terms have been secured from the life insurance company "Concordia", at Cologne, and the fire insurance company "Rhineland" at Neuss. Any priest who takes an insurance with either of these companies becomes thereby a member of the association. The members (about 1500) come from all parts of Germany, although the southern and eastern dioceses (except Fulda) are not equally well represented. The Polish priests have founded a separate insurance society, the "Unitas". KROSE, Kirchliches Handbuch, II (Freiburg, 1909), 377-79. HENRY PARKINSON. Priests' Communion League Priests' Communion League An association of priests established at Rome on 20 July, 1906, in the Church of San Claudio, in charge of the Fathers of the Blessed Sacrament, and raised by Pius X to the dignity of an archconfraternity ten days later. Its object is to spread the practice of frequent and daily Communion among the faithful in conformity with the Decree "Sacra Tridentina Synodus" of 20 December, 1905. The conditions for joining the league are: (1) To have one's name inscribed on the register of the league; (2) to pledge oneself (though under no obligation of conscience) to promote zealously the observance of the Decree upon frequent and daily Communion by the apostolate of prayer, of preaching, and of the press; (3) to subscribe for the monthly periodical "Emmanuel", published by the Fathers of the Blessed Sacrament. The members of the league begin their work by explaining to the people what the Eucharist is; when, how, wherefore, and with what love it was instituted by Jesus Christ; what are its effects, whether considered as a sacrifice, as the real, perpetual presence of God among us, and, above all, as the nourishment of our souls. They endeavour strenuously to dissipate the fear by which many of the faithful are prevented from frequenting the Holy Table and teach them that to communicate lawfully every day nothing more is exacted than what even yearly Communion requires, namely, the state of grace and a right intention, although it is desirable that they should be free also from deliberate venial sins. As the best means to spread the practice of daily Communion is daily attendance at Mass, they exhort the people to hear it every day. They should give their parishioners, during a period of not less than three days, a series of instructions dealing especially with the practice of and preparation for daily Communion. Members of the league take care to prepare children for the reception of Holy Communion at an early age. Priests belonging to the league enjoy the right of a privileged altar three times a week, provided they have not that right already; they may celebrate Mass an hour before sunrise and an hour after midday, and may distribute Holy Communion till sunset; they may gain a plenary indulgence on all the first-class feasts of the mysteries of faith, of the Blessed Virgin, and the Apostles; and an indulgence of 300 days for every work they perform for the intention of the league; they may impart at the end of the triduum, after the general Communion, the papal benediction with the plenary indulgence attached. Lastly, penitents confessing to priests enrolled in the league may gain a plenary indulgence once a week, if accustomed to communicate very frequently. A. LETELLIER Priests' Eucharistic League Priests' Eucharistic League I. Object The Priests' Eucharistic League (Confraternitas sacerdotalis adorationis Sanctissimi Sacramenti) was established in Paris by the Venerable Pierre-Julien Eymard, founder of the Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament. Already in 1857 he had been deeply impressed by the necessity of such an adaptation of his work of Eucharistic adoration as would attract the clergy to a more intimate and constant intercourse with the sacramental Lord. Still it was not until 1867 that the plan of a distinct confraternity was matured, and the Blessed Curé d'Ars was among the first to enroll his name on the list of members. The association assumed its present form in 1879, received the approval of Leo XIII on 25 Jan., 1881, and six years later, on 16 Jan., 1887, was definitively approved and canonically erected by Cardinal Parocchi, cardinal vicar, in the church of S. Claudio in Rome. To this church is attached the Archconfraternity of the Most Holy Sacrament, and it is the canonical centre of the Priests' Eucharistic League; but the office of the central administration of the league is at the house of the fathers of the Congregation of the Most Holy Sacrament, Brussels. The primary object of this confraternity is the frequent and prolonged worship of the Blessed Sacrament by priests. As Christ is truly "God with us" in the Eucharist, it is His desire that priests should appear often in His presence and remain for reverent and affectionate intercourse. From this close intimacy a higher spiritual life must ensue. At this source priests will learn how to adore Him in spirit and in truth and draw light and power to carry out more fruitfully their apostolic mission. Its next object is to extend the Kingdom of Christ by forming apostles of the Eucharist. Reverent and docile companionship brings knowledge, love, and a desire to share with others the precious treasures of this supreme sacrament. Hence the devout adorer will labour assiduously to revive faith in the Holy Eucharist, and will encourage the faithful to partake of the life-giving banquet. A third object of the confraternity is to band together priests as apostles of the Eucharist who "will pledge themselves to take up and defend on all occasions the cause and the honour of Jesus Christ, and promote by every means in their power frequent visits to the Blessed Sacrament as well as frequent communion". The regular and associated practice of the weekly adoration fosters a spirit of religious brotherhood. Priests animated by the Eucharistic spirit, impelled by the Eucharistic instinct, will be stimulated by the example of the neighbouring clergy and by a sense of spiritual companionship with a vast unseen array of associates performing the same acts of homage and devotion in all parts of the world. The precise and specific works of the association are the following: + (1) to spend each week one full and continuous hour of adoration before the Blessed Sacrament exposed on the altar or veiled in the tabernacle; + (2) to report monthly to the local director on a prescribed schedule (libellus) the performance of the above undertaking; + (3) to apply once a month the indulgences attached to the hour of adoration for the benefit of the souls of members who may have died during the previous month; + (4) to offer the Holy Sacrifice once a year for all deceased members of the association. Repeated failure to transmit the libellus entails, after due warning, loss of membership. II. Membership and Privileges The confraternity was originally intended for members of the secular clergy only; but as far back as 1898 the admission of religious has been authorized; and by a concession of the superior general of the Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament dated 2 Nov., 1902, seminarists in the United States become eligible for admission even before receiving the subdiaconate. The Holy See has favoured the practice of this devotion with numerous advantages, notably with the singularly rich indulgences of "The Station of the Blessed Sacrament" (Beringer, "Les Indulgences", II, 129), and the faculty of granting the indulgence of the Crosier Fathers (cf. Beringer, I, 504). III. Organization The organization of the confraternity enjoys the merit of simplicity. Ordinary members are grouped under their respective diocesan directors. These are united under a general director for a district or a whole country, while the entire association throughout the world is subject to the central direction of the Fathers of the Blessed Sacrament at Brussels. For the greater convenience of administration local centres have been established in Austria, Argentina, Canada, Chili, Holland, Italy, Spain, and the United States. The diocesan directors are elected by members with the approval of the ordinary. They officially represent the confraternity in a diocese and maintain its efficiency and regular working. The life and energy of the members is promoted by periodical assemblies of the respective groups. Conferences of diocesan members are held on the occasion of the clergy retreats and at other convenient times. In the United States, besides these diocesan conferences, conventions of several dioceses have been held at Covington, Kentucky (1894), at Notre Dame, Indiana (1894, 1898), and at Philadelphia (1899). More important gatherings from a large number of dioceses, called congresses, have been held at Washington (1893), St. Louis (1901), New York (1904), and Pittsburg (1906). The numerous local congresses held in France form a significant feature of the religious activity of the Church there (cf. "Annales", 1909, pp. 446-9; 1910, p. 158). Perhaps the most noteworthy characteristic of the confraternity is the rapidity with which it has spread throughout every portion of the world. Canada has a total of two thousand four hundred and fifty members, the United States 8015, while the grand total for the whole confraternity in March of the year 1911 is one hundred thousand five hundred and sixty-one, of whom twelve are cardinals and two hundred and forty bishops or archbishops. The real value of these figures is checked by the record kept of the individual reports sent in by members of their discharge of the duty of the weekly hour of adoration. Should a member have failed for a year to send in his libellus, he receives a reminder, which, if ineffective, is followed by the removal of his name from the register. IV. Literature A number of monthly periodicals serve to maintain the fervour and activity of the associates: the "Emmanuel" (sixteenth year; New York); "Annales des Prêtres Adorateurs" (twenty-third year; Brussels); "Annales de l'Association des Prêtres Adorateurs" (twenty-third year; Brussels); "Annali dei Sacerdoti Adoratori" (sixteenth year; Turin); "Anales de los Sacerdotes Adoradores" (third year; Buenos Aires); "SS. Eucharistia" (twentieth year; Bozen), the organ of the league for Austria, Germany, and Switzerland; "Eucharist and Priest" (sixteenth year; Verapoly, Malabar Coast). In addition to these sources of information and piety, there is much dogmatic and devotional literature on the subject of the hour of adoration, such as "The Real Presence", "The Month of our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament", "The Month of Mary", "The Month of St. Joseph", by the Venerable Père Eymard. The late Père Tesnière published: "The Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament"; "The Eucharistic Christ"; "The Eucharistic Heart"; "The Mysteries of the Rosary". The commendable practice has much increased among the members of the confraternity of making the hour of adoration at a time when the faithful are able to take part in it. Private or solemn exposition is adopted according to circumstances, and for the benefit of the faithful prayers are recited and suitable hymns sung between the intervals of meditation. In this connexion the associations, entitled "Agrégation du très saint Sacrement" and "OEuvre de l'Exposition Menseulle du très saint Sacrement dans les Paroisses", will be of service. In addition to the literature mentioned in the article, see Statutes of the Eucharistic League (New York); Report of the Nineteenth Eucharistic Congress (Westminster, 1908), 255-266; POIRIER, Advantages of the Priests' Eucharistic League, Its Origin and Present Status (paper read at the Montreal Congress) in Emmanuel (Nov., 1910), 279-290. HENRY PARKINSON. Primacy Primacy (Latin primatus, primus, first). The supreme episcopal jurisdiction of the pope as pastor and governor of the Universal Church. Primate Primate (Lat. primas, from primus, "first"). In the Western Church a primate is a bishop possessing superior authority, not only over the bishops of his own province, like the metropolitan, but over several provinces and metropolitans. This does not refer to episcopal powers, which each bishop possesses fully, but to ecclesiastical jurisdiction and organization, especially in national churches. Primates exist only in the West, and correspond not to the patriarchs but to the exarchs of the East. There is no uniformity in the institution, it has no place in common law; primatial rights are privileges. In their widest acceptation these rights would be: to convoke and preside over national councils, to crown the sovereign, to hear appeals from the metropolitan and even episcopal courts, and finally the honorary right of precedence. This organization formerly useful, as it favoured and maintained unity in national churches, has lost its importance and disappeared; first, because national Churches as such no longer exist, and secondly on account of the gradual disciplinary centralization of the Western Churches around the Roman See. Except in the case of Gran in Hungary, the primatial title is merely honorific. At the solemnities accompanying the canonization of the Japanese martyrs in 1867, no special place was reserved for primates; and in the Vatican Council the precedence of primates was recognized only at the insistance of the Prince-Primate of Hungary (Vering, "Kirchenrecht", § 133), as something exceptional and not to be considered a precedent. The Brief "Inter multiplices", 27 November, 1869 (Acta S. Sedis, V, 235), ranks the primates according to their date of promotion after the patriarchs, but adds: Ex special indulgentia, i.e. by special favour, for that occasion only, nor must it be interpreted as conferring any right on them or diminishing the right of others. The history of the primacies in the Middle Ages is largely concerned with interminable disputes concerning special rights, privileges, etc. The real primacies were at first those that did not bear the name. The Bishop of Carthage exercised a true primatial jurisdiction over the provinces of Roman Africa, without being called a primate; on the other hand, in the provinces, other than the Proconsular, the oldest bishop, who resembled a metropolitan, was called the primate. The title Primate of Africa was restored again in 1893 by Leo XIII in favour of the Archbishop of Carthage. The Bishop of Toledo was also a primate for the Visigothic kingdom. On the other hand, the Bishops of Thessalonica and Arles, invested with the vicariate of the pope, had authority over several provinces. We meet later with claims to primatial authority in every country, and refusals to recognize these claims; the primates who have exercised a real authority being especially those of Mayenne, the successors of St. Boniface, and of Lyons, made by Gregory VII, Primate of the Gauls, in reality of the provinces called formerly "Laughmenses". All kinds of reasons were invoked: the evangelization of the country, the importance of the see, pontifical concessions, etc. It is impossible to give more than the mere names of primacies: in Spain, Toledo, Compostella, Braga; in France, Lyons, Reims, Bourges, Vienne, Narbonne, Bordeaux, Rouen; in Germany, Mayenne, Trier, Magdeburg; in England, Canterbury, York; in Scotland, St. Andrews; in Ireland, Armagh; in the Scandinavian countries, Lund. But of all these nothing but a title has remained; and at the Vatican Council the only bishops figuring as primates, in virtue of recent concessions, were those of Salzburg, Antivari, Salerno, Bahia, Gnesen, Tarragona, Gran, Mechlin, and Armagh (Coll. Lacens., VII, pp. 34, 488, 726). Thomassin, Vetus et nova discipl., pt. I, bk. I, xxvi sq.; Phillips, Kirchenrecht, § 62. A. Boudinhon Prime Prime I. THE NAME The name Prime (prima hora) belongs with those of Terce, Sext, None, to the short offices recited at the different hours of the day, called by these names among the Romans, that is, prima towards 6 a.m.; tertia, towards 9 a.m.; sexta, towards noon; nona towards 3 p.m. At first Prime was termed matitutina (hora), morning hour; later, in order to distinguish it from the nocturnal hours of Matins and Lauds, and to include it among hours of the day, it was called prima. The name is first met with in the Rule of St. Benedict. In the Bangor Antiphonary it is called secunda. II. ORIGIN This short office is one of those whose origin is best known. Cassian, speaking of Prime, says expressly "sciendum . . . hanc matitutinam canonicam functionem [i.e. Prime] nostro tempore in nostro quoque monasterio primitus institutam" (Instit., III, IV). As the chronology of Cassian's works has recently been established fairly accurately, the institution of Prime must be placed towards 382 (see Pargoire, op. cit. below, 288). Apropos of this monastery, of which Cassian speaks as the cradle of Prime, it has now been proved that it was not St. Jerome's monastery at Bethlehem, but another, perhaps one established beyond the Tower of Ader (or of the Flock) beyond the village of the Shepherds, and consequently beyond the modern Beth-saour; it has been identified either with Deïr-er-Raouat (convent of the shepherds) or with Seiar-er-Ganhem (enclosure of the sheep). We learn further from Cassian the reason that led to the institution of this office. The office of the night, comprising Matins and Lauds, ended then at sunrise, so that Lauds corresponded to the dawn. After the night offices at Bethlehem, as in the other Palestinian monasteries, the monks might retire to rest. As no other office called them together before Terce, those who were lazy seized the opportunity of prolonging their sleep till nine in the morning, instead of applying themselves to manual work or spiritual reading. To end this abuse, it was decided, in the above monastery, to continue the custom of reposing after the night office, but, to prevent an undue prolongation of sleep, the monks were recalled to choir at the hour of Prime, and after the recital of a few psalms they were to work until Terce (Cassian, "Instit.", III, iv). All this is established by authentic texts. The only difficulty is that some contemporaries of Cassian or even his predecessors, as Eusebius of Cæsarea, St. Jerome, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, speak of an office recited at sunrise, and which therefore would seem to be identical with Prime. But it must be noted that they are speaking of Lauds, which in some communities was recited later, and so was identified with the hour but not with the subject matter of Prime. III. CONTENTS The matter composing the new hour was drawn from the office of Lauds; or rather Prime, as an office, was a repetition of part of Lauds, and added nothing to the ensemble of the psalmody, only Psalms i, lxii, and lxxxix, which were formerly part of Lauds, were recited at this hour. Such at least was the original composition of Prime; but the monasteries which gradually adopted it in the East and in the West changed its constitution as they liked. It is impossible to describe here all the variations this office underwent in the different liturgies. We need only remark that one of the most characteristic features of Prime is the recitation of the famous symbol "Quicumque vult salvus esse", called the Athanasian Creed, which has recently been the subject of much controversy in the Anglican Church. St. Benedict orders to be recited at Prime on Sundays four groups of eight verses of Ps. cxviii; on week-days, three psalms, beginning with the first and continuing to Ps. xix, taking three psalms each day (Ps. ix and xvii being divided into two). In that way Prime is symmetrical, like the other short hours of the day. It resembles these also in composition, the psalmody being accompanied by a hymn, an antiphon, capitulum, versicle, and prayer. In the Roman Liturgy the office of Prime is not composed so symmetrically. Usually it consists of Ps. liii, cvii, the first four groups of eight verses of Ps. cxvii, and during the week Pss. liii, xxiii, xxv, xxiv, xxii, and xxi. The capitulum and other elements are after the model of the short hours (cf. NONE). IV. THE OFFICE OF THE CHAPTER So far we have spoken only of the office of Prime properly so called, which ends like the other short hours. It is followed by some prayers which are called the office of the chapter, and are composed in the Roman Liturgy of the reading of the martyrology, of a prayer, "Sancta Maria et omnes sancti", a prayer concerning work, "Respice in servos tuos . . . Dirigere et sanctificare", and a blessing. This addition to Prime is a legacy bequeathed by the monks to the secular clergy. As has been said above, originally after Prime the monks had to betake themselves to manual work or reading. The office therefore ended with a prayer for their work ". . . et opera manuum nostrarum dirige super nos et opus manuum nostrarum dirige", and the prayer "Dirigere". Later the reading of the martyrology, the necrology, the rule, and a prayer for the dead were added (see Baümer-Biron, loc. cit., I, 361-62). In view of its origin and constitution, Prime is to be considered as the prayer of the beginning of the day, whereas Lauds is devoted to recalling with the dawn the memory of Christ's Resurrection, Prime is the morning hour which consecrates all the work of the day. Its institution has made the liturgical day more regular and symmetrical. Prime, until then without an office, received its psalmody like Terce, Sext, None, Vespers. With Complin and Lauds, the liturgical day reached the sacred septenary, "septies in die laudem dixi tibi". While for the night office there was the text: "media nocte surgebam ad confitendum tibi". PELLICCIA, The Polity of the Christian Church, 204 sq.; MARTIGNY, Dict. des Antiquités chrétiennes, 538; ZACCARIA, Onomasticon, 105; THOMASI, Opera, ed. VEZZOSI, VII, 22, MARTÈNE, De antiquis Ecclesiæ ritibus, lib. IV, c. viii; t. III, p. 19-23; IDEM, De antiquis Monachorum ritibus, lib. I, c. iv, t. IV, p. 16; BAÜMER-BIRON, Histoire du Bréviaire, t. I, pp. 145, 240, 259, 361, 364, 374; PARGOIRE, Prime et Complines in La Revue d'histoire et de Littérature, III (1898), 282-88; Dict. d'Archéologie et de Liturgie, I, 198; II, 1245, 1302, 1306; NEALE AND LITTLEDALE, A Commentary on the Psalms, I (London, 1884), 7, 18; for the Symbol of St. Athanasius cf. ATHANASIAN CREED; and Dict. de theol. cathol., s.v. Athanase. F. CABROL The Primer The Primer The common English name for a book of devotions which from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century was the ordinary prayer-book used by the laity. The contents of these books varied greatly, but they possessed certain common elements which practically speaking are never absent. the most important feature, judging by the position usually assigned to it as well as by the lavish use of miniatures and other forms of ornament with which it is associated, was the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In different liturgical centres, for example, at Rome, Salisbury, York, or Paris, the constituents of the Little Office differed from each other in various details; for example, the Psalms recited at Prime "according to the use of York" were not the same as those appointed for the same hour in the Sarum breviary and hence in the later printed editions of the Primer it is common to find upon the title-page or in the colophon a statement of the particular use followed, e.g., "Horae secundum usum Romanum" or "secundum usum Sarum". Such designation however qualify only the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, and not the other contents of the volume. Next in importance, but not usually next in order, was the Office for the Dead, or rather Vespers, followed by Matins and Lauds. These were commonly known as Placebo and Dirige (hence our English word "dirge"), from the antiphons with which the Vespers and the Matins respectively began. Three other constant elements are also invariably included in the Primer: the Fifteen Psalms (i.e., the Gradual Psalms, Ps. cxix-cxxxiii), the Seven Psalms (i.e., the Penitential Psalms), and the Litany of the Saints. As already stated, these invariable features of the Primer are supplemented in nearly all extant copies with a variety of other devotions of which a word will be said later on. Origin of the Primer The question of the origin and primitive association of the invariable elements just specified has been of late thoroughly examined by Mr. Edmund Bishop (see introduction to the Early English Text Society's edition of the Primer, London, 1897), who has corrected the erroneous views previously advanced by Henry Bradshaw and others. As Mr. Bishop has shown, the Primer was constituted out of certain devotional accretions to the Divine Office itself which were invented first by the piety of individuals for the use of monks in their monasteries, but which gradually spread and came to be regarded as an obligatory supplement to the office of the day. Of these accretions the Fifteen Psalms and the Seven Psalms were the earliest in point of time to establish themselves generally and permanently. Their adoption as part of the daily round of monastic devotion was probably largely due to the influence of St. Benedict of Aniane at the beginning of the ninth century. The "Vigiliae Mortuorum", or Office for the Dead, was the next accretion to be generally received. Of the cursus or Little Office of the Blessed Virgin we hear nothing until the time of Bernerius of Verdun (c. 960) and of St. Udalric of Augsburg (c. 97l); but this form of devotion to Our Lady spread rapidly. Two English manuscripts which contain it date from before the Norman Conquest and have been published in facsimile by the Henry Bradshaw Society. In these provision was probably made only for the private recitation of the Office of the Blessed Virgin, but after the ardent encouragement given to this form of devotion by St. Peter Damian in the middle of the tenth century many monastic orders adopted it or retained it in preference to some other devotional offices, e.g., those of All Saints and of the Blessed Trinity, which had found favour a little earlier. By the second half of the fourteenth century a certain measure of uniformity had been attained with regard to these devotional accretions both among the monastic orders and in cathedral and collegiate churches, so that we learn from Radulphus de Rivo (c. 1390) that the daily recital of the Office of the Blessed Virgin and of the Vigiliae Mortuorum were then regarded as obligatory upon all ecclesiastics by the general consent of nations, while by the laudable practice of many, other particular offices were also observed, such as the Penitential and Gradual psalms and so forth. Throughout all this it would seem that the sense that these things were accretions to the Divine Office itself was not lost. Hence there was a tendency to perform these devotions in private, and for this purpose they were probably often collected into a separate book. Moreover, since these devotions, unlike the Divine Office, were invariable, they could be learned and practised with comparative ease by those who had little pretensions to scholarship. There was always a tendency in the laity to copy the exercises of piety which prevailed among the monastic orders. to take part in the full Divine Office of the Church, which changed from day to day, was beyond their reach, but by rendering themselves familiar with the Hours of the Blessed Virgin, they were enabled both to make their own something of that burden of prayer which the monks actually performed, and also to imitate that sevenfold consecration of the day, which no doubt seemed to them the most distinctive feature in the monastic life. Hence it came to pass, no doubt, that the collection of these accretions to the Office, gathered into one small volume, became the favourite prayer-book of the laity, whilist copyists naturally supplemented these more strictly liturgical forms of prayer by the addition of many private devotions, often in the vernacular. For it must be remembered that the Psalms, the Officium B.M.V., the Vigiliae Mortuorum, etc. were recited by the laity as well as by the clergy in Latin. True, a number of manuscript primers of the fifteenth century are in existence, in which the whole contents have been translated into English, but these are comparatively rare exceptions. On the other hand, out of over a hundred editions of the Primer printed for the English book-trade before the breach with Rome, in 1533, not one is known to contain the Office or the Psalms in English. Primers for Children The origin of the name "primer" is still obscure. The earliest instance yet discovered of the use of the word is in a Latin will of 1323, where it evidently means a prayer-book. Probabilities favour the view (see "The Month", February, 1911, pp. 150-63) that it was called "primer" because the more elaborate forms developed out of a book containing the invariable elements already specified, preceded by the alphabet, the Pater noster, Ave Maria, Creed, etc. which compilation was used as a first reading book for children. This will not seem strange when we remember that children in the Middle Ages learned to read not in English but in Latin, and that almost every child learned to read learned with the more or less definite purpose of becoming a clerk, i.e., a cleric, whose profession required him to recite the Office and to know the Psalms by heart. Further the day-book of John Dorne (Oxford Hist. Soc., 1888), bookseller in Oxford in 1520, preserves many entries of the sale of books called "primarium pro pueris", with indications which make it certain that they contained the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, and though none of these now survive, some later reformed examples are in existence of the "Primer-moste necessary for the educacyon of Children" (1538), which contain the A.B.C. together with a modified office. When, therefore, we read in Chaucer's "Prioress's Tale" (1386) of the primer used by the "litel clergeon seven years of age" -- "This litel child, his litel book lerninge, As he sat in the scole at his prymer", there can be no doubt that the book was none other than the Primer here described. Indeed, the religious character of such elementary manuals persisted for long centuries afterward and Dr. Johnson, the lexicographer, as late as 1773, still defined a primer as "a small prayer-book in which children are taught to read". Early Printed Primers A very large number of editions of the Primer came from the press before Henry VIII threw off his allegiance to the pope. Such books containing the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin and the Vigiliae Mortuorum with miscellaneous private devotions were common enough everywhere throughout Europe and were generally known as "Horae". But the English name, the name commonly used when these books were spoken of in English, was "Primer". Though Caxton himself is known to have printed four editions, and there are probably more of his that have perished, while his successors multiplied editions rapidly, the English printers were unequal to supply the demand. A vast number were produced "secundum usum Sarum" by the presses of Paris, Rouen, and elsewhere, many of them exceedingly beautiful in their typography and ornamentation, and a considerable number printed on vellum. Besides the constant elements already specified, these books commonly contain some other minor offices, e.g., that of the Passion, that of the Angels, etc., and a vast number of commemorations of individual saints. The beginnings of the four Gospels are also often found with the Athanasian and other creeds, and prayers for Confession and Communion. An almost invariable adjunct, either in Latin or English, was the fifteen prayers attributed to St. Bridget and known as "the fifteen O's", and there were often devotions of a more fantastical kind which claimed to have been enriched by extravagant grants of indulgence, mostly quite unauthentic. Perhaps no better idea can be given of the miscellaneous contents, some Latin, some English, of many of the larger primers than by making an extract from the index of one of Wynkyn de Worde's quarto editions. Thus: A prayer made upon Ave Maria. Gaude virgo mater. De profundis for all crysten soules. A prayer to oure lady and saynt John the evangelyst: O intemerata. A prayer to our lady; Sancta Maria. Another devout prayer to our lady: Obsecro. To our lady: Sancta Maria regina. To our lady: Stella celi extirpavit. Prayers to the Sacrament at the leavacion: Ave verum. A prayer to the trinite; sancta trinitas unus deus, with two other prayers, Deus qui superbis, Deus qui liberasti. Domine Jesu Christe qui me creasti. Domine, Jesu Christe qui solus. Two prayers with two collectes to the thre Kynges of Coleyn. Rex Jaspar, rex Melchior, and Trium regum trinum munus. The XV OOS of the passion of our Lorde in latyn. Prayers to the pyte of our lorde: Adoro te domine. A prayer to our lord crucyfyed: Precor te amantissime. Another to his V woundes: O pie crucifixe. The prayer of saynt Bernardyn: O bone Jesu, with an antheme and a collecte. O Rex gloriose. To the crosse: Santifica me. To thy proper Aungell: O sancte angele. Post Reformation Primers So strong was the hold which the Primer had taken upon the affections of Englishmen that after the breach with Rome various imitations, still bearing the name of Primer and framed upon the same general lines, were put forward with more or less of ecclesiastical approval by Marshall and Bishop Hilsey, while in 1545 appeared "the Royal Primer", which was published in the name of Henry VIII himself, and was to supersede all others. Other substitutes, still further modified in the direction of the reformed doctrine now in favour, were published in the reign of Edward VI. For the most part these books were entirely in English and when under Queen Mary the old form of Primer was restored, several editions then produced though thoroughly Catholic in their contents, were printed in English as well as in Latin. Under Elizabeth the Protestant substitutes for the Primer returned, but that printed in 1559 was still called "the Primer set forth at large with many godly and devoute Prayers" and it included a form of "Office" divided into seven hours, with the "seven psalms", the litany (much modified), and "the Dirige" (see "Private Prayers", Parker Society, 1851). Meanwhile the Catholics had to be content with such ancient copies of the Marian or earlier editions which they would secrete, or with the few copies of the Roman Horae printed entirely in Latin which could be smuggled in from abroad. The first Catholic Primer of penal times seems to have been that edited by Richard Verstegan (Antwerp, 1599). It adhered to the old conception of the Primer by making the Office of Our Blessed Lady the most conspicuous feature of the whole, but a great deal of new matter was introduced into the miscellaneous devotions, and in the subsequent editions printed in many of the cities to which Catholics resorted upon the continent, e.g. Douai, St. Omers, Rouen, etc., a great deal of innovation was tolerated. Of really old English devotions the "Jesus Psalter", which we know from John Dorne's day-book to have been printed and sold separately before 1520, was one of the features most relished and most consistently retained. The edition of 1706 seems to have been much improved as regards the translations of the hymns, and of some of these John Dryden is believed to have been the author. The whole number of Catholic editions of the Primer known to have been printed under that name, either in England or abroad since Elizabeth, amounts to over forty. MASKELL, Monumenta Ritualia Ecclesiae Anglicanae, III (2nd ed., Oxford, 1882); LITTLEHALES, The Prymer or Prayer-Book of the Lay people, two parts (London, 1891-2); IDEM, The Prymer, edited for the Early English Text Society and including an introduction by BISHOP (London, 1896-7); HOSKINS, Horae Beatae Mariae Virginis, or the Sarum and York Primers and Kindred Books, a list and description of English Horae and Primers (London, 1901); BENNETT in Julian's Dictionary of Hymnology (London, 1907), s. v. Primers; THURSTON, The Mediaeval Primer in The Month (February, 1911); GILLOW, Letters on "Our Old English Prayer-books" in The Tablet (December, 1884, and January, 1885). HERBERT THURSTON Primicerius Primicerius (Etymologically primus in cera, sc. in tabula cerata, the first in a list of a class of officials) A term applied in later Roman times to the head of any administration--thus "primicerius notariorum", "primicerius protectorum" etc. (cf. Forcellini, "Totius latinitatis Lexicon", s.v.). In ecclesiastical use the term was given to heads of the colleges of Notarii and Defensores, which occupied so important a place in the administration of the Roman Church in later antiquity and in the early Middle Ages. When young clerics were assembled in schools for training in the ecclesiastical service in the different districts of the Western Church (from the fifth or sixth century), the directors of these schools were also commonly given this title. Thus, an inscription of the year 551 from Lyons mentions a "Stephanus primicerius scolae lectorum servientium in ecclesia Lugdunensi" (Le Blant, "Inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule", I, 142, n. 45; cf. similar notices in Ducange, "Glossarium", s.v.; Gregory of Tours, "Hist. Francorum", II, xxxvii). St. Isidore of Seville treats of the obligations of the primicerius of the lower clerics in his "Epistola ad Ludefredum" (P.L., LXXXIII, 896). From this position the primicerius also derived certain powers in the direction of liturgical functions. In the regulation of the common life of the clergy in collegiate and cathedral churches, according to the Rule of Chrodegang and the statutes of Amalarius of Metz, the primicerius appears as the first capitular after the archdeacon and archpresbyter, controlling the lower clerics and directing the liturgical functions and chant. The primicerius thus became a special dignitary of many chapters by a gradual development from the position of the old primicerius of the scola cantorum or lectorum. THOMASSINUS, Vetus et nova Ecclesiae disciplina, I (Lyons, 1700); GALLETTI, Del Primicerio di Santa Sede Apost. (Rome, 1776); PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht, VI (Ratisbon, 1864), 343; KELLER, Die sieben rom. Pfalzrichter (Stuttgart, 1904). J.P. KIRSCH Sts. Primus and Felician Sts. Primus and Felician Suffered martyrdom about 304 in the Diocletian persecution. The "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (ed. De Rossi-Duchesne, 77) gives under 9 June the names of Primus and Felician who were buried at the fourteenth milestone of the Via Nomentana (near Nomentum, now Mentana). They were evidently from Nomentum. This notice comes from the catalogue of Roman martyrs of the fourth century. In 648 Pope Theodore translated the bones of the two saints to the Roman Church of San Stefano, under an altar erected in their honour (Liber Pontificalis, I, 332), where they remain. Their feast is still observed on 9 June. Acta SS., June, II, 152 sq.; DUFOURCQ, Les Gesta martyrum romains, I (Paris, 1900), 213; DE ROSSI, Inscriptiones christ., urbis Romae, II, 152; IDEM, I musaici delle chiese di Roma (Rome, 1899), plate XVII with text; MARUCCHI, Les basiliques et eglises de Rome (2nd ed., Rome, 1909), 221 sq. J.P. KIRSCH Prince Albert, Diocese of Diocese of Prince Albert A suffragan see of St. Boniface, Manitoba, in the Province of Saskatchewan, Canada. Originally part of the Diocese of St. Albert, it was formed, 4 June, 1891, into the Vicariate Apostolic of the Saskatchewan, bounded in the south by 52° 30' N. lat., in the west by 109° W. long., in the east by the present boundaries of the province of the same name, and in the north by the Arctic Sea. On 2 Dec., 1907, most of this was erected into the Diocese of Prince Albert, and Rt. Rev. Albert Pascal, O.M.I., became its bishop. The new diocese is bounded on the south by a line passing between the thirtieth and the thirty-first township, approximately 51° 30' N. lat. Its western and eastern limits are coincident with the boundaries of the civil province as far north as the sixtieth township (about 54° 20') in the west, and the fifty-second township (or 53° 30') in the east, thus forming in the north a line of demarcation with two right angles just half way between its eastern and western limits. Fort Canton within that territory had been periodically visited by Catholic missionaries ever since 1842. In 1870 Father Moulin was put in charge of the French half-breed families who had settled on the banks of the south branch of the Saskatchewan. In 1874 the permanent mission of St. Laurent was established by Father André, who was replaced in Nov., 1877, by Father Lestanc, the real founder of that missionary post on the south branch of the Saskatchewan. Then followed the missions of St. Anthony, at Batoche, established in 1881 by Father Végreville, succeeded by Father Moulin, and of Prince Albert, started by Father André in 1882. The first missionaries of the diocese were French Oblates of Mary Immaculate. The uprising of the dissatisfied population in 1885 resulted in the battles of Fish Creek and Batoche, the murder of two missionaries by Plains Crees, the destruction of several missionary establishments, and the capture and execution of the half-breed leader, Louis Riel. St. Louis de Langevin was founded by Father Lecocq in 1886. The advent of railways prompted the foundation of parishes and farming settlements, of which the most important is the German colony of St. Peter, founded in 1903 by the Very Rev. Bruno Doerfler, O.S.B., now attended by several priests of the same order. The Catholic population of the diocese is estimated (1911) at 45,000, of whom some 15,000 follow the Ruthenian Rite. The French have 18 parishes, with resident priests, and number 11,050; the Germans are between 10,500 and 11,000, distributed in 12 parishes; while the English-speaking population, about 3100, have 4 parishes of their own. In other centres the Catholics are of mixed nationalities. There are also some 1000 Catholic Crees, whose spiritual needs are attended to by French Oblates established on, or near, their reserves. The schools of all these parishes, whether public or separate, are equally satisfactory but not up to the Catholic ideal (see SASKATCHEWAN, PROVINCE OF). Saskatoon has 15,000 inhabitants, and Prince Albert, 8000. The diocese counts 28 Oblate fathers, 22 secular priests, 14 Benedictines, and 6 communities of women. It has 42 academies and parish schools, 2 Catholic hospitals, and 2 boarding-schools for Indians with 130 pupils. Official Catholic Directory; MORICE, History of the Catholic Church in Western Canada (Toronto, 1910). A. G. MORICE. Prior Prior A monastic superior. In the Rule of St. Benedict the term prior occurs several times, but does does not signify any particular superior; it is indiscriminately applied to any superior, be he abbot, provost, dean, etc. In other old monastic rules the term is used in the same generic sense. With the Cluniac reform the term prior received a specific meaning; it supplanted the provost (praepositus) of the Rule of St. Benedict. In the congregation of Hirschau, which arose in Germany in the eleventh century, the term prior was also substituted for provost, and the example of the Cluniac and Hirschau congregations was gradually followed by all Benedictine monasteries, as well as by the Camaldolese, Vallombrosians, Cistercians, and other offshoots of the Benedictine Order. In the Benedictine Order and its branches, in the Premonstratensian Order, and in the military orders there are two kinds of priors, -- the claustral prior (prior claustralis) and the conventual prior (prior conventualis). The claustral prior, in a few monasteries called dean, holds the first place after the abbot (or grand-master in military orders), whom he assists in the government of the monastery and whose place he supplies in his absence. He has no ordinary jurisdiction by virtue of his office, since he performs the duties of his office entirely according to the will and under the direction of the abbot. His jurisdiction is, therefore, a delegated one and extends just as far as the abbot desires, or the constitutions of the congregation prescribe. He is appointed by the abbot, generally after a consultation with the capitulars of the monastery, and may be removed by him at any time. In many monasteries, especially larger ones, the claustral prior is assisted by a subprior, who holds the third place in the monastery. In former times there were in larger monasteries, besides the prior and the subprior, also a third, fourth, and sometimes even a fifth prior. Each of these was called circa (or circator), because it was his duty to make the rounds of the monastery to see whether anything was amiss and whether the brethren were intent on the work allotted to them respectively. He had no authority to correct or punish the brethren, but was to report to the claustral prior whatever he found amiss or contrary to the rules. The conventual prior is the independent superior of a monastery that has no abbot; he rules in temporals and spirituals just like an abbot. Ordinarily he is elected by the chapter of his monastery and holds his office for life, though in former times he was often elected for a specified period of time. He may be assisted by a subprior, whose office is similar to that of the claustral prior in an abbey. In the Congregation of Cluny and others of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries there was also a greater prior (prior major) who preceded the claustral prior in dignity and, besides assisting the abbot in the government of the monastery, had some delegated jurisdiction over external dependencies of the abbey. The appellation of simple, or obedientiary prior (prior simplex or prior obedientiarius) is often applied to the superior of a monastic establishment which is a dependency of an abbey. He is an obedientiary of the abbot, is appointed by him, and may be removed by him at any time. The Augustinian Hermits, Carmelites, Servites, and Brothers of Mercy have three kinds of priors--the conventual prior, the provincial prior, and the prior general. The conventual prior is the first superior over a monastery. He is generally elected by the chapter of the monastery for a specified time, and his election requires the approbation of the provincial prior. The provincial prior is the superior over a number of monasteries that are united into a province. He is generally elected for a specified time by the conventual priors and delegates from the various monasteries of the province, and his election requires the approbation of the prior general. The prior general is the superior over the whole order; he is elected in the general chapter for a specified time and resides in Rome. The Dominicans also have conventual and provincial priors, but the superior of the whole order is not called prior general, but master general. The Carthusians have conventual priors and a prior general, but no provincial priors. Their prior general is the only superior of an order who does not reside in Rome. Before their suppression in France the prior of the Grande Chartreuse was always prior general, an office now filled by the prior of Farneta near Lucca in Italy. In all these orders the second superior of a monastery is called subprior and his office is similar to that of the claustral prior in the Benedictine Order. GASQUET, English Monastic Life (London, 1904), passim, especially 52-7; MOLITOR, Religiosi juris capita selecta (Ratisbon, Rome, New York, Cincinnati, 1909), passim; BRAUNMULLER, Propst, Decan u. Prior in Studien u. Mitteil. aus dem Benedictiner- u. Cistercienzer-Orden, IV, i (Wurzburg and Vienna, 1883), 231-49. See also RELIGIOUS LIFE. MICHAEL OTT Prioress Prioress (Priorissa, Praeposita). A superioress in a monastic community for women. The term prioress is properly applied only to a superioress in a convent which has the papal approbation and whose members make solemn profession, that is, to convents which belong to an order in the strict sense of the word. In some places, however, it is customary to apply the title of prioress also to a superioress in a convent which has only the episcopal approbation and whose members do not make solemn profession. In general, the office of a prioress in an order for women corresponds to that of the prior in the same order for men. If the prioress is the first superior, her authority over the convent is similar to that of a conventual prior over his priory; if the first superior is an abbess, the office of the prioress is similar to that of a claustral prior in an abbey. For bibliography see PRIOR. MICHAEL OTT Priory Priory A monastery whose superior is a prior. The Dominicans, Augustinian Hermits, Carthusians, Carmelites, Servites, and Brothers of Mercy call all their monasteries priories. The Benedictines and their offshoots, the Premonstratensians, and the military orders distinguish between conventual and simple or obedientiary priories. Conventual priories are those autonomous houses which have no abbots, either because the canonically required number of twelve monks has not yet been reached or for some other reason. The Congregation of Cluny had many conventual priories. There were likewise many conventual priories in Germany and Italy during the Middle Ages, and in England all monasteries attached to cathedral churches were known as cathedral priories. Nearly all the monasteries of the famous Maurist Congregation in France (seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) were called priories. At present the Benedictine Order has twenty-seven conventual priories. Simple or obedientiary priories are dependencies of abbeys. Their superior, who is subject to the abbot in everything, is called simple or obedientiary prior. For bibliography see PRIOR. MICHAEL OTT St. Prisca St. Prisca She was a martyr of the Roman Church, whose dates are unknown. The name Prisca or Priscilla is often mentioned by early authorities of the history of the Church of Rome. The wife of Aquila, the pupil of St. Paul, bore this name. The grave of a martyr Prisca was venerated in the Roman Catacomb of Priscilla on the Via Salaria. The place of interment is explicitly mentioned in all the seventh-century itineraries to the graves of the Roman martyrs (De Rossi, "Roma sotterranea", I, 176, 177). The epitaph of a Roman Christian named Priscilla was found in the "larger Catacomb", the Coemeterium maius, on the Via Nomentana, not far from the Catacomb of St. Agnes [De Rossi, Bull. di arch. crist. (1888-1889), 130, note 5]. There still exists on the Aventine a church of St. Prisca. It stands on the site of a very early title church, the Titulus Priscoe, mentioned in the fifth century and built probably in the fourth. In the eighteenth century there was found near this church a bronze tablet with an inscription of the year 224, by which a senator named Caius Marius Pudens Cornelianus was granted citizenship in a Spanish city. As such tablets were generally put up in the house of the person so honoured, it is possible that the senator's palace stood on the spot where the church was built later. The assumption is probable that the Prisca who founded this title church, or who, perhaps as early as the third century, gave the use of a part of the house standing there for the Christian church services, belonged to the family of Pudens Cornelianus. Whether the martyr buried in the Catacomb of Priscilla belonged to the same family or was identical with the founder of the title church cannot be proved. Still some family relationship is probable, because the name Priscilla appears also in the senatorial family of the Acilii Glabriones, whose burial-place was in the Catacomb of Priscilla on the Via Salaria. The "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" mentions under 18 January a martyr Priscilla on the Via Salaria (ed. De Rossi-Duchesne, 10). This Priscilla is evidently identical with the Prisca whose grave was in the Catacomb of Priscilla and who is mentioned in the itineraries of the seventh century. Later legendary traditions identified the founder of the Titulus Priscoe with St. Paul's friend, Priscilla, whose home would have occupied the spot on which the church was later erected. It was from here that St. Paul sent a greeting in his Epistle to the Romans. Another legend relates the martyrdom of a Prisca who was beheaded at the tenth milestone on the Via Ostiensis, and whose body Pope Eutychianus is said to have translated to the church of Prisca on the Aventine. The whole narrative is unhistorical and its details impossible. As 18 January is also assigned as the day of the execution of this Priscilla, she is probably the same as the Roman martyr buried in the Catacomb of Priscilla. Her feast is observed on 18 January. Acta SS., January, II, 184 sqq.; DUFOURCQ, Les Gesta martyrum romains, I (Paris, 1900), 169 sq.; GORRES, D. Martyrium d. hl. Prisca in Jahrbuch fur protest. Theologie (1892), 108 sq.; CARINI, Sul titolo presbiterale di S. Prisca (Palermo, 1885); DE ROSSI, Della casa d'Aquila e Prisca sull' Aventino in Bull. d'arch. crist. (1867), 44 sq.; IDEM, Aquila e Prisca e gli Acilii Glabriones, ibid. (1888-9), 128 sq.; MARUCCHI, Les basiliques et eglises de Rome (2nd ed., Rome, 1909), 180 sq.; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, January, I, 83. J.P. KIRSCH Priscianus Priscianus Latin grammarian, born at Caesarea (Mauretania), taught at Constantinople under Anastatius I (491-518). He delivered the panegyric of the Emperor Anastatius about 512; we possess this work in 312 hexameter verses, preceded by a prologue of 22 iambic senarii. Besides this he composed a "Periegenis" is 1087 hexameters; a translation of the work of the same name written under Hadrian by Dionysius of Alexandria; three works, dedicated to a certain Symmachus (perhaps the consul of 485), on numbers, numeration, and coins, on the metrical character of Latin comedies, on rhetoric according to the "Progymnasmata" at Hermogenes; the "Partitiones XII versuum Aeneidos" (on the versification of the Aeneid); a treatise "De aecentibus"; a compendium on declensions ("Institutio de nomine et pronomine at verbo"). But he is chiefly celebrated for a great work of which the last-named is an extract, the eighteen books of the "Institutiones Grammaticae", the most important grammatical work of antiquity which we possess= Each of these eighteen books has its own special title and subject. The first sixteen, often separately copied ("Priscianus Maior") treat of forms ("De accidentibus"); the last two ("Priscianus Minor") of syntax. They are dedicated to a certain Julianus, consul end patrician. In this preface Priscian declares that he borrows his doctrines from the enormous volumes (spatiosa volumina) of Appollonius Dyscolus and from "the sea" (pleagus) of Herodian. He also cites Juba, Heliodorus, and Hephaestion. Moreover, he follows his sources servilely, as is proved by comparison with the extant fragments of Apollonius. His knowledge of Latin authors is chiefly derived from his predecessor Flavius Caper (end of second century). Priscian lacks judgment and taste, but he is valuable because he has preserved for us the theories of the Greek grammarians, and numerous Latin quotations for which he is our sole authority. the best edition is Hertz in Keil's "Grammatici Latini", II, III (1855-9). A copy of Priscian carried to England in the time of Aldhelm (d. 709) was quoted by Bede and Aldhelm, and copied by Rabanus Maurus, who reintroduced Priscian on the Continent. Together with Donatus become the personification of grammar. More a thousand manuscripts of his work exist. His accompanies the allegorical figure of Grammar at Santa Maria Novella, and on the doorway of cathedral of Chartes. NOTES Teuffel, Gesch. d. lat. Literatur, 481; Jeep, Gesch. d. Lehre v. d. Redeteilen bei d. lat. Grammatiker (Leipzeig, 1893). 89; Idem in Philologus. LXVII (1908,) 12; LXVIII (1909), 1; Sandys, A Hist. of Classical Scholarship, I, 258; Marriage, The Sculptures of Chartes Cathedral (Cambridge, 1909), 30. For the share of the eighth- and ninth-century Irish monks in transmitting the text of Priscian, see Traube, O Roma Nobilis (Munich). PAUL LEJAY Priscillianism Priscillianism This heresy originated in Spain in the fourth century and was derived from the Gnostic-Manichaean doctrines taught by Marcus, an Egyptian from Memphis. His first adherents were a lady named Agape and a rhetorician named Helpidius, through whose influence Priscillian "a man of noble birth, of great riches, bold, restless, eloquent, learned through much reading, very ready at debate and discussion (Sulpicius Severus, "His. Sac.", II, 46) was also enrolled. His high position and great gifts made him the leader of the party and he became an ardent apostle of the new doctrines. Through his oratorical gifts and reputation for extreme asceticism he attracted a large following. Among those drawn to him were two bishops, Instantius and Salvianus. The adherents of the new sect organized themselves into an oath-bound society the rapid spread of which attracted the attention of the Catholic Bishop of Cordova, Hyginus, who made known his fears to Idacius, Bishop of Emeritu, and, at the instance of the latter and of Ithacius of Ossanova, a synod was held at Saragossa in 380. Bishops were present at this synod not only from Spain but from Aquitaine. Though summoned, the Priscillianists refused to appear, and the synod pronounced sentence of excommunication against the four leaders, Instantius, Salvianus. Helpidius, and Priscillian. The enforcement of the synod's decrees was committed to Ithacius, an impulsive and violent man. He failed to bring the heretics to terms, and, in defiance, Priscillian was ordained to the priesthood and appointed Bishop of Avila. Idacius and Ithacius appealed to the imperial authorities. The Emperor Gratian issued a decree which not only deprived the Priscillianists of the churches into which they had intruded themselves but sentenced Priscillian and his followers to exile. Instantius, Salvianus, and Priscillian proceeded to Rome to gain the aid of Pope Damasus in having this sentence revoked. Denied an audience, they went to Milan to make a similar request of St. Ambrose, but with the same result. They then resorted to intrigue and bribery at the Court with such success that they were not only freed from the sentence of exile, but permitted to regain possession of their churches in Spain, where, under the patronage of the imperial officials, they enjoyed such power as to compel Ithacius to withdraw from the country. He, in turn, appealed to Gratian, but before anything had been accomplished the emperor was murdered in Paris, and the usurper Maximus had taken his place. Maximus, wishing to curry favour with the orthodox party and to replenish his treasury through confiscations, gave orders for a synod, which was held in Bordeaux in 384. Instantius was first tried and condemned to deposition. Thereupon Priscillian appealed to the emperor at Trier. Ithacius acted as his accuser and was so vehement in his denunciations that St. Martin of Tours, who was then in Trier, intervened, and, after expressing his disapproval of bringing an ecclesiastical case before a civil tribunal, obtained from the emperor a promise not to carry his condemnation to the extent of shedding blood. After St. Martin had left the city, the emperor appointed the Prefect Evodius as judge. He found Priscillian and some others guilty of the crime of magic. This decision was reported to the emperor who put Priscillian and several of his followers to the sword; the property of others was confiscated and they were banished. The conduct of Ithacius immediately met with the severest reprobation. St. Martin, hearing what had taken place, returned to Trier and compelled the emperor to rescind an order to the military tribunes, already on their way to Spain to extirpate the heresy: There is no ground in the condemnation and death of Priscillian for the charge made against the Church of having invoked the civil authority to punish heretics. The pope censured not only the actions of Ithacius but also that of the emperor. St. Ambrose was equally stern in his denunciation of the case and some of the Gallican bishops, who were in Trier under the leadership of Theognistus, broke off communion with Ithacius, who was subsequently deposed from his see by a synod of Spanish bishops, and his friend and abettor Idatius, was compelled to resign. The death of Priscillian and his followers had an unlooked for sequel. The numbers and zeal of the heretics increased; those who were executed were venerated as saints and martyrs. The progress and spread of the heresy called for fresh measures of repression. In 400 a synod was held in Toledo at which many among them two bishops, Symphonius and Dictinnius were reconciled to the Church. Dictinnius was the author of a book "Libra" (Scales), a moral treatise from the Priscillianist viewpoint. The upheaval in the Spanish peninsula consequent on the invasion of the Vandals and the Suevi aided the spread of Priscillianism. So menacing was this revival that Orosius, a Spanish priest, wrote to St. Augustine (415) to enlist his aid in combating the heresy. Pope Leo at a later date took active steps for its repression and at his urgent insistence councils were held in 446 and 447 at Astorga, Toledo, and Galicia. In spite of these efforts the sect continued to spread during the fifth century. In the following century it commenced to decline, and after the Synod of Braga, held in 563, had legislated concerning it, it soon died out. In regard to the doctrines and teaching of Priscillian and his sect, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the discussion as to whether Priscillian was guilty of the errors traditionally ascribed to him, whether he was really a heretic, or whether he was unjustly condemned -- the object of misunderstanding and reprobation even in his lifetime and afterwards made to bear the burden of heretical opinions subsequently developed and associated with his name. The weight of evidence and the entire course of events in his lifetime make the supposition of his innocence extremely improbable. The discovery by Schepss of eleven treatises from his pen in a fifth or sixth-century manuscript, in the library of the University of Würzburg, has not put an end to a controversy still involved in considerable difficulty. Kunstle (Antipriscilliana), who has examined all the testimony, has decided in favour of the traditional view, which alone seems capable of offering any adequate solution of the fact that the Church in Spain and Aquitaine was aroused to activity by the separatist tendency in the Priscillianist movement. The foundation of the doctrines of the Priscillianists was Gnostic-Manichaean Dualism, a belief in the existence of two kingdoms, one of Light and one of Darkness. Angels and the souls of men were said to be severed from the substance of the Deity. Human souls were intended to conquer the Kingdom of Darkness, but fell and were imprisoned in material bodies. Thus both kingdoms were represented in man, and hence a conflict symbolized on the side of Light by the Twelve Patriarchs, heavenly spirits, who corresponded to certain of man's powers, and, on the side of Darkness, by the Signs of the Zodiac, the symbols of matter and the lower kingdom. The salvation of man consists in liberation from the domination of matter. The twelve heavenly spirits having failed to accomplish their release, the Saviour came in a heavenly body which appeared to be like that of other men, and through His doctrine and His apparent death released the souls of the men from the influence of the material. These doctrines could be harmonized with the teaching of Scripture only by a strange system of exegesis, in which the liberal sense was entirely rejected, and an equally strange theory of personal inspiration. The Old Testament was received, but the narrative of creation was rejected. Several of the apocryphal Scriptures were acknowledged to be genuine and inspired. The ethical side of the Dualism of Priscillian with its low concept of nature gave rise to an indecent system of asceticism as well as to some peculiar liturgical observances, such as fasting on Sundays and on Christmas Day. Because their doctrines were esoteric and exoteric, and because it was believed that men in general could not understand the higher paths, the Priscillianists, or at least those of them who were enlightened, were permitted to tell lies for the sake of a holy end. It was because this doctrine was likely to be a scandal even to the faithful that Augustine wrote his famous work, "De mendacio". Ed. Schepss, Priscilliani que supersunt in Corpus script. eccles. lat., XVIII (Vienna, 1889); Sulpicius Severus, Hist. sac., II, 46-51; Idem, Dialog., III, ii sq.; Orosius, Commonitorium ad Augustinium in P.L., XXXI, 124 sq.; Augustine, De Haer., xxx; Idem, Ep. xxxvi Ad Casulam; Jerome, De vir. illus., cxxi; Leo Magnus, Ep. xv Ad Turribium; Hilgenfeld, Priscillianus u. seine nuentdeckten Schriften in Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. (1892), 1-82; Paret, Priscillianus, ein Reformator des 4. Jahrh. (Wurzburg, 1891); Michael, Priscillian u. die. neueste Kritik in Zeitsch. f. Kath. Theol. (1892), 692-706; Dierich, Die Quellen zur Gesch. Priscillians (Breslau, 1897); Künstle, Eine Bibliothek der Symbole u. theolog. Tractate zur Bekampfung des Priscillianismus u. westgotischen Arianismus aus dem 6. Jahrh. (Mainz, 1900); Idem, Antipriscilliana. Dogmengeschichtl. Untersuchungen u. Texte aus dem Streite gegen Priscillians Irrlehre (Frieburg, 1905); Puech in Journal des Savants (1891), 110-134, 243-55, 307, 318; Leclercq, L'Espagne chrét. (Paris, 1906), iii, 150-213. P.J. HEALY Prisons Prisons I. IN ANCIENT TIMES Many jurisconsults and Scriptural interpreters include imprisonment among the number of penalties recognized in Hebrew legislation, but the fact may well be questioned. However, on the coming of the Chaldeans under Nebuchadnezzar, there were at least three prisons at Jerusalem, and, about the same time, the names of the places of detention were expressive of the regime to which the culprits were subjected, such as Beth ha-keli (house of detention), Beth haasourim (house of those in chains), Beth ha-mah-pecheth (from the name of an instrument for chaining the hands and feet), and Bor (cistern, underground receptacle) [cf. Thonissen, "Etudes sur l'histoire du droit criminel des peuples anciens" (Brussels, 1869)]. At Athens imprisonment was imposed as a penalty, though this is doubted by many. It seems there was only one prison placed under the authority of the Eleven. The prisoners were not isolated and could be visited by their friends and the members of their family. Some were deprived of freedom of movement by having their feet attached to wooden blocks (Thonissen, "Le droit pénal de la république athénienne", 1875). At Rome there still remains at the foot of the Capitol the ancient Mamertine prison. It comprised an upper portion and a dungeon, the Tullianum. The prisoners were enclosed in the former which was lighted only by narrow loopholes, and, if they were condemned to death, they were thrown into the dungeon through an opening in its roof, to be strangled like Cataline's accomplices or starve to death like Jugurtha. Their naked corpses were then thrown out on the steps on the Gemonies. Imprisonment, which the laws did not usually pronounce, was of two kinds, simple detention or detention in chains. It was for life or for a time, according to the gravity of the offence. The supervision of the public prisons at Rome was entrusted to the triumviri capitales. Under the empire perpetual imprisonment was abolished theoretically, imprisonment being considered not so much a penalty as a means of supervising culprits. The care of the jails, up to the middle of the third century, was included among the duties of the triumviri capitales. In the provinces a more regular administration entirely under military control was then being instituted. At first the accused do not seem to have been separated from the convicted, nor were the sexes kept apart; though there are instances of solitary imprisonment (Humbert in Daremburg and Saglio, "Dict. des antiquités grecques et romaines", s.v. Career). II. INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY It was natural that when Christians were being hunted down and cast into jail for their faith, the Church should recommend the faithful to visit the prisoners. The deacons and deaconesses were especially charged with the care of the incarcerated Christians, bringing them the comfort of religion, food, clothing, and especially money, which was needed to procure certain mitigations, even liberty. The deaconesses more particularly were appointed to this office, for in visiting the Christians they ran less risk of awakening the suspicion of the pagans. At an early period the bishops began to purchase the liberty of the prisoners. For this they made collections, and if the receipts were not sufficient, they sold the church property. Not only their own flock but the Christians in distant lands were objects of their charitable zeal. Debtors, towards whom Rome was so heartless, were not forgotten. Justinian granted private debtors the right of asylum in the house of God, but only if the creditors abused their rights; this favour was not, however, extended to public or state debtors. The Church, the help of sinners, could not but extend her assistance and protection to criminals; for crime is primarily a sin. In the earliest times, as soon as more peaceful days had dawned, she endeavoured to free them from prison, to punish and correct them in another way. For this she employed three means. + The paschal indulgence. By virtue of an edict of Valentinian I in 367 all prisons were opened at Easter and the prisoners set free. This edict was called the indulgentia pascalis. The privilege was not extended to those arrested for sacrilege, poisoning, treason, adultery, rapine, or murder. Valentinian the younger, Theodosius, and Theodoric issued similar edicts, but they excluded in addition recidivists. + The right of asylum. Under Constantine the Church had the right of asylum, which was granted also by his successors. Charlemagne ordained in a capitulary that no one taking refuge in a church should be taken from it by force, but should be unmolested till the court had pronounced its decision. This privilege in the course of time was abused and consequently was abolished. The right of asylum was not extended to adulterers, ravishers of young girls, or public debtors; it was confined to those who were unjustly pursued. + The right of intercession. The bishops had the right to ask the civil judge to pardon condemned prisoners, especially those sentenced to death; frequently, however, they petitioned to have prisoners discharged. In the course of time, through the influence of the Church, the lot of prisoners was greatly improved. The Council of Nicaea (325) ordered the procuratores pauperum to visit the jails and offer their services. The Synod of Orléans (549) obliged the archdeacon to see all the prisoners on Sundays. The active intervention of the Church began in the days of Constantine the Great and continued for a long period. The bishops and priests were invited and authorized to supervise the conduct of the judges, to visit prisoners on a certain weekday, Wednesdays or Fridays, and find out the reason of their imprisonment, to speak with them about their position and wants, to inform the proper authorities of any defects they noticed and to have changes made. During the Middle Ages this right and duty was enforced only here and there. St. Charles Borromeo was a great reformer and reorganized the whole prison system in his diocese, even to the smallest details, on an essentially humanitarian and Christian basis. The clergyman deputed by the bishop to look after the prisoners had to inquire constantly "quae illorum cura adhibeatur, cum in primis ad animae salutem, tum etiam ad corporis sustentationem", i.e. what care was taken of them, first in regard to their spiritual needs and then as to their physical welfare. Influence of the Papacy The influence of the Papacy also was very great, and the prison system at Rome became a model. Popes Eugenius IV (1435), Paul V (1611), and Innocent X (1655) passed regulations improving the conditions of prisoners, until finally Clement XI (1703), by constructing St. Michael's prison, introduced the most essential change needed to ameliorate the penal system: the construction of a house of correction for youthful offenders, as is recorded in the inscription on the façade "Perditis adolescentibus corrigendis instituendisque ut qui inertes oberant instructi reipulicae serviant" (for the correction and education of abandoned youths; that they who, without training, were detrimental to the State, may, with training, be of service to it). The methods employed to reclaim culprits were separation, silence, work, and prayer. Each prisoner had his cell at night, but all worked in common during the day. A religious confraternity supervised them and undertook their education. Each one was taught a trade, and was encouraged by a system of rewards. The punishments consisted in bread and water diet, work in their cells, black holes, and flogging. In the large workshop of the jail was inscribed the motto: "Parum est coercere improbos poena nisi probos efficias disciplina" (It avails little to punish the wicked unless you reform them by discipline). In 1735 Clement XII erected a prison for women on the model of St. Michael's. If Clement is considered the creator of the modern penitentiary system, it must be pointed out that at Amsterdam the principle of separation at night and work in common during the day had been introduced in 1603 (Von Hippel, "Beiträge zur Geschichte der Freiheitstrafe" in "Zeitschr. fur die Gesch. Straf.", 1897, p. 437, and Roux, "Revue pénitentiaire", 1898, p. 124 sqq.), and that the work of the Dutch inspired many imitators in Germany and Italy, where learned jurisconsults proclaimed that the reformation of the culprit was the object of punishment (Rivière, "Revue penitentiaire", 1895, p. 1152). A priest, Filippo Franci, after experimenting at Venice and Naples on the effect of separating prisoners according to sex, age, and social rank, succeeded in making his house of refuge at Florence (casa pia di refulgio), by the application of individual separation, a model establishment for the correctional education of children. Influence of the Religious Orders In the Middle Ages the Church founded religious orders which bound themselves by vow to the redemption of captives; the Trinitarians, or Mathurins, established in 1198 by St. John of Matha and Felix de Valois, and the Nolascans, founded in 1223. In Spain, France, and especially Italy, there were, moreover, associations or confraternities labouring to improve the condition of prisoners: the Confraternità della Misericordia and the Compagnia di Santa Maria della croce al Tempio detta de Neri at Florence, the Pia Casa di Misericordia at Pisa, the Casa della pietà at Venice, etc. Besides the prisons depending on the State, there were prisons under the control of the religious authorities. Each convent had one or at times two prisons in which religious were incarcerated. The term of imprisonment was temporal or perpetual. The culprit had to do penance and amend his ways. He was isolated and often chained. Generally the discipline was severe; not unfrequently corporal punishment was added to incarceration and the prisoner put on bread and water. The Church had the right to punish clerics for penal offences and had its own episcopal prisons, but from the middle of the sixteenth century, as a result of the changed relations of Church and State, the privilegium fori disappeared and the State resumed its right of punishing clerics in non-religious matters. In the episcopal prisons clerics were treated more gently than were the monks in convent prisons, nevertheless in certain cases the discipline was very rigorous. The Church had jurisdiction also over the laity in offences of a religious character. Finally, it created a new procedure, differing from the ordinary, viz. The inquisitorial procedure in cases of heresy. Imprisonment was the severest punishment the inquisitors could inflict directly. According to the inquisitional theory, it was not really a punishment, but a means for the culprit to obtain pardon for his crimes, and to amend and be converted, while close supervision prevented him from infecting the rest of the flock. The prisoners were subjected to two regimes: the severe and the milder; but, in either case, the captive was given only bread and water; he was confined to a cell, and forbidden all communication, though the latter provision was not strictly enforced. Those under the milder discipline could, if they behaved well, take a little exercise in the corridors, a privilege granted also to the aged and infirm. Those condemned to the severe regime were cast fettered into a narrow dark cell; sometimes they were chained to the walls. The prisons were constructed without any regard to the health or convenience of the inmates, and the condition of the latter was wretched. The Inquisition sometimes commuted or remitted the punishment. The remission was ad tempus, for a longer or shorter period, according to the case. III. MODERN PRISON REFORMS In spite of these efforts to better the prison system in earlier days there was much room for improvement in the buildings, diet, and discipline. Usually the main object of the authorities was to punish rather than to reform the culprit. Not unfrequently the greatest criminals and persons convicted of trifling offences were imprisoned together. Fortunately, after the construction of St. Michael's prison by Clement XI, the development of cellular imprisonment went on uninterruptedly. From Central Italy the movement spread towards Northern Italy, to Turin (erection of the House of Good Counsel, 1757), Venice (1760), Milan, where Empress Maria Theresa established in 1759 a house of correction containing 140 cells, 25 of which were for women and 20 for children. From Milan the system, as might be expected, was introduced almost immediately into the Austrian Low Countries where Maria Theresa's efforts were earnestly seconded by Viscount Jean Vilain XIV, Burgomaster of Ghent (Vicomte Vilain XIV, "Mémoires sur les moyens de corriger les malfaiteurs", Brussels, 1841). At his suggestion the celebrated prison of Ghent, finished in 1775, was erected (Holtzendorf, "Handbuch", I, pl. 3, gives the plan of this prison). The system adopted there was isolation by night and work in common by day. Moreover a division of the culprits according to juridical and moral classification was seriously undertaken. A general change in prison discipline was effected through the efforts of John Howard the philanthropist, b. in 1726 at Hackney, London (Rivière, "Howard, sa vie, son oeuvre" in "Revue pénitentiaire", 1891, pp. 662 sqq.; Howard-Wines, "Punishment and Reformation", 122 sqq.; Krohne, "Lehrbuch"; Cuche, "Traité de science et de législation pénitentiares", 304). Having visited the prisons of England, Germany, France, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, and North America, he published in 1744 a remarkable work, "State of the prisons in England and Wales with preliminary observations and an account of some foreign prisons". Howard described the wretched conditions of the prisons: imprisonment in common without regard to age or sex, want of space, bad food, damp and vitiated air, want of light, filth, immorality, the use of spirituous liquors, gambling with cards and dice. After noting the evils, he proposes the remedies. It is on a religious training of the prisoners that he relies most for a reform; the second great means is work; he holds that society is bound by the ties of brotherhood and even by the hope of reclaiming the culprit, to provide him with proper food and subject him to a hygienic regime; he favoured the separation of prisoners, though he did not approve of the system of shutting them alone in cells both by day and night, except for certain classes of culprits; all others he would separate only during the night. Howard was the interpreter of the opinion of the civilized world. It is interesting to note the results of this change of opinion in the different countries, or, at least, to point out the original systems. United States of America (1) The Pennsylvania system is the work of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, founded in 1776. The fundamental idea of this regime is rigorous and continued isolation to excite to repentance and lead the culprit to a better life. At first the system was carried to such an extreme that the cells were without light in order that the darkness might act more powerfully on the prisoner's mind and conscience. Some writers say that the culprits had no work to do, but that is uncertain. The Pennsylvania system, in its rigorous form as it was originally established, prevented, it is true, the mutual corruption of the prisoners and the planning of crimes to be committed on their release, which are the negative effects of individual separation; but it was not suited to produce positive results, that is, an awakening of the moral sense in man left to his own meditations; the cell can have an influence for moral good only when it enables the reflections of solitude to be guided and strengthened by outside influences (Cuche, op. cit., 312 sqq.). (2) The system of Auburn or silence (Chestel, "Avantages du Système d'Auburn", 1900), introduced in the State of New York, consists in isolating the prisoners only at night, in making them work together in strict silence during the day, and in separating them according to age and morality. This is, in general, the same as the regime of the prisons of Amsterdam, St. Michael, and Ghent. The principal objection urged against it is the difficulty of enforcing silence, and of preventing the inmates from communicating with one another. Moreover, such unnatural life makes the culprits irascible. (3) In the so-called system of classification, the prisoners are divided not only according to sex, age, degree of guilt, aptitude for work, but also according to their moral character and the possibility of amendment; in each division work is in common. Such a system depending entirely on the judgment of the governor of the jail seems difficult to carry out in practice. (4) In the mitigated Pennsylvania system, the inmates are isolated in cells day and night; they are separated also in church, in school, and on the grounds, but they work at a lucrative trade, read books, are visited by members of the prison staff, are allowed to received their relations from time to time, and may write to them. (5) The state reformatories are intended to provide rigorous training for prisoners between the ages of sixteen and thirty who give hope of being corrected; the indeterminate sentence is the basis and the paroling of prisoners the completion of this system. The model established is the Reformatory at Elmira (Aschrott, "Aus dem Strafen u. Gefängnisswesen Nordamerikas", 1889; Winter, "Die New-Yorker staatliche Besserungsanstalten zu Elmira", 1890; Yoon, "Rapport sur l'organisation pénitentiare aux Etats-Unis" in "Revue pénitentiare", 1895; Barrows, "The Reformatory System in the United States";, Washington, Govt. Printing Office, 1900; Sanborn, "Rapport sur le Reformatory d'Elmira"; Cuche, op. cit., 358 sqq.). The committee of directors release, before the end of their term, those who deserve this favour. The convicts are isolated at night; and in the daytime receive a professional, physical, and intellectual training. Every opportunity is taken to provide for the moral and religious improvement of the culprits. It is not the object of the system to train the prisoners only at specified hours but rather to do so continually, by bringing them into constant contact with an intelligent and devoted staff of instructors, and thus gradually inspire better resolutions. A last characteristic of the system is the multiplication of classifications and gradations. The reward consists in being promoted from trade to grade, which results in an increase of comfort and a greater remuneration for manual work; the punishment in a corresponding descent. When he has been promoted to the first class or category, the convict, if his conduct during the preceding six months has been satisfactory, may be let out on parole. Generally a situation is found for him, and his employer sends in regularly an account of his conduct to the administration of the reformatory; certain officers are, moreover, appointed to watch over the paroled convicts and are authorized to arrest them and bring them back to the reformatory if their conduct is not satisfactory. This last stage of freedom on parole lasts six months, after which the prisoners are discharged from prison for good. (For treatment of juvenile offenders see JUVENILE COURTS.) Great Britain Captain Maconochie introduced about 1840 a special system called the progressive into the convict settlement of Norfolk Island. This system consisted in proportioning the duration of the punishment to the work done and the good conduct of the convict. The duration was represented by a certain figure or number of good marks settled according to the gravity of the crime. The culprit had to merit these good marks before being liberated; each day he was awarded one or more, according to his work; if his conduct was unsatisfactory a slight penalty was imposed. Maconochie thus gave the convict the control of his own lot. The results were marvellous. When transportation was abolished, England remained faithful to the idea of making imprisonment in a cell only a small part of the penalty, and of gradually preparing the convict to return to society when he had gained his complete freedom. This system comprises the following stages: 1. The prisoner is at first confined to the cells for nine months. 2. He is then sent to one of the central public works prisons, Chatham, Dover, or Plymouth, where the Auburn regime is in force -- separation at night, work in common during the day. The culprits are divided into four classes, according to their work and conduct, by means of a system of marks, enabling them to reach a higher grade. Violation of discipline relegates them to a lower grade and even to the cells. 3. The third period is one of conditional liberty, the prisoner being liberated on a ticket-of-leave. In Ireland Walter Crofton devised an intermediate stage between the public jail and conditional liberty. To test the moral character of the convict and to see if he was fit for liberty, he was compelled to reside six months in the prison at Lusk, a prison without walls, bars, or bolts, where the culprits were employed as free workmen in agriculture or a trade. This intermediate state was abolished when Crofton's connection with the Irish prisons ceased. The progressive system has been adopted in Hungary; during the intermediate stage the prisoners are employed on farms. What characterizes the regime of penal servitude, in addition to its progressive organization, is the nature of the work imposed on the prisoners. In the second stage the prisoners are engaged only in public works. The jail at Wormwood-Scrubs was built entirely by convicts, as were the breakwater at Portsmouth and part of the docks at Chatham, etc. Prins (Science penale et droit positif, p. 445 sq. believes that the progressive regime, while not perfect, offers perhaps more scope than the purely cellular system, as it approaches more closely the normal conditions of life. The successive stages bring the convict nearer to liberty, and enable him to appreciate the advantages, the dangers, the meaning, and significance of freedom. The shops, where groups of prisoners work under the control of the authorities, accustom them to the conditions of free work. Riviere and Cuche, viewing the question from another standpoint, hold that if the common prison is only a preparatory school for recidivists, it still retains that character when it is imposed on a criminal who has just completed his stay in the cells. Persons who have caught a cold are not placed in a draught to fortify them against the draughts they must be exposed to later. At all events, what may have succeeded in one country or in the case of a particular race might produce evil results if applied elsewhere (Cuche, op. cit., 325). Belgium When a discussion arises among prison experts as to the merits and demerits of the cell, the typical example is always the Belgian cell says Cuche (cf. "Notice sur l'organisation des prisons en Belgique", Brussels, 1910). It is necessary, therefore, to study it in detail. The cellular regime is due to Ducpetiaux, Inspector-General of Prisons, who, in 1830, determined to put an end to the abuses of the penitentiary system in vogue in Belgium, and to place the criminal in a cell, compensating for the severity of the punishment by curtailing its duration. Although he soon had the satisfaction of seeing his plan succeed so far as to have cellular jail erected, it was only on 4 March, 1870, that cellular imprisonment was adopted by law. All penalties of deprivation of liberty are undergone under the regime of cellular isolation by day and night. The rule, however, admits of exceptions. The physical or mental condition of some prisoners will not allow the application or continuance of cellular discipline. Again the crowding of the cellular jails sometimes makes it necessary to allow the prisoners to be put together. Finally, those who are condemned to hard labour or perpetual imprisonment are isolated only during the first ten years in prison. At the expiration of that time, those condemned to a life sentence are allowed to choose either to continue their form of imprisonment or to be placed under ordinary discipline. From 1870 to 1909, 170 (76 per cent) selected to continue their cellular life, and 55 (24 per cent) choose the ordinary discipline. The cellular system as it exists in Belgium is considered at present the most practical, though criminologists and practical experts are far from agreeing on the advantages and inconveniences of the cell, except in the cases of short terms, when there is unanimity. "The real value of a penitential institution is in no way absolute", says Cuche (op. cit., p. 331); "we have merely to see if its advantages are considerably greater than its inconveniences; it must be remembered, too, that its merit is greatly increased when intelligent and devoted men are in charge of the establishment. If it be laid down as a principle that the prisoners shall be subjected to the cellular regime only as long as is judged proper by the physician who shall examine them on their admission and visit them regularly afterwards during the course of their punishment; if there be an official staff and a sufficient number of visitors to preserve the social element in each prisoner; finally if, in confining prisoners to their cells, due discrimination as to sex, age, and race is made, the evil results of prolonged isolation will in large measure disappear". M. Henri Joly ("Problèmes de science criminellel", Paris, 1910, pp. 195, 211), who visited the central prison of Louvain on three occasions, was very favourably impressed by the system; he recognized that an excellent programme is being carried out: the prisoner is separated as much as possible from his fellows, and brought into contact as far as possible with society properly so-called, with which he maintains the best relations; his only regrets are that there are so many prisoners and that conditional liberations are granted so rarely. Proportional and progressive reductions of the term of incarceration are granted. The rule in force reduces a sentence of 6 months to 4 months and 23 days; a year to 9 months and 12 days; 3 years to 2 years, 1 month, and 8 days; 5 years to 3 years, 5 months, and 10 days; 10 years to 6 years, 3 months, and 9 days; 20 years to 9 years, 9 months, and 12 days. The legislature not having provided cases in which the original sentence is between 20 and 25 years, a conditional liberation is granted to the prisoner when he would have been definitely liberated if he had been granted a reduction of 10-12 of the years over 20. Experience shows that a mathematical reduction, uniform in every case, ignoring the principle of the individualization of the penalty, does not meet the necessity of repression. The only result of the system is to weaken the effect of prison restraint and to liberate much too rapidly criminals unworthy of the favour (Prins, op. cit., 523 sqq.). The prisons are divided into two classes: central prisons, two in number, Louvain and Ghent; secondary prisons, numbering twenty- seven. The central prison of Louvain, and all the secondary prisons, except two which are to be changed, are arranged with a view to complete separation night and day. The central prison of Ghent, erected towards the close of the eighteenth century, has eight divisions, only one of which has been arranged for cellular imprisonment by day and night; the others contain only night cells, the prisoners being assembled during the day. The central prisons receive only male convicts. There is no central prison for women, on account of the few crimes committed by women; they are incarcerated in the secondary prisons. The central prison of Louvain receives those condemned to hard labour and seclusion, as well as prisoners sentenced to correctional imprisonment for more than five years. There is a special quarter in the central prison at Ghent for youthful convicts. The inmates are isolated in cells at night and work in common during the day. The law allows the courts and tribunals in sentencing an individual under the age of eighteen years completed to order him to remain at the disposal of the Government after the end of his term till he attains his majority: such persons are also sent to Ghent. However, those who on account of their youth, the moral conditions in which they are situated, or their previous conduct, do not deserve to be subjected to the more rigid discipline of the special quarters till their majority are sent to a philanthropic school. The secondary prisons, which with one exception have two distinct sections, one for men and one for women, are principally prisons for punishment; accused persons are detained there; they contain, moreover, different classes of inmates, such as those detained only temporarily, beggars and vagabonds awaiting transference to the mendicity institutions. The central administration of the prisons is under the control of the minister of justice. Connected with the central administration is the inspection department, divided into three sections: the first includes everything, except the accounting and construction departments; the second is engaged on the accounts; the third attends to buildings, improvements, and repairs. Besides the supervision of the inspectors, which embraces the prisons as a whole, there is permanent local supervision which, in each establishment, is confided to a commission, called the administrative commission. The members of this body, numbering three, six, or nine, according to the importance of the prison, are appointed by the king and selected preferably from the ranks of the clergy, physicians, manufacturers or merchants, engineers or architects. The royal procurator of the arrondissement, the burgomaster of the commune, and the military auditor, if there be one in the locality, are ex officio members. The commission participates in the work of reforming the lives of the condemned by visiting the cells as often as possible. It advises pardons and conditional liberation, and is consulted on the suggestions made by the governor. It is not a mere organ of control and consulting council; it participates in the working of the establishment, at least in the cases provided for by law, such as granting holidays to the staff, approving contracts, regulating the conditions relating to the work of the prisoners. The members of the staff of the central prison of Louvain may be taken as an example: a governor, two assistant governors, three Catholic chaplains, two Protestant chaplains, a Jewish chaplain, two teachers, two doctors, a druggist, two accountants, two store-keepers, five clerks, a head-warder, fifty guards, five assistant warders, and four inspectors of work. As the central Prison of Louvain contains about 600 ordinary cells, there are about twelve prisoners for each warder. The inspectors of work are employed exclusively to give professional instruction to the prisoners, and to supervise the work of the principal trades, shoemaking, tailoring, etc., as well as the repairing of the furniture and buildings. In five jails where the small number of female inmates requires only one wardress, the latter is a lay person. In all the others the supervision of the female prisoners is confined to nuns. The duty of the chaplains consists in presiding at religious exercises, and fulfilling the obligations of their ministry; religious instruction, administration of the sacraments, assistance to the dying. They go to the cells of their co-religionists unless the latter decline to receive them. The exercise of Catholic worship includes Mass and Benediction and also a moral and religious instruction on Sundays and feast days in the prison chapel. In the more important jails a spiritual retreat is given every year by an outside clergyman. Attendance at religious exercises is optional. Cuche remarks quite correctly that "for adults as for children, experience proves that religion is the best method of inculcating morality". This incontestable truth has been admitted by every prison expert in the neighbouring countries. Krohne declares that it is only by means of religion that we can hope through punishment to reform the criminal, which is the principal object of imprisonment. Kraus, in the "Handbuch d'Holtzendorff", gives an excellent refutation of the objection drawn from the liberty of conscience of the culprit. "Besides the moral influence of religion there is," adds Cuche, "the Divine service with its ceremonies, a fact often forgotten. In a prison, especially if it is cellular, assistance at Divine worship and singing of hymns, are excellent distractions, while they offer the prisoner an occasion for salutary reflection. In Germany choruses in four parts are sung in the evening. Krohne gives a simple and touching description of this ceremony. The same author recommends that each culprit should be given a hymn-book, as well as a New Testament, a Bible history, and a psalter. He even expresses the desire that the prisoner should be induced to purchase the hymn-book and the New Testament with his own money in order that he might keep them after his liberation." Conditional Liberation Prins remarks: "As the system of conditional condemnation allows the judges to exercise their discretion, and remit the penalty in the case of offenders for whom a warning seems sufficient, conditional liberation allows the administration to act similarly towards those in prison, and to decide who should remain in prison till the end of their term and who should be prepared for definitive liberation by a conditional liberation. This plan acts as a stimulus, since it holds out to well-conducted prisoners the possibility of having their term shortened; it acts too as a restraint, as the liberated convict recognizes that the favour may be withdrawn; it is a stage of the punishment since it prepares the prisoner for his definitive liberation." Conditional liberation has become an essential part of the penal system throughout the world. As there is anticipated liberation, when the culprit seems reformed before the end of the term to which he was sentenced, so it logically follows there should be a supplementary detention when the criminal at the expiration of his term does not appear to be reformed. Under such circumstances an indeterminate sentence is advocated (Cuche, "Traité de science et de législation pénitentiaires", 356-9). Some see in this theory the logical result of a repressive system having as its sole aim the moral reformation of the criminal; others consider it the logical result of the theory which considers the punishment as an act of social defence, the intensity of which is proportioned to the danger personified in the delinquent (cf. Prins, "Science penale et droit positif", 455). This writer (op. cit., 459 sqq.) does not favour the indeterminate sentence as a penalty properly so called imposed on a normal responsible culprit, because it is not in harmony with the principles of our public law, which endeavours in the matter of punishment to safeguard the liberty of every individual against arbitrary use of power, and because it is very complicated in practice; he admits, however, that it is different when there is question of subjecting to government control youthful offenders, beggars, and vagabonds, or in the case of degenerates, lunatics or weak-minded persons. Care of Liberated Criminals It is a duty of society to come to the aid of deserving liberated prisoners; for oftentimes they are not in a position to support themselves, and so fall again easily. Many societies have been established everywhere to assist and encourage liberated prisoners; their efforts should be directed especially towards youthful offenders. A new Central Association for the Aid of Discharged Prisoners was established in England early in 1911. While the association is an official body it combines and co-ordinates all the private philanthropic societies which in a disconnected way endeavoured to assist convicts on their discharge. Besides aiming to help the prisoner on his release more effectively than formerly, it aims to do away in most cases with the ticket-of-leave system. Persons discharged from penal servitude come under the cognizance and control of the central body. Representatives of the different societies are admitted to the convict prisons, and are thus enabled to divide the ground among the different agencies and to make a study of individual cases in time to deal with them on the release of the prisoners. On discharge from prison the convict keeps in touch with the society to which he belongs. Except in unsuitable cases police supervision is suspended so long as the convict behaves well and obeys the conditions imposed upon him by the central association, working through the particular society. If he misbehaves, or if, in the opinion of the authorities charged with his care, he is not sincere in his efforts to abstain from criminal courses, he may be returned to police control. But so long as he makes an honest endeavour to regain his position, guided and aided by the association, he is freed from direct contact with the police or from anything likely to obtrude his past upon the notice of his neighbors or employers. Prison-Reform Associations The international prison congresses have played an important part in prison reform. The first was held at Frankfort-on-the Main in 1846. The Congress of London (1872), in which twenty-two countries were represented by 100 delegates, led to the creation of an international prison commission. The last, the ninth quinquennial session of the International Prison Congress, was held in Washington in 1910. Twenty-two countries belonging to the association were represented by delegates as well as a number of countries not yet officially members, among them China, Japan, and Egypt. One of the principal achievements of the congress was the formal approval of the indeterminate sentence, a product of American developments. The congress also approved the centralization of control of all penal institutions, including local jails, and the useful employment of all inmates, whether merely detained for trial or sentenced for long terms; and it favoured the discreet use of the probation system, advocating central supervision of probation in each state. Considerable attention was paid also to the methods of criminal procedure suitable for children and minors. The Prisons' Society of Rhenish Prussia and Westphalia (founded in 1826); the Society of Officers of the German Prisons (founded in 1864); the German Juristentag (founded in 1867); the International union of Penal Law (founded in 1889); the Société générale des prisons in France, and the National Prison Congress of the United States, have likewise materially aided the work of prison reform. The following reforms among others have been warmly advocated: + The uniform repressive system should be differentiated into a system of education, a system of repression, and a system of preservation, and each of these should be in turn subdivided according to the various classes of delinquents. In particular there should be a good division of the culprits, and a social effort made to reform those who are susceptible of it. + Short sentences are undesirable, as they are likely neither to intimidate nor to educate. + The cellular system is by far the most preferable, so long as danger to the physical and mental well-being of the culprit is averted. + The prisoner's work should be both useful and productive; it should not be monotonous or wearisome; the criminal should be applied to work in which he will easily find occupation on his liberation; the kinds of work should be sufficiently varied to suit the natural aptitude of the various prisoners. State public work is preferable. + While enforcing as far as possible the individualization of the penalty, the progressive system should be introduced, as it leads up gradually to liberty, and prepares the culprit to enter again into society. + In the case of youthful offenders it is more than ever necessary to substitute education and protection for punishment (see Collard, "L'education protectrice de l'enfance en Prusse, La loi du 2 Juillet 1900 et son application", Louvain, 1908). + The treatment of women in prisons should be based on different principles from those applied to men. + In the case of conditional liberation the time of probation should be sufficiently prolonged. KRAUSS, Im Kerker vor u. nach Christus (Freiburg, 1895); KRIEG, Wissenschaft der Seelenleitung, I (Freiburg, 1907), 347 sqq.; LIMBERG, Die Gefangnisseclsorge u. charitative Fursorge fur Gefangene und Entlassene in Preussen (1903); ROHDEN, Probleme der Gefangenenscelsorge u. Entlassenfursorge (1908); VON HOLTZENDORFF AND VON ZAGEMANN, Handbuch der Gefangniswesens (1888); KROHNE, Lehrbuch der Gefangnisskunde (1889); LENZ, Die anglo-amerikanische Reformbewegung im Strafrecht (1908); ASCHROTT, Strafen-u. Gefangniswesen in England wahrend des letzien Jahrzehnts (1896); KROHNE AND UBER, Die Strafanstalten und Gefangnisse in Preussen (1909); APPEL, Der Vollzug der Freiheitsstrafen in Baden (1905); ROSENFELD, 200 Jahre Fursorge der preussischen Staatsregierun fur die entlassenen Gefangenen (1905); HEIMBERGER, Zur Reform des Strafvollzuges (1905); BACHEM AND MEISTER, Gefangniswesen in Staatslexikon, II (1909), 418 sqq.; CUCHE, Traite de science et de legislation penitentiaires (1905); PRINS, Science penale et droit positif (1899); Revue penitentiaire, passim; International Prison Congress, Prisons and Reformatories at Home and Abroad (London, 1872); COOK, The Prisons of the World (London, 1891); WINES, State of Prisons in the Civilized World (Cambridge, 1880); IDEM, Punishment and Reformation (New York, 1910); PARSONS, Responsibility for Crime (New York, 1909); COONEY, Prison Reform in The Month, XCVI (London, 1900), 597. CHARLES COLLARD Ecclesiastical Prisons Ecclesiastical Prisons It is plain from many decrees in the "Corpus Juris Canonici" that the Church has claimed and exercised the right, belonging to a perfect and visible society, of protecting its members by condemning the guilty to imprisonment. The object of prisons originally, both among the Hebrews and the Romans, was merely the safe-keeping of a criminal, real or pretended, until his trial. The ecclesiastical idea of imprisonment, however, is that confinement be made use of both as a punishment and as affording an opportunity for reformation and reflection. This method of punishment was anciently applied even to clerics. Thus, Boniface VIII (cap. "Quamvis", iii, "De poen.", in 6) decrees: Although it is known that prisons were specially instituted for the custody of criminals, not for their punishment, yet we shall not find fault with you if you commit to prison for the performance of penance, either perpetually or temporarily as shall seem best, those clerics subject to you who have confessed crimes or been convicted of them, after you have carefully considered the excesses, persons and circumstances involved in the case. The Church adopted the extreme punishment of perpetual imprisonment because, by the canons, the execution of offenders, whether clerical or lay, could not be ordered by ecclesiastical judges. It was quite common in ancient times to imprison in monasteries, for the purpose of doing penance, those clerics who had been convicted of grave crimes (c. vii, dist. 50). The "Corpus Juris", however, says (c. "Super His", viii, "De poen.") that incarceration does not of itself inflict the stigma of infamy on a cleric, as is evident from a papal pronouncement on the complaint of a cleric who had been committed to prison because he vacillated in giving testimony. The reply recorded is that imprisonment does not ipso facto carry with it any note of infamy. As to monastic prisons for members of religious orders, we find them recorded in decrees dealing with the incorrigibility of those who have lost the spirit of their vocation. Thus, by command of Urban VIII, the Congregation of the Council (21 September, 1624) decreed: For the future, no regular, legitimately professed, may be expelled from his order unless he be truly incorrigible. A person is not to be judged truly incorrigible unless not only all those things are found verified which are required by the common law (notwithstanding the constitutions of any religious order even confirmed and approved by the Holy See), but also, until the delinquent has been tried by fasting and patience for one year in confinement. Therefore, let every order have private prisons, at least one in every province. The crimes in question must be such as by natural or civil law would merit the punishment of death or imprisonment for life (Reiffenstuel, "Jus Can. univ.", no. 228). Innocent XII reduced the year required by the above-mentioned decree to six months (Decree "Instantibus", 2). A decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council (13 November, 1632) declares that a religious is not to be judged incorrigible because he flees from imprisonment, unless, after being punished three times, he should make a fourth escape. As the civil laws do not, at present, permit of incarceration by private authority, the Congregation on the Discipline of Regulars has decreed (22 January, 1886) that trials for incorrigibility, preceding dismissal, should be carried out by summary, not formal, process, and that for each case recourse should be had to Rome. A vestige of the monastic imprisonment (which, of course, nowadays depends only on moral force) is found in the decree of Leo XIII (4 November, 1892), in which he declares that religious who have been ordained and wish to leave their order cannot, under pain of perpetual suspension, depart from the cloister (exire ex clausura) until they have been adopted by a bishop. PIATUS MONTENSIS, Proclectiones juris regularis, I (Paris, 1888); REIFFENSTUEL, Jus canonicum universum, V (Paris, 1868); PIRHING, Jus canonicum universum, V (Venice, 1759). WILLIAM H.W. FANNING Privilege Privilege (Lat., privilegium, like priva lex) Privilege is a permanent concession made by a legislator outside of the common law. It is granted by special favour, and gives the privileged an advantage over the non-privileged individuals; it differs from particular laws which also concern certain classes of persons or things; thus the clergy and the religious have their laws and their privileges. The favour, being lasting is thus distinguished from a permission or single dispensation. It is granted to his subjects by a superior having authority over the law; it thus receives an official value approximating it to a law, in the sense that he who enjoys it may lawfully exercise it, and third parties are obliged to respect its use. A privilege, finally, deviates from the common law, including particular laws, whether it merely adds to it or derogates from it. Privileges are of many kinds. Contrasted with the law, they are: 1. assimilated to the law, forming part of it (clausa in copore juris), such are the privileges of clerics, or they are granted by special rescript. 2. They are superadded to the law (pr ter jus), when they relate to an object not touched by the law, or contrary to the law (contra jus), when they form an exception, allowing one to do or to omit what the law forbids or commands. As to the manner of concession, they are 3. granted directly or obtained by communication with those who enjoy them directly. Moreover, the concession may be 4. either verbal or by an official writing. Verbal concessions are valid in the forum of conscience, or better, in the case of acts that need not be justified in the external forum; to be valid in the external forum, they must have been granted officially by rescripts or at least attested by a competent official (Urban VIII, "Alias felicis", 20 Dec., 1631; Reg. Conc. 27 and 52). If we consider the motive for granting them, privileges are divided: 5. into remunerative, when they are based on the merits or services of the grantees, or purely gratuitous. From the point of view of the subject, privileges are 6. personal, real, or mixed; personal are granted directly to individuals; real to what the law terms a "thing", for instance, a dignity as such, e.g. the privilege of the pallium for an episcopal see; mixed, to a group of persons, like a chapter or a diocese (local privilege). With regard to their object, privileges are 7. positive or negative, according as they allow the performance of an act otherwise forbidden, or exempt one from the performance of an act otherwise obligatory. Again they are 8. honorary or useful; 9. purely gratuitous or onerous, the latter entailing certain duties or obligations correlative to the privilege; among such are conventional privileges, like concordats. Finally, from the point of view of their duration, they are 10. perpetual or temporary. Privileges recognized by the law require no proof and must be recognized by the court; all other privileges must be proved, not presumed. They are proved by the production of the original concession or by a duly certified copy. To avoid difficulties the superior is often asked to renew or confirm the privileges granted by him or his predecessors. This confirmation may be either in common form, recognizing the privilege again, but giving it no new force, or in specific form, which is a new grant, revalidating the former as far as needs may be. The two forms are distinguished by the context and the official wording employed (cf. Decret., lib. II, tit. xxx, "De confirmatione utili vel inutili"). The teaching of the canonists on the interpretation of rescripts may be summed up as follows: Privileges are to be construed according to the letter, the interpretation being neither extensive nor restrictive but purely declaratory, that is the words are to be taken only in their full and usual signification. A privilege as being a concession of the ruler is understood generously, especially when it runs counter to no law; in as far as it derogates from the law, particularly if it interferes with the rights of a third party, it is interpreted strictly. Privileges are obtained by direct concession, which is the usual way, or by prescriptive custom, an exceptional and indirect manner, or by communication. The last is an extension of the privilege to others than the first grantees. It may occur in two ways: either explicitly, the legislator giving the former class what he gave the latter, or implicitly, when it is already decreed that the privileges granted to certain juridical entities are deemed accorded to certain others, unless the privilege be incommunicable or an exception be made by the superior. The best-known example of the communication of privileges is that existing among the Mendicant Orders, as appears by many pontifical Constitutions from the time of Sixtus IV. Similarly communication of privileges exists between archconfraternities and affiliated confraternities. Privileges cease by the act of the legislator, the act of the grantees, or spontaneously. + The legislator may revoke his concession either formally, or implicitly by a contrary law containing the clause "notwithstanding all privileges to the contrary" or even, "notwithstanding all privileges the tenor of which ought to be reproduced textually". It is clear that a revocation may be only partial. + The grantees may terminate the privilege: first, by an express renunciation accepted by the superior; provided however that it is the case of a personal privilege; for privileges of general interest, like those of the clergy, may not be renounced. Second, by non-user; not always, however, as theoretically the use of privileges is optional, but when this non-user gives third parties a prescriptive right; thus by non-user the privilege of election or of option in a chapter may be lost. Third, by abuse, in which case the withdrawal of the privilege is a penalty requiring at least a judicial declaratory sentence. + A privilege ceases spontaneously when a circumstance which was a condition for its enjoyment ceases: thus a cleric in minor orders loses the clerical privileges if he again embraces a secular calling; second, by lapse of time: for instance, where an indult is granted for a certain number of years, or when an honorary title is conferred on one for life; third, by the cessation of the subject: thus a personal privilege disappears with the person: the real privilege with the thing, e.g. the privileges of the churches of France ceased with the total suppression of the former state. Does a privilege cease when its raison d'être has completely ceased? Theoretically, it may be so; but, in practice, the privilege remains in possession and the grantee may wait till the superior intervenes. See the canonical writers on the title "De privilegiis et excessibus privilegiatorum", lib. V, tit. xxxiii; in Sexto, lib. V, tit. vii; in Clem., lib. V, tit. vii; Extrav. Joann. XXII, tit. xi; Extrav. Comm., lib. V, tit. vii; FERRARIS, Prompta bibliotheca, s.v. Privilegium; D'ANNIBALE, Summula, I (Rome, 1908), nn. 227 Sq.; SLATER, Moral Theology (London, 1908). A. BOUDINHON Ecclesiastical Privileges Ecclesiastical Privileges Ecclesiastical privileges are exceptions to the Law made in favour of the clergy or in favour of consecrated and sacred objects and places. I. The privileges in favour of the clergy are: personal inviolability, a special court, immunity from certain burdens and the right to a proper maintenance (privilegium canonis, fori, immunitatis, competentioe). In addition, the clergy have precedence of the laity in religious assemblies and processions, a special place in the church, viz., the presbytery (c. 1, X de vita et honestate cleric., III, 1), and titles of honour. These honours increase according to the higher order or office. Privilegium Canonis In earlier canon law the injuring or wounding of a cleric was punished by severe canonical penances, and on occasion by excommunication (cc. 21, 22, 23, 24, C. XVII, q. 4). A person wounding a bishop incurred ipso facto excommunication (Synod of Rome, 862 or 863, c. xiv). When about the middle of the twelfth century at the instigation of politico-religious agitators, like Arnold of Brescia, excesses were committed against the defenceless clergy and religious, who were forbidden to carry weapons, the Church was compelled to make stricter laws. Thus, the Second Council of Lateran (1139), c. xv, after the Synods of Clermont (1130), Reims (1131), and Pisa (1135), decreed that whosoever thenceforth laid malicious hand on a cleric or monk incurred ipso facto anathema, the raising of which, except in danger of death, was reserved to the pope and must be sought in person at Rome (c. 29, C. XVII, q. 4). This privilege, which, from the opening words of the canon, is called the privilegium canonis "Si quis suadente diabolo" or simply privilegium canonis, continues even to-day (Pius IX, "Apostolicæ Sedis moderationi", 12 October, 1869, II, 2), and is enjoyed also by nuns (c. 33, X de sent. excomm. V, 39), lay brothers (c. 33 cit.), novices (c. 21 in VIto h. t. V, 11), and even by tertiaries, who live in common and wear the habit (Leo X, "Dum intra", 19 December, 1516; "Nuper in sacro", 1 March, 1518). According to the wording of the canon, however, it is necessary, for the incurring of the excommunication, that the injury inflicted on the cleric or monk be a malicious and real injury, under which is included unauthorized deprivation of freedom (c. 29, X h. t. V, 39). Consequently, excommunication is not incurred by a superior justly chastising one of his inferiors (cc. 1, 10, 24, 54, X h. t. V, 39); by one who acts in self-defence against a cleric (cc. 3, 10, X h. t. V, 39), by one who avenges insult or assault on wife, mother, sister, or daughter (c. 3 cit.); when the injury results from a joke (c. 1, X h. t. V, 39), or if the assailant be unaware (to be testified on oath, if necessary) of the clerical rank (c. 4, X h. t. V, 39). Instead of the pope, the bishop gives absolution in the case of a slight injury (a. 3, 17, 31, X h. t. V, 39); or if a journey to Rome be impossible; if the obstacle to the journey be only temporary, the assailant must promise the bishop on oath at the time of receiving absolution to present himself before the pope on the disappearance of the obstacle; should he fail to do so, the sentence revives (cc. 1, 2, 6, 11, 13, 26, 32, 33, 37, 58, 60, X h. t. V, 39; c. 22 in VIto h. t. V, 11). According to the Council of Trent, the bishop may also absolve when there is question of secret offences (Sess. XXIV de Ref., c. vi) and, in virtue of the quinquennial faculties pro foro interno, of the less serious offences. In consequence of the more extensive powers of releasing from ecclesiastical censures enjoyed by confessors to-day, personal appearance at Rome is perhaps necessary only in the most serious cases. Abbots absolve their subjects in the case of lighter offences occurring among themselves (c. 2, 32, 50, X h. t. V, 39). This privilege grows with the office. Thus, whosoever commits or causes a real injury to a cardinal, papal legate, or bishop incurs excommunication speciali modo reservata (Pius IX, "Apostolicæ Sedis moderationi", 12 October, 1869, I, 5). While the old German common law punished the injuring of a cleric with a heavier fine than the injuring of a lay person, the modern secular laws like the Roman law, afford special protection to clerics only during the exercise of their calling. Privilegium Fori This secures the clergy a special tribunal in civil and criminal causes before an ecclesiastical judge. The civil causes of clerics pertain by nature to the secular courts as much as those of the laity. But the thought that it was unseemly that the fathers and teachers of the faithful should be brought before laymen as judges, and also the experience that many laymen were greatly inclined to oppress the clergy (c. 3 in VIto de immun., III, 23), led the Church to withdraw her servants even in civil matters from the secular courts, and to bring them entirely under her own jurisdiction. In the Roman Empire, in virtue of the decisions of the synods, a cleric could in civil disputes cite another only before the bishop (cc. 43, 46, C. XI, q. 1). However, these synodal decrees obtained no recognition from the lay courts, until Justinian relegated all disputes of clerics among one another and complaints of laymen against clerics to the ecclesiastical forum (Novella lxxix, lxxxiii, cxxiii, cc. 8, 21, 22). In the Frankish kingdom, also, clerics could Summon one another only before the bishops in civil causes (First Synod of Macon, 583, c. 8), while laymen engaged in a civil dispute with clerics could proceed before the secular court only with the bishop's permission (Third Synod of Orléans, 538, c. 35). The Edict of Clotaire II (614), c. 4, altered the existing laws, by determining that at least actions for debt against clerics might also be brought before the episcopal tribunal. The Carlovingian legislation made herein no alteration, but it forbade clerics expressly to appear personally before the civil courts, ordering them to appoint a defender (advocatus) to represent them (Admonitio generalis, 789, c. 23). In criminal causes, the bishop had in the Roman Empire no jurisdiction, except in trivial matters. To him pertained only the deposition of the criminal cleric before punishment was inflicted by the secular judge (Novella cxxiii, c. 21, § 1; cxxxvii, c. 4). In the Frankish kingdom bishops were condemned and degraded at the synod, whereupon the secular court executed the sentence of death, when necessary. Still more in the case of the other clergy did the power of the lay courts to inflict punishment prevail. But, from the time of the Edict of Clotaire II (614), priests and deacons began to be treated in the same manner as the bishops. In this respect the Carlovingian legislation remained essentially the same (Synod of Frankfort, 794, c. 30). The gradual liberation of the clergy from the lay forum received a further incentive from the ever-increasing number of ecclesiastical causes, from the acceptance of the dictum that the clergy were subject to personal, and the Church to the Roman law, from the ecclesiastical prohibition to clerics to engage in duels or ordeals, from the growing political importance of the bishops as counts and territorial lords after the disintegration of the Carlovingian Empire. Thus, in view of the ferocious acts of violence committed by the laity, Pseudo-Isidore could demand in the most urgent terms that no cleric be summoned before the secular courts (cc. 1, 3, 9, 10, 37, C. XI, q. 1). This principle was called into life by the medieval popes, and, by decretal law, the exclusive competence of ecclesiastical judges over clerics in civil and criminal causes was established (cc. 4, 8, 10, 17, X de iud., II, 1; cc. 1, 2, 9, 12, 13, X de foro compet., II, 2). In feudal affairs alone were the clergy subject to the secular courts (cc. 6, 7, X de foro compet., II, 2). The ecclesiastical courts were thus competent for civil causes of clerics among one another, of laymen against clerics, and for all criminal causes of clerics. This privilegium fori was also recognized by imperial laws (Authentica of Frederick II, "Statuimus", 1139 ad 1. 33, C. de episc. I, 3). From early times, however, it met with great opposition from the State. With the growing ascendancy of the State over the Church, the privilege was more and more limited, and was finally everywhere abrogated. To-day, according to secular law, the civil and criminal causes of clerics belong to the lay court. Only with respect to the purely spiritual conditions of their station and office, are clerics subject to their bishop, and then not without certain state limitations -- especially with respect to certain practical punishments. However, the Church maintains in principle the privilegium fori, even for those in minor orders, provided that they have the tonsure and wear clerical garb, and either already serve in a church or are preparing in a seminary or university for the reception of higher orders (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII de Ref., c. vi; Sess. XXV de Ref., c. xx; Syllabus, n. 31). On the other hand, the popes have in their recent concordats to a great extent relinquished this position. They have, however, demanded that the bishops should be apprised of criminal proceedings against a cleric, so that he may be able to take the necessary ecclesiastical measures (Bavarian Concordat, art. xii, litt. c.; Austrian Concordat, art. xiii, xiv; Concordat with Costa Rica, art. xiv, xv; that with Guatemala, art. xvi, xvii; that with Nicaragua, art. xiv, xv; that with San Salvador, art. xiv, xv). This warning of the bishop is also ordered by the laws of many states, as well as a similar regard for the cleric himself in the case of criminal proceedings (Regulation of the Prussian Minister of Justice of 12 June, 1873; of 25 August, 1879; Austrian Law of 7 May, 1874, §29). But, wherever the pope has not relinquished the privilegium fori, lawgivers and administrators, who directly or indirectly compel the judges to summon ecclesiastical persons before the secular forum, incur excommunication specially reserved to the pope (Pius IX, "Apostolicæ Sedis moderationi", 12 October, 1869, I, 7). In places where the papal derogation of the privilegium fori has not been secured but where justice can be obtained only before the secular judge, a lay complainant, before summoning a cleric before the secular courts, should seek the bishop's permission, or, if the complaint be against a bishop, the permission of the pope. Otherwise, the bishop can take punitive measures against him (S. Congregation of the Inquisition, 23 January, 1886). It is also in accordance with the spirit of the privilegium fori that it is ordered in many dioceses that all complaints of and against clerics be laid first before the bishop for settlement; should no settlement be reached, the case may then be brought before the secular court [Archiv für kathol. Kirchenrecht, VII (1862), 200 sqq.; LXXXIII (1903), 505 sq., 562; LXXXV (1905), 571; LXXXVI (1906), 356 sq.]. Privilegium Immunitatis This consists in the exemption of ecclesiastical persons, things, and places from certain general obligations and taxation. The immunity is, therefore, either personal, or real, or local. Personal immunity is the exemption of the clergy from certain public burdens and obligations, which the general religious sentiment of the people declares in keeping with their office or which render the discharge of their calling difficult. Whether this privilege, as well as the other clerical privileges, rests on Divine law, the Church has never dogmatically decided, although canon law declares that churches and ecclesiastical persons and things are free from secular burdens according to both Divine and human law (c. 4 in VIto de cens., III, 20); that ecclesiastical immunity rests on the Divine command (Council of Trent, Sess. XXV de Ref., c. xx); and that it is false to assert that ecclesiastical immunity can be traced only from secular law; that the immunity of the clergy from military service could be abolished without any breach of the natural law or of justice, nay that it must be abolished in the interests of progress and civil equality (Syllabus, nn. 30, 32). In accordance with the liberties granted the pagan priests, the Christian emperors after Constantine exempted the clergy from the obligation of undertaking municipal offices, trusteeships, guardianships, and all public functions, from military service, quartering, and the other personal munera sordida (later called villainage), and in part also from personal taxation (Cod. Just., 1. I, t. 3 de episc. Novella cxxiii, c. 5). For the most part these privileges also prevailed in the Teutonic kingdoms. Thus, Frederick II exempted the clergy from all taxation and from all socage and teaming (Authentica, "Item nulla" 1220 ad 1. 2, C. de episc. I, 3). But decretal law (c. 3 in VIto de immun. III, 23; c. 3 in Clem. de cens. III, 13) demanded the complete immunity of the clergy (cc. 2, 4, 7, X de immun. III, 49; c. 4 in VIto de cens. III, 20; c. 3 in VIto de immun. III, 23; c. 3 in Clem. de cens. III, 13; c. un. in Clem. de immun. III, 17). This immunity was indeed in the Middle Ages, and especially at the end, complete, since in many cases we find the secular rulers doing their utmost to impose secular burdens on the clergy. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXV de Ref., c. xx), therefore, again exhorts the princes to respect this privilege. In recent times, and especially since the French Revolution, the State's demands on the clergy have been increasing. Hence the above-cited explanations of Pius IX in the Syllabus, nn. 30, 32. The exemption of the clergy from national taxation is to-day almost entirely abolished; their exemption from municipal taxation still continues in some places. In Austria and Germany clerics are exempt from public offices and services and from serving as assessors and jurors. In these countries the clergy are also free from undertaking trusteeships, if they do not obtain the consent of their superiors. Finally, candidates for the ecclesiastical state, and still more ordained clergymen, are exempted in Germany and Austria from military service under arms. Less favour is shown the clergy in Italy, and practically none in France since the separation of Church and State. Conditions vary greatly in other lands. Privilegium Competentioe This is a right possessed by the clergy, in accordance with which, in the case of executions against their property an income, sufficient to constitute a livelihood, must be left to them. A beneficium competentioe was enjoyed by the Roman soldiers (fr. 6, 18, D. de re iudic. XLII, 1). The Glossa argues that, since the cleric is a miles coelestis militioe (cf. also c. 19, C. XXIII, q. 8), the same privilege should be recognized in his case. But this constitutes as poor a foundation as the c. "Odoardus" (c. 3, X. de solut. III, 23), according to which excommunication may not be inflicted on an insolvent cleric, who binds himself to pay on the improvement of his financial position. The origin of the privilege is to be referred rather to custom and to the idea expressed in many canons, that a cleric may not be brought into such a position that he is forced to seek a livelihood in an unworthy manner. In both theory and practice the privilege afforded protection from personal arrest, foreclosure of a mortgage, and from the immediate vacation of property in favour of the lay person. It also extended to the patrimony forming the title of ordination. On the other hand, if the cleric has judicially denied his guilt, has been guilty of a fraud, disregarded cautions, or if the lay person be poorer than the debtor, the privilege is lost. Since the abolition of the privilegium fori, the scope of the privilegium competentioe has been dependent on the state laws. Thus, according to § 850, Ziff. 8 of the civil suit regulations of the German Empire, the yearly income or the pension of clerics is free from seizure to the extent of 1500 marks, and of the excess only one-third is liable. According to § 811, Ziff. 7 8 10, all objects necessary for the discharge of the clerical calling (e. g. books, proper clothing) are also exempt from seizure. In Austria, according to the law of 21 April, 1882, 800 gulden annually are exempt in the case of clergy employed in the care of souls and ecclesiastical beneficiaries, and 500 in the case of other clerics. In Italy also the privilegium competentioe still prevails, but it has been abolished in France. As the privilegia clericorum are the legal consequences of the religious station, granted for the protection of the clerical calling, they may not, being the rights of a class, be waived by any individual, nor may they be withdrawn from an individual except in specified cases. They are forfeited by degradation (c. 2 in VIto de poen. V, 9); by the committing of a serious criminal act and simultaneously laying aside the clerical garb in spite of a triple warning of the bishop (cc. 14, 23, 25, 45, X de sent. excomm. V, 39; c. 10, X de iud. II, 1; c. 1, X de apostat. V, 9); by leading an unseemly or despicable life and simultaneously laying aside the clerical garb spite of three warnings from the bishop (c. 16, X de vita et honest. cleric. III, 1; c un. in VIto h. t. III, 1; c. 1 in Clem. h. t. III, 1); and finally in the case of clerics in minor orders by laying aside the clerical garb (Pius IX, 20 September, 1860). II. Like clerics, consecrated and sacred things and places enjoy certain privileges and freedom from burdens and obligations; this is based on the privilegium immunitatis, and is termed real or local immunity. All objects intended for ecclesiastical use are termed res ecclesiasticoe. Res ecclesiasticoe in this wide sense are divided into res ecclesiasticoe in the narrow sense and res sacroe. Ecclesiastical things (res ecclesiasticoe in the narrow sense), or ecclestiastical property (patrimonium or peculium ecclesiasticum), mediately maintain the Divine worship, and include all buildings and real property belonging to the Church except the churches and cemeteries, the funds for the maintenance of the servants of the Church (bona mensoe, bona beneficii), and the ecclesiastical buildings (bona fabricoe), and finally the property designed for charitable objects or pious foundations (res religiosoe, causoe pioe). Sacred objects (res sacroe) are immediately connected with Divine worship, and are set apart from all other things by an act of worship or consecration as things consecrated (res consecratoe), and by benediction as things blessed (res benedictoe). To res consecratoe belong churches, altars, chalices and patens; to res benedictoe a series of ecclesiastical utensils and cemeteries. As the ecclesiastical property serves for the public good, it was exempted by the Roman emperors from all the lower and extraordinary burdens, but not from the regular taxes (1. 3, C. de episc. I, 3). This example was followed in the Frankish empire, in which church property was subject to all the ordinary public burdens. In addition, however, many extraordinary burdens were imposed, such as the dona gratuita to the king, the furnishing of accommodation for him on his journeys, the rendering of court and war services to him as their feudal lord, and many arbitrary forms of oppression. Consequently, the Third Lateran Council (1179) demanded the complete exemption of church property from taxation, and that only in case of public need, and then only with the consent of the bishop or of the pope, should it be subjected to public burdens (cc. 2, 4, 7, X de immun. III, 49; c. 1, 3, in VIto h. t. III, 23; c. un. in Clem. h. t. III, 17; c. un. Extrav. commun. III, 13). Frederick II accordingly granted church property exemption from all taxation (Authentica "Item nulia" ad 1. 2, C de episc. I, 3). After the close of the Middle Ages, however, secular rulers subjected to a great extent church property to public burdens; the Council of Trent therefore admonished them to respect the old privilege of immunitas realis (Seas. XXV de Ref., c. xx), but without much success. In modern and recent times the tendency has everywhere been to subject church property more and more to public taxation. The assertion that the privilege of immunitas realis was of purely secular origin was declared erroneous by Pius IX in the Syllabus, n. 30. Here and there, as in Germany and Austria, the State laws accord partial freedom from taxation to ecclesiastical property. In Italy the papal property is alone exempt; in France exemption ceased with the separation of Church and State. In the United States the Church shares in the exemption generally granted to all institutions labouring for the public good. The conditions vary much in the other lands. For places and things consecrated to the Divine service no rights can be claimed which involve a profane use. Consequently, such objects are in this sense extra-commercial. Otherwise, in sharp distinction from the res sacroe among the Romans and contrary to the practice of the early Christian centuries, they may, in accordance with the Germanic conception of private churches, be possessed by private individuals and even enter into civil transactions and commerce. In churches and cemeteries, however, no judicial transactions, political meetings, markets, banquets, theatrical performances, secular concerts, dances etc., may be held. The bishop may in all cases sanction their use outside of Divine service, provided that all scandal be avoided. Similarly, the use of the church-bell for secular purposes may be allowed or tolerated apart from cases of need, where the propriety of its use is self-evident (cc. 1, 5, 9, X. de immun. III, 49; c. 2 in VIto h. t. III, 23). Mischief, disorder, and disturbance in the church (especially during Divine service), robbery of the church, the injury or destruction of things or buildings consecrate to the Divine service, disturbance of the peace proper to the cemetery or churchyard, are punished by the State as qualified crimes. To the ecclesiastical local immunity belongs the right of asylum of churches. Even in the Old Testament it was decreed that the murderer or homicide might be safe from vengeance in certain places, until the public had come to a decision concerning his surrender (Ex., xxi, 13; Num., xxxv, 6 sqq.; Deut., xix, 2 sqq.). Among the Greeks, and especially among the Romans, the temples, the altars, and the statues of the emperor were places of refuge (1, l, C. de his qui ad statuas confugiunt I, 25). Thus, when Christianity became the religion of the State, it followed as an inevitable consequence that the emperor should also raise to the right of sanctuary the churches and bishops (C. Just. de his qui ad ecclesias confugiunt I, 12). But, as the ecclesiastical right of sanctuary was still very limited, the Synod of Carthage (399) asked the emperor to remove these limitations. In the German empires it was the Church which founded the right of asylum as a protection against the rude conception of justice then prevalent and against savage revenge, by decreeing with the assent of the State that a criminal, who had reached the church or its immediate neighbourhood, might be delivered up only after he had performed ecclesiastical penance, and after the secular judge had promised that sentence of death or maiming would not be inflicted upon him (cc. 19, 36, C. XVII, q. 4, Capitulare de partibus Saxoniæ, 775-90, c. 2). The right of asylum, which had its origin in this manner and which was subsequently extended to the surroundings of the church, the cemeteries, the dwellings of bishops and parish-priests, seminaries, monasteries, and hospitals, was upheld especially by the popes, although they excluded from the privilege very great criminals, such as highway robbers, murderers, and those who chose the church or churchyard as the scene of their crimes so as to enjoy immediately the right of asylum (cc. 6, 10, X de immun. III, 49; c. 1, X de homic. V, 12). Since the close of the Middle Ages, however, State legislation has been opposed to the ecclesiastical right of asylum, so that the popes have been compelled to modify it more and more (Gregory XIV, "Cum alias" of 24 May, 1591; Benedict XIII, "Ex quo divina", 8 June, 1725; Clement XII, "In suprema justitiæ", 1 Feb., 1734; Benedict XIV, "Officii Nostri", 15 March, 1750). The modern penal codes no longer recognize an ecclesiastical right of asylum, and the Church can all the more readily acquiesce therein, as modern justice is humane and well-regulated. However, even to-day those who violate "ausu temerario" the ecclesiastical right of asylum incur excommunicatio latoe sententioe simply reserved to the pope (Pius IX, "Apost. Sedis moderationi", 12 Oct., 1869, II, 5). KOLB, Aquita certans pro immunitate et exemptione ecclesiarum, monasteriorum et status ecclesiastici a potestate soecularis (Frankfort, 1687); FATTOLINI, Theatrum immunitatis a libertatis ecclesiasticoe (Rome, 1704-30); BULMERINCQ, Das Asylrecht in seiner geschichtl. Entwicklunq u. die Auslieferung flüchtiger Verbrecher (Dorpat, 1853); HÜFFER in Archiv f. kath. Kirchenrecht, III, 755 sq.; GRASHOFF in ibid., XXXV, 3 sqq., 321 sqq.; XXXVII, 3 sqq., 256 sqq.; XXXVIII, 3 sqq.; WIDDER in ibid., LXXVIII, 24 sqq.; PONCET, Les privilèges des clercs au moyen-âge (Paris, 1907); BINDSCHEDLER, Kirchliches Asylrecht (Immunitas ecclesiarum localis) u. Freistätten in der Schweiz (Stuttgart, 1906); HINSCHIUS, Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken u. Protestanten in Deutschland (Berlin, 1869-88), I, 118 sqq.; IV, 156 sqq., 306 sqq.; WERNZ, Jus decretalium (2nd ed., Rome, 1905-8), II, i, 236 sqq.; III, i, 167 sqq.; III, ii, 966 sqq.; LAURENTIUS, Institutiones juris ecclesiastici (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1908), 83 sqq., 354, 559, 641; SÄGMÜLLER, Lehrbuch des kathol. Kirchenrechts (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1909), 205 sqq., 731 sqq., 861 sqq. JOHANNES BAPTIST SÄGMÜLLER. Faltonia Proba Faltonia Proba A Christian poetess of the fourth century. The name Faltonia is doubtful and is apparently due to a confusion, as the manuscripts call the author simply Proba. As granddaughter of Probus, consul in 310, daughter of Petronius Probianius, consul in 322, wife of Claudius Celcinus Adalphius, prefect of Rome in 351, and mother of C. Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius, consul in 379, and of Faltonius Alypius, Proba belonged to that Roman aristocracy which upheld the old pagan religion so long against Christianity. Proba was at first a pagan, as was her husband, but once converted she persuaded him to follow her example. She had celebrated in an epic poem now lost in the wars between Constantine and Magnentius. After her conversion she wrote a zento in hexameter verses in which she relates sacred history in terms borrowed exclusively from Virgil. The story of the Old Testament is briefly outlined, the author dwelling only on the Creation, the Fall, and the Deluge. The larger portion of the work recounts the life of Christ according to the Gospels. But the action of the poem is constrained and unequal, the manner absurd, the diction frequently either obscure or improper; nevertheless the work had a certain popularity during the Middle Ages. GLOVER, Life and Letters in the Fourth Century (Cambridge, 1901), 144; for the latest edition, with an exhaustive study, see SCHENKL in Poet. Christ. min, I, Corp. script. eccles. lat. (Vienna, 1888). PAUL LEJAY Probabilism Probabilism Probabilism is the moral system which holds that, when there is question solely of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action, it is permissible to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty even though the opposing view is more probable. I. STATE OF THE QUESTION When a prohibiting law is certain, the subjects of the law are bound to abstain from performing the action which the law forbids, unless they are excused by one of the ordinary exempting causes. On the other hand, when it is certain that no law forbids an action, there is no obligation to abstain from performing it. Between these two extremes there can be varying degrees of uncertainty about the existence or cessation of a prohibiting law. There is doubt in the strict sense when the intellect neither assents nor dissents, because either there are no positive arguments for and against the law, or the arguments for and against the law are equal in strength. The opinion which favours the law, and which is technically called the safe opinion, can be more probable than the opinion which favours liberty and which still retains solid probability. Again, the opinion which favours the law can be most probable, and the opinion which favours liberty only slightly probable. In the same way the opinion which favours liberty and which is technically called the less safe opinion, can be more probable than the opposing view, or can be most probable. In estimating the degree which is required and which suffices for solid probability, moralists lay down the general principle that an opinion is solidly probable which by reason of intrinsic or extrinsic arguments is able to gain the assent of many prudent men. All admit that extrinsic authority can have sufficient weight to make an opinion solidly probable; but there is divergence of view in estimating what number of experts is able to give an opinion this solid probability. The prevailing theory amongst Probabilists holds that if five or six theologians, notable for prudence and learning, independently adhere to an opinion their view is solidly probable, if it has not been set aside by authoritative decisions or by intrinsic arguments which they have failed to solve. Even one theologian of very exceptional authority, such as St. Alphonsus Liguori, is able to make an opinion solidly probable, as we know from the official declarations of the Holy See. All moralists agree that mere flimsy reasons are insufficient to give an opinion solid probability, and also that the support of many theologians who are mere collectors of the opinions of others is unable to give solid probability to the view which they maintain. Non-Catholics who bring charges of laxity against the moral systems which Catholic theologians uphold, often forget that the Catholic Church, in theory and in practice, has condemned various views in favour of liberty which are based on insufficient data. If the less safe opinion is speculatively uncertain it is unlawful to follow it in practice, until all reasonable effort has been made to remove the uncertainty, by considering the arguments on both sides and by consulting available authorities. It is unlawful, also, to act on the less safe view unless the speculative uncertainty has been changed into practical certainty that the action to be performed is lawful. The whole question at issue between different moral systems concerns the way in which the speculative uncertainty is changed into practical certainty; each system has what is called a reflex principle of its own, by which practical certainty can be obtained that the action to be performed is lawful. + Rigorism, or, as it is frequently called, Tutiorism held that the less safe opinion should be most probable, if not absolutely certain, before it could be lawfully put into practice, while + Laxism maintained that if the less safe opinion were slightly probable it could be followed with a safe conscience. These two views, however, never received serious support from Catholic theologians, and were formally condemned by the Holy See. At one time or another in the history of the Church three other opinions gained many adherents. + Some theologians, who put forward the system known as Probabiliorism, hold that the less safe opinion can be lawfully followed only when it is more probable than the safe opinion. + Others, upholding Æquiprobabilism, maintain that, when the uncertainty concerns the existence of a law, it is lawful to follow the less safe opinion when it has equal or almost equal probability with the safe opinion, but that, when there is question of the cessation of a law, the less safe opinion cannot lawfully be followed unless it is more probable than the safe view. + Others again, who adhere to Probabilism, believe that, whether there is question of the existence or of the cessation of a law, it is lawful to act on the less safe opinion if it is solidly probable, even though the safe view is certainly more probable. + In recent years a system known as Compensationism has tried to reconcile these three opinions by holding that not only the degree of probability attaching to various opinions must be taken into account, but also the importance of the law and the degree of utility attaching to the performance of the action whose morality is in question. The more important the law, and the smaller the degree of probability attaching to the less safe opinion, the greater must be the compensating utility which will permit the performance of the action of which the lawfulness is uncertain. From what has so far been said it is clear that these various moral systems come into play only when the question concerns the lawfulness of an action. If the uncertainty concerns the validity of an action which must certainly be valid, it is not lawful to act on mere probability unless, indeed, this is of such a nature as to make the Church certainly supply what is needed for the validity of the act. Thus, apart from necessity, it is not lawful to act on mere probability when the validity of the sacraments is in question. Again, it is not lawful to act on mere probability when there is question of gaining an end which is obligatory, since certain means must be employed to gain a certainly required end. Hence, when eternal salvation is at stake, it is not lawful to be content with uncertain means. Moreover, the virtue of justice demands equality, and as such excludes the use of probability when the established rights of another are concerned. Consequently, if a certain debt has not been certainly paid, at least a payment pro rata dubii is required according to the prevailing view. It is evident, then, that the question which arises in connection with the moral systems has to do solely with the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action. II. HISTORY OF PROBABILISM Probabilism as a moral system had no history prior to the end of the sixteenth century. Fathers, doctors and theologians of the Church at times solved cases on principles which apparently were probabilist in tendency. St. Augustine declared that marriage with infidels was not to be regarded as unlawful since it was not clearly condemned in the New Testament: "Quoniam revera in Novo Testamento nihil inde praeceptum est, et ideo aut licere creditum est, aut velut dubium derelictum" ("De Fide et Operibus", c. xix, n. 35 in "P.L.", XL, 221). St. Gregory of Nazianzus laid down, against a Novatian writer, that a second marriage was not unlawful, since the prohibition was doubtful: "Quo argumento id confirmas. Aut rem ita esse proba, aut, si id nequis, ne condemnes. Quod si res dubia est, vincat humanitas et facilitas" (Or. 39, "In sancta Lumina", n. 19 in "P.G.", XXXVI, 358). St. Thomas maintained that a precept does not bind except through the medium of knowledge: "Unde nullus ligatur per praeceptum aliquod nisi mediante scientia illius" ("De Veritate", Q. xvii, a.3); and Probabilists are accustomed to point out that knowledge implies certainty. On the other hand many theologians were Probabiliorist in their principles before the sixteenth century. Sylvester Prierias (Opinio, s. 2), Conradus (De Contract., Q. ult), and Cajetan (Opinio) were Probabiliorists; so that Probabiliorism had gained a strong hold on theologians when Medina arrived on the scene. Bartholomew Medina, a Dominican, was the first to expound the moral system which is known as Probabilism. In his "Expositio in 1am 2ae S. Thomae" he taught that, "if an opinion is probable it is lawful to follow it, even though the opposing opinion is more probable". His system soon became the common teaching of the theologians, so that in the introduction to his "Regula Morum" Father Terill, S.J. (d. 1676) was able to say that until 1638 Catholic theologians of all schools were Probabilists. There were exceptions such as Rebellus (d. 1608), Comitolus (d. 1626), and Philalethis (d. 1642), but the great body of the theologians of the end of the sixteenth and of the first half of the seventeenth century were on the side of Medina. Amongst them were Sa (d. 1596), Toletus (d. 1596), Gregorius de Valentia (d. 1603), Banez (d. 1604), Vasquez (d. 1604), Azor (d. 1607), Thomas Sanchez (d. 1610), Ledesma (d. 1616), Suarez (d. 1617), Lessius (d. 1623), Laymann (d. 1625), Bonacina (d. 1631), Castropalaus (d. 1633), Alvarez (d. 1635), and Ildephonsus (d. 1639). With the rise of Jansenism and the condemnation of "Augustinus" a new phase in the history of the Probabilist controversies began. In 1653 Innocent X condemned the five propositions taken from "Augustinus", and in 1655 the Louvain theologians condemned Probabilism. Tutiorism was adopted by the Jansenists, and the Irish Jansenist theologian, Sinnichius (d. 1666), a professor of Louvain, was the foremost defender of the Rigorist doctrines. He held that it is not lawful to follow even a most probable opinion in favour of liberty. Jansenist Rigorism spread into France, and Pascal in his "Lettres Provinciales" attacked Probabilism with the vigour and grace of style which have given his letters their high place in literature. The "Lettres Provinciales" were condemned by Alexander VII in 1657, but Rigorism did not receive its final blow till the year 1690 when Alexander VIII condemned the proposition of Sinnichius: "Non licet sequi opinionem vel inter probabiles probabilissimam ". After this condemnation a moderate form of Tutiorism was unfolded by theologians like Steyaert (d. 1701), Opstraet (d. 1720), Henricus a S. Ignatio (d. 1719), and Dens (d. 1775). During this period, dating from the middle of the seventeenth to the middle of the eighteenth century, the following were amongst the notable theologians who remained true to Probabilism: Lugo (d. 1660), Lupus (d. 1681), Cardenas (d. 1684), Deschamps (d. 1701), Lacroix (d. 1714), Sporer (d. 1714), Salmanticenses (1717-1724), Mazzotta (d. 1748). Side by side with Probabilism and Rigorism a party held sway which favoured Laxism, and which maintained in theory or practice that a slightly probable opinion in favour of liberty could safely be followed. The principal upholders of this view were Juan Sanchez (d. 1620), Bauny (d. 1649) Leander (d. 1663), Diana (d. 1663), Tamburini (d. 1675), Caramuel (d. 1682), Moya (d. 1684). Laxism was expressly condemned by Innocent XI in 1679; and Alexander VII (1665-66), and Innocent XI (1679) condemned various propositions which savoured of Laxism. Besides Rigorism, Probabilism, and Laxism, there was also a theory of Probabiliorism which held that it is not lawful to act on the less safe opinion unless it is more probable than the safe opinion. This view, which was in vogue before the time of Medina, was renewed in the middle of the seventeenth century, as an antidote against Laxism. Its revival was principally due to the efforts of Alexander VII and Innocent XI. In 1656 a general chapter of the Dominicans urged all members of the order to adopt Probabiliorism. Though previously Dominican theologians like Medina, Ledesma, Banez, Alvarez, and Ildephonsus were Probabilists subsequently the Dominicans in the main were Probabiliorists. Amongst them were Mercorius (d. 1669), Gonet (d. 1681), Contenson (d. 1674), Fagnanus (d. 1678), Natalis Alexander (d. 1724) Concina (d. 1756), Billuart (d. 1757), Patuzzi (d. 1769). Probabiliorism was held by many Jesuits such as Gonzalez (d. 1705), Elizalde (d. 1678), Antoine (d. 1743), Ehrentreich (d. 1708), and Taberna (d. 1686). In 1700 the Gallican clergy, under Bossuet, accepted Probabiliorism. The Franciscans as a rule were Probabiliorists, and in 1762 a general chapter of the order, held at Mantua, ordered the members to follow Probabiliorism. In 1598 a general chapter of the Theatines adopted Probabiliorism. The Augustinians, the Carmelites, the Trinitarians, and many Benedictines were also Probabiliorists. The most notable event in the history of the controversy occurred in connection with Thyrsus Gonzalez, S.J., a professor of Salamanca, who (1670-72) wrote a work, entitled "Fundamentum Theologiae Moralis", in favour of Probabiliorism. In 1673 the book was sent to the Jesuit General Oliva, who refused permission for its publication. Innocent XI favoured Gonzalez, and in 1680 sent, through the Holy Office, a decree to the General Oliva ordering that liberty be given to the members of the order to write in favour of Probabiliorism and against Probabilism. Gonzalez was elected general of the order in 1687, but his book was not published until 1694. During the controversies between the Probabilists and the Probabiliorists, the system known as Æquiprobabilism was not clearly brought into prominence. Æquiprobabilism holds that it is not lawful to follow the less safe opinion when the safe opinion is certainly more probable; that it is not lawful to act on the less safe opinion even when it is equally probable with the safe opinion, if the uncertainty regards the cessation of a law; but that if the existence of the law is in question, it is lawful to follow the less safe opinion if it has equal or nearly equal probability with the safe opinion. Many of the moderate Probabilists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries foreshadowed in their writings the theory to which, in his later-days, St. Alphonsus adhered. Even Suarez, who is regarded as a typical Probabilist, said: "Major probabilitas est quaedam moralis certitudo, si excessus probabilitatis certus est (De Legibus, 1. VIII, c. 3, n. 19). In the beginning of the eighteenth century Amort. (d. 1775), Rassler (d. 1730), and Mayr (d. 1749), who are sometimes classed as moderate Probabilists, in reality defended Æquiprobabilism. This view gained vigour and persistence from the teaching of St. Alphonsus, who began his theological career as a Probabiliorist, subsequently defended Probabilism, especially in a treatise entitled "Dissertatio scholastico-moralis pro usu moderato opinionis probabilis in concursu probabilioris" (1749, 1755), and finally, about 1762, embraced Æquiprobabilism. In a new dissertation he laid down the two propositions that it is lawful to act on the less safe opinion, when it is equally probable with the safe opinion, and that it is not lawful to follow the less safe opinion when the safe opinion is notably and certainly more probable. In the sixth edition (1767) of his "Moral Theology" he again expressed these views and indeed towards the end of his life frequently declared that he was not a Probabilist. Probabilists sometimes hold that St. Alphonsus never changed his opinion once he had discarded Probabiliorism for Probabilism, though he changed his manner of expressing his view so as to exclude Laxist teaching and to give an indication of what must be regarded as a solidly probable opinion. As a matter of fact, as can be seen from a comparison between the "Moral Theologies" of moderate Probabilists and of Æquiprobabilists, there is little practical difference between the two systems, so far at least as the uncertainty regards the existence as distinguished from the cessation of a law. Since the time of St. Alphonsus the prevailing moral systems have been Probabilism and Æquiprobabilism. Probabiliorism has to a great extent disappeared, and even many Dominican theologians have espoused the cause of Æquiprobabilism. During the nineteenth century the principal Æquiprobabilists have been Konings, Marc, Aertnys, Ter Haar, de Caigny, Gaude, and Wouters. Quite recently Ter Haar and Wouters have been engaged in controversy with Lehmkuhl who, especially In his "Probabilismus Vindicatus" (1906) and in the eleventh edition of his "Theologia Moralis" (1910), has strongly supported the Probabilist thesis which has been accepted during the nineteenth century by the vast majority of theologians. In late years the system of Compensationism has arisen, which holds that a compensating reason proportionate to the gravity of the law and to the degree of probability in favour of the existence of the raw, is required in order that a person might lawfully act on the less safe opinion. This theory was proposed by Mannier, Laloux, and Potton; but it has gained little support and has not yet become a rival of the old theories of Probabilism, Æquiprobabilism, or even Probabiliorism. III. PROBABILISM A. Teaching of Probabilists The central doctrine of Probabilism is that in every doubt which concerns merely the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action it is permissible to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty, even though the opposing view is more probable. Probabilists apply their theory only when there is question merely of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action, because in other cases certainty might be demanded on various grounds, as happens when the validity of the sacraments, the attainment of an obligatory end, and the established rights of another are concerned. They apply their doctrine whether the doubt about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action be a doubt of law, or a doubt of fact which can be reduced to a doubt of law. Thus if it is solidly probable that Friday morning has not yet set in, there is a doubt of fact which can be reduced to a doubt of law as to whether it is lawful in the circumstances to take meat. They also apply their doctrine not merely to human but also to Divine and natural laws, on the ground that the Divine legislator is not more exacting than a human legislator. They apply their principles whether the existence or the cessation of a law is concerned, since, in their estimation, liberty is always in possession. They also apply their doctrine even though the person whose action is in question believes that the safe opinion is the more probable opinion. If, however, he looks on the safe opinion as morally certain, he cannot lawfully use the opinion of others who differ from him. Nor can a person on the same occasion use opposing probabilities in his favour in reference to several obligations of which one or another would be certainly violated; thus a priest cannot lawfully take meat on the probability that Friday has already elapsed, and at the same time postpone the reading of Compline on the probability that Friday will not elapse for some time. Finally, Probabilists insist that the opinion in favour of liberty must be based on solid arguments and not on mere flimsy reasons which are insufficient to gain the assent of prudent men. B. Arguments for Probabilism (1) External arguments (a) Probabilism, if untrue, is seriously detrimental to the spiritual life of the faithful, since it permits actions which ought to be forbidden, and the Church cannot tolerate or give approval to such a moral system. But the Church during many centuries has tolerated Probabilism, and has given it approval in the person of St. Alphonsus. Hence Probabilism is not a false system of morals. That the Church has tolerated Probabilism is shown from the numerous approved authors, who, since the time of Medina, have defended it without interference on the part of ecclesiastical authority. That the Church has given positive approval to Probabilism in the person of St. Alphonsus is proved from the fact that his works including his treatises in favour of Probabilism, received official sanction from the Decree of 18 May, 1803, the reply of the Sacred Penitentiary of 5 July, 1831 the Bull of Canonization of 26 May, 1839 and the Apostolic Letters of 7 July, 1871 (cf. Lehmkuhl, "Theologia Moralis", I, nn. 165-75). Æquiprobabilists reply that this argument proves too much for Probabilists, since the Church has also tolerated Æquiprobabilism, and has given it positive approval in the person of St. Alphonsus, whose works in favour of Æquiprobabilism received the sanction of the Holy See in the official documents of 1803, 1831, 1839, and 1871. If Æquiprobabilism is false, it is seriously detrimental to the spiritual life of the faithful, since it imposes burdens which ought not to be imposed. Hence, if any argument can be derived for Probabilism from the toleration or approval of the Church, a similar argument can be derived therefrom for Æquiprobabilism. (b) In interpreting her own laws the Church applies the principles of Probabilism, since amongst the rules of law in "Sexto Decretalium" we read: "Odia restringi, et favores convenit ampliari" (r. 15); "In obscuris minimum est sequendum" (r. 30); "Contra eum qui legem dicere potuit apertius, est interpretatio facienda" (r. 57); "In poenis benignior est interpretatio facienda" (r. 89). What is true of the Church is equally true of other legislators, because God is not a more exacting Legislator than His Church, nor is the State to be presumed more strict than God and the Church (cf. Tanquerey, "Theologia Moralis fundamentalis", n. 413). Æquiprobabilists reply to this argument that when the less safe opinion is certainly less probable than the safe opinion, the former has lost solid probability and consequently cannot, so far as conscience is concerned, obtain the privileges which the Divine Legislator, the Church, and the State concede in the case of really doubtful laws. Moreover, many of these rules of law directly apply to the external forum and ought not, without due limitation, be transferred to the forum of conscience. (2) Internal arguments (a) a law which has not been promulgated is not a law in the full and strict sense, and does not impose an obligation. But when there is a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty, the law has not been sufficiently promulgated, since there has not been the requisite manifestation of the mind of the legislator. Hence when there is a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty, the law is not a law in the full and strict sense, and does not impose any obligation (cf. Lehmkuhl, "Theologia Moralis", I, nn. 176-8). Æquiprobabilists reply that when there is a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty, the law is probably not sufficiently promulgated, and the question remains whether a law that is probably not sufficiently promulgated imposes any obligation in conscience. It would be begging the question to assume that no obligation is imposed simply because there is a probability that the law has not been sufficiently promulgated. Moreover, if the safe opinion happens to be the true opinion, a material sin is committed by the person who, acting on probability, performs the prohibited action. But, unless the law is promulgated, a material sin cannot be committed by its violation, since promulgation is a necessary condition of a binding law (cf. McDonald, "The Principles of Moral Science", p. 245). (b) An obligation, concerning whose existence there is invincible ignorance, is no obligation. But, so long as there is a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty, there is invincible ignorance about the obligation imposed by the law. Hence a law does not impose an obligation so long as the less safe opinion is solidly probable (cf. Lehmkuhl, "Theologia Moralis", I, n. 179). Æquiprobabilists reply that there is not invincible ignorance in regard to a law when the safe opinion is also the more probable opinion, because in these circumstances a person is bound by ordinary prudence to give assent to the safe opinion. Although it is true that an obligation concerning whose existence there is invincible ignorance is no obligation, this is not true when one is compelled to give assent to an opinion as the more probable opinion (cf. Wouters, "De Minusprobabilismo", p. 121). (c) According to the axiom: lex dubia non obligat, a doubtful law does not bind. But a law is doubtful when there is a solidly probable opinion against it. Hence it is lawful to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty (cf. Tanquerey, "Theologia Fundamentalis", n. 409). Æquiprobabilists in reply say that the axiom lex dubia non obligat holds when the law is strictly doubtful, i.e. when the reasons for and against the law are equal or nearly equal. A fortiori the law does not bind when the safe opinion is more probable than the less safe opinion. It would, however, be begging the question to assume that the axiom holds when the less safe opinion is clearly less probable than the safe opinion. (d) According to Æquiprobabilists, it is lawful to follow the less safe opinion, when it is more probable than the safe opinion. But they must admit that Probabilism is more probable than Æquiprobabilism, since the vast majority of theologians favour the milder view, and Æquiprobabilists do not reject external authority. Hence on their own principles they ought to admit the practical truth of Probabilism. Æquiprobabilists reply that extrinsic authority is of no avail when the arguments on which the authority rests have been proved to be invalid; and they claim that they have proved the invalidity of the Probabilist arguments. Moreover a reflex principle is useless unless its truth is proved with certainty, since its sole utility is to change speculative uncertainty into practical certainty. But greater probability does not give certainty. Accordingly, even if Æquiprobabilists were to admit the greater probability of Probabilism, that admission would be useless for Probabilists. The case is different with Æquiprobabilism which has practical certainty, since nearly all theologians nowadays admit the lawfulness of following the less safe opinion regarding the existence of a law, when it is equally or almost equally probable with the safe opinion. (e) Many Probabilists lay stress on a practical argument in favour of their opinion, which is derived from the difficulty of distinguishing between various grades of Probability. It is impossible in practice, especially for ordinary people, to tell when one solidly probable opinion is more probable than another solidly probable opinion. But a moral system, to be of any serious utility, must be universal, so that not merely experts in moral science but also ordinary people can utilize it. Hence the systems which demand a knowledge of the various degrees of probability must be discarded as practically useless, and Probabilism alone must be accepted as a working system. Æquiprobabilists reply that their system merely asks, that if after due investigation it is found that the less safe opinion is notably and certainly less probable than the safe opinion, the law must be observed. The necessary investigation has frequently been already made by experts, and others, who are not experts, are safe in accepting the conclusions to which the experts adhere. C. Arguments against Probabilism In addition to some arguments to be explained in connection with the other modern moral systems, it is necessary to mention a few difficulties which have been urged directly against Probabilism. (1) When the less safe opinion is notably and certainly less probable than the safe opinion, there is no true probability in favour of liberty, since the stronger destroy the force of the weaker reasons. Hence Probabilists cannot consistently maintain that it is safe in practice to act on the less safe opinion which is also the less probable. Probabilists reply that the greater probability does not of necessity destroy the solid probability of the less probable opinion. When the foundations of the opposing probabilities are not derived from the same source, then at least the opposing arguments do not detract from one another; and even when the two probabilities are based on a consideration of the same argument, one opinion will retain probability in so far as the opposing opinion recedes from certainty. (2) A moral system, to be of any use, must be certain, since an uncertain reflex principle cannot give practical certainty. But Probabilism is not certain, because it is rejected by all those theologians who upheld one or another of the opposing views. Hence Probabilism cannot be accepted as a satisfactory solution of the question at issue. Probabilists reply that their system can be of no use to those who do not look on it as certainly true; but the fact that many theologians do not accept it does not prevent its adherents from regarding it as certain, since these can and do believe that the arguments urged in its favour are insuperable. (3) Probabilism is an easy road to Laxism, because people are often inclined to regard opinions as really probable which are based on flimsy arguments, and because it is not difficult to find five or six serious authors who approve of opinions which right-minded men consider lax. The only sure way to safeguard Catholic morals is to reject the opinion which opens the way to Laxism. Probabilists reply that their system must be prudently employed, and that no serious danger of Laxism arises if it is recognized that an opinion is not solidly probable unless there are arguments in its favour which are sufficient to gain the assent of many prudent men. As for the authority of approved authors, it must be remembered that five or six grave authors do not give solid probability to an opinion unless they are notable for learning and prudence, and independently adhere to an opinion which has not been set aside by authoritative decisions or by unanswered arguments. IV. MORAL SYSTEMS OPPOSED TO PROBABILISM A. Æquiprobabilism This system can be expressed in the three following propositions: + The opinions for and against the existence of a law having equal or nearly equal probabilities, it is permissible to act on the less safe opinion. + The opinions for and against the cessation of a law having equal or nearly equal probabilities, it is not permissible to act on the less safe opinion. + The safe opinion being certainly more probable than the less safe opinion, it is unlawful to follow the less safe opinion. With the first of these propositions Probabilists agree -- but they deny the truth of the second and third propositions (cf. Marc, "Institutiones Morales", I, nn. 91-103). Arguments for Æquiprobabilism: (1) In proof of their first proposition Æquiprobabilists quote the axiom: lex dubia non obligat. When the opposing probabilities are equal or nearly equal, the law is doubtful in the strict sense, and a doubtful law imposes no obligation in conscience. They also apply the rule: in dubio melior est conditio possidentis. When the doubt regards the existence, as distinguished from the cessation of a law, liberty is in possession and accordingly the opinion which favours liberty can be followed in practice. (2) In proof of their second proposition, Æquiprobabilists quote the same axiom: in dubio melior est conditio possidentis. When the doubt concerns the cessation of a law, the law is in possession, and therefore the law must be observed until it is displaced by a stronger probability in favour of liberty. Probabilists reply to this argument that liberty is always in possession, since law and obligation presuppose liberty in the subject. (3) In proof of their third proposition Æquiprobabilists put forward various arguments, of which the following are the most forcible: (a) A person is bound seriously to endeavour to bring his actions into harmony with objective morality. But a person who follows the less probable opinion in favour of liberty fails to observe this dictate of prudence, and consequently acts unlawfully (cf. Wouters "De Minusprobabilismo", p. 71). Probabilists reply that this argument, if carried to its logical conclusion, would end in Rigorism, because the only way efficiently to bring our actions into perfect harmony with objective morality is to follow the safe opinion, so long as the less safe opinion has not acquired moral certainty. This is the only way of preventing all serious danger of committing material sin, and consequently is the only way of observing perfect harmony with objective morality. Since, however, Rigorism is universally condemned, the argument must be rejected, and the principles of Probabilism must be adopted which hold that it is sufficient to observe harmony with objective morality in so far as this is known with moral certainty (cf. Lehmkuhl, "Theologia Moralis", I, n. 191). (b) On 26 June, 1680 the Holy Office, under the presidency of Innocent XI, issued, in connection with the teaching of Thyrsus Gonzalez, S.J., a Decree of which the authentic text was published 19 April 1902, by the Secretary of the Holy Office. So much controversy has recently arisen in regard to the value of decree, that it is opportune to quote the whole text: A report having been made by Father Laurea of the contents of a letter directed by Father Thyrsus Gonzalez, S.J., to Our Most Holy Lord; the Most Eminent Lords said that the Secretary of State must write to the Apostolic Nuncio of the Spains [directing him] to signify to the said Father Thyrsus that His Holiness, having received his letter favourably, and having read it with approval, has commanded that he [Thyrsus] shall freely and fearlessly preach, teach, and defend with his pen the more probable opinion, and also manfully attack the opinion of those who assert that in a conflict of a less probable opinion with a more probable, known and estimated as such, it is allowed to follow the less probable; and to inform him that whatever he does and writes on behalf of the more probable opinion will be pleasing to His Holiness. Let it be enjoined upon the Father General of the Society of Jesus, as by order [de ordine] of His Holiness, not only to permit the Fathers of the Society to write in favour of the more probable opinion and to attack the opinion of those who assert that in a conflict of a less probable opinion with a more probable, known and estimated as such, it is allowed to follow the less probable- but also to write to all the Universities of the Society [informing them] that it is the mind of His Holiness that whosoever chooses may freely write in favour of the more probable opinion, and may attack the aforesaid contrary [opinion]; and to order them to submit entirely to the command of His Holiness. Æquiprobabilists say that in this Decree there is a clear expression of the mind of Innocent XI about the morality of teaching that it is permissible to act on the less safe opinion when the safe opinion is certainly more probable. The pope disapproves of this teaching, commends Father Gonzalez for his opposition to It, and orders the General of the Jesuits to allow full liberty so that anyone who pleases may write against it. Probabilists reply that, though Innocent XI was opposed to Probabilism, his official Decree merely commanded that liberty of teaching be allowed to the members of the order. Moreover, they point out that Gonzalez was not an Æquiprobabilist, but a Probabiliorist of a strict type whom St. Alphonsus regarded as an extremist. B. Probabiliorism According to the teaching of Probabiliorists, it is unlawful to act on the less safe opinion unless it is also the more probable opinion. In addition to an argument derived from the Decree of Innocent XI, the principal arguments for Probabiliorism are the following: (1) It is not lawful to follow the less safe opinion, unless it is truly and expeditely probable. But an opinion which is opposed by a more probable opinion is not truly and expeditely probable, since its arguments are annulled by more potent opposing arguments and cannot in consequence gain the assent of a prudent man. Hence it is not lawful for a person to follow the less safe opinion when he regards the safe opinion as more probable. As has already been explained in connection with Probabilism, Probabilists maintain that the less safe opinion does not necessarily lose its solid probability because of more probable opposing arguments. This being so, the law is not certain, and consequently does not impose an obligation in regard to action, even though in regard to speculative assent it is rightly looked on as more probable. (2) As in speculative doubt we are bound to give assent to the new which is more likely to exclude error, so in practical doubt about lawfulness we are bound to adopt the opinion which is more likely to exclude the danger of material sin. But the more probable opinion is the more likely to exclude this danger. (Consequently in practical doubt we are bound to adopt the Probabiliorist view. Probabilists reply that this argument leads to Tutiorism rather than to Probabiliorism, because the only efficacious way of excluding reasonable danger of material sin is to act on the safe opinion so long as the less safe opinion is not morally certain. Moreover, Probabiliorism would impose an intolerable burden on the consciences of timorous minds, since it would demand an investigation into the various degrees of probability, 80 as to enable a person definitely to say that one opinion is more probable than another. In view of the great diversity of opinion, which exists on many moral subjects, this definite judgment is practically impossible, especially in the case of the vast majority of men who are not experts in moral science. C. Compensationism This maintains that a doubtful law is not devoid of all binding force, and that there must be a compensating reason, proportionate to the probability and gravity of the law, to justify the performance of the action which is probably forbidden. This teaching is based on an analogy with an act which has two effects, one good and the other bad. It is not lawful to perform such an act unless there is a justifying cause proportionate to the evil. In the case of a doubtful law the bad effect is the danger of material sin, and the good effect is the benefit, which arises from the performance of the action which is probably forbidden. Hence in this as in the former case, a compensating cause, proportionate to the probable evil, is required to justify the performance of the action. Probabilists reply that this moral system leads to Tutiorism, because it implies that if no compensating benefit exists, it is not lawful to perform an action so long as it certainly is not forbidden. Again, Probabilists say that the preservation of liberty is of itself a sufficient compensating reason when there is question of a law which is not certain. Finally, Probabilists are prepared to admit that, as a point of expediency though not of obligation, it is advisable to look for a compensating cause over and above the preservation of liberty when a confessor is directing penitents in the use of probable opinions. If no such compensating reason exists, the penitent can be advised, though not under pain of sin, to abstain from the performance of the action which is probably forbidden. J.M. HARTY Marcus Aurelius Probus Marcus Aurelius Probus Roman Emperor, 276-82, raised to the throne by the army in Syria to succeed Tacitus. Of humble origin, he was born at Sirmium in Illyria; by courage and ability he won the confidence of the soldiers, and during the reign of Marcus Aurelius [should read "Lucius Domitius Aurelianus" -- Ed.] he subdued Palmyra and Egypt. As emperor, he ordained that the imperial edicts must be ratified by the senate, and he returned to the senate the right of appointing the governors of the former senatorial provinces. His reign was passed in wars with the Germans. He personally drove the Alamanni across the Rhine and forced them as far as the fortifications, extending from Ratisbon to Mainz. He made nine German kings tributary to Rome, and distributed sixteen thousand German warriors among the Roman legions. In 278 the emperor re-established peace in Rhaetia, Illyria, and Moesia by campaigns against the Burgundians and Vandals. In the meantime his generals had overcome the Franks on the lower Rhine. The next year the emperor went to Asia Minor where he punished the Isaurians and gained their fortified castle Cremna in Pisidia. His legions advanced as far as Syria and Egypt. Probus settled foreign colonists in all the boundary provinces. In this way, he brought about that the outlying provinces were peacefully settled by German tribes. During his long absence in Asia Minor rival emperors were proclaimed in various provinces; e.g. Saturninus at Alexandria, Proclus at Lyons, who controlled Gaul and Spain, and had a successor at Cologne named Bonosus. All these rivals were vanquished by the imperial troops. Probus celebrated triumphs at Rome over his enemies and even hoped to attain to an era of peace and plenty. In times of peace he employed the soldiers in constructing public works, building temples and bridges, regulation of rivers, digging canals to drain marshes, and planting vineyards, especially in Gaul, Pannonia, and Moesia. By forcing the soldiers, who no longer had any interest in the prosperity of the citizens, to do this work, Probus roused them to revolt; in Rhaetia the prefect of the guard, Marcus Aurelius Carus, was proclaimed emperor. The troops sent against him by Probus joined the rebels, and the emperor himself was killed near his birthplace. MOMMSEN, Rom. Gesch., V (Berlin, 1885); SCHILLER, Gesch. der rom. Kaiserzeit, II (Gotha, 1887); VON DOMASZEWSKI, Gesch. der rom. Kaiser (2 vols., Leipzig, 1909). KARL HOEBER Roman Processional Roman Processional Strictly speaking it might be said that the Processional has no recognized place in the Roman series of liturgical books. As the full title of the work so designated shows, the book consists of a, single section of the Roman Ritual (titulus ix) with sundry supplementary materials taken from the Missal and the Pontifical. What we read on the title-page of the authentic edition runs as follows: "Processionale Romanum sive Ordo Sacrarum Processionum ex Rituali Romano depromptus additis quae similia in Missali et Pontificali habentur". Seeing, however, that the Ritual does not always print in full the text of the hymns, litany, and other prayers which it indicates, it is convenient to have these set out at length with the music belonging to them. Processionals appropriated to the special uses of various local churches, e.g. "Processionale as usum Sarum", are of fairly common occurrence among the later medieval manuscripts. At the close of the fifteenth century and in the beginning of the sixteenth we have a good many printed processionals belonging to different churches of France, England, and Germany. ZACCARIA, Bibliotheca ritualis, I (Rome, 1776), 159. HERBERT THURSTON Processions Processions Processions, an element in all ceremonial, are to be found, as we should expect, in almost every form of religious worship. The example of the processions with the Ark in the Old Testament (cf. espec., II Kings, vi, and III Kings, viii) and the triumphant entry of our Saviour into Jerusalem in the New were probably not without influence upon the ritual of later ages. Even before the age of Constantine, the funeral processions of the Christians seem to have been carried out with a certain amount of solemnity, and the use of the word by Tertullian (De Praescriptio, xliii) may possibly have reference to some formal progress or movement of the faithful churchwards, which led afterwards to the assembly itself or the service being called processio as well as synaxis and collecta (Probst, "Sakramentarien und Ord.", 205). About the time of St. Gregory the Great, and possibly earlier, two forms of procession played a great part in papal ceremonial. The one was the procession to the "Station", the other the solemn entry of the celebrant from the secretarium, or sacristy, to the altar. A good description of the stational procession is given in the St. Amand Ordo, n. 6 (Duchesne, "Christian Worship", 474). The pontiff, the clergy, and the people assembled in the appointed church, where the clergy vested and the office was begun. The poor people of the hospital went first with a painted wooden cross; the seven stationary crosses, with three candles each and a retinue, followed, and then the bishops, priests, and subdeacons; finally came the pope surrounded by his deacons, with two crosses borne before him and the schola cantorum or choir following behind him. As the procession moved along to the stational church where the Mass was to be offered the Kyrie Eleison and the litanies were sung, from which the procession itself was often called litania. The solemn entrance of the celebrant as he proceeded from the sacristy to the altar was of course a procession on a smaller scale, but this also is minutely described in the first "Ordo". The pontiff was again surrounded by his deacons and preceded by the subdeacons, one of whom swung a thurible, and a conspicuous feature was the group of seven acolytes carrying tapers, which make us think of the seven candles now lighted on the altar at a pontifical High Mass. In this procession to the altar the antiphon of the introit was sung. On certain special occasions, notably St. Mark's Day (25 April), which coincided with the old Roman festival of the Robigalia, and in Gaul on the three Rogation Days before the feast of the Ascension, there were processions of exceptional solemnity (see Litany). Although not now formally recognized as a procession in the liturgical books, we may say that the sprinkling of the congregation with holy water at the beginning of the parochial Mass on Sundays preserves for us the memory of the most familiar procession of the early Middle Ages. The rite is prescribed in the Capitularies of Charlemagne and of Louis the Pious, as well as in other ninth-century documents. For example a Council of Nantes before the year 900 enjoins that "every Sunday before Mass, each priest is to bless water in a vessel which is clean and suitable for so great a mystery, for the people to be sprinkled with when they enter the church, and let him make the round of the yard [atrium] of the said church with the [processional] crosses, sprinkling it with the holy water, and let him pray for the souls of them that rest therein" (Mansi, "Concilia", XVIII, 173). In the monastic ceremonials of the same period this holy water procession on the Sunday morning was usually described in much detail. After the sprinkling of the high altar and of the other altars of the church in order, the whole body of the monks, after being sprinkled themselves, went in procession through the cloister, making stations there, while the celebrant assisted by two lay brothers blessed the different portions of the monastery (see Martène, "De antiq. eccles. rit.", IV, 46-9). At the present day the Roman Missal, which is the primary liturgical authority for this "Blessing of the people with holy water to be imparted on Sundays" (Benedictio populi cum aqua benedicta diebus dominicis impertienda), says nothing about a procession, though some such progress of the celebrant and assistant clerks around the church very commonly takes place. The rubric only directs that the priest having intoned the antiphon "Asperges me" is to sprinkle the altar and then himself and his assistants. After which he is to sprinkle the clergy and the people, while he recites the Miserere with his assistants in a low voice. The other ordinary processions, as opposed to the extraordinary processions, which the bishop may enjoin or permit as circumstances may call for such a form of public supplication, are specified in the Roman Ritual to be the Procession of Candles on the Purification of our Lady (2 February), that of Palms on Palm Sunday, the greater litanies on the feast of St. Mark (25 April), the Rogation processions on the three days before the Ascension, and the procession of the Blessed Sacrament on the feast of Corpus Christi. The prescriptions to be observed on all these occasions are duly set down in the Roman Ritual. For their history etc., see Candlemas; Corpus Christi; Holy Week; Litany, etc. We might also add to these "ordinary" processions the carrying of the Blessed Sacrament to the altar of repose on Maundy Thursday and the return on Good Friday, as well as the visit to the font on Holy Saturday and the procession which forms part of the rite of the consecration of the holy oils in cathedral churches on Maundy Thursday. This latter function is described in full in the Roman Pontifical. In earlier times a series of processions were usually made to the font after Vespers upon every day of Easter week (Morin in "Rev. benedict.", VI, 150). Traces of this rite lingered on in many local churches down to the eighteenth and ninteenth centuries, but it finds no official recognition in the Roman service books. Under the heading of "extraordinary" processions the Roman Ritual makes provision for the following emergencies: a procession to ask for rain, another to beg for fine weather, a third to drive away storms, three others assigned respectively to seasons of famine, plague, and war, one more general on occasion of any calamity (pro quacunque tribulatione), one rather lengthy form (in which a number of the Jubilate and Laudate psalms are indicated for recitation) by way of solemn thanksgiving, and finally a form for the translation of important relics (reliquiarum insignium). In the majority of these extraordinary processions it is directed that the Litany of the Saints be chanted as in the Rogation processions, a supplication special to the occasion being usually added and repeated, for example in the procession "to ask for rain" the petition is inserted: "Ut congruentem pluviam fidelibus tuis concedere digneris. Te rogamus audi nos [That thou wouldst vouchsafe to grant suitable rain unto thy faithful, we beseech thee hear us]". In the medieval rituals and processionals a large variety of such exceptional forms may be found, connected especially with supplications for the produce of the earth. A common feature in many of these was to make a station towards the four points of the compass and to read at each the beginning of one of the four Gospels with other prayers. The practice of carrying the Blessed Sacrament upon such occasions is frequently condemned in medieval synods. In England the perambulation of the parishes on the "Gang days", as the Rogation days were called, lasted far into the seventeenth century. Aubrey, for example, in a pencil note to his "Remaines": "On Rogation Days the Gospells were read in the cornfields here in England untill the Civill wars" (Hazlitt, "Faiths and Folklore", II, 478). The custom of making these processions was kept up seemingly with a view to its utility in impressing upon the memory the boundaries of the parish, and in some places boys were flogged at the boundaries that they might remember the spot in old age. In the Greek and some other Oriental liturgies the two processions known as the great and little entrances form a very imposing feature of the rite. At the "little entrance" the Book of the Gospels is carried in by the deacon accompanied by acolytes bearing torches and two fans. The "great entrance" takes place when the holy gifts, i.e. the bread and wine, are solemnly brought to the altar while the choir sing the famous "cherubic hymn". Similar features seem to have existed in the early Gallican Liturgy; even in the Roman high Mass the procession which heralds the singing of the Gospel is probably the survival of a more imposing ceremony of earlier date. Martene, De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus (Venice, 1788), III, 177; IV, 45 sq., 280 sq.; CATALANI, Commentarius in Rituale Romanum (Rome, 1750); GRETSER, De processionibus in Opera omnia, V (Ratisbon, 1735), v; SANDERUS, Auctarium de ritu processionum (Ypres, 1640); EVEILLON, De processionibus ecclesiasticis (Paris, 1641); QUARTO, De processionibus ecclesiasticis (Naples, 1649); WORDSWORTH, Ceremonies and Processions of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury (Cambridge, 1901); Ceremonial of the Church (Philadelphia, 1894). HERBERT THURSTON Processional Cross Processional Cross A processional cross is simply a crucifix which is carried at the head of a procession, and which, that it may be more easily seen, is usually mounted upon a long staff or handle. From an archaeological point of view this subject has already been briefly dealt with under Cross. It will suffice to note here that the processional cross does not essentially differ from what may be called the cross of jurisdiction which is borne before the pope, his legates, and metropolitans or archbishops. The pope is entitled to have the cross borne before him wherever he may be; a legate's cross is used only in the territory for which he has been appointed, and that of an archbishop within the limits of his province. All these crosses, including that of the pope, have in practice only one bar. The double-barred cross is a sort of heraldic fiction which is unknown in the ceremonial of the Church. It is supposed that every parish possesses a cross of its own and that behind this, as a sort of standard, the parishioners are marshalled when they have to take part in some general procession. It is usual also for cathedral chapters and similar collegiate bodies to possess a processional cross which precedes them in their corporate capacity; and the same is true of religious, for whom usage prescribes that in case of the monastic orders the staff of the cross should be of silver or metal, but for the mendicant orders, of wood. In the case of these crosses of religious orders, confraternities, etc. it is usual in Italy to attach streamers to a sort of penthouse over the crucifix, or to the knob underneath it. When these crosses are carried in procession the figure of Christ faces the direction in which the procession is moving, but in the case of the papal, legatine, and archiepiscopal crosses the figure of our Saviour is always turned towards the prelate to whom it belongs. In England, during the Middle Ages, a special processional cross was used during Lent. It was of wood, painted red and had no figure of Christ upon it. It seems probable that this is identical with the "vexillum cinericium" of which we read in the Sarum Processional. Processional Canopies As, according to the requirements of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, the altars of a church and especially the high altar should be covered by a baldacchino, and the bishop's throne etc. should be honoured with the same mark of respect, so canopies are used in processions and solemn receptions not only for the Blessed sacrament but also under certain circumstances for bishops, legates, and princes of the blood royal. The principal occasions on which a bishop has the right to use a canopy are at his solemn reception in his own cathedral city, and when he makes his first pastoral visitation to any town or parish within his jurisdiction the Caeremoniale Episcoporum (I, ii, 4) directs that in these receptions the bishop is to ride on horseback wearing his mitre, and under a canopy which is in the first instance to be carried by some of the principal magistrates of the town. Excepting in the rare case of separate portions of the True Cross or of the instruments of the Passion, relics borne in procession are not to be carried under a canopy. In processions of the Blessed Sacrament the colour of the canopy must always be white. For transporting the Blessed Sacrament from one altar to another or for taking the Holy Viaticum, to the sick, it is customary in many places, e.g. in Rome, to use an umbrella, or ombrellino, as it is called in Italian, which is simply a small canopy with a single staff. Processional Banners Processional banners have also been in common use in the Church since medieval times. In England before the Reformation they are frequently referred to, though it does not seem clear that these vexilla were floating draperies, such as we are now accustomed to understand by the name. The woodcuts which appear in some early editions of the Sarum Processional rather suggest a rigid frame of wood or metal. In the Rogation processions and some others two special vexilla were carried, representing the one a lion, the other a dragon (Rock, "The Church of Our Fathers", 1904, IV, 292). The use of a number of richly embroidered banners in religious processions of all kinds is now customary in most parts of the Church, but the Rituale Romanum (tit. IX, cap. i, 4, 5) seems to contemplate only a single banner. "At the head of the procession let a cross be carried, and where the custom obtains a banner adorned with sacred devices (sacris imaginibus insignitum), but not made in a military or triangular shape". Processional Hymns We may recognize a particular class of hymns which in the early Middle Ages were specially composed to be sung in processions, as distinct from the breviary hymns. These processional hymns were nearly always provided with a refrain. England was specially rich in such hymns, and several are to be found in the Sarum Processional. In the Roman liturgy we still retain the "Gloria, laus et honor" sung in the procession on Palm Sunday, and in the ceremony of the consecration of the oils on Maundy Thursday we have the hymn "O Redemptor, sume carmen temet concinentium". Both these have a refrain, as has also the Easter hymn "Salve festa dies", which in different forms appears in the Processionals of both Sarum and York. The hymns "Vexilla Regis" and "Pange lingua", though sung in processions, lack a refrain and are less properly processional hymns. BARBIER DE MONTAULT, Traite pratique de la Construction etc. des Eglises, I (Paris, 1878), 382-499; ROCK, The Church of Our Fathers (2nd ed., London, 1904), II, 337 sq., IV, 262 sq.; WORDSWORTH, Salisbury Ceremonies and Processions (Cambridge, 1901). HERBERT THURSTON Sts. Processus and Martinian Sts. Processus and Martinian The dates of these martyrs are unknown. The "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (ed. De Rossi-Duchesne, 85) gives under 2 July their names. The Berne manuscript of the Martyrology also gives their burial-place, viz. at the second milestone of the Via Aurelia. The old catalogues of the burial places of the Roman martyrs likewise mention the graves of both these saints on this road (De Rossi, "Roma sotterranea", I, 182-3). They were publicly venerated in Rome from the fourth or perhaps the third century, although nothing further is known. A legend makes them the keepers of the prison of Sts. Peter and Paul (Lipsius, "Apokryphe Apostelgeschich. u. Apostellegenden", II, Brunswick, 1887, 92, 105 sqq., 110 sq.). It cannot be shown how the legend came to give them this identification. Pope Paschal I (817-24) translated the bones of the two martyrs to a chapel in the old basilica of St. Peter; they still rest under the altar dedicated to them in the right transept of the present St. Peter's. Their feast is celebrated on 2 July. Acta SS., July, I, 303-4; DUFOURCQ, Les Gesta martyrum romains, I (Paris, 1900), 170 sq., 233, 327 sqq.; MARUCCHI, Les catacombes romaines (2nd ed., Rome, 1903), 46 sqq. J.P. KIRSCH St. Proclus St. Proclus Patriarch of Constantinople. Saint Proclus died in 446 or 447. Proclus came to the fore in the time of Atticus, the Patriarch of Constantinople who succeeded (406) Arsacius who had been intruded upon the patriarchal throne after the violent deposition of St. John Chrysostom (404). "Proclus was a Lector at a very early age, and, assiduously frequenting the Schools, became devoted to the study of rhetoric. On attaining manhood he was in the habit of constant intercourse with Atticus, having been constituted his secretary" (Socrates, "H.E.", VII, xl). From Atticus he received the diaconate and priesthood (ibid.). When Atticus died (425), there was a strong party in favour of Proclus, but Sissinius was eventually chosen as his successor. Sissinius appointed him Archbishop of Cyzicus; but the Cyzicans chose a bishop of their own, and no attempt was made to force Proclus upon a reluctant people. Sissinius died at the end of 427, and again Proclus was likely to be appointed to the patriarchate, but eventually Nestorius was chosen. Nestorius was deposed at the Council of Ephesus (431) and Proclus was on the point of being made patriarch, but "some influential persons interfered on the ground of its being forbidden by the ecclesiastical canon that a person nominated to one bishopric should be translated to another" (Soc., VII, xxxv). In consequence a priest, Maximian, was appointed, upon whose death (434) Proclus succeeded. "The Emperor Theodosius wishing to prevent the disturbances which usually attend the election of a bishop, directed the bishops who were then in the city to place Proclus in the episcopal chair before the body of Maximian was interred, for he had received letters from Celestine, Bishop of Rome, approving of this election" (Soc., VII, xl). In 438 Proclus brought the body of St. John Chrysostom to Constantinople and placed it in the church of the Apostles. In 436 some bishops of Armenia consulted him about some propositions attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia which were being put forward by the Nestorians. Proclus replied in an epistle (often called the "Tome of St. Proclus"), in which he required the propositions to be condemned. Here a difficulty arose. People were ready to condemn the propositions but not the memory of Theodore. Proclus met this difficulty by disclaiming any intention of attributing the propositions to Theodore. Volusianus, the uncle of Melania the Younger, was converted and baptized by him. The writings of Proclus, consisting chiefly of homilies and epistles, were first printed by Ricardus (Rome, 1630), reprinted in Gallandi, IX; also in P.G., LXV, 651. For Proclus and the Trisagion, see TRISAGION. TILLEMONT, H.E., 704 sq.; CEILLIER, Hist. des Auteurs Sac., XIII, 472 sq.; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, October 24. F.J. BACCHUS Proconnesus, Titular See of Proconnesus (PROECONNESUS) A titular see in Hellespont. Proconnesus was the name of an island situated in the eastern part of the Propontis, between Priapus (now Kara Bogha) and Cyzicus. It was also the name of the capital of this island colonized by Milesians or Samians and the country of the poet Aristeas. In 493 b.c. it was burned by a Phoenician fleet in the service of Darius. In 410 the Athenian vessels commanded by Alcibiades subjected it, like Cyzicus, to the domination of Athens. Later it was conquered by Cyzicus. Coins of the Roman epoch can still be seen. Proconnesus was renowned for its quarry of white marble, used in constructing the adjoining towns, particularly that of Cyzicus, and the tomb of Mausoleus at Halicarnassus, later of Constantinople. The latter still uses the quarry. It has given to the island its modern name of Marmora, which was given also to the Propontis. The ancient capital seems to be the present village of Palatia. The island forms to-day a nahié of the vilayet of Brousse. The island contains about seventy-seven square miles and 9000 inhabitants, nearly all Greek. During the Byzantine epoch exiles were frequently sent there, among whom may be mentioned the monk Stephen the Young, and the patriarch, Saint Nicephorus; Saint Gregory the Decapolite, Saint Nicholas the Studite, and Saint Ignatius the patriarch also sojourned there. In 1399 a battle took place between the Turks and Venetians. The island and the neighbouring isles form a suffragan see for the schismatic Greeks. In the Middle Ages it was an autocephalous archdiocese, originally dependent on Cyzicus. Le Quien (Oriens christ., I, 783) names six of its bishops; the first known, John, assisted at the Council of Ephesus, 431. He does not mention a Saint Timothy, who must have lived in the sixth century and who is venerated as the patron of the island. SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman geogr., s. v.; GEDEON, Proeconnesus, in Greek (Constantinople, 1895). S. PÉTRIDÈS. Procopius of Caesarea Procopius of Caesarea Byzantine historian, b. in the latter years of the fifth century at Caesarea in Palestine, d. not earlier than A.D. 562. We have noaccount of his parentage or education, except that by a legal and literary training he qualified himself for the civil service. As early as A.D. 527, before Justin's death, he became counsellor, assessor, and secretary to Belisarius, whose fortunes and campaigns he followed for the next twelve or fifteen years. He was raised to the dignity of an illustrius. He is reckoned the greatest of the later Greek historians. We owe to him an eyewitness's description of Belisarius's wars, in eight books. Of these, two deal with the Persian War, two with the Vandalic, three with the Gothic; Book VIII concludes with a general survey of events down to A.D. 554. The scope of the work is more than military; he is the best authority for the history of Justinian's reign, and Gibbon eloquently expresses his regret at reaching a date where he must exchangeProcopius for less intelligent guides. In style he imitates Thucydides chiefly; perhaps also in casting his work into eight books. His range of reading included all the greatest of the Greek historians and geographers, and he was well schooled in the poets and the orators. But his unique value lies in his personal as well as official familiarity with the people, the places, and the events of which he writes. His tone in this work is critical and independent. His account of "Justinian's Buildings" (peri ktismaton) was completed in A.D. 558 or 559. It is composed in the manner of the courtly panegyrics for which Pliny's encomium of Trajan had cast the model; and he is thought to have written it either by imperial command or at least in order to vindicate himself from suspicions of disaffection. But the very extravagancewhich prompts him to credit Justinian with all thepublic works executed in the entire Eastern Empire during his reign gives the work an exhaustive scope and a peculiar value for the archaeologist. The third of his books has gained a scandalous celebrity and aroused much question both as to its authenticity and motives. This is the "Anecdota", which Suidas characterizes as "a satirical attack on Justinian", but which is most commonly known by the title of "Arcana histora" (the secret history). It is a supplement to the other history, carrying the narrative down to the year 558-9, where it breaks off. Into it, as into the pages of a private journal, Procopius pours his detestation of Justinian and Theodora; even Belisarius and his wife are not spared. It is a bitter, malignant, and often obscene invective against all the powers of the Byzantine Church and State, apparently the tardy revenge of an ill-conditioned man of letters for a lifetime of obsequiousness. The indiscriminate violence of the pamphlet betrays thewriter's passionate indignation, but spoils his case.The authenticity is now generally allowed, after a great deal of not unbiased discussion in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. (The "Anecdota" was first published in 1623.) DAHN, Prokopius von Caesarea (Berlin, 1865). A succinct account with a bibiography is to be found in KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur vom Justinian bis zum Ende des ostromischen Reiches in MULLER, Handbucher der klass. Alterthumswissenschaft (Munich, 1890). See also BURSlAN. Jahresbericht, XXXVIII, 255 (SCHENKL), and LVIII, 62, and prefaces to the edition by COMPARETTI (Rome, 1895) and HAURY; Byzantinische Zeitschrift (1893), II, 107-109; Mnemosyne N. S., IX (1881), 109-112, 149-54, 160-4. J.S. PHILLIMORE Adelaide Anne Procter Adelaide Anne Procter Poetess and philanthropist, b. in London, England, 30 October, 1825; d. in London, 2 February, 1864. She was the eldest daughter of the poet Bryan Waller Procter ("Barry Cornwall") and Anne Benson Skepper. As a child Adelaide showed precocious intelligence. She attained considerable proficiency in French, German, and Italian, as well as in music and drawing, and she was a great reader. Brought up in surroundings favourable to the development of literary leanings, she began to write verses at an early age, and at eighteen eontributed to the "Book of Beauty". In 1851 she and two of her sisters became Catholics without, apparently, any disturbance of the harmonious relations of the domestic circle. In 1853, under the pseudonym of "Mary Berwick", she sent to "Household Words" a short poem, which so pleased the editor, Charles Dick-ens, that he not only accepted it but also invited further contributions. It was not till late in the following year that Dickens learned that his unknown correspondent was the daughter of his old friend, Barry Cornwall. To "Household Words" and "All the Year Round" nearly all her poetry was in the first instance contributed. In 1858-60 her poems were collected and published in two series under the title of "Legends and Lyrics". They had a great success, reaching the tenth edition in 1866. In that year a new issue, with introduction by Dickens, was printed, and there have been several reprints since. Miss Procter was of a charitable disposition: she visited the sick, befriended the destitute and home- less, taught the ignorant, and endeavoured to raise up the fallen ones of her own sex. She was generous yet practical with the income derived from her works. In 1859 she served on a committee to consider fresh ways and means of providing employment for women; in 1861 she edited a miscellany, entitled "Victoria Regis", which had some of the leading litterateurs of the time as contributors and which was set up in type by women compositors; and in 1862 she published a slender volume of her own poems, "A Chaplet of Verses", mostly of a religious turn, for the benefit of the Providence Row night refuge for homeless women and children, which, as the first Catholic Refuge in the United Kingdom, had been opened on 7 October, 1860, and placed under the care of the Sisters of Mercy. In her charitable zeal she appears to have unduly taxed her strength, and her health, never robust, gave way under the strain. The cure at Malvern was tried in vain; and, after an illness of fifteen months, she died calmly, and was buried in Kensal Green Cemetery. Dickens has given a characteristic testimony to her worth. "She was", he says, "a friend who inspired the strongest attachments; she was a finely sympathetic woman with a great accordant heart and a sterling noble nature." Modest and cheerful, unconstrained and unaffected, and quick in repartee, she had the gift of humour herself and of appreciating humour in others. Her works were very popular; they were published in America and also translated into German. In 1877 her poems were in greater demand in England than those of any living writer except Tennyson. If her verses are unambitious, dealing with simple emotional themes, they have the merit of originality and give evidence of much culture. She appears perhaps to greatest advantage in her narrative poems, several of which, such as "The Angel's Story", "A Legend of Bregenz", "The Story of the Faithful Soul", and "A Legend of Provence", are well known in anthologies; but some of her lyrics, like "Cleansing Fires" and "A Lost Chord", have made a very wide appeal. Some of her poems, for example, "Per Pacem ad Lucem" and "Thankfulness" are sodevotional that they are in use as hymns. DICKENS, Introduction prefixed to 1866 edition of Legends and Lyrics; The Month (Jan., 1866); BARRY CORNWALL (BRYAN WALLER PROCTER), An Autobiographical Fragment, ed. PATMORE (London, 1877); BRUCE, The Book of Noble Englishwomen (London, 1878); KEMBLE, Records of a Girlhood (London, 1859); IDEM, Records of Later Life (London, 1882); FAITHFULL, Victoria Regia, pref.; REID, Life of Lord Houghton; BELLOC (LOWNDES), In a Walled Garden (London, 1902); HOWITT, Autobiography (London, 1889); JULIAN, Dictionary of Hymnology (New York, 1892); CHAMBERS, Cyclopaedia of English Literature, III (London, 1904); LEE in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. P.J. LENNOX Procurator Procurator A person who manages the affairs of another by virtue of a charge received from him. There are different kinds of procurators: general, or particular, according as he is authorized to manage all the affairs of another, or only some of them; again a procurator may represent another in judicial matters (ad lites), or in matters not requiring court proceedings (ad negotia); special procurators are the syndicus, a general agent of a university or corporation and the fiscal procurator, appointed by public authority as guardian of the law in civil, and especially in criminal proceedings. Everybody, unless expressly forbidden by the law, has the right to appoint a procurator in affairs of which he has the free management. In selecting a procurator, a person is free, provided the choice does not fall on someone debarred by law, as excommunicated persons, notorious criminals, regulars without the consent of their superiors, clerics in cases for which they cannot act as lawyers, and finally, for judicial cases, persons under twenty-five, for non-judicial cases, persons under seventeen years of age. A procurator has the right and duty to act according to the terms of the charge committed, but a general mandate does not include cases for which the law requires a special commission. He is also allowed to elect a substitute, except in cases of marriages, and in general whenever, owing to the serious character of the affair, the procurator is supposed to have been chosen with the understanding that he should transact the business in person. The power to act as procurator ceases: (a) as soon as he has fulfilled his office; (b) if with a sufficient reason he resigns; (c) if the principal or appointer revokes his mandate; but he must do this in due time, that is, while the affair still remains untouched (re integra); this revocation must be brought to the notice of the procurator before the latter completes the transaction; one of the chief exceptions to these rules is when there is question of a procuration to contract a marriage, in which case the revocation holds good, as long as it was made before the procurator contracted in the principal's name. Unless the procurator acted beyond his powers, the principal must accept whatever the latter did in his name. FERRARIS-BUCCERONI, Bibliotheca Canonica, VI (Rome, 1885-1902), 454; HERGENRÖTHER-HOLLWECK, Lehrbuch des kanonischen Kirchenrechts (Freiburg im Br., 1905), n. 643; DROSTEMESSMER, Canonical Procedure in Disciplinary and Criminal Cases of Clerics (New York), n. 41; SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York), n. 756. HECTOR PAPI Religious Profession Religious Profession HISTORICAL VIEW Profession may be considered either as a declaration openly made, or as a state of life publicly embraced. The origins of religious profession date from the time when Christians were recognized in the Church as followers after perfection in the practice of religious life. We meet them in the third century, under the name of ascetics, called in Greek asketai, and in Latin confessores. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxxvii) numbers among the ascetics the most illustrious pontiffs of the first ages, St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, and others. After these, in the fourth century, come the hermits and monks, followed in the eleventh century by the canons regular, in the thirteenth century by the mendicant orders, in the sixteenth by the clerks regular, and lastly by the members of religious congregations. Profession for a long time was made by clothing with the religious habit: the aspirant could personally put on the habit or receive it, with or without ceremony, from the abbot or from the bishop. This clothing laid upon him the obligation of poverty and chastity more as a natural consequence of a donation or consecration to God than as arising from formal vows, which did not exist at that time (cf. St. Basil, Regulæ fusius tractatæ resp. ad 14 interrogat. in P. G., XXXI, 949-52). The community life, established under Schenoudi, the great disciple of St. Pachomius, added an explicit promise of fidelity to certain precepts. St. Benedict added an express promise of stability, and obedience to the superior. These last promises denoted obligations created in addition to those implied by taking the habit. The first formula, which expressly mentions poverty and chastity, is that of the Constitutions of Narbonne, promulgated in 1260 by St. Bonaventure for the Friars Minor; then the constitutions of the Minims and clerks regular expressly mention the three essential vows of the religious life, as well as those which were superadded on account of the special ends of their orders. This discipline is common to religious orders and congregations. Finally the regulations (Normæ) of 1901, published in explanation of the present practice of the Holy See, do not permit in new congregations any but the three essential vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. In the Decretal, "Quod votum,' unic. De veto et voti redemptione (iii, 15) in 6°, Boniface VIII declared authoritatively that the vow of chastity, consecrated by the reception of major orders, or by religious profession in an approved institute, created a diriment impediment to marriage. Some communities of tertiaries not belonging to an approved order were the first to introduce profession accompanied by simple vows, which is now the ordinary practice in the more recent congregations. The Annals of the Order of St. Benedict (vol. I, p. 74) in the year 537 recognized among the Greeks three classes of religious: the novices, who wore the simple tunic; the perfect, clothed with the pallium; and the more perfect invested with the cuculla, or hood attached to a short cloak, covering the shoulders, which was considered the special emblem of the religious life. In certain monasteries of the East, a distinction was made between persons wearing the short habit, mikroschemoi, and those wearing the long habit, megaloschemoi, a distinction against which St. Theodorus the Studite protested in his epistles (I, ep. x, in P. G., XCIX, 941-2) and which is still found among the Schismatic Coptic monks (see Kathol. Missionen 1 Oct., 1910, p. 7 sqq.). St. Ignatius of Loyola laid down that in his order there should be a simple profession, followed by more or less frequent renewal of vows until such time as the candidate should be prepared for the solemn or definitive profession; this under Pius IX and Leo XIII has become the common law of all religious orders. EXISTING LAW Definition According to the existing law, religious profession denotes the act of embracing the religious state by the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience according to the rule of an order canonically approved; it involves then a triple vow made to God, and binding oneself to the rule of a certain order. Very often the rules or constitutions of an order or congregation (approved before the Normæ of 1901) add to these essential vows certain special vows inspired by the purpose of the order: thus the Friars Minor make a vow of special obedience to the pope and the Roman Church; the Poor Clares, a vow of enclosure; the Mercedarians, a vow of devoting themselves to the redemption of Christian captives, even giving themselves as hostages; the Minims, a vow of strict abstinence; the Carmelite Sisters and discalced Augustinians, a vow of humility; the first profession in the Society of Jesus implies a vow of indifference in regard to final vows, i. e. whether they be solemn or simple; the solemn profession adds a vow of obedience to the pope for missions, and five simple vows in order the better to ensure the observance of poverty, and the eschewal of ambition; the Brothers of St. John of God make a vow to serve the sick; the Clerks Regular of the Pious Schools, a solemn vow to educate children, and also three simple vows relating to poverty and the shunning of ambition; the religious of Penitence (Scalzetti), a vow to defend the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; the Passionists, to promote devotion to the Passion of Our Lord; the Brothers of the Christian Schools, vows of stability and of gratuitous education of children; the Little Sisters of the Poor, a vow of hospitality. Division Profession was express, when made with the usual ceremonies; tacit, or implied, when the reciprocal engagement between the order and the religious was proved by outward acts; it was sufficient for this purpose to wear the habit of the professed members for some time openly and without objection being made in any one. Pius IX abolished the tacit solemn profession for religious orders (11 June, 1858) and it has fallen into disuse altogether. Profession is either simple or solemn. Solemn profession exists at present only in the institutes approved by the Holy See as religious orders. It is always perpetual, and dispensation from it is difficult to obtain; a religious who has been dismissed from his order is still bound by the obligations of the religious life; the same is the case with one who obtains from the Holy See the indult of perpetual secularization; professed who have left their order owe to the bishop of the diocese in which they reside the obedience which they formerly owed to their religious superior. Solemn profession implies a reciprocal engagement between the religious and his order, which undertakes to maintain him, and treat him as a member of its household; except in case of special privilege, it can dismiss a professed religious in canonical form only for incorrigible persistence in some grave public fault. The professed religious who is dismissed is ipso facto suspended, and the suspension is reserved to the Holy See (see the recent decree "Cum singulæ" of 16 May, 1911). According to existing law, solemn profession annuls a marriage previously contracted, but not yet consummated, and creates a diriment impediment to any future marriage; and also renders the professed religious incapable, without the permission of the Holy See, of acquiring or of possessing and disposing of property. In Belgium, and probably in Holland, profession no longer involves this disability. Simple profession is sometimes perpetual and sometimes temporary, and therefore imperfect. At the end of a term of temporary profession, a religious is free to go back to the world, and the order has power to dismiss one who has not shown himself worthy to renew his profession, or to make a subsequent profession; but a physical infirmity which was caused after the vows, or the cause of which was known at the time of the vows, does not justify the dismissal of a religious against his will. In congregations which have no solemn vows, the Holy See ordinarily prescribes a term of temporary vows, varying from three to six years, before the perpetual vows. There are however some congregations, such as the Nuns of the Sacred Heart in which all the vows are perpetual; and pious societies without perpetual vows, such as the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul; or even without vows, like the Missionaries of Africa, or White Fathers, who have only an oath of obedience. The Holy See insists that on the expiration of temporal vows, these should be either renewed or converted into perpetual vows, as the case may be, without allowing any interval of time, during which the religious would be free from his obligations. Simple profession sometimes is a preparation for solemn profession, and sometimes has a distinct character of its own. In all religious orders, three years at least of simple profession are a necessary condition for the validity of solemn profession (see NUNS), and for lay brothers, six years of simple profession and an age of at least thirty years are required (Decree of 1 Jan 1911) This time of simple profession may be considered as a second term of probation; it is not difficult for the religious to obtain a dispensation from his vows, and, on the other hand, the order may dismiss him for any grave cause of dissatisfaction, the sufficiency of which is left to the judgment of the superior. The dismissal of nuns, however, requires the consent of the Holy See; religious with simple or even temporary vows, who have received major orders in their institute, are in the same position, in regard to dismissal, as those who have made their final profession. Generally speaking, simple profession does not prevent a religious from retaining or acquiring property; the administration and disposition of property alone are forbidden. Except in the Society of Jesus it is no longer a diriment impediment to marriage, and it never annuls a marriage already contracted. Conditions of Validity and Form It is essential in all cases for the validity of a religious profession that the candidate should be at least sixteen years of age and have passed one year in the novitiate. Persons who, under the provisions of the Decree "Ecclesia Christi" of 7 September, 1909, cannot be validly admitted to the novitiate without the consent of the Holy See, cannot without the same consent make a valid profession. Admission to profession, especially to the first, is generally decided by the chapter. Profession made or permitted under duress is null and void; and the Council of Trent passes sentence of excommunication on all persons who compel a young girl to enter a monastery by solemn profession, or who forcibly prevent her from doing so. Although tacit profession, which has been expressly abolished for religious orders, has fallen into disuse everywhere, no particular rite or formula of profession is essential, unless distinctly required by the constitutions. A general Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 14-27 August, 1874, indicates the manner in which profession should be made during Mass. Since the Decree "Auctis admodum", simple but perpetual profession creates the same bond between the religious and the congregation as solemn profession does in a religious order. Such a religious can be dismissed only for incorrigible persistence in some grave public fault. Even when congregations with simple vows have the power to dismiss a religious, they have not the power to dispense him from his vows: this is strictly reserved to the Holy See. Common Effects of Profession Every perpetual profession admits one to the religious state and consequently creates an obligation to aspire after perfection. This obligation is sufficiently fulfilled by observing the vows and rules, so far as they bind the conscience. All previous vows, provided they do not prejudice the right of a third party, may be changed into religious profession, as into something of a distinctly higher character; and this may be done by the religious himself, or by some person who has power to commute the vows. If the profession be solemn, these previous vows are annulled by canon law. Theologians generally teach that, when made in a state of grace, this absolute surrender of self procures for the religious a remission of all the penalties due to past sins. The generally accepted opinion, by which religious profession was compared to a new baptism, induced St. Pius V to permit novices in houses of Dominican nuns to make their profession when in danger of death even before completing their years of novitiate (Constitution "Summi sacerdotii", 23 August, 1570). This has since been extended to all religious orders; but restoration to health deprives the profession made under such circumstances of all canonical effects. Historical LADEUZE, Le cénobitisme pakhômien pendant le IVe siècle et la première moitié du Ve (Louvain, 1808); MARTÈNE, De antiq. monach. ritibus. Comment. in regul. S. P. Benedicti; SCHIEWITZ, Das orientalische Mönchum (Mains, 1904). Doctrinal BASTIEN, Directoire canonique à l'usage des congrég. à voeux simples (Maredsous, 1911); BATTANDIER, Guide canon. pour les constitutions des instituts à voeux simples (Paris, 1908); BOUIX, Tract. de jure regularium (Paris, 1856); COLLETTE, Religiosae professionis valor satisfactorius (Liége, 1887); MOCCHEGIANI, Jurisprudentia ecclesiastica, I (Quaracchi, 1904); PASSERINI, De hominum statibus, III, qq. 186, 189; PELLIZAHIUS, Manuale regularium, tr. 3, c. 1-6; IDEM, Tractatio de monialibus, cor. by MONTANI (Rome, 1761); PIAT, Praelect. juris regularis, I (Tournai, 1898), 130-70; REIFFENSTUEL, Jus canonicum universum; ROTARIUS, Theologia moralis regularium, I, III, v; SANCHEZ, In Decalogum, V, iii, iv, v; VI, v; SCHMALZGRÜBER, In lib. 3 decretal., t. 31, n. 149 sqq.; SUAREZ, De religione, tr. 7, lib. VI, CC. 1, 2, 12; VERMEERSCH, De religiosis institutis et personis (Bruges, 1907), sect. 3; IDEM, De relig. insti. et pers., supplementa et monumenta (Bruges, 1909); IDEM, De relig. inst. et pers., supplem. et mon. periodica (Bruges, 1905 --); WERNZ, Jus decretalium, III (2nd ed., Rome, 1908), nn. 640, 648, 668, 673. A. VERMEERSCH Divine Promise (In Scripture) Divine Promise (in Scripture) The term promise in Holy Writ both in its nominal and verbal form embraces not only promises made by man to his fellowman, and by man to God in the form of vows (e.g. Deut., xxiii, 21-3), but also God's promises to man. A complete study of this phase of the subject would require a review of the whole question of Old Testament prophecy and also a discussion of several points pertaining to the subject of Divine grace and election. For God's every word of grace is a promise; man's willingness to obey His commandments brings him many assurances of grace. When the children of Israel were commanded to go in and "possess the land", it was practically already theirs. He had "lifted up His hand to give it to them"; their disobedience, however, rendered of no effect the promise implied in the command. There are, moreover, many examples of promises of which the Patriarchs themselves did not receive the outward fullness. Among these may be mentioned, the full possession of Canaan, the growth of the nation, universal blessing through the race. For: "All these died according to faith, not having received the promises, but beholding them afar off" (Heb., xi, 13). On the one hand we find that Abraham, "patiently enduring. . . obtained the promise" (Heb., vi, 15), because the birth of Isaac was the beginning of its fulfillment. On the other hand, he is one of the fathers who "received not the promise", yet with a true faith looked for a fulfillment of the promises which was not granted to them. The New Testament phrase "inherit the promises" (Heb., vi, 12; cf. xi, 9; Gal., iii, 29) is found in the apocryphal Psalms of Solomon, xiii, 8 (70 B.C. to 40 B.C.). It is believed that this passage is the first instance in extant Jewish literature where the expression "the promises of the Lord" sums up the assurances of the Messianic redemption. The word "promise" is used in this technical sense in the Gospels only in Luke, xxiv, 49, where we find that the promise of the Father refers to the coming of the Holy Ghost. In passages which make mention of promises of which Christ is the fulfillment, the Epistle to the Hebrews especially abounds. St. Paul indeed both in his speeches and in his Epistles looks at the Christian Gospel from the same point of view. And we see that it was by a contemplation of Christ that men ultimately discovered what the "promise" meant. The New Testament teaching on the subject might be summed up under three heads: that which the promise contained, those who were to inherit it, and the conditions affecting its fulfillment. The contents of the "promise" are always intimately concerned with Christ, in Whom it has found its perfect fulfillment. In the preaching of St. Peter it is the risen Jesus, "both Lord and Christ", in whom the "promise" has been fulfilled. The forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the partaking of the Divine nature through grace (II Peter, i, 4), all the Divinely bestowed possessions of the Christian Church, may be said to be its contents. Passing to St. Paul we find a general conception of the same character. Christ and the "promise" are practically synonymous terms. The promises of God are all summed up in Christ. A conception of the "promise" which was distinctively common to the early Christians is set forth in I John, ii. 25-"And this is the promise which he hath promised us, life everlasting." Concerning the inheritors of the "promise", it was given at first to Abraham and his seed. In Hebrews, xi, 9, we find Isaac and Jacob referred to as "co-heirs of the same promise". A controversy existed in the primitive Church over the interpretation of the expression "the seed of Abraham". St. Paul speaks frankly concerning the prerogatives of Israel, "to whom belongeth. . . the promises" (Rom., ix, 4). Of the Gentile Church before admission to Christianity, he says its members had been "strangers to the covenants of the promise", consequently cut off from all hope. It was his work, however, to show that no physical or historical accident, such as Jewish birth, could entitle one to a claim as of right against God for its fulfillment. It is his teaching in one instance that all who are Christ's by faith are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise. He is concerned, however, with the fact that the promise is not being fulfilled to the seed of Abraham (referring to the Jews); yet his heart is evidently on the side of those against whom he argues. For to the last the Jew was to St. Paul "the root, the first fruits, the original and proper heirs". The echoes of this conflict die away in later writings: as instinctively Christ is felt to be the Lord of all, the scope of the promise is universalized. Spontaneity on the part of the promiser is among the primary conditions on which the promise is fulfilled (e.g. Acts, ii. 39). As the promise is of grace, St. Paul shows that it is subject to no pre-existing merit on the part of the Mosaic law, or of works of the law. The promise was given to Abraham and to his faith four hundred and thirty years before the law was heard of. It is fulfilled not in works of law, but in a living faith in Jesus Christ together with the love and works that are the fruits of such a faith. Having God's promise to go upon, it is part of the function of faith to maintain a strong conviction that the promise objectively is "the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not" (Heb., xi, 1). But if the first grace leading to the fulfillment of the promise is gratuitous, a supernatural gift bestowed without regard to merit in the natural order, co-operation with this and ulterior graces is required for the realization of the fulfillment. Through lack of the co-operation no less than from lack of faith have the Divine promises often proved of no avail in the Old Testament as well as in the New (see GRACE). CORNELY, Comment. In Epistolam ad Romanos in Cursus Script. Sac. (Paris, Lethielleux, 1896), 203, 467-95; FOUARD, Saint Paul and His Missions (New York, 1894); TOUSSAINT, Epitres de S. Paul, I (Paris, 1910), 216 sqq.; SANDAY, Epistle to the Romans (New York, 1903), 6, 18, 109 sqq. JAMES F. DRISCOLL Promotor Fidei Promotor Fidei ( Promoter of the Faith). An official of the Roman Congregation of Rites. The office was created by Clement XI, 7 April, 1708. In earlier times the work now undertaken by the Promotor Fidei was entrusted to the Promotor Fiscalis or some consistorial advocate. The Promotor Fidei is also an official of the Congregation of Indulgences and Sacred Relics, but his main duty is performed in the processes of beatification and canonization, which are conducted by the Congregation of Rites. It is the special care of the Promoter of the Faith to prevent any rash decisions concerning miracles or virtues of the candidates for the honours of the altar. All documents of beatification and canonization processes must be submitted to his examination, and the difficulties and doubts he raises over the virtues and miracles are laid before th congregation and must be satisfactorily answered before any further steps can be taken in the processes. It is his duty to suggest natural explanations for alleged miracles, and even to bring forward human and selfish motives for deeds that have been accounted heroic virtues. For the examination of witnesses outside of Rome, the promoter formulates the questions and he has the power to appoint sub- promoters to assist him. All the processes for beatification and canonization must be submitted to the promoter under pain of nullity. Owing to his peculiar duty of antagonizing the proofs put forward on behalf of persons proposed for saintly honours, the Promoter of the Faith is commonly referred to, half jocosely, as the devil's advocate. Hilling, Procedure at the Roman Curia (New York, 1907); Baart, The Roman Court (New York, 1895). William H.W. Fanning Promulgation Promulgation (Lat. promulgare, to make known, to post in public). I. PROMULGATION IN GENERAL This is the act by which the legislative power makes legislative enactments known to the authorities entrusted with their execution and to the subjects bound to observe them. Philosophically it is a matter of dispute whether promulgation is of the essence of a law. It seems indisputable that the essential element of a law is the will of the legislator, but it is clear that the legislator should make known his will and intention in one way or another. This manifestation is the promulgation of the law, which is not necessarily distinct from the very elaboration of the law, provided that this takes place by external acts-such as the vote of a legislative assembly or by royal sanction. Such is the practice observed in England and in most of the states of the American Union, but, as it was thought too severe, the legislation of various countries requires the promulgation of laws by a special formal act, through which the text of the law is made known to the community, e.g. by publication of this text in an official journal or bulletin of the Government. Previous to this publication the law does not take effect. The promulgation of a law must not be confounded with its publication, the object of the first being to make known the will of the legislator, of the second to spread the knowledge of legislative enactments among sujects bound to observe them. II. PROMULGATION IN CANON LAW The Church has long exacted the promulgation of a law by a special act of the authorities: "Leges instituuntur quum promulgantur", a law is not really a law until it has been made known, says Gratian (Decretum Gratiani, pt. I, c. 3, dist. VII). However, no special form is prescribed for acts of ecclesiastical authorities inferior to the pope, even synodal decrees being considered sufficiently promulgated by being read in the synod. The Constitution "Promulgandi" of Pius X (29 September, 1908) determined the ordinary method of promulgating pontifical laws, namely by the insertion of the text of the law in the "Acta Apostolica Sedis" (the official publication of the Holy See), after the insertion has been ordered by the secretary or the supreme authority of the congregation or the office through the medium of which the pope has passed the law. A regulation of 5 January, 1910, divides the official bulletin of the Holy See into two parts: in the first or official part should be inserted all documents requiring promulgation to have the force of law; the second merely serves to illustrate and supplement the first (Acta Apost. Sedis, 1910, p. 36). However, the pope explicitly reserves the right to determine in exceptional cases another method of promulgation. Prior to this law two systems had been chiefly in use in the Church-provincial promulgation, until the end of the thirteenth century, and Roman promulgation. During the first period promulgation often took place in the different ecclesiastical provinces either through special envoys or through the bishops. Nevertheless it is also a fact that laws binding in one province were also binding in others. During the second period the custom, which became exclusive during the fifteenth century, developed of having the new laws read and posted up by cursores at Rome only, at the doors of the great basilicas, the Palazzo Cancellaria, the Campo de' fiori, and sometimes at the Capitol. The value of this means of promulgation was disputed in modern times: some claimed that the Church had admitted the arrangements of Novels lxvi and cxvi of Justinian, which required provincial promulgation for some laws; others maintained that in theory publication at Rome was sufficient, but that the popes did not wish to bind the faithful before the laws were made known to them by the bishops; while others appealed to ancient customs, to which the pope should conform. This last theory, made use of by the Gallicans and Febronianists, furnished the State with a pretext for preventing the promulgation of laws which it did not like. A special method of promulgation was also introduced wtih the express or tacit consent of the Holy See for the decrees of congregations; they were published at the secretariate of the dicasteries from which they emanated. Zaccaria, De varis eccles. præsertim latinæ in promulgandis sacris constitutionibus disciplina in De rebus ad historiam atque antiquitates ecclesiæ pertinentibus dissertationes latinæ, II (Fulginia, 1781), xi; Bouix, De principiis juris canonici (Paris, 1852), 196 sq.; Bouquillon, Theol. moral. fundamentalis (Brussels, 1890), 270 sq.; Creagh, The Promulgation of Pontifical Law in Cath. Univ. Bull., XV (Washington, 1907), 23 sq.; Simier, La promulgation des lois ecclés. in Revue augustinienne, XV (Louvain, 1909), 154 sq. A. Van Hove. Proof Proof Proof is the establishment of a disputed or controverted matter by lawful means or arguments. Proof is the result of evidence; evidence is the medium of proof. There is no proof without evidence, but there may be evidence without proof. Proof is judicial, if offered in court; otherwise it is extra-judicial. Proof is perfect, or complete, when it produces full conviction, and enables the judge without further investigation to pronounce sentence: imperfect, or incomplete, if it begets probability only. Canonists enumerate six kinds of perfect proof: the unshaken deposition of two witnesses, who are above all suspicion; a public document, or other instrument having the force of a public document, as, for instance, a certified copy of a public instrument; conclusive presumption of law; the decisive oath; judicial confession; evidence or notoriety of the fact. Imperfect or semi-proof is derived from the testimony of one witness only, or of several singular witnesses, or of two witnesses not entirely unshaken in their testimony or not beyond all suspicion; writings or instruments of a private character; a document admitted as authentic only on the strength of the handwriting; the necessary oath; presumption which is only probable, not conclusive; public report when legally proved. Two imperfect proofs cannot constitute perfect proof in criminal cases, in which proof must be clearer than the noonday sun; in matrimonial cases, when there is question of the validity of a marriage already contracted; or in civil actions of a grave character. With these exceptions two incomplete proofs tending to establish the same point may constitute full proof or conviction. Judicial proofs must as a rule be full and conclusive. There are, however, some exceptions. Thus the testimony of but one witness will suffice when it is beneficial to another person and hurts no one. Likewise in summary causes of little moment and not prejudicial to any one, half proof is sufficient; also when the judge is commissioned to proceed, having merely examined into the truth of the fact (sola facti veritate inspecta). Confession Confession, the acknowledgment by a person that what is charged or asserted by his opponent is true, is judicial or extra-judicial. Judicial confession is the best of proofs. It must be made in clear and definite terms, in court, that is, before the judge in his official capacity, during the trial, with certain knowledge of the fact and also of the consequences of said confession, by a person not under twenty-five years of age, acting with full liberty and not through fear. Such a confession makes further proof unnecessary; renders valid any previous defective proceedings; and, if made after the defendant has already been convicted, deprives him of the right of appeal. The confession may be revoked during the same session of court in which it was made; after an interruption the only remedy available is to show, if possible, that the confession was illegal, because wanting in some requisite quality, as above. Ordinarily a confession does not militate against accomplices or others, but only against the one confessing. Extrajudicial confession, if properly proved, constitutes in criminal causes a grave presumption, but not perfect proof; in civil cases it is sufficient for the pronouncing of sentence, if made in the presence of the plaintiff or his representative and if it specifically states the cause or origin of the obligation. Instruments or Documentary Evidence A public instrument is one drawn up by a public official with the required formalities. If a document be the work of a private person, or of an official who does not observe the prescribed formalities, it is a private instrument. Instruments to possess weight must be genuine and authentic. Public instruments consequently must bear the name, title, and seal of the official issuing them. Private documents should be written in the presence of witnesses and attested by them. Presumptions Circumstantial, presumptive, or indirect evidence, strong enough to establish a moral certainty, is admitted also in canon law, but it must be accepted with caution, and sentence modified in accordance with the degree of evidence. The rational basis of such evidence lies in the connexion of the facts or circumstances, known and proved, with the fact at issue. A presumption consequently is more or less strong, according as the fact presumed is a necessary (vehement, very strong presumption), or usual (strong presumption), or infrequent (rash, unreasonable presumption), consequence of the fact or facts seen, known, or proven. A presumption is legal, if the law itself draw the inference. This is of two kinds: rebuttable (juris simpliciter), which may be set aside by contrary proof; conclusive (juris et de jure), against which no direct proof is admitted. A presumption is natural (hominis) when the law permits the judge to draw whatever inference he considers warranted by the facts proved; such presumptions are sometimes called presumptions of facts. The general effect of presumption is to place the burden of proof on him against whom the presumption militates. A rash presumption is little more than mere suspicion; a grave or sound presumption constitutes imperfect proof, while a vehement presumption suffices in civil cases of not too great importance. Legal presumptions or presumptions of law are of course stronger than natural presumptions or presumptions of facts; while specific presumptions have more weight than those of a general character. Presumptions that favour the accused or the validity of an act already performed are preferred. OATHS Oaths, as proof, are decisive (litis decisorium) or necessary. The decisive oath is given by the judge, when private interests are in question, to one of the litigants at the instance of the other. The case is decided in favour of the one taking the oath; if he refuse to swear, sentence is pronounced against him. The necessary oath is given by the judge on his own initiative, not at the request of one of the litigants, to complete imperfect proof, and is called supplementary; or to destroy the force of circumstantial evidence, arising especially from current rumour, against the accused, and is called purgative. This latter is permitted only when there is not at least semi-perfect proof. The supplementary oath is permissible only when there is at least imperfect and yet not full proof. It is not allowed in criminal actions or in important civil cases, as, for example, when the validity of a marriage or a religious profession is in question. Public Report Witnesses testify as to the existence or non-existence, the origin, extent, and nature of a public report. Their testimony does not concern the truth or falsehood of the report. It is for the judge to trace the report to its source and accept it at its proper value. Since, however, it is to be presumed that public opinion is founded on fact, in civil matters it furnishes semi-perfect proof, when its existence is properly established. In criminal matters it has less weight still, being sufficient only for an investigation. Evidence of the Fact Evidence or notoriety of the fact, viz., when it is so open and evident that it cannot be concealed or denied, needs no proof. Hence a judicial inspection or visitation of the corpus delicti is often of advantage. Under this head might be mentioned the opinion of experts, who are appointed by the judge to examine certain matters and to give their expert testimony concerning the same. Rules Proof must be clear, specific, and in keeping with the charge or point at issue; otherwise confusion and obscurity will arise. To establish a point other than the one in question will avail nothing. Whether the evidence offered be relevant or not, the judge will determine. The issue must be established substantially, not necessarily in all its details. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, though the defendant must offer proof in support of his allegations, exceptions etc. What is evident needs no proof: in criminal cases this axiom applies only to what is evident in law, i. e. he who has the presumption of all in his favour is exempt from the necessity of proving his contention. Time to Introduce Evidence Judicial evidence must be introduced during the trial. Ordinarily, therefore, evidence may not be presented before the hearing of the petition or charge and the answer of the defendant to the same (contestatio litis). This rule, however, does not apply when the judge proceeds summarily or by inquiry; and likewise in certain cases where there is danger of the testimony being lost through death or other cause. Again, as a rule, no evidence will be admitted after the judge has closed the case. This general rule is not applied when the validity of a marriage is in question; in criminal cases, in which every opportunity of defence is given the accused; and occasionally in other trials, where further testimony is considered necessary or new evidence has been discovered. Entry of Evidence Evidence must be presented to the judge or other person commissioned to receive it. It must be written down by the clerk in the acts or minutes of the trial: date of presentation of documents is noted on the documents themselves and attested by the signature of the clerk. Evidence in rebuttal, effected by witnesses, documents, or otherwise, must be admitted, the final word in criminal actions being given to the defendant. Comparison of Proofs It belongs to the judge to sift the depositions of witnesses or other proof and to determine the relative value of conflicting evidence. He must consider not merely the respective number of witnesses but their qualifications, intellectual and moral, their knowledge of the facts at issue, and so on. The stronger proof must prevail, and when proof is equally divided, the accused or possessor must be favoured, except in privileged cases (see EXAMINATION, Examination of Witnesses). Decret. Greg. IX, l. II, tit. 18 sqq.; TAUNTON, Law of the Church, s. v. Proof; DROSTE-MESSMER, Canonical Procedure, etc., ii; SANTI, Proelectiones Juris Can., l. II, tit. 18 sqq. ANDREW B. MEEHAN. Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Sacred Congregation of Propaganda The Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, whose official title is "sacra congregatio christiano nomini propagando" is the department of the pontifical administration charged with the spread of Catholicism and with the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs in non-Catholic conntries. The intrinsic importance of its duties and the extraordinary extent of its authority and of the territory under its jurisdiction have caused the cardinal prefect of Propaganda to be known as the "red pope". I. HISTORY A. First Period Its establishment at Rome in the seventeenth century was owing partly to the necessity of communicating with new countries then recently discovered, and partly to the new system of government by congregations adopted during the Counter-Reformation. It is well known that, during this period, the defence and propagation of Catholicism suggested to the Holy See the establishment of a complete system of administrative departments, to each of which was assigned some special branch of Catholic interests. The propagation of the Faith was a matter of such vital importance as to demand for its work an entire congregation. The reconquest for the Church of the lands severed from it was not of greater importance than the evangelization of the vast regions then being explored by courageous adventures. America, Africa, the Far East, opened up new lands, new peoples, new conquests; the Church, conscious of her natural mission to evangelize the world, felt obliged to act and to act quickly, especially as Holland and England, while striving eagerly for commerce and colonial expansion, were also bent upon spreading everywhere the doctrines of Protestantism. The origin of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda has been variously accounted for; in reality it is the result of slow evolution. It is certain that it passed through two distinct periods, one formative and the other constitutive. The first period is that of the cardinalitial commission de propaganda fide (before it had been constituted a definite pontifical department or ministry). This lasted from the time of Gregory XIII (1572-85) to 1622, when Gregory XV established the congregation properly so-called. Gregory XIII instituted a primary commission composed of the three cardinals, Caraffa, Medici, and Santorio, who were especially charged to promote the union with Rome of the Oriental Christians (Slavs, Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, and Abyssinians). Their meetings, held under the presidency of Cardinal Santorio, known as the Cardinal of Santa Severina, revealed certain urgent practical needs -- e.g. the foundation of foreign seminaries, the printing of catechisms and similar works in many languages. Its efforts were successful among the Ruthenians, the Armenians, Syrians, both Western (as those of the Lebanon) and Eastern (as those of Malabar). After the death of Gregory XIII the rapid succession of four popes in seven years arrested the progress of the commission's work. Clement VIII (1592-1605), a pontiff of large and bold aims, was deeply interested in the commission, and caused its first meeting after his election to be held in his presenee. He retained Santorio as its president: weekly meetings were held in that cardinal's palace, and every fifteen days the decisions and recommendations of the commission were referred to the pontiff. To this period belongs a very notable triumph, the union with Rome of the Ruthenian nation (the Little Russia of Poland) called the Union of Brest (1508). B. Second Period The death of Clement VIII revealed an essential weakness of the institution. It was a personal commission, depending for its very existence on the energy of its few members. Eventually the meetings of the three cardinals ceased; at the same time an active propagation of the Catholic Faith was kept up among both Protestants and non-Christians. The practical demise of the commission made evident the necessity of providing for its permanence. The honour of accomplishing this belongs to Gregory XV (1621-23). On 6 Jan., 1622, the pope summoned thirteen cardinals and two prelates, to whom he announced his intention of constituting a permanent and well-organized congregation for the propagation of Catholicism, and his hearers were appointed members of the congregation. The preliminaries of organization were diligently carried on; on 22 June of the same year appeared the Bull "Inscrutabili Divinae", by which the Sacred Congregation de propaganda fide was instituted, composed of thirteen cardinals and two prelates, to whom were added a secretary and a consultor. Its first presidents were Cardinal Sauli, dean of the Sacred College, and Cardinal Ludovisi, nephew of the pope and founder of the Irish College at Rome. On the same day provision was made for the support of the congregation by the Constitution "Romanum Decet". It assigned to Prop aganda the tassa dell' anello (ring-tax) assessed on each newly appointed cardinal (500 gold scudi, later 600 silver scudi). On 14 Dec. of the same year was published the Constitution "Cum Inter Multiplices", and on 13 June, 1623, another Constitution, "Cum Nuper", both of which conferred on the congregation ample privileges and immunities in order to facilitate and accelerate its labours. When the financial management increased in importanee, the pope ordered that each of the thirteen cardinals should direct it in turn; at a later date a single cardinal was placed at the head of the financial department. The death of Gregory XV (1624) prevented the founder of the congregation from completing its organization; happily, his successor, Urban VIII (1623-44), was Cardinal Barberini, one of the original thirteen members of the congregation. After the death of Cardinals Sauli and Ludovisi, Urban VIII directed that there should be but one prefect general of the congregation, and nominated to the office his brother, Cardinal Antonio Barberini (29 Dec., 1632). At the same time he appointed his nephew, a second Cardinal Antonio Barberini, as the auxiliary of the preceding, and later made him his successor. These two open the series of prefects general of Propaganda. It was clear to Urban VIII that the impulse given to the establishment of ecclesiastical seminaries by the Council of Trent had already produced excellent results, even in the vast province of the Propaganda, through the agency of the numerous national colleges then founded, e.g. at Rome, the German, English, Greek, Maronite, Scots, and other colleges. But he also saw that it was necessary to establish a central seminary for the missions where young ecclesiastics could be educated, not only for countries which had no national college but also for such as were endowed with such institutions. It seemed very desirable to have, in every country, priests educated in an international college where they could acquire a larger personal acquaintance, and establish in youth relations that might be mutually helpful in after life. Thus arose the seminary of the Propaganda known as the Collegium Urbanum, from the name of its founder, Urban VIII. It was established by the Bull "Immortalis Dei", of 1 Aug., 1627, and placed under the immediate direction of the Congregation of Propaganda. The congregation itself developed so rapidly that it became eventually necessary to divide its immense domain into various secretariates and commissions. This continuous increase of its labours dates from its very earliest years. In the beginning the meetings of the congregation were held in the presence of the pope; soon, however, the pressure of business grew to be so great that the general prefect and the general secretary were authorized to transact all current business, with the obligation of placing before the pope, at stated intervals, the more important matters, which is still the custom. In extent of territory, in external and internal organization, and in junsdiction, the congregation has undergone modifications according to the needs of the times; but it may be said that its definite organization dates from about 1650. II. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION As a general principle, it was understood that the territory of Propaganda was (apart from the Catholics of all the Oriental rites) conterminous with those countries that were non-Catholic in government. Naturally there were, and are, exceptions: for example, Russia depends, ecclesiastically, upon the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, since it is necessary to treat all Russian affairs though governmental channels. The territorial jurisdiction of Propaganda was before the promulgation of the Constitution "Sapienti Consilio" as follows: in Europe, Great Britain and Gibraltar, Sweden and Norway, Denmark, Germany (Saxony, Anhalt, Mecklenburg, Schaumburg, Oldenburg, Lauenburg, Hamburg, Bremen, Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein), Holland, Luxemburg, some places in Switzerland (Mesolcina and Calanca in the Grisons, St. Maurice in the Canton of Valais), the Balkan peninsula (Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Greece); in the New World, the United States, Canada, Lower California, the Lesser Antilles (British and Danish), Jamaica and Honduras, some missions in Peru, Patagonia; all Oceanica except the Philippines; all Asia except the Russian possessions; all Africa. As to the Catholics of the Oriental rites, they are subject personally (that is, wherever they may be) to Propaganda. Their division by rites generally corresponds to their nationality. These rites are: the Armenian, frequent (besides, of course, in Armenia) in Austria, Persia, and Egypt; the pure Coptic Rite (in Egypt); the Abyssinian Coptic Rite, to which belong a few faithful in Abyssinia and in the Italian colony of Eritrea; the pure Greek Rite, including some communities in Southern Italy and a very few in Turkey; the Rumanian Greek Rite, with adherents among the Rumanians of Hungary and Transylvania; the Ruthenian Greek Rite, or that of the Little Russians in Austria and Russia; the Bulgarian Greek Rite, in Bulgaria and in Macedonia; the Melchite Greek Rite (Graeco-Syrian), which includes the Catholics of Greece, also hellenized natives of Syria and Palestine; the unmixed Syrian Rite (Western Syrian), or that of the Syrians of the plain of Syria and Palestine; the Syro-Maronite Rite (Western Syrian) or the (Syrian) Maronites of Mount Lebanon; the Syro-Chaldean Rite (Eastern Syrian) i.e. Syria in the Persian Empire; the Malabar Rite (Eastern Syrian), i.e. the Catholics of Malabar in Southwestern India. Among most of these peoples there has set in a remarkable tide of emigration to the New World, especially to North America, whither the Ruthenians and Maronites emigrate in large numbers. In the Constitution "Sapienti Consilio" of Pius X (29 June, 1908), the plan was followed of entrusting to Propaganda those countries of Europe and America where the ecclesiastical hierarchy is not established. Great Britain, Holland, Luxemburg, Canada, and the United States were therefore removed from its jurisdiction; on the other hand, all the vicariates and prefectures Apostolic of America and the Philippines, which were formeriy subject to the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, were placed under Propaganda. A departure from the general plan was in leaving Australia under the jurisdiction of the latter congregation, with the addition of St-Pierre, in Martinique, and Guadeloupe. Another restriction of the powers of Propaganda effected by the new legislation was, that all matters appertaining to faith, the sacraments (particulariy matrimony), rites, and religious congregations -- as such, even though they were exclusively devoted to the work of the missions -- were assigned to the care of the respective congregations: those of the Holy Office, the Sacraments, Rites, and Regulars. III. EXTERNAL ORGANIZATION The organization of Propaganda is developed externally by means of delegations, dioceses, vicariates, prefectures, simple missions, and colleges. The Apostolic delegations are established to maintain immediate representatives of the Holy See in places where they seem to be needed by reason of the growth of the Church in organization and in numbers. Their personnel is composed of an Apostolic delegate and an auditor, subject to Propaganda. They are as follows: in Europe, those of Constantinople and of Greece (Athens); in Asia, those of the East Indies (Kandy in Ceylon), of Mesopotamia, Kurdistan, and Armenia Minor (Mosul), of Persia (Urumiah), of Syria (Beirut); in Africa, that of Egypt and Arabia (Alexandria). The dioceses as a rule consist of a bishop, who holds the title to the see and administers the local governmnent with the aid of a cathedral chapter and a parochial clergy. A diocesan organization (Latin Rite) exists in the following Propaganda countries: in Europe, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rumania, Bulgaria, Abyssinia, Greece; in America, Guadeloupe and St-Pierre, Martinique; in Oceania, Australia and New Zealand; in Asia, Smyrna, India, and Japan; in Africa, the Mauritius and the Seychelles. The Oriental Catholics (Uniats), except those of the Abyssinian-Coptic, the Unmixed Greek, and the Graeco-Bulgarian Rites, are also organized in dioceses. The vicariates Apostolic are missions at the head of each of which is placed a bishop who acts as representative of the pope in the local government. The prefectures Apostolic are missions of minor importance, each of which has at its head an ecclesiastic, not a bishop, with the title of prefect Apostolic. Those territories of Propaganda which are not organized as dioceses are either vicariates or prefectures; their number increases rapidly, since every year some vicariate Apostolic is divided, or some prefecture is raised to the dignity of a vicariate or some new prefecture is created. The simple missions are few and mostly in Africa. They represent an uncertain or transitory condition that may be readily strengthened by the establishment of an Apostolic prefecture. The colleges are institutions for the education of the clergy, intended either to supply clergy for missions that have no native clergy or to give a better education to the native clergy for the apostolate in their own country. The central seminary of Propaganda is, as has been said, the Urban College, established in the palace of the congregation at Rome. The immediate superiors are two prelates, one the general seeretary of the congregation, and the other the rector. In this college may be found students from all the territories subject to Propaganda, but from nowhere else. The average number of its resident students is about one hundred and ten. It has its own schools, which are attended by many other students not subject to Propaganda -- e.g. the Bohemian College. Besides the preparatory training, these schools offer courses of philosophy and theology, and confer the academic degrees of Bachelor, Licentiate, and Doctor of Theology. The number of students in these schools exceeds five hundred. In Rome the College of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, for Italian missionaries (Lower California and China), and the College of St. Anthony, for Franciscan missionaries (especially in China), are subject to Propaganda, which also exercises jurisdiction over the following missionary colleges outside of Rome: St. Calocerus, at Milan, for Italian missionaries to China and India; St. Charles, at Parma (China); Brignole-Sale, at Genoa (without local designation of mission); Instituto per la Nigrizia (for negroes of the Sudan), at Verona; College for African Missions, at Lyons, especially for French missionaries to Africa; Seminary of Foreign Missions, at Paris (India, Indo-China, China, Japan); Mill Hill Seminary, near London, for the missionaries of the Society of St. Joseph (India, Central Africa, Malay Peninsula); House of St. Joseph, Rozendaal (for Dutch students of the Mill Hill Society); House of St. Joseph, Brixen in the Tyrol (for German students of the same society); four colleges of the Society of the Divine Word, at Steyl (Holland), at Heiligen-kreuz (Germany), and at St. Gabriel, near Vienna, for the students of the same society whose missionary fields are in the United States, South America, Oceania, China, and Africa; College of All Hallows, Dublin, for Irish missionaries; American College at Louvain, for missionaries to the United States. The national colleges at Rome subject to the Propaganda are: the Greek, Ruthenian, Armenian, and Maronite colleges. It also exercises jurisdiction over the Albanian College at Scutari, the Co}}ege of Pulo-Penang (Prince of Wales Island) in Indo-China, belonging to the Society of Foreign Missions at Paris for the native Indo-Chinese clergy. Before the appearance of the Constitution "Sapienti Consilio", the American, Canadian, English, Irish, and Scots Colleges at Rome, the English College at Lisbon, the English and the Scots College at Valladolid, and the Irish College at Paris were all subject to Propaganda. The auxiliaries of this vast organization are all religious orders and regular congregations of men and women to which foreign missions are confided. Their number is very great. The principal orders (Benedictine, Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite, Jesuit etc.) have charge of numerous missions. During the nineteenth century many regular societies of missionary priests and missionary sisters entered actively, and with great success, on missionary labours under the direction of the congregation. The principal colleges of these auxiliary bodies (not directly suhject to Propaganda) are: at Rome, the Colleges of St. Fidelis (Capuchin) and St. Isidore (Irish Franciscans), and the Irish Augustinian College; outside of Rome, the college at Schooten near Brussels (Missionaries of the Immaculate Heart of Mary), the seminary of the African Missions at Lyons (White Fathers) etc. IV. INTERNAL ORGANIZATION The internal organization of Propaganda is the result of almost three centuries of experience. All its works are carried on by means of a general cardinalitial congregation, two cardinalitial prefectures, and several permanent commissions. The general congregation is composed of all the cardinals of Propaganda chosen by the Pope "Eminentissimi Patres Consilii Christiano nomini Propagando". The chief authority of Propaganda resides in this body. The creation and division of dioceses, vicariates, and prefectures, the selection of bishops and other ordinary superiors of missions, matrimonial causes, ecclesiastical appeals, and the like, all come under its jurisdiction. It holds a regular meeting twice a month and deals alternately with the affairs of the Latin and the Oriental rites. Only the cardinal-members of Propaganda are present, together with two prelates, the general secretary, and the secretary of the Oriental rites. To the general prefect of Propaganda, a cardinal, belongs the duty of despatching all current business and all matters pertaining to the General Congregation. He is the ordinary head of Propaganda. The General Prefecture has subject to it two secretariates: the General Secretariate and the Secretariate of Oriental rites. The general secretary (always a prelate, Monsignor) is the chief assistant of the cardinal prefect, and the immediate head of the General Secretariate. He countersigns all letters addressed by the cardinal prefect to persons outside of Rome, and signs all letters from the prefecture destined to points in Rome (except to cardinals and ambassadors, letters for whom are signed by the cardinal prefect alone). An under-secretary has been added by the Constitution "Sapienti Consilio". The Secretary of the Oriental rites is the head of his secretariate, and is charged with duties analogous to those of the general secretary, of whom he is independent. Each of the secretariates has its minutanti, scrittori, and protocollisti. There are also the General Archives, and a Despatch Office. The minutanti (so called because one of their duties is to prepare the minutes of decrees and letters which are afterwards re-copied by the scrittori) are officials occupied with the subordinate affairs of certain regions. We may note here the simplicity and the industry of the Propaganda secrctariate: only six minutanti attend to the affairs of the countries of the Latin Rite subject to the congregation. Apropos of the authority of Propaganda we shail see what a vast deal of work is involved in thc ordinary despatch of this work. The minutanti, in addition to making minutes of the ordinary acts of the secretariate, prepare the ponenze, i.e. the printed copies of the propositions or cases destined to come before the general cardinalitial congregation. Every week each of the two secretariates holds a meeting (congresso) in the presence of the cardinal prefect, of its own secretary, and of the head of the other secretariate. At this meeting each minutante reports on all matters for the settlement of which reference to the pertinent set of documents may be necessary, he gives oral informations etc. After hearing the report of the minutante and the opinion of the Secretary concerned, sometimes of all others present, the cardinal prefect issues an order to reply, or to defer the case, or to send it up to the general congregation. The scrittori copy all documents that are to be despatched, while the protocollisti stamp, number, and register all papers received and sent out. Records of the earliest proceedings of the congregation, dating from its first establishment, are preserved in the General Archives, or Record Office. Finally, there is the Despatch Office (ufficio di spedizione), which keeps its own register of all documents issuing from Propaganda, and sees to their actual forwarding. The office of consultor is filled gratuitously by a number of prelates, to whom the secretariates send such of the ponenze as are of litigious nature -- matrimonial causes, diocesan difficulties, etc. These consultors are requested to express their opinions, which are then attached to the ponenze and presented therewith to the cardinals at the General Congregation. The Oriental Secretariate employs interpreters -- ecclesiastics who translate all current correspondence in Arabic, Armenian, etc., and who are sworn to perform their work faithfully. The method of treatment applied by Propaganda to an ordinary case may be described as follows: A letter addressed to the congregation is opened by the cardinal prefect who annotates it with some terse official formula in Latin, embodying his first instructions (e.g. that a prÈcis of the antecedent correspondence relating to this matter is to be made). Then the letter goes to the Protocollo, where it is stamped and registered, and its object noted on the outside. The chief minutante reports on its object and on the note made by the cardinal to the secretary concerned, and writes the corresponding order of the secretary. Supposing the order should be to write a letter, the folio is given to the minutante, who draws up his minute according to the instructions of the cardinal prefect and of the secretary, he then passes it on to the scrittore, who copies it, and verifies the copy. This copy, with all the correspondence in the case, is returned (supposing it to be matter to be sent away from Rome) to the cardinal prefect, who signs it and remits it to the secretary. The secretary countersigns it and passes it on to the Despatch Office, which, after returning to the protocollo (for preservation) the other correspondence of the case under consideration, registers it, encloses all matter to be forwarded in an envelope, writes thereon the postal weight, and sends it on to the Accounting Office. Here the postal weight is verified, the stamps affixed, and the letter forwarded to the Post Office. By this system everything is under control, from the subject-matter of the correspondence to tke cost of postage. The whole routine is completed with rapidity and regularity under the immediate responsibility of the several persons who have charge of the matter in its various stages. Before the Constitution "Sapienti Consilio" the second cardinalitial Prefecture of Propaganda was that of the cardinal prefect of finance, to whom are entrusted the finances of Propaganda, the expenses, subsidies etc. Decisions regarding subsidies pertained either to the cardinal prefect or to the General Congregation, or to the Board of Finance (congresso economico), which met as an executive committee for the transaction of thc most important ordinary business with which the General Congregation was entrusted. This Prefecture of Finance was composed of the general prefect, the cardinal prefect of finance, and of some other cardinal of the General Congregation. Pius X, however, by the above mentioned Constitution, suppressed the Prefecture of Finance, and its functions are now discharged by the General Prefecture. With the Prefecture of Finance was joined the executive office of the Reverend Chamber of Chattels (Azienda della Reverenda Camera degli Spogli), i.e. the effective administration of the revenues collected from vacant benefices (spogli), one of the sources of revenue of Propaganda. The two permanent commissions of Propaganda are: one for the revision of Synodal Decrees (provincial or dioccsan) in countries subject to Propaganda and one for the revision of liturgical books of the, Oriental rites. Each of these Commissions is presided over by a cardinal, has for secretary a prelate, and is always in close communication with its own secretariate. V. FACULTIES The faculties (authority) of the Congregation of Propaganda are very extensive. To the other pontifical congregations are assigned quite specific matters: the only restriction on Propaganda is that of territory, i.e. while one congregation is concerned with rites, a second with bishops and regulars, a third with marriage, a fourth with subsidies etc., Propaganda deals with all such matters, in a practical way, for all the countries subject to it. Thus, the nomination of a bishop, the settlement of a matrimonial case, the granting of an indulgence, are within the jurisdiction of Propaganda. The limits of its jurisdiction are practical rather than theoretical; in general, it may be said that Propaganda is authorized to deal with matters peculiar to the other congregations, when such matters are presented as practical cases, i.e. when they do not raise questions of a technical character, or of general bearing, or are not of a class specifically reserved to some other department of the pontifical administration. This is more particularly true of the Congregation of the Holy Office. Matrimonial cases are very frequently brought before Propaganda, especially those in which the marriage is alleged to be invalid, eitlier as null from the beginning or because it was never consummated. The procedure in such cases is as simple as it is practical: Propaganda having been appealed to by one party, directs the local episcopal court to hold a canonical trial and to report its results to the congregation, it being understood that both parties, defendant and plaintiff, may protect themselves by legal counsel at their own cxpense. When the congregation has received the record of tlie local court it transmits the same to a consultor with a request for his opinion on the objective status of the question at issue (pro rei veritate). If the opinion be in favour of the nullity or of the non-consummation of the marriage, then the record, together with the opinion of the consultor, is sent on to a second consultor (pro vinculi defensione), whose duty it is to set forth the grounds, more or less conclusive, that can be adduced in favour of the validity, or consummation, of the marriage, and therefore of its indissolubility. The local record and the opinions of thc consultors (ponenza) are then printed in as many copies as there are cardinal-judges in the congregation. This printed ponenza is sent to each of these cardinals (the printed document is held to be secret, being looked on as manuscript) that they may examine the matter. One of them (cardinale ponente) is selected to summarize the entire case, and to him are finally turned over the local record and the opinions of the consultors, with the obligation of reporting on the case at the next General Congregation. At this meeting, the cardinals, after mature discussion, pronounce judgment. Their decision is immediately submitted to the pope, who ratifies it, if he sees fit, and orders the proper decree to be issued. It should be added that all these proceedings are absolutely without expense to the litigants (gratis quocumque titulo), i.e. no one is ever called on for any payment to the congregation because or on account of any favour or decision. Thus, the wealthiest Catholic in America, Great Britain, Holland, or Germany, who has brought a matrimornal case before Propaganda, pays literally nothing, whatever the judgment may be. There are no chancery expenses, and nothing is collected even for the printing of the diocesan records, consultors' opinions, etc. This fact shows how absurd are certain calumnies uttered against the Holy See, especially in connexion with matrimonial cases, as though the annulment of a marriage could be procured at Rome by the use of money. Were such the purpose of the Roman Curia, it would not exempt the richest countries of the world -- those precisely in which it is easiest for persons of opulence to institute legal proceedings -- from any expense, great or small, direct or indirect. VI. INCIDENTAL FEATURES Propaganda formerly possessed a valuable museum, the Museo Borgiano (situated in the palace), so called because it was given by Cardinal Stefano Borgia, who was general prefect early in the eighteenth century. It once contained precious Oriental codices, especially Sahidic (Coptic of the Thebaid) now preserved with other Coptic codices in the Vatican Library, for the greater convenience of students. It possesses at the present time an important cabinet of medals and many ethnological curiosities sent as gifts by missionaries in far distant lands, and scattered through the Palace of Propaganda are many valuable paintings of the old masters. Propaganda also conducted, until within recent years, the famous Polyglot printing press whence, for some centuries, issued liturgical and catechetical books, printed in a multitude of alphabets. Among its most noteworthy curios is a Japanese alphabet in wooden blocks, one of the first seen in Europe. The Propaganda Press issued, among other publications, an official statistical annual of the missions conducted by the congregation (Missiones Catholicae cura S. Congreg. de Propaganda Fide descriptae), as well as the "Collectanea", a serial record of pontifical acts relating to the business of the congregation. In 1884 the Italian Government liquidated the real estate of Propaganda, leaving it only its palace, the neighbouring Mignanelli palace for the use of its schools, its printing press, and two villas used as summer resorts for the students of the Urban College. One of the customs of Propaganda, worthy of special mention, is the gift of a fan to all employees at the beginning of the summer. This custom appears to have arisen in the early days, when fans were sent from China by the missionaries. It is customary for the Urban College to hold, at Epiphany, a solemn "Accademia Polyglotta", to symbolize the world-wide unity of the Catholic Church. At this accademia the Propaganda students recite poems in their respective mother tongues. Invited guests always find it very interesting to listen to this medley of the strangest languages and dialects. Another custom of the Urban College is that every graduate student (alumno), wherever he may be in the pursuit of his ministry, is bound to write every year a letter to the cardinal prefect, to let him know how the writer's work is progressing and how he fares himself. The cardinal answers immediately, in a letter of paternal encouragement and counsel. By this means there is maintained a bond of affection and of mutual goodwill between the "great mother" -- as the "Propagandists", or the alumni of Propaganda, designate the congregation -- and her most distant sons. The names of many distinguished persons appear in the records of Propaganda, notably in the catalogue of its cardinals, prelates, and officials. Among the cardinal prefects entitled to special mention are the following: Giuseppe Sagripanti (d. 1727), a meritorious reformer of Roman judicial procedure; the very learned Barnabite Sigismondo Gerdil (d. 1802); Stefano Borgia, patron of Oriental studies, protector of the savant Zoega (d. 1804); Ercole Consalvi (d. 1824), the great diplomatist, Secretary of State to Pius VII, at whose death he was made prefect general of Propaganda by Leo XII; Mauro Cappellari later Gregory XVI, who was prefect general from 1826 to his election as pope (1831). Among the General Secretaries (who usually become cardinals) the following are particularly worthy of special mention: Domenico Passionei, created cardinal in 1738; Nicolò Fortiguerra, a distinguished man of letters (d. 1739); the erudite Angelo Mai, secretary from 1833 to 1835. The list of missionaries sent forth by Propaganda has been long and glorious, containing the names of many martyrs. The protomartyr of Propaganda is St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen, a German Capuchin, missionary in Grisons, Switzerland. The Calvinists killed him in the village of Sercis, 24 April, 1622. He was canonized by Benedict XIV in 1746. Propaganda holds at all times a grateful memory of the Discalced Carmelites. It was they who vigorously urged the Holy See to found the congregation, foremost among them being Domenico di Gesù e Maria, general of the order. In the original act of its foundation he appears as a member. Tommaso da Gesù, another Carmelite, opportunely published in 1613, at Antwerp, a Latin work on the obligation of preaching the Gospel to all nations. Many authors have treated of Propaganda very inaccurately, and have confused the ancient and recent systems of administration. The most reliable of the earlier writers are: DE LUCA, Il Cardinale Practico; CORNELIUS, Informationi intorno al Cardinalato (Rome, 1653); BAYER AND MENZEL, Breve compendium hist. S. Congr. de Prop. Fide (Königsberg, 1721); POLLARD, Les ministres ecclÈsiastiques du S. Siège (Lyons, 1878); LEGA, Praelectiones in textum juris canonici (Rome 1898); ANON., La Propaganda e la conversione de' suoi beni immobili (Rome 1884); HUMPHREY, Urbs et Orbis (London, 1899), 380-386. Cf. also MYERS, Die Propaganda, ihre Provinzen und ihr Recht; BANGEN, Die römische Curie (Münster, 1854); PEIPER in Römische Quartalschrift, I (1889), for the Archives. For the most important Coptic codices formerly preserved by Propaganda see ZGEGA, Catalagus Codic. Copt. MSS. Musoei Borgiani (Rome, 1810); MEIER, Die Propaganda (Göttingen, 1852); LEITNER, De Curia Romana (1909). U. BENIGNI Society for the Propagation of the Faith The Society for the Propagation of the Faith This society is an international association for the assistance by prayers and alms of Catholic missionary priests, brothers, and nuns engaged in preaching the Gospel in heathen and non-Catholic countries. I. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT It was founded in Lyons, France, in 1822, as a result of the distress of missions in both East and West. In 1815, Bishop Dubourg of New Orleans was in Lyons collecting alms for his diocese, which was in a precarious condition. To a Mrs. Petit, whom he had known in the United States, he expressed the idea of founding a charitable association for the support of Louisiana missions, which suggestion she cordially embraced, but could procure only small alms among her friends and acquaintances. In 1820, Pauline Jaricot of Lyons received a letter from her brother, a student at the Seminary of St-Sulpice, in which he described the extreme poverty of the members of the Foreign Missions of Paris. She conceived the idea of forming an association whose members would contribute one cent a week for the missions. The membership rose to a thousand and the offerings were sent to Asia. In 1822, Father Inglesi, Vicar-General of New Orleans, was sent to Lyons by Bishop Dubourg to visit his benefactors and reanimate their zeal. Seeing the success of Miss Jaricot, they thought at first of establishing a similar society for American missions, but decided to unite, instead of dividing, efforts. A meeting of the friends of the missions called by Father Inglesi was attended by twelve ecclesiastics and laymen, and on 3 May, 1822, the Society for the Propagation of the Faith was formally established. Its object was declared to be to help Catholic missionaries by prayers and alms. It was understood that the new association should be catholic, that is, endeavour to enlist the sympathy of all Catholics, and assist all missions, without regard to situation and nationality. However, it is not the aim of the society to help "Catholic countries", no matter how great their needs may be, for that reason France, Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal, etc. have never received help from it. For the same reason, as soon as missions are able to exist by their own efforts the society withdraws its aid, because demands are many and resources inadequate. In 1823, a delegate was sent to Rome and Pius VII heartily approved the new undertaking and granted the indulgences and other spiritual privileges that permanently enrich the society, which judgment has been ratified by all his successors. In 1840, Gregory XVI placed the society in the rank of Universal Catholic institutions, and on 25 March, 1904, in the first year of his pontificate, Pius X recommended it to the charity of all the faithful, praising its work, confirming its privileges, and raising the feast of its patron, St. Francis Xavier, to a higher rite. A large number of provincial and national councils (especially the III Council of Baltimore, 1884), as well as thousands of bishops from all parts of the world, have likewise enacted decrees and published letters in favour of its development. It receives contributions from all parts of the Christian world. II. ORGANIZATION The organization is extremely simple. To become a member it is necessary to recite daily a prayer for the missions, and contribute at least five cents monthly to the general fund. As the society is ordinarily organized in the parishes, the usual method for gathering the contributions is to form the associates into bands of ten, of whom one acts as a promoter. These offerings are turned over to some local or diocesan director and finally forwarded to the general committee. Besides the ordinary members, there are special members who contribute personally six dollars a year, and perpetual members who contribute at one time a sum of at least forty dollars. The official organ of the society is the "Annals of the Propagation of the Faith", the first number of which appeared in France in 1822. At present 350,000 copies of that publication are printed bi-monthly in French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Polish, Flemish, Basque, Maltese, and the dialects of Brittany. The "Annals" contains letters from missionaries, news of the missions, and reports of all money received and apportioned by the society. An illustrated magazine, "Catholic Missions", is also published by the society in Italy, France, England, Germany, Holland, Spain, Poland, Hungary, and the United States. III. ADMINISTRATION The Society for the Propagation of the Faith takes no part in selecting missionaries, appointing them to their field of work, or training them for it, and does not concern itself with the administration of the missions. Its aim is merely to assist missionaries chosen, trained, and sent forth by the usual authorities of the Church. The society is administered by two central councils, each composed of twelve clergymen and laymen of recognized ability and knowledge of business affairs, and distinguished for zeal and piety. These councils, one of which is in Lyons and the other in Paris, are self-recruiting, and the work performed by their members is entirely gratuitous. They keep in close touch with the missions, serve as headquarters for the distribution of the alms received from the delegates of the society, to whom they pass successively from the diocesan and parochial directors, and the promoters of bands of ten. Every year, at the end of January, the offerings of the members of the society all over the world are forwarded to these central bureaux, and the total amount is divided among all the missions of the earth. With conscientious care and impartiality the reports of the superiors of the missions, bishops, vicars and prefects Apostolic are studied and all allotments recommended, in accordance with the extent and necessities of each mission, and in consideration of the desires of the pope and the data furnished by the Congregation of the Propaganda. The Lyons Central Council first goes over this work. The result of its labours is revised by the Paris Central Council, which, with close attention and solicitude, approves, augments, or reduces the sum recommended as it considers necessary or advisable. Then both councils agree upon the allotments which are sent to each mission. It is a law of the society to make its affairs public, and each year an integral account of all money received, all appropriations made, and all expenditures is published in the "Annals". The society does not deal in investments and has no permanent fund. At the beginning of each year the total sum collected during the past year is distributed, and the missions are always at the mercy of the faithful. IV. RESULTS OBTAINED In 1822, the society collected a little more than $4000.00. The sum was divided in three parts, of which one was assigned to the Eastern missions, the other two to Louisiana and Kentucky. At present about three hundred dioceses, vicariates and prefectures Apostolic receive assistance and the total amount collected up to 1910, inclusively, is $78,846,872.51. The following will show the part each country has taken in furnishing this sum. and in what year the society was established there: Society established: -- 1822 France $48,829,632.53 1825 Belgium 4,421,992.00 1827 Germany and Austria-Hungary 7,393,275.52 1827 Italy 5,814,294.95 1827 Switzerland 970,494.03 1827 Balkan States 364,835.95 1833 Canada, Mexico West Indies 1,384,418.59 1837 Great Britain and Ireland 2,593,644.88 1837 Holland 1,325,100.98 1837 Portugal 502,619.84 1837 Russia and Poland 72,353.50 1839 Spain 866,570.50 1840 United States 2,749,436.11 1840 South America 1,029,972.39 1843 Oceanica 103,737.52 1848 Asia 88,140.14 1857 Africa 310,573.68 ......... Countries not mentioned 25,779.40 Total ........................... $78,846,872.51 The foregoing sum has been distributed as follows: -- To Missions in America $10,747,397.45 To missions in Europe 11,066,975.88 To missions in Asia 32,061,680.43 To missions in Africa 11,552,228.26 To missions in Oceanica 7,309,152.81 Special donations, transportation of missionaries, publications, management 6,109,437.68 On 25 March, 1904, Pius X addressed an encyclical letter to the Catholic world recommending the Propagation of the Faith to the charity of all the faithful, in which he says: "If the messengers of the Catholic doctrine are able to reach out to the most distant lands, and the most barbarous peoples, it is to the Society for the Propagation of the Faith that credit must be given. Through that Society salvation began for numberless peoples . . ., through it there has been gathered a harvest of souls. . . ." In 1884, His Eminence Cardinal Gibbons, writing to the directors of the society in the name of the American hierarchy assembled at Baltimore for the third national Council, said: "If the grain of mustard seed planted in the virgin soil of America has struck deep roots and grown into a gigantic tree, with branches stretching from the shores of the Atlantic ocean to the coasts of the Pacific, it is mainly to the assistance rendered by your admirable Society that we are indebted for this blessing." Annales de la Propagation de la Foi (82 vols., Lyons, 1822-1910), passim; Les missions catholiques (42 vols., Lyons, 1867-1910), passim; GUASCO, L'oeuvre de la Propagation de la Foi (Paris, 1904); FRERI, The Society for the Propagation of the Faith and the Catholic Missions (Baltimore, 1902); IDEM, The Missionary Work of the Church (New York, 1906); IDEM, Facts and Figures (New York, 1908); Biographie de M. Didier Petit de Meurville (Lyons, 1873); MAURIN, Pauline Marie Jaricot (New York, 1906). JOSEPH FRERI. Property Property I. NOTION OF PROPERTY The proprietor or owner of a thing, in the current acceptation of the word, is the person who enjoys the full right to dispose of it in so far as is not forbidden by law. The thing or object of this right of disposal is called property, and the right of disposal itself, ownership. Taken in its strict sense, this definition applies to absolute ownership only. As long as the absolute owner does not exceed the limits set by law, he may dispose of his property in any manner whatsoever; he may use it, alienate it, lease it etc. But there is also a qualified ownership. It may happen that several persons have different rights to the same thing, one subordinate to the other: one has the right to the substance, another to its use, a third to its usufruct, etc. Of all these persons he alone is called the proprietor who has the highest right, viz., the right to the substance; the others, whose rights are subordinate, are not called proprietors. The tenant, for example, is not said to be the proprietor of the land he tills, nor the lessee proprietor of the house in which he dwells; for though both have the right of use or usufruct, they have not the highest right, namely the right to the substance. There are two reasons why he to whom the substance of a thing belongs is called its proprietor: first, because the right to the substance is the highest right; secondly, because this right naturally tends to grow into absolute ownership. The tenant, for instance, enjoys the usufruct of a thing only through a cause which lies outside the thing itself, i. e. through a contract. If this cause is removed then he loses his right, and the thing reverts to him to whom the substance belongs. The right to the substance necessarily implies the absolute right of disposal as soon as any accidental, external limitations are removed. This is probably the reason why lawmakers, when establishing the definition of property, take into consideration only absolute ownership. Thus the French civil code (544) defines ownership as "the right to make use and dispose of a corporeal thing absolutely provided it be not forbidden by law or statute"; the code of the German Empire (903) says: "The proprietor of a thing may use it as he likes and exclude from it all outside interference, as long as the law or the rights of others are not violated" and in Blackstone (Comm. I, 138) we read that the right of property "consists in the free use, enjoyment and disposal of all acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land". The statement has been made that the Roman law set up a definition of property which is absolute and excludes all legal restrictions. This is not correct. The Roman jurists were too vividly conscious of the principle Salus publica suprema lex to exempt private property from all legal restrictions. No clearer proof is needed than the numerous easements to which the Roman law subjected property (cf. Puchta, "Kursus der Institutionen", II, 1842, 551 sqq.). Precisely in order to exclude this erroneous conception, the Roman jurists, following the example of Bartolus, generally define perfect ownership as the right to dispose perfectly of a material thing in so far as is not forbidden by law (Jus perfecte disponendi de re corporali nisi lege prohibeatur). Again, man is essentially a social being. Consequently, all rights granted him are subject to the necessary restrictions which are demanded by the common welfare and more accurately determined by law. This right of disposal which the civil power exercises over property has been called dominium altum, but the term is misleading and should be avoided. Ownership gives to a person the right to dispose of a thing for his private interests as he sees fit. The Government has no right to dispose of the property of its subjects for its private interests, but only as far as the common weal requires. II. CLASSES OF PROPERTY If the holder of the right of ownership is considered, property is either individual or collective, according as the owner is an individual (a physical person) or a community (a moral person). Individual property is also called private property. Again, collective property differs as the community. Those estates are not collective property which have for ever been set aside for a fixed purpose and are, by a sort of fiction, considered as a person (persona juridica, ficta), for example, endowments for pious purposes or for the public benefit: hospitals orphanages etc. For the actual administrators or usufructuaries are not to be regarded as proprietors of the endowment. Furthermore, property may be either public or private. Public property is the property of a public community, namely, the State and the Church. Everything else is private property. However, the distinction between private and public property arises not only from difference in ownership, but also from difference in purpose. Public property is intended to serve the interests of the community at large; private property, the interests of a limited circle. Family property is private property, even if it belongs to the family as a whole. Not all collective property is public property. The property of a community remains private as long as that community is able to exclude outsiders from participating in its enjoyment. But when a community can no longer prevent outsiders from settling down in its midst and, like the rest, sharing in its property, that property ceases to be private. If we consider the object of ownership, property may be movable or immovable. Immovable property consists in land (real estate), and in everything so attached to the land that, as a rule, it cannot be transferred from one place to another without undergoing a change in its nature. All the rest is movable property. Lastly, the purpose distinguishes property into goods of consumption and goods of production, according as the goods are directly intended either for production, i. e. for producing new goods, or for consumption. III. POSSESSION OF PROPERTY Possession differs essentially from property. At times, possession denotes the thing possessed, but generally it means the state of possessing something. He possesses a thing who has actual control over it and intends to keep it. Possession may be unjust, as is the case with the thief who has knowingly taken the property of another. Since such possession is manifestly unjust, it gives the possessor no right whatever. On the other hand, it may happen that one is bona fide possessor of another's property. Such possession implies certain rights. It is incumbent on the owner to prove that the thing does not belong to the possessor. If he is unable to furnish this evidence, the law protects the actual possessor of the thing under dispute. The basic reason why possession must not be neglected when ownership is disputed is that under normal conditions possession is the result of ownership. For, generally speaking, the possessor is the owner of a thing. This being the normal state of affairs, the law favours the presumption that the actual possessor is also the legal possessor and consequently holds that nobody has the right to evict him unless the illegality be proved. He who seeks to overturn existing conditions as being unjust must bear the burden of proof. Should this principle be denied, the security of property would be greatly endangered. IV. OPPONENTS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY The present order of society is largely based on the private property of individuals, families, and communities. Now there are many communists and socialists who condemn this kind of ownership as unjust and injurious, and who aim at abolishing either all private property or at least the private ownership of productive goods, which they wish to replace by a community of goods. Their intention may be good, but it proceeds from a total misunderstanding of human nature as it is, and, if carried out, would result in disastrous failure (cf. COMMUNISM and SOCIALISM). The so-called agrarian, socialists, among whom must be numbered the single-taxists, do not propose to abolish private ownership of all productive goods, but maintain only that the land with the natural bounties which it holds out to mankind essentially belongs to the whole nation. As a logical conclusion they propose that ground rent be confiscated for the community. This theory, too, starts from false premises and arrives at conclusions which are impracticable. (See AGRARIANISM.) V. INSUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY Outside the communistic and socialistic circles all concede that private property is justified; but in regard to its foundation opinions differ widely. Some derive the justice of private property from personality (personality theory). They look upon private property as a necessary supplement and expansion of personality. Thus H. Ahrens ("Naturrecht", 6th ed., 1871, § 68) thinks that the "individuality of every human mind, in choosing and attaining its ends, requires property, i. e. the free contract and disposal of holdings, whereby the entire personality is brought into action. Similar views are held by Bluntschli, Stahle, and others. This theory admits of a correct explanation, but is in itself too indefinite and vague. If it is understood to mean only that, as a rule, private property is necessary for the free development of the human personality and for the accomplishment of its tasks, then it is correct, as will appear in the course of our discussion. But if these theorists remain within the pure notion of personality, then they cannot derive from it the necessity of private property, at least of productive goods or land. At most they might prove that everybody is entitled to the necessary means of subsistence. But this is possible without private property strictly so called. Those who are either voluntarily or involuntarily poor and live at the expense of others possess no property and yet do not cease to be persons. Though the children of a family are without property during the lifetime of their parents, still they are true persons. Others derive private property from a primitive contract, express or tacit (contract theory), as Grotius (De jure belli et pacis, II, c. 2, § 2), Pufendorf, and others. This theory is founded on the supposition, which has never been and never can be proved, that such a contract ever has or must have taken place. And even supposing the contract was actually made, what obliges us to-day to abide by it? To this question the theory is unable to give a satisfactory answer. Others again derive the justice of private property from the laws of the State (legal theory). The first to advance this hypothesis was Hobbes (Leviathan, c. 2). He considers the laws of the State as the fountain-head of all the rights which the subjects have, and consequently also as the source of private ownership. The same view is taken by Montesquieu, Trendelenburg, Wagner, and others, as far as ownership is concerned. Kant (Rechtslehre, p. 1, §§ 8, 9) grants indeed a provisory proprietorship in the condition of nature prior to the formation of the State; but definite and peremptory ownership arises only through the civil laws and under the protection of the coercive power of Government. Most of the partisans of this theory, like Hobbes, proceed from the wrong supposition that there is no natural right properly so called, but that every genuine right is a concession of the civil power. Besides, their appreciation of actual facts is superficial. It is true that the laws everywhere protect private property. But why? A fact, like private property, which we meet in one form or another with all nations, ancient or modern, cannot have its last and true reason in the civil laws which vary with time and clime. A universal, constant effect supposes a universal, constant cause, and the civil laws cannot be this cause. If they were the only basis of private property, then we might abolish it by a new law and introduce communism. But this is impossible. Just as the individual and the family existed prior to the State, so the rights necessary for both, to which belongs the right of property, existed prior to the State. It is the duty of the State to bring these rights into harmony with the interests of the community at large and to watch over them, but it does not create them. John Locke saw the real foundation of private property in the right which every man has to the products of his labour (labour theory). This theory was loudly applauded by the political economists, especially by Adam Smith, Ricardo, Say, and others. But it is untenable. There is no doubt that labour is a powerful factor in the acquisition of property, but the right to the products of one's labour cannot be the ultimate source and basis of the right of property. The labourer can call the product of his work his own only when the material on which he works is his property, and then the question arises how he came to be the owner of the material. Suppose, for instance, that a number of workmen have been engaged to cultivate a vineyard; after the work is done, they may indeed claim their wages, but the products of their labour, the grapes and the wine, do not belong to them, but to the owner of the vineyard. Then the further question may be asked: How did the owner of the vineyard acquire his property? The final answer cannot be the right to the product of his labour. There were some who asserted that the Roman law derived private property solely from the right of first occupation (jus primi occupantis), as for instance Wagner (Grundlegung 1, c. § 102). But they confound two things. Though the Roman jurists regarded occupation the original title of acquisition, they supposed as self-evident the right of private property and the right to acquire it. VI. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH The Catholic Church has always regarded private property as justified, even though there may have existed personal abuses. Far from abolishing the commandments of the Old Law (Thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, nor anything that is his) Christ inculcated them anew (Matt., xix, 18-19; Mark, x, 19; Rom., xiii, 9). And though the Catholic Church, following in the footsteps of her Founder, has always recommended voluntary poverty as an evangelical counsel, yet she has at the same time asserted the justice and, as a rule, the necessity of private property and rejected the contrary theories of the Circumcellions, Waldenses, Anabaptists etc. Moreover, theologians and canonists have at all times taught that private ownership is just. Leo XIII, especially in several encyclicals, strongly insisted on the necessity and justice of private ownership. Thus the encyclical "Rerum novarum" expressly condemns as unjust and pernicious the design of the socialists to abolish private property. The right of acquiring private property has been granted by nature, and consequently he who would seek a solution of the social question must start with the principle that private property is to be preserved inviolate (privatas possessiones inviolate servandas). And Pius X, in his Motu Proprio of 18 Dec., 1903, laid down the following two principles for the guidance of all Catholics: + (1) "Unlike the beast, man has on earth not only the right of use, but a permanent right of ownership; and this is true not only of those things which are consumed in their use, but also of those which are not consumed by their use"; + (2) "Private property is under all circumstances, be it the fruit of labour or acquired by conveyance or donation, a natural right, and everybody may make such reasonable disposal of it as he thinks fit." VII. ECONOMIC THEORY BASED ON THE NATURAL LAW The doctrine of the Church as here explained points out the right way to a philosophical justification of private property. It is derived from the natural law, since the present order in general demands it for the individual as well as for the family and the community at large; hence it is a postulate of reason and everybody receives by nature the right to acquire private property. This justification of private property, which is outlined by Aristotle (Polit., 2, c. 2), may be called the "economical theory based on the natural law". The necessity of private ownership arises partly from the external conditions of life under which the human race actually exists, partly and especially from human nature as we know it by experience, with all its needs and faculties, inclinations both good and bad, which the average man reveals at all times and in all places. This theory does not assert that there should be nothing else than private property, much less that there should be private property of individuals only. Families, private corporations, communities, and states, as well as the Church, may own property. Its distribution is not something settled by nature uniformly and immutably for all times and circumstances, but full play is given to human liberty. Generally speaking, what is necessary is that private property should also exist. The boundaries between private and public property may vary from age to age; but, as a rule, private ownership becomes the more necessary and the more prevalent the farther the civilization of a people progresses. In order to gain a clear insight into the basis of property, we must carefully distinguish three things: + (1) The institution of private property, i. e. the actual existence of private property with all its essential rights. In general, it is necessary that private property should exist, at least to a certain extent, or, in other words, the natural law demands the existence of private property. From the necessity of private property follows immediately; + (2) every man's right to acquire property. The institution of private property supposes this right; for the former cannot rightly exist unless everybody has the right to acquire private property. Nature, or rather the Author of nature, requires the institution of private property; hence He must also will the means necessary for it, namely, the right of everyone to acquire private property. This right refers to no object in particular; it is merely the general capacity of acquiring property by licit means, just as one may say that owing to the freedom of trade everybody has the right to engage in any legitimate business. The right to acquire property belongs to every man from the first moment of his existence; even the child of the poorest beggar has this right. + (3) From the right of acquisition arises the right of owning a certain concrete object through the medium of some fact. Nobody, basing his claim on his existence alone, can say: this field or this house is mine. God did not distribute immediately the goods of this earth among men. He left this distribution to man's activity and to historical development. But since private property and consequently the acquisition of a definite object by a definite person is necessary, there must also be some facts on which such acquisition may be based. Among these facts the first in time and by nature is simple occupation. Originally the goods of this earth were without a definite owner, i. e. there was nobody who could call them his exclusive property. But since they had been given to man and since everybody had the right of acquiring property, the first men could take as much of these goods by simple occupation as seemed useful to them. Later generations, too, could make their own such goods as were still without a master. As time went on and the earth was populated, its goods passed more and more into the hands of individuals, families, or whole tribes. Now in order to acquire or occupy something, the mere will to possess it as private property is not sufficient; the object must, by some exterior fact, be brought under our control and must be permanently marked as our own. These marks may be of various kinds and depend on custom, agreement etc. Philosophical Explanation We shall prove first of all that, generally speaking, the institution of private property is necessary for human society and that it is consequently a postulate of the natural law; this established, it follows at once that the right of acquiring property is a natural right. The first reason for the necessity of private property is the moral impossibility of any other disposition of property. If all goods remained without a master and were common to all, so that anybody might dispose of them as he saw fit, then peace and order would be impossible and there would be no sufficient incentive to work. Who indeed would care to cultivate a field or build a house, if everybody else were allowed to harvest the crop or occupy the building? Consequently, the right of ownership must rest either wholly with communities, as the communists and socialists maintain, or with private persons. It is impossible to reduce the doctrines of communism and socialism to practice. All attempts hitherto made have ended in failure. Of longest duration were the experiments of some sects which were founded on a religious basis. But it is manifest that communities based on religious fanaticism cannot become the general rule. History, too, testifies to the necessity of private property. An institution which meets us everywhere and at all times with only a few negligible exceptions, which develops more and more among the nations as their civilization advances, which has always been recognized and protected as just cannot be an arbitrary invention, but must be the necessary outcome of the tendencies and needs of human nature. For a universal and permanent phenomenon supposes a universal and permanent cause, and this cause in the present question can only be human nature with its wants and inclinations, which remain essentially the same. Besides, only private property is a sufficient stimulus for man to work. The earth does not furnish the products and fruits which man needs for the sustenance and development of soul and body, except at the expense of hard, continued labour. Now men will not undertake this labour unless they have a guarantee that they can freely dispose of its fruits for their own benefit and can exclude all others from their enjoyment. This argument, however, does not bind us to the labour theory refuted above. This theory maintains that each one can call his property all that and only that which is the product of his labour. This is wrong. The correct theory on the other hand says, if man had not the right to acquire private property, the necessary stimulus to work would be wanting; and the fruit of labour in this theory signifies private property in the widest sense, for instance, wages. Private ownership alone is able to harmonize order and freedom in the social life. If no one could exclude others from using his property, order would be impossible. Nobody could lay down in advance a plan of his life and activity, or procure in advance the means and the material for his livelihood. If on the other hand productive goods were the property of the community and subject to its administration, liberty would be impossible. Man is not really free unless he can, at least to a certain degree, dispose of external goods at will, not only of goods of consumption but also of productive goods. The largest portion of human activity, directly or indirectly, aims at procuring external, useful goods; without private property, all would lapse into abject dependence on the community, which would be obliged to assign to each man his office and his share of the work. But with private property, both freedom and order can exist as far as the imperfection of all human conditions allows it. This is proved by history and by daily experience. Thus also the peace of society is best guaranteed. True it is that in spite of private property many disputes arise about "mine and thine." But these are settled by the law courts and do not disturb the essential order of society. In any other disposition of property among free men, the disputes would be far more numerous and violent, and this would necessarily lead to quarrels and feuds. Just as for the individual, so private property is necessary for the family. The family cannot exist as an independent organizm unless it can freely manage its internal affairs, and unless the parents have to provide for the maintenance and education of their children, and this without any external interference. All this demands property, the exclusive use of a dwelling, food, clothes, and other things, which frequently must be procured in advance so that a well-regulated and secure family life may be made possible. Like the individual, the family, when deprived of all property, easily falls into a vagabond life or becomes wholly dependent on the will of others. The duty to care for the preservation and education of the family urges the father and mother to work unceasingly, while the consciousness that they are responsible for their children before God and men is a powerful stay and support of their moral lives. On the other hand, the consciousness of the children that they are wholly dependent on their parents for their maintenance and start in life is a very important element in their education. The socialists are quite logical in seeking to transfer not only the possession of productive goods, but also the care of the education of children to the community at large. But it is obvious that such a scheme would end in the total destruction of the family, and hence that socialism is an enemy of all genuine civilization. Private property is also indispensable for human society in general. Progress in civilization is possible only when many co-operate in large and far-reaching enterprises; but this co-operation is out of the question unless there are many who possess more than is required for their ample maintenance and at the same time have an interest in devoting the surplus to such enterprises. Private interest and public welfare here meet each other half way. Private owners, if they consult their own interest, will use their property for public enterprises because these alone are permanently paying investments. The advances and discoveries of the last century would not have been accomplished, at least the greater part of them, without private property. If we but recall the extensive net-work of railroads, steamship lines, telegraphs, and telephones, which is spread around the world, the gigantic tunnels and canals, the progress made in electricity, aerial navigation, aviation, automobiles etc., we must confess that private property is a powerful and necessary factor in civilization. Not only economic conditions, but also the higher fields of culture are bettered by the existence of wealthy proprietors. Though they themselves do not become artists and scholars, still they are indirectly the occasion for the progress of the arts and sciences. Only the rich can order works of art on a large scale, only they have the means that frequently are necessary for the education of artists and scholars. On the other hand, poverty and want are the reason why many become eminent artists and scholars. Their advance in life and their social position depend on their education. How many brilliant geniuses would have been crippled at their birth if fortune had granted them every comfort. Lastly, we must not overlook the moral importance of private property. It urges man to labour, to save, to be orderly, and affords both rich and poor frequent opportunity for the exercise of virtue. Though private property is a necessity, still the use of earthly goods should in a manner be general, as Aristotle intimated (Polit., 1. 2, c. 5) and as Christian philosophy has proved in detail (St. Thomas, "Summa" II-II, Q. lxvi, a. 2; Leo XIII's encycl., "De conditione opificum"). This end is obtained when the rich not only observe the laws of justice, by not taking unjust advantage, but also, out of charity and liberality, share their abundance with the needy. Earthly goods are meant to be, in a certain manner, useful to all men, since they have been created for all men, and consequently the rich are strictly obliged to share their superfluities with the poor. True Christian charity will even go beyond this strict obligation. A wide and fertile field is thus opened up to its activity, through the existence of poverty. For the poor themselves, poverty is a hard, but beneficial, school of trust in God, humility, renunciation. It is of course self-evident that poverty should not degenerate into wretchedness, which is no less an abundant source of moral dangers than is excessive wealth. It is the function of a wise Government so to direct the laws and administration that a moderate well-being may be shared by as many as possible. The civil power cannot reach this end by taking away from the rich in order to give to the poor, for "this would be at bottom a denial of private property"; but by regulating the titles of income in strict accordance with the demands of public welfare. Thus far we have spoken of the necessity of private property and the right to acquire it. It remains only to discuss the title of acquisition by which one becomes the proprietor of a certain concrete thing: a piece of land, a house, a tool etc. As explained above, the primitive title is occupation. The first who took possession of a piece of land became its proprietor. After a whole country has thus been turned into property, occupation loses its significance as conferring a title to real estate. But for movable goods it still remains important. It is sufficient to recall fishing and hunting on unclaimed ground, searching and digging for gold or diamonds in regions which have not yet passed over into private ownership. Many regard labour as the primitive title of acquisition, that is, labour which is different from mere occupation. But in this they are wrong. If one works at an object, then the product belongs to him only when he is proprietor of the object, the material; if not, then the product belongs to another, though the workman has the right to demand his reward in money or other goods. Now the question again recurs: How did this other man obtain possession of these goods? Finally we shall arrive at a primitive title different from labour, and this is occupation. Besides occupation there are other titles of acquisition, which are called subordinate or derived titles, as, for instance, accession, fructification, conveyance by various kinds of contracts, prescription, and especially the right of inheritance. By occupation an ownerless thing passes into the possession of a person, by accession it is extended, by the other derivative titles it passes from one possessor to another. Though all the titles mentioned, with the exception of prescription, are valid by the law of nature, and hence cannot be abolished by human laws, still they are not precisely and universally applied by natural law. To define them in individual cases in accordance with the demands of the public weal and with due regard to all concrete circumstances is the task of legislation. ST. THOMAS, Summa, II-II, Q. lxvi.; SOTO, De justitia et jure; DE LUGO, De justitia et jure, disp. 6; MEYER, Institutiones juris naturalis, II (1900), no. 129 sqq.; SCHIFFINI. Disputationes philosophioe moralis, II, no. 309 sqq.; PESCH, Lehrbuch der Nationalökonomie, I (1905), 179 sqq.; WAGNER, Lehr- u. Handbuch der polit. Oekonomie, I; Grundlegung, II; Abl. (1901), 181 sqq.; VERMEERSCH, Quoestiones de justitia (1901), 187 sqq.; GARRIGUET, Régime de la propriété (1907); WALTER, Das Eigentum nach der Lehre des hl. Thomas von Aquin u. der Sozialismus (1895); SCHAUB, Die Eigentumslehre nach Thomas von Aquin u. dem modernen Sozialismus (1898); CASTELEIN, Le Socialisme et le droit de propriété; WILLEMS, Philosophia moralis (1908), 295 sqq.; STAMMLER, Eigentum u. Besitz in Handbuch der Staatswissenschaften; BEROLZHEIMER, System der Rechts u. Wirtschaftsphilosophie, IV: Philosophie des Vermögens (1907), 38 sqq.; CATHREIN, Moralphilosophie, II (5th ed., 1911), l. 2; DEVAS, Political Economy (London, 1901); RICKABY, Moral Philosophy (London, 1910); KERBY, Private Property as it is in Catholic World, XCII (New York, 1911), 577; IDEM, The Indictment of Private Property, ibid., XCIII, 30; RYAN, Henry George and Private Property, ibid., XCIII, 289; IDEM, The Ethical Arguments of Henry George against Private Ownership of Land, ibid., XCIII, 483; CAIN, Origin of Private Property, ibid., XLVII, 545; IDEM, Ownership of Private Property, ibid., XLV, 433; DILLON, Rights and Duties of Property in our Legal and Social Systems, XXIX (St. Louis, 1895), 161; BRYCE, Studies in History and Jurisprudence (London, 1901). V. CATHREIN. Church Property Property Ecclesiastical Abstract Right of Ownership That the Church has the right to acquire and possess temporal goods is a proposition which may now probably be considered an established principle. But though almost self-evident and universally acted upon in practice, this truth has met with many contradictors. Scandalized by frequent examples of greed, or misled by an impossible ideal of a clergy entirely spiritualized and raised above human needs, Arnold of Brescia, the Waldenses, then somewhat later Marsilius of Padua, and finally the Wycliffites, formulated various extreme views regarding the lack of temporal resources which befitted ministers of the Gospel. Under John XXII the doctrine of Marsilius and his forerunners had provoked the two Decrees "Cum inter nonnulles" (13 Nov., 1323) and "Licet juxta doctrinam" (23 Oct., 1323) by which it was affirmed that our Lord and His Apostles held true ownership in the temporal things which they possessed, and that the goods of the Church were not rightfully at the disposition of the emperor (see Denzinger-Bannwart, nn. 494-5). Somewhat less than a century later the errors of Wycliff and Hus were condemned at the Council of Constance (Denzinger-Bannwart, nn. 586, 598, 612, 686-6, etc.) and it was equivalently defined that ecclesiastical persons might without sin hold temporal possessions, that the civil authorities had no right to appropriate ecclesiastical property, and that if they did so they might be punished as guilty of sacrilege. In later times these positions have been still more explicitly reaffirmed and in particular by Pius IX, who in the Encyclical "Quanta cura" (1864) condemned the opinion that the claims advanced by the civil Government to the ownership of all Church property could be reconciled with the principles of sound theology and the canon law (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1697, and the appended Syllabus, props. 26 and 27). But apart from these and other similar pronouncements the right of the Church to the complete control of such temporal possessions as have been bestowed upon her is grounded both on reason and tradition. In the first place the Church as an organized and visible society, performing public duties whether of worship or administration, requires material resources for the orderly discharge of these duties. Neither could this end be sufficiently attained if the resources were entirely precarious or if the Church were hampered in her use of them by the constant interference of the civil authority. In the second place Old Testament analogy (see, e.g., Num., xviii, 8-25), the practice of the Apostles (John, xii, 6; Acts, iv, 24-5) with certain explicit utterances of St. Paul, for example, the argument in I Cor., ix, 3 sq., and finally the interpretation of the doctors and pastors of the Church at all periods, recognize nodependence upon the State, but show plainly that the principle of absolute ownership and free administration of ecclesiastical property has always been maintained. It may be further noted that in some of the sternest of her disciplinary enactments the Church has proved that she takes for granted her dominion over the goods bestowed upon her by the charity of the faithful. The twelfth canon of the OEcumencal Council of Lyons (1274) pronounces excommunication ipso facto against those lay persons who seize and detain the temporal possessions of the Church (see Friedberg, "Corpus Juris", II, 953 and 1059) and the Council of Trent followed suit in its Sess. XXII (De ref. C. xi) by launching excommunications latæ sententia against those who usurped many different kinds of ecclesiastical property. Subject of Rights of Property But while the abstract right of the Church and her representatives to hold property is clear enough, there has been in past ages much vagueness and diversity of view as to the precise subject in whom this right was vested. The idea of a corporate body, as that of an organized group of men (universitas) which has rights and duties other than the rights and duties of all or any of its members, existed, no doubt, at least obscurely in the early centuries of the Roman Empire. Before the time of Justinian it was pretty clearly apprehended that the members of such a group formed legally but a single unit and might be regarded as a "fictitious person", though this conception of the persona ficta, dear to the medieval legists and perpetuated by men like Savigny, is not perhaps quite so much in vogue among modern students of Roman law (cf. Gierke, "Das deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht", III, 129-36). It was at any rate recognized that this "fictitious person", or "group-person", was not subject to death like the individuals of which it was composed, and on the other hand that it could not be called into existence by private agreement. It required a senatus consultum or something of the sort to be legally constituted. These well-understood principles, we might suppose, could easily have been invoked to regulate the ownership of property in the case of the Christian communities established in the Roman Empire, but the question in point of fact was complicated by a survival of the ideas which attached to what were called res sacræ in the old days of paganism. This title of "sacred things" was given to all property or utensils consecrated to the gods, though it was required that there should be some authoritative recognition of such consecration. As res sacræ these things were regarded as in a sense withdrawn from the exercise of ordinary ownership, and formed a category apart. The truth seems to be that the gods themselves in pagan times were often conceived of as the owners. This is suggested by the fact that while it was ruled that the gods, i.e., their temples, could not inherit at law, still certain deities were explicitly exempted from this inhibition and were allowed to inherit as any private individual inherited. Such deities were, for example, Jupiter Tarpeius at Rome, Apollo Didymæus of Miletus, Diana of the Ephesians, and others (Ulpian, "Frag.", 22, 6). In similar wise when Christianity became the established faith of the empire, "Jesus Christ" was often appointed heir, and Justinian construed such an appointment as a gift to the Church of the place of the testator's domicile (Codex 1, 2, 25). The same principles were followed when an archangel or a martyr was appointed heir, and this, Justinian tells us, was sometimes done by educated people. The gift was understood to be made to some shrine or church bearing that dedication which the circumstances indicated, and, failing such indication, to the church of the testator's domicile (Cod. 1, 2, 25). The civil power in any case seems to have assumed a certain protective control over res sacræ probably with the view of safeguarding their inviolability. "Sacred things", we read, "are things that have been duly, that is by the priests (pontifices), consecrated to God-sacred buildings, for instance, and gifts duly dedicated to the service of God. And these we by our constitution have forbidden to be alienated or burdened (obligari) except only in order to ransom captives. But if a man by his own authority establish a would-be sacred thing for himself, it is not sacred, but profane. A place, however, in which sacred buildings have been erected, even if the buildings be pulled down, remains still sacred, as Papinian too wrote" (Institutes, II, i, 8). As regards alienation, however, we may compare Cod. 1, 2, 21, which allowed the sale of church property to sustain the lives of men during a famine, and "Novel.", cxx, 10, permitting the sale, in case of debt, of a church's superfluous vessels but not of its immovables or things really necessary. These and similar provisions have been invoked to support very divergent theories as to the ownership of church property under the empire. The real fact seems to be that among the jurists of the early centuries no clear conception as to the precise subject of these rights was ever adopted. In later times many canonists, like Phillips and Lammer, have maintained that the paroperty was vested in the Church (ecclesia catholica) as a whole. Others like Seitz and Thomassinus favour a supernatural ownership by which God Himself was regarded as the true proprietor. To others again, and notably to Savigny, the theory has commended itself that the Church held property as a community, while many still more modern authorities, with Friedberg, Sägmüller, and Meurer, defend the view that each separate local church was regarded as an institution with proprietary rights and was identified, at least popularly, with its patron saint. According to this conception the saints were the successors of the pagan gods, and whereas previously Jupiter Tarpeius, or Diana of the Ephesians, had owned land and revenues and sacred vessels, so now under the Christian dispensation St. Michael or St. Mary or St. Peter were regarded as the proprietors of all that belonged to the churches that were respectively dedicated to them. No doubt this view obtains some apparent support from the fact that almost everywhere, and notably in England, at the dawn of the Middle Ages we find testators bequeathing property to saints. In the oldest Kentish charter of which the text is preserved the newly-converted Ethelbert says: "To thee St. Andrew, and to thy church at Rochester where Justus the bishop presides, do I give a portion of my land." Even as late as the Domesday inquisition the saint is often depicted as the landowner. "St. Paul holds land, St. Constantine holds land, the Count of Mortain holds lands of St. Petroc-the church of Worcester, an episcopal church, has lands, and St. Mary of Worcester holds them" (Pollock and Maitland, "Hist. of English Law", I, 501). But the most recent authorities, and amongst others Professor Maitland himself in his second edition, are inclined to regard such phrases as mere popular locutions, a personification which must not be pressed as if it involved any serious theory as to the ownership of ecclesiastical goods. The truth seems to be, as Knecht has shown (System des Justinianischen Kirchenvermögensrechts, pp. 5 sq.), that the Christian Church was a unique institution which it was impossible for the traditional conceptions of Roman law to assimilate successfully. The Church had in the end to build up its own system of jurisprudence. In the meantime the rights of ecclesiastical property were protected efficiently enough in practice and the questions of legal theory did not occur, or at any rate did not press for a solution. From the time of the Edict of Milan, issued by Constantine and Licinius in 313, we hear of the restoration of the property of Christians "known to belong to their community, that is to say their churches, and not to the individuals" ("ad jus corporis eorum, id est ecclesiarum, non hominum singulorum pertinentia"-Lactantius, "De morte pers.", xlviii), while a few years later by the Edict of 321 the right of bequeathing property by will "to the most holy and venerable community (concilio) of the Catholic faith" was guaranteed. Practically speaking there can be little doubt that this Christian "concilium", "collegium", "corpus" or "conventiculum" (the words principally used to indicate the body of true believers) denoted primarily the local Christian assemblies represented by their bishop and that it was to the bishop that the administration of such property was committed. What stands out most clearly from the enactments of the time of Justinian was the recognition of the right of individual Churches to hold property. Despite the recent attempt of Bondroit (De capacitate possidendi ecclesiæ, 123-36) to revive the old conception of a dominium eminens vested in the universal Church Catholic, there is not much evidence to show that such a view was current among the jurists of that age though it undoubtedly grew up later (see Gierke, "Genossenschaftsrecht", III, 8). So far as property went, Justinian busied himself with the rights of particular 'ekklesía, but at the same time he did encourage a centralizing tendency which left a supreme jurisdiction in the bishop's hands within the limits of the civitas, his own sphere of authority. There can be no reasonable doubt that, with the exception of the monasteries which possessed their goods as independent institutions, though even then under the superintendence of the bishop (see authorities in Knecht, op. cit., p. 58), the whole ecclesiastical property of the diocese was subject to the bishop's control and at his disposal. His powers were very large, and his subordinates, the diocesan clergy, received only the stipends which he allowed them, while not only the support of his ecclesiastical assistants, who generally shared a common table in the bishop's house, but also the sums devoted to the relief of the sick and the poor, to the ransom of captives, as well as to the upkeep and repair of churches, all depended immediately upon him. No doubt custom regulated in some measure the distribution of the resources available. Popes Simplicitus in 475, Gelasius in 494 (Jaffé-Wattenbach, "Regesta", 636), and Gregory the Great in his answer to Augustine (Bede, "Hist. eccl.", I, xxvii) quotes as traditional the rule "that all emoluments that accrue are to be divided into four portions-one for the bishop and his household because of hospitality and entertainments, another for the clergy, a third for the poor, and a fourth for the repair of churches", and then texts naturally were incorporated at a later date in the "Decretum" of Gratian. Church Property in the Middle Ages Centralization of this kind, however, leaving everything, as it did, in the bishop's hands, was adapted only to peculiar local conditions and to an age which was far advanced in commerce and orderly government. For the sparsely settled and babarous regions occupied by the Teutonic invaders changes would sooner or later become necessary. But at first the Franks, Angles, and others, who accepted Christianity took over the system already existing in the Roman Empire. The Council of Orléans in 511 enacted in its fifteenth decree that every kind of contribution or rent offered by the faithful was in accordance with the ancient canons to remain entirely at the disposition of the bishop, though of the gifts actually presented at the altar he was to receive only a third part. So with regard to the Church's right of ownership, her freedom to receive legacies and the inviolability of her property, the pages of Gregory of Tours bear ample evidence to the generosity with which religion was treated during the early Merovingian period (cf. Hauck, "Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands", I, 134-7)-so much so that Chilperic (c. 580) complained that the royal treasury was exhausted because all the wealth of the kingdom had been transferred to the churches. Almost everywhere the respect due to the rights of the clergy was put in the foremost place. As Maitland has remarked (Hist. of Engl. Law, I, 499), "God's property and the Church's twelvefold" are the first written words of English law. The consciousness of all that was involved in this code of King Ethelbert of Kent (c. 610) had evidently made a deep impression upon the mind of Bede. "Among other benefits", he says, "which he [Ethelbert] conferred upon the nation, he also, by the advice of wise persons, introduced judicial decrees, after the Roman model, which, being written in English, are still kept and observed by them. Among which he in the first place set down what satisfaction should be given by those who should steal anything belonging to the Church, the bishop or the other clergy, resolving to give protection to those whose doctrine he had embraced" (Hist. eccl., II, 5). Even more explicit is the famous privilege of Wihtred, King of Kent, a hundred years later (c. 696): "I, Wihtred, an earthly king, stimulated by the heavenly King and kindled with the zeal of righteousness, have learned from the institutes of our forefathers that no layman ought with right to appropriate to himself a church or any of the things which to a church belong. And therefore strongly and faithfully we appoint and decree, and in the name of Almighty God and of all saints we forbid to all Kings our successors, and to all earldom, and to all laymen, ever any lordship over churches, and over any of their possessions which I or my predecessors in days of old have given for the glory of Christ, and our lady St. Mary and the holy Apostles" (Hadden and Stubbs, "Councils", III, 244). This touches no doubt upon a difficulty which had just begun to be felt and which for many centuries to come was to be a menace to the religious peace and well being of Christendom. As already suggested, the primitive idea of a single church in each civitas, governed by a bishop, who was assisted by presbiterium of subordinate clergy, was unworkable in rude and sparsely populated districts. In those more northerly regions of Europe which now began to embrace Christianity, village churches remote from one another had to be provided, and though many no doubt were founded and maintained by the bishops themselves (cf. Fustel de Coulanges, "La monarchie franque", 517) the religious centres, which became the parishes of a later date, developed in most cases out of the private oratories of the landowners and thegns. The great man built his church and then set himself to find a clerk who the bishop might ordain to serve it. It was not altogether surprising if he looked upon the church as his church seeing that it was built upon his land. But the bishop's consent was also needed. It was for him to consecrate the altar and from him that the ordination of the destined incumbent had to be sought. He will not act unless a sufficient provision of worldly goods is secured for the priest. Here we see the origin of patronage. This "advowson" (advocatio), or right to present to the benefice, is in origin an ownership of the soil upon which the church stands and an ownership of the land or goods set apart for the sustenance of the priest who serves it. Obviously the sense of proprietorship engendered by this relation was very dangerous to peace and to ecclesiastical liberty. Where such advowsons rested in the hands of the clergy or monastic institutions, there was nothing very unseemly in the idea of the patron "owning" the church, its lands, and its resources. In point of fact a large and ever-increasing number of parish churches were made over to religious houses. The monks provided a "vicar' to discharge the duties of parish-priest, but absorbed the revenues and tithes, spending them no doubt for the most part in works of utility and charity. But while the idea of a bishop of Paderborn for example presenting a parish church to a monastery "proprietario jure possidendum", "to be held in absolute ownership", excites no protest, the case was different when laymen took back to their own use the revenues which their fathers had allocated to the parish-priest, or when kings began to assert a patronage over ancient cathedrals, or again when the emperor wanted to treat the Church Catholic as a sort of fief and private possession of his own. In any case it is plain that the general tendency of the parochial movement, more especially when the churches originated in the private oratories of the landowners, was to take much of the control of church property out of the hands of the bishops. A canon of the Third Council of Toledo (589), re-enacted subsequently elsewhere, speaks very significantly in this connexion. "There are many", it says, "who against the canonical rule, seek to get their own churches consecrated upon such terms as to withdraw their endowment (dotem) from the bishop's power of disposition. This we disapprove in the past and for the future forbid" (cf. Chalons in Mansi, X, 119). On the other hand many ordinances, for example that of the Council of Carpentras in 527 (Mansi, VIII, 707), make it quite clear that while the bishop's right was maintained in theory, the practice prevailed of leaving the offerings of the faithful to the church in which they were made so long as they were there needed. The payment of tithes, which seems first to have been put forward as a contribution of general obligation by certain bishops and synods in the sixth century (see Selborne, "Ancient facts and fiction", cap. xi), must have told in the same direction. It seems tolerably plain that this collection must always have been undertaken locally, and the threefold partition of tithes which is spoken of in the so-called "Capitulare episcoporum" and which reappears in the "Egbertine Exceptions" takes no account of any bishop's share. The tithes are to be devoted first to the upkeep of the church, secondly to the relief of the poor and of pilgrims, and thirdly to the support of the clergy themselves. Even if, according to the celebrated ordinance of Charlemagne in 778-9, the tithes which everyone was bound to give "were to be dispensed according to the bishop's commandment", local custom and tradition were everywhere placing checks upon any arbitrary apportionment. Usage varied considerably, but in almost all cases the resources so provided seem to have been expended parochially and not upon the general needs of the diocese. It was in the ninth century particularly that not only in the matter of tithes but in the revenues of bishoprics and monasteries a general apportionment began to be arrived at. Both bishop and abbot had now become great personages, maintaining a certain state which could not be kept up without considerable expenditure. The common expenses of the diocese and the monastery tended more and more to become the private property of the bishop and the abbot. Disputes naturally arose, and before long there came a division of these resources. The bishop shared the revenues with the chapter and separate establishments, or mensæ, were created. Similarly the abbot lived apart from his monks and in a large measure the two systems became mutually independent. Naturally in the case of cathedral chapters the process of division went further and although the chapters still held property in common and administered it through a steward, or "oe;conomus", each of the canons in the course of time acquired a separate prebend, the administration of which was left entirely in his hands. The same freedom was gradually conceded to parish-priests and other members of the clergy, once they had duly been put in possession of their benefices. To all intents and purposes it might be said that in the later Middle Ages the parish-priest, whether rector or vicar, had succeeded, so far as concerned the limits of his own jurisdiction, to the administrative duties formerly exercised by the bishop. Still the old idea that all church property was the "patrimony of the poor" was not lost sight of. In theory always, and most commonly in practice, the rector collected the revenues of his benefice, his tithes and other dues and offerings in trust for the poor of the parish, reserving only what was necessary for his own reasonable support and for the maintenance of the church and its services. In England there was a general and well-understood rule that the rector of the parish kept the chancel of the church in repair, while the parishioners were bound to see that the nave and the rest of the fabric was maintained in proper condition (see Bishop Quivil's "Exeter Decrees", cap. ix; Wilkins, "Concilia", II, 138). The long-protracted process of division and adjustment which led up to the comparatively stable and well-defined ownership of church property in the later Middle Ages was also, as might be expected, fertile in abuses. The impropriation of tithes by the monasteries set an example which unscrupulous and powerful laymen were not slow to follow, with more or less pretence of respecting the forms of law. Great landowners assuming patronal rights over the monasteries situated within their domains named themselves or other secular persons to be abbots and seized the revenues which the abbot separately enjoyed, while the patrons, or advocati, of individual parish churches were continually attempting to make simoniacal compacts with those whom they proposed to present to such benefices. But there can be no doubt that from the eleventh century onwards the more centralized government of the Church, as well as the marked progress made in the study of canon law, did much to check these abuses even during the worst times of the Great Schism. Acquisition Turning from early history to questions of principle we find it laid down by the canonists that as regards the acquisition of property the Church stands on the same footing as any corporation or any private individual. There is nothing in the nature of things to prevent her from receiving legacies or gifts either of movable or immovable goods, and she may also allow her possessions to grow by investments, by occupation, by prescription, or by the emoluments resulting from any legitimate form of contract. Indeed if the civil power interferes substantially with the freedom of collecting alms and receiving donations the rights of the Church are thereby invaded. The laws which were enacted in the latter part of the thirteenth century both in England and France to check the passing of property into "mortmain" were for this reason always regarded as wrong in principle, though the loss occasioned to the feudal lord by the cessation of reliefs, escheats, wardships, marriages, etc., when the land was made over to ecclesiastical uses could not be denied. No doubt this legislation of the civil power was in practice acquiesced in while licenses to acquire land in mortmain were obtainable without great difficulty upon adequate compensation being made (this was known in France as the droit d'amortisation, see Viollet, "Institutions politiques", II, 398-413), but the restrictions thus imposed were never accepted in principle. Such papal pronouncements as the "Clericis laicos" of Boniface VIII claimed that the Church possessed the right to acquire property by the donations of the faithful independently of any interference on the part of the State and that if compensation was made it should be done through the free action of the Holy See, in whom the dominion of all church goods ultimately rested, acting in willing response to any reasonable representations that might be addressed to it. Later on and especially since the Reformation in countries where no state provision or endowment exists for the maintenance of the clergy, custom, generally endorsed by the enactments of provincial synods and the sanction of the Holy See, has introduced besides certain traditional jura, or rights, for spiritual services various exceptional methods of adding to the slender resources of the missions or stations. Such are for example bench-rents or charges for more advantageous seats, collections, charity sermons, and out-door collections made from house to house. At the same time the dangers of abuse in this direction are jealously watched. It is particularly insisted upon that there should be a sufficiency of free seats to allow the poor readily to discharge the obligation of attending Sunday Mass. The bishops are charged to see that bazaars and entertainments got up for church purposes are not an occasion of scandal. In particular any refusal of the sacraments to the sick and dying on the ground of a neglect to contribute to the support of the mission is severely condemned. So also are certain unseemly methods of soliciting alms, as for example when the priest quits the altar during the celebration of Mass to go round the church to make the collection himself or when promises of Masses and other spiritual favours in return for contributions are conspicuously made in the advertisement sheets of public journals or when the names of particular singers are placarded as soloists in the music performed at liturgical functions (cf. Laurentius, "Juris eccles. inst.", 640). In the past certain definite forms of alms were recognized as the ordinary sources through which the possessions of the Church were acquired. A word may be said upon some of the more noteworthy of these. (1) Firstfruits The offering of firstfruits which we meet in the Old Testament (Ex., xxiii, 16; xxxiv, 22; Deut., xxvi, 1-11) seems to have been taken over as a traditional means of contributing to the support of the pastors of the Church by the early Christians. It is mentioned in the "Didache", the "Didascalia", "Apostolic Constitutions", etc., but though for a while it was customary to make some similar contributions in kind at the Offertory of the Mass (a late mention may be found in the Council of Trullo in Mansi, "Concilia", XI, 956) still the practice gradually fell into disuse or took some other form, e.g. that of tithes, more particularly perhaps the "small tithes", sometimes known as "altalage". (2) Tithes This also was an Old-Testament ordinance (see Deut., xiv, 22-7) which many believe to have been identical in origin with firstfruits. Like the latter due, tithes were probably taken over by the early Christian Church at least in some districts, e.g. Syria. They are mentioned in the "Didascalia" and the "Apostolic Constitutions", but there is very little to show that the payment was at first regarded as of strict obligation. Still less can we be certain that there was continuity between the usage referred to in the Eastern Church of the fourth century and the institution which, as already mentioned above, we find described by the Council of Mâcon in 585. (See Tithes). (3) Dues Dues, rather ill-defined and still imperfectly understood, which were known to the Anglo-Saxons as "church-shot". We meet them first in the laws of King Ine in 693, but they continued throughout all the Anglo-Saxon period and later. This is commonly considered to have been a contribution not paid according to the wealth and quality of the person paying it, but according to the value of the house in which he was living in the winter and identical with the see dues (cathedraticum) of a later age (see Kimble, "Saxons in England", II, 559 sq.). Other dues equally difficult to identify with exactness were the "light-shot" and the "soul-shot". Thus we find among the canons passed at Eynsham in 1009 such an ordinance as the following: "Let God's rights be paid every year duly and carefully, i.e. plough-alms 15 nights after Easter, tithe of young by Pentecost and of all fruits of the earth by All Hallows Mass (Nov. 1). And the Rome-fee by Peter's Mass (Aug. 1). And the Church-shot at St. Martins Mass (Nov. 11) and light-shot thrice a year, and it is most just that the men pay the soul-shot at the open grave." (4) Funeral Dues The last-mentioned contribution of "soul-shot", the precise signification of which is imperfectly understood, is typical of a form of offering which at many different epochs has been a recognized source of income to the Church. Even if we look upon the payments to certain clerks prescribed by Justinian (Novel., lix) as a fee for a material service rendered, rather than an offering to the Church, still from the time of the Council of Braga (can. xxi in Mansi, IX, 779) in 563, such money contributions though quite voluntary were constantly made in connexion with funerals. In medieval England the mortuary in the case of a person of knightly dignity commonly took the form of his war-horse with all its trappings. The horse was led up the church at the Offertory and presented at the altar rails. No doubt it was afterwards sold or redeemed for a money payment. (5) Ordination Dues and other Offerings in connexion with the Sacraments Just as it is recognized that Mass stipends, supposing the conditions to be observed which custom and ecclesiastical authority prescribe, may be accepted without simony, so at almost all periods of the Church's history offerings have been made in connexion with the administration of the sacraments. One of the commonest of these was the payment made to a bishop by the newly-ordained at the time of ordination. Though in the end prohibited by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, de ref., cap. i), such offerings had been customary from quite early ages. In some localities a payment was made at the time of the annual confession, but the dangers of abuse in this case were obvious and many synods condemned the practice. Less difficulty was felt in the case of baptism and matrimony and the exaction of such dues from those who can afford it may almost be described as general in the Church. (6) Investments and Landed Property But the most substantial source of revenue, and one that in view of the precarious nature of all other offerings may be considered as necessary to the Church's well-being, is land, or in more modern times investments bearing interest. Even before the toleration edict of Milan (313), it is clear from the restitution there spoken of that the Church must have owned considerable landed possessions, and from that time forward donations and legacies of property yielding annual revenues naturally multiplied. As already pointed out, the Church's right to receive such donations whether by will or inter vives was repeatedly acknowledged and confirmed. In medieval England it was usual by way of symbolical investiture, by which possession was given to the Church, to lay some material object upon the altar, for example a book, or parchment deed, or a ring, or most frequently of all a knife. This knife was often broken by the donor before it was laid upon the altar (see Reichel, "Church and Church Endowments" in "Transactions of the Devonshire Association", XXXIX, 1907, 377-81). The modern exponents of the canon law, basing their teaching on the pronouncements of the Holy See and the decrees of provincial synods, lay great stress upon the principle that the offerings of the faithful are to be expended according to the intention of the donors. They also insist that where that intention is not clearly made known certain reasonable presumptions must be followed; for example in missionary centres where a church has not yet been built and organized donations are presumed to be made in view of the ultimate erection of such a church. So again money given at the Offertory in any quasi-parochial church, or collected by the faithful from house to house is not to be considered as a personal gift to the priest in charge but as intended for the support of the mission. Certain difficult questions which arise with regard to such contributions of the faithful in places where parochial duties are undertaken by the religious orders are legislated for in the Constitution "Romanos Pontifices" of Leo XIII, 8 May, 1881. Foundations By these are understood a transference of property to the Church or to some particular ecclesiastical institute in view of some service or work to be done either perpetually or for a long time. They are not valid until they are formally accepted, and for that purpose they have to be approved by the bishops and for all institutions under their jurisdiction. It is for the bishop to decide whether the endowment is sufficient for the charge, but the foundation once made, especially when the interests of a third party are involved, the conditions cannot ordinarily be changed, at least without appeal to the Holy See. In particular where a charge of Masses to be said has been accepted, and the foundation no longer meets that charge, application must be made to the Holy See before the number can be reduced. Alienation That the Church herself has the right to alienate ecclesiastical property follows as a consequence of the complete ownership by which she holds it, and for the same reason in the exercise of this right she is entirely independent of the civil authority. Still as the Church is only a persona moralis, she is in the position of a minor, and disposes of her property through her prelates and administrators. No one of these, not even the pope, has the power to alienate ecclesiastical property validly, without some proportionate reason (Wernz, "Jus Decret.", III, i, 170). Further, the alienation, which in accordance with numberless decrees and canons of synods (see the second part of the Decret., C. xii, q. 2, canons 20, 41, 52) is thus forbidden, comprehends not only the transference of the ownership of church goods but also all proceedings by which the property is burdened, e.g., by mortgages, or lessened in value or exposed to the risk of loss, or by which its revenues are for any notable time diverted from their proper uses. It is to this inalienability of all the possessions of the Church, which like the "hand of a dead man" never loosens its grip of what it once has clutched, that the prejudice already referred to against property held in "mortmain" grew up in the thirteenth century. Still the prohibition of alienation is not absolute. It is prohibited only when done without just reason and without the requisite formalities. As "just reasons" the canonists recognize: (1) urgent necessity, for example, when a church is in debt and has no other means of raising the money needed; (2) manifest utility, such as may occur when an opportunity presents itself of acquiring a much-desired piece of land on exceptionally advantageous terms; (3) piety, e.g., if church goods are sold to ransom captives or to feed the starving poor; and (4) convenience, as in the case when the upkeep of certain possessions involves more trouble than they are worth. Besides a just reason, there is required, for the alienation of immovable goods (such as lands, houses, stock and other titles and rent-bearing investments) and movable goods of value, the observance of certain formalities. We may enumerate: (1) the preliminary discussion (tractatus), e.g., between the bishop and the chapter; (2) the consent of the bishop in those matters in which it is required; (3) a formal mandate for the act of alienation issued by competent authority, e.g., the vicar-general if he is empowered to do this; (4) the formal consent of interested parties and in many cases of the cathedral chapter. Finally, the important constitution "Ambitiosæ" of Paul II, confirmed by Urban VIII, 7 Sept., 1624, and by Pius IX in the Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis", 12 Oct., 1869, requires under penalty of excommunication the consent of the Holy See for the alienation of immovable property of great value. At one time it was contended that the Constitution "Ambitiosæ" had fallen into desuetude, but most canonists hold that in the face of the "Apostolicæ Sedis" this cannot now be maintained (see e.g., Wernz, III, n. 165, Sägmüller, 879). Still the requirements of the "Ambitiosæ" are much mitigated in practice by the faculties commonly conceded to bishops by the Holy See for ten years at a time to authorize the alienation of church property up to a not inconsiderable amount. In the United States the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1864) laid down that all acts of alienation or any equivalent disposition of property involving a sum greater than $5000 required papal permission, the consent of the diocesan consultors having been previously obtained. But, as the Plenary Council of Latin-America in 1899 (n. 870) also points out, "much depends on circumstances of time and place in deciding what ought to be regarded as property of small value (valor exigua), hence in this matter a decision to meet the case ought to be obtained by each country separately from the Apostolic See." It will be readily understood that all forms of hypothecation or the raising of money upon the security of church property must be regarded as subject to the same conditions as alienation. In cap. iii, X, de pign. iii, 21, the "Corpus Juris" has preserved a decretal of Alexander III addressed to the Bishop of Exeter and deciding that in a case where the parish-priest had pawned a silver chalice and a Breviary and had died before redeeming them, his heirs were to be compelled under pain of excommunication to recover and restore the property to the church to which it belonged. Prescription With regard to prescription, also, ecclesiastical property has special privileges. Amongst private individuals the canon law recognized that possession with an unchallenged title for ten, twenty, or at most thirty years suffices to confer ownership, but in the case of immovable church property forty years are required, and against the Holy See one hundred years. As to the much controverted question regarding the true owner (subjectum dominii) of ecclesiastical property, the more approved view at the present day looks upon each institution as the proprietor of the goods belonging to it, but always in subordination to the supreme jurisdiction vested in the Holy See (Wernz, "Jus Decretalium", III, n. 138). As Wernz forcibly argues, if the Universal Church were itself the proprietor it would also be bound by all the debts by which any and every ecclesiastical institution was burdened. But neither the Universal Church nor the Holy See have ever admitted such an obligation, neither have they ever declared that one institution was liable for the debts incurred by another. At the same time, if the aim and purpose of any particular ecclesiastical institution comes to an end, and its moral personality is destroyed, its property passes by right to the ownership of the Universal Church, of which the institution in question was by supposition a member or part. Further, since it is in virtue of its connexion with the Universal Church that the right of acquiring and owning property belongs to any ecclesiastical organization, it is commonly held that if it revolt from the obedience of the Church and apostatize from the Catholic Church it has no longer any claims to the property which it originally acquired for Catholic purposes as a member of the Church. Upon the principle that the civil power, as such, has neither the supreme dominion nor any just control over the administration of ecclesiastical property, except in so far as the Church by concordats or other agreements may freely concede certain powers to the State, all approved writers within the Church are agreed. Neither can there by any question that the Decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, de ref., cap. ii), upheld by the Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis" of Pius IX, which pronounces an excommunication and other censures against the usurpers of church goods, is still in full vigour. It must be plain, then, that the recent wholesale confiscations in Italy, France, and other countries, have given rise to a vast number of very difficult questions as to the extent to which those who in various ways have participated in these confiscations are subject to the censures pronounced against the usurpers of the Church's goods. The position of those who participate in the act of spoliation by aid, counsel, or favour, in the case of the ecclesiastical property of the Papal states, is different from those who co-operate in the same way elsewhere. The Encyclical "Respicientes" of 1 Nov., 1870, dealing with the former class clearly extends the excommunication to all who co-operate, whereas in France and elsewhere offenders fall only under the common law of the Church, and by this, those who merely take part in the liquidation of property, or act as clerks, for instance, in the proceedings, do not seem to incur the censures, but only those who are the actual spoliators and usurpers of the property or those who order and plan it; the law affects, in other words, the principals and not those who are merely accessories. The question of the application of these censures is very fully discussed, amongst other recent authorities, by Card. Gennari (Consultations, I) and by the Abbé Boudinhon in the "Canoniste Contemporain" (March, 1909-Oct., 1910). Apart from such determined acts of spoliation as those which followed the occupation of Rome (1870) and the recent Associations and Separation Laws in France, the clergy are generally instructed to comply, as far as may be possible without sacrifice of principle, with the requirements of the civil law, if only in the interest of the property of which they are the administrators. These and similar points are dwelt upon in the Decrees of the Second Plenary Council of Westminster (1885), which dealt at some length with the question of ecclesiastical property. For example, the Fathers of the Council direct that "no administrator of a mission should draw up any legal document concerning church property, without the express authority of the bishop, who will not fail to consult lawyers most skilled in these matters, and subject everything to the most careful revision". So, too, it directs that "all buildings belonging to a mission should be most carefully insured against fire", and lays down rules as to the destination of Mass offerings, stole fees (jura stola), etc. For Ireland some similar regulations were made in the Maynooth Synod of 1875, and we may note how the synod, after directing that a two-fold inventory of church property should be made, one copy to be kept by the bishop in the diocesan archives and the other to be kept among the parish records, lays down the following wise rules respecting the requirements of the civil law: "Lest ecclesiastical property fall into other hands on account of the defects of the law, the bishop will take heed that the titles or deeds may be accurately drawn up according to the civil law and in the name of three or four trustees (curatorum). The trustees are to be the bishop of the diocese, the parish-priest or other whose property is concerned, the vicar-general or other person, prudent, well known for uprightness, and for being versed in matters of this sort. These trustees should meet once a year, so as to provide for the security of the aforesaid goods. And if one of them die the others are bound to appoint another in his place. All bishops or priests having possession or administration in any way of such property are bound to make their wills, and these wills are to be kept by the bishop; and to no one in in extremis will the last sacraments be given unless he makes his will or promises to do so." The great and classical work dealing with the whole question of church property is Thomassin, Vetus et nova ecclesia disciplina circa beneficia et beneficiarios, of which several editions have been published, including one at least in French. All the more copious treatises upon canon law, such as those of Phillips, Vering, SchmalzgrÜber, necessarily deal with the matter at some length, and among modern authorities special mention should be made of Wernz, Jus Decretalium, III (Rome, 1908); SÄgmÜller, Kirchenrecht (Freiburg, 1909); Laurentius, Instit. juris eccl. (Freiburg, 1908); see also Mamachi, Del diritto libero della chiesa di acquistare e possedere boni temporali (Venice, 1766); Meurer, Der Begriff und Eigentümer der heiligen Sachen (Düsseldorf, 1885); Bondroit, De capacitate possidendi ecclesia (Louvain, 1900); Scheys, de jure ecclesiæ acquirendi (Louvain, 1892); Knecht, System des justinianischen Kirchenvermügenrechts (Stuttgart, 1905); Moulart, L'eglise et l'état (Paris, 1902); Gennari, Consultations de morale, de droit canonique et de liturgie (1907-9); Boudinhon, Biens d'église et peines canoniques, in Canoniste contemporain (April, 1909-Oct., 1910); Fourneret in Dict. de théol. Cath., s. v. Biens ecclésiastiques; Taunton, Law of the Church (London, 1905). Herbert Thurston Ecclesiastical Property in the United States Ecclesiastical Property in the United States The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore decreed (tit. IX, cap. i, n. 264): "We must hold, holily and inviolably, that the complete right of ownership and dominion over ecclesiastical goods resides in the Church." In English-speaking countries, however, the State as a rule does not recognize this inherent right of the Church, but claims for itself the supreme dominion over temporal possessions. "The State refuses to recognize the Church as an actual corporation with the power of holding property in her own name; hence the civil power deals only with specific individuals" (Taunton, op. cit. infra, p. 310). The fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore say on this subject: "On account of the grave dangers to which temporal goods are often exposed when bishops are not allowed to control them according to the prescriptions of the Church, it is much to be regretted that in many parts of the United States the civil laws concerning the possession and administration of temporal goods rest upon principles which the Church cannot admit without departing from the rule which she has always held from the time when she first became free to put her religious principles into practice" (tit. IX, cap. ii, n. 266). The many painful incidents arising in the United States from insecure methods of holding ecclesiastical property (schism, usurpation of church goods, etc.) caused the bishops to make stringent rules for safeguarding ecclesiastical possessions. Dissensions frequently arose owing to the abuse of power by lay trustees (see TRUSTEE SYSTEM), in whose name the property was often held. The various councils of Baltimore endeavoured to find a remedy for this deplorable state of things. The First Provincial Council (n. 5) declared that no church should be erected or consecrated unless (where possible) it had first been deeded to the bishop (instrumento scripto assignata). Administrators of temporal goods were exhorted to observe the prescriptions of the Council of Trent concerning church property. The Third Provincial Council (n. 43) says: "We admonish bishops, priests and all others who have care of movable or immovable property given for ecclesiastical uses, to take measures as soon as possible to secure the carrying out of the intentions of the donors, according to the safest method prescribed by the civil laws in the various States." The Fourth Council adds (n. 56): "that if this security can be obtained in no other way, then the property is to be handed on by means of last wills and testaments, drawn up according to the provisions of the civil law". In 1840 Propaganda issued a decree that each bishop should make some fellow-bishop his heir, and that, on the death or resignation of the former, the latter should then hand over the property to the new bishop. This condition was not, however, to be expressed in the testament, but signified in writing to the chosen heir who was then to burn the letter. The fathers of the Fifth Provincial' Council asked for a modification of this decree, as the laws of various states would make it difficult of execution; they desired that each bishop, within three months after his consecration, should make a will and deposit a duplicate of it with the 'archbishop (n. 59). The First Plenary Council of Baltimore occupied itself with the vexed question of church property, decreeing: "We warn priests who administer churches, the title to which has been given to the bishop, not to constitute lay-trustees without episcopal sanction, or permit them to be elected by the faithful, lest an impediment arise to their free administration" (n. 94). In like manner, the Second Plenary Council made new decrees concerning church property. The Fathers of this council seem to have been hopeful that the prescriptions of canon law would find free play in the United States. They say "In these United States it is the right of all citizens to live freely according to the precepts of their religion, and as the civil laws recognize and declare the same, it seems that there is no obstacle to the exact observance of the laws decreed by councils and popes for the legitimate acquisition and preservation of ecclesiastical property, the Fathers desire, therefore, that the right of the Church be vindicated in the eyes of all and publicly before the State, so that Catholics may be allowed to observe the laws of the Catholic Church in acquiring, holding and preserving ecclesiastical goods, such as lands for church edifices, presbyteries, schools, cemeteries etc. This complete liberty, however, can be said to exist only when the laws and ordinances of the Church are recognized by the civil tribunals and thus receive civil effect. By such provisions the rights of all will be preserved, possible abuses will be obviated, and the power of the bishops, instead of being increased, will rather be diminished by the regulations made by the Church herself. For, at present, in order to obtain protection from the improper interference of lay tribunals, which in practice scarcely acknowledge the ecclesiastical laws, nothing now remains to the bishops for carrying out ecclesiastical decrees but to claim for themselves the fullest administration of property before the civil power. As, however, church regulations are not acknowledged as yet in some States, it is our duty to see that in those places where no provision has been made by the civil law, the impediments to the liberty of the Church and to the security of ecclesiastical property be removed or diminished" (tit. IV, cap. i, nn. 199, 200). The council then lays down regulations regarding lay trustees. The Third Plenary Council (tit. IX, cap. ii, nn. 267-8) defined more exactly what was meant by secure methods of ownership according to civil law, directing that: + (1) The bishop himself be constituted a corporation sole for possessing and administering the goods of the whole diocese; or + (2) that the bishop hold the goods in trust in the name of the diocese; or + (3) that the bishop hold and administer the church property in his own name (in fee simple) by an absolute and full legal title. In the last case, the bishop is to remember that, though before the civil law he is the absolute owner, yet by the sacred canons he is only procurator. By whichever title the bishop holds the property, he is to keep inventories, carefully distinguishing between the church property and his own personal property. Since the Third Plenary Council the question of holding church property has more than once been discussed by the American bishops, and at the present time, in addition to the fee simple and the corporation sole methods, a modified system of the trustee method has found considerable favour. Concerning this, the "St. Paul Catholic Bulletin", says (I, no. 20): "Not only is it not true that the archbishops (at their meeting in 1911) discouraged the holding of church property by local churches, but on the contrary, they declared it to be the very best solution of the problem under consideration. And while in some States, owing to peculiar legislative enactments, other methods of holding church property are in vogue, yet it was admitted by the assembled prelates that the holding of church property by local parish corporations was by far the safest method. In the Archdiocese of St. Paul, each church is incorporated separately and independently of all others. Members of this corporation are ex-officio the Ordinary of the Diocese, his vicar-general, and the pastor of the parish, who select two laymen from the parish to represent the congregation. In addition to these separate parochial corporations, there is a general diocesan corporation known as 'The Diocese of St. Paul', in which is invested the control of all the property belonging to the diocese, not directly controlled by the aforesaid parish corporations." The laws of the Church are fully observed, as the bishop of the diocese exercises sufficient control over all the property; without him, the other members of the corporation can take no action binding in law, and he assumes no unreasonable obligations inasmuch as he himself is powerless to act without the consent and co-operation of the others. Dr. P. A. Baart ("Catholic Fortnightly Review", XIV, no. 4) says: "The Church, through the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, whose decision and decree were approved by the Pope, has declared that the corporation system which recognizes the rights of the hierarchy is preferable to the fee simple tenure by the bishops as individuals before the civil law." Concilia Provincialia et Plenaria Baltimorensia; BAART in The Catholic Fortnightly Review, VI, VII, XIV (St. Louis); TAUNTON, Law of the Church (London, 1906), s. v. Ecclesiastical Property; SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, I (New York, 1895); IDEM, Notes on Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (New York, 1874). WILLIAM H. W. FANNING. Prophecy Prophecy As the term is used in mystical theology, it applies both to the prophecies of canonical Scripture and to private prophecies. Understood in its strict sense, it means the foreknowledge of future events, though it may sometimes apply to past events of which there no memory, and to present hidden things which cannot be known by the natural light of reason. St. Paul, speaking of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14, does not confine its meaning to predictions of future events, but includes under it Divine inspirations concerning what is secret, whether future or not. As, however, the manifestation of hidden present mysteries or past events comes under revelation, we have here to understand by prophecy what is in its strict and proper sense, namely the revelation of future events. Prophecy consists in knowledge and in the manifestation of what is known. The knowledge must be supernatural and infused by God because it concerns things beyond the natural power of created intelligence; and the knowledge must be manifested either by words or signs, because the gift of prophecy is given primarily for the good of others, and hence needs to be manifested. It is a Divine light by which God reveals things concerning the unknown future and by which these things are in some way represented to the mind of the prophet, whose duty it is to manifest them to others. DIVISION Writers on mystical theology consider prophecies with reference to the illumination of the mind, to the objects revealed, and to the means by which the knowledge is conveyed to the human mind. By reason of the illumination of the mind prophecy may be either perfect or imperfect. It is called perfect when not only the thing revealed, but the revelation itself is made known, that is, when the prophet knows that it is God who speaks. The prophecy is imperfect when the recipient does not know clearly or sufficiently from whom the revelation proceeds, or whether it is the prophetic or individual spirit that speaks. This is called the prophetic instinct, wherein it is possible that a man may be deceived, as it happened in the case of Nathan who said to David when he was thinking of building the Temple of God: "Go, do all that is in thy heart, because the Lord is with thee" (II Kings, vii,3). But that very night the Lord commanded the Prophet to return to the king and say that the glory of the building of the temple was reserved, not for him, but for his son. St. Gregory, as quoted by Benedict XIV, explains that some holy prophets, through the frequent pratice of prophesying, have of themselves predicted some things, believing that therein they were influenced by the spirit of prophecy. By reason of the object there are three kinds of prophecy according to St. Thomas (Summa II-II:174:1): prophecy of denunciation, of foreknowledge, and of predestination. + In the first kind God reveals future events according to the order of secondary causes, which may be hindered from taking effect by other causes which would require a miraculous power to prevent, and these may or may not happen, though the prophets do not express it but seem to speak absolutely. Isaias spoke thus when he said to Ezechias: "Take order with thy house, for thou shalt die, and not live" (Is., xxxviii,1). To this kind belongs the prophecy of promise, as that mentioned in 1 Kings, ii,30: "I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father should minister in my sight, forever", which was not fulfilled. It was a conditional promise made to Heli which was dependent upon other causes which prevented its fulfilment. + The second, that of foreknowledge, takes place when God reveals future events which depend upon created free will and which he sees present from eternity. They have reference to life and death, to wars and dynasties, to the affairs of Church and State, as well as to the affairs of individual life. + The third kind, the prophecy of predestination, takes place when God reveals what He alone will do, and what he sees present in eternity and in His absolute decree. This includes not only the secret of predestination to grace and to glory, but also those things which God has absolutely decreed to do by His own supreme power, and which will infallibly come to pass. The objects of prophecy may also be viewed in respect to human knowledge: + when an event may be beyond the possible natural knowledge of the prophet, but may be within the range of human knowledge and known to others who witness the occurrence, as, for instance, the result of the battle of Lepanto revealed to St. Pius V; + when the object surpasses the knowledge of all men, not that it is unknowable but that the human mind cannot naturally receive the knowledge, such as the mystery of the Holy Trinity, or the mystery of predestination; + when the things that are beyond the power of the human mind to know are not in themselves knowable because their truth is not yet determined, such as future contingent things which depend upon free will. This is regarded as the most perfect object of prophecy, because it is the most general and embraces all events that are in themselves unknowable. God can enlighten the human mind in any way he pleases. He often makes use of angelic ministry in prophetic communications, or He Himself may speak to the prophet and illuminate his mind. Again the supernatural light of prophecy may be conveyed to the intellect or through the senses or the imagination. Prophecy may take place even when the senses are suspended in ecstasy, but this in mystical terminology is called rapture. St. Thomas teaches that there is no suspension of the sense activities when anything is presented to the mind of the prophet through impressions of the senses, nor is it necessary when the mind is immediately enlightened that activity of the senses should be suspended; but it is necessary that this should be the case when the manifestation is made by imaginative forms, at least at the moment of the vision or of the hearing of the revelation, because the mind is then abstracted from external things in order to fix itself entirely on the object manifested to the imagination. In such a case a perfect judgment cannot be formed of the prophetic vision during the transport of the soul, because then the senses which are necessary for a right understanding of things cannot act, and it is only when a man comes to himself and awakens from the ecstasy that he can properly know and discern the nature of his vision. RECIPIENT OF PROPHECY The gift of prophecy is an extraordinary grace bestowed by God. It has never been confined to any particular tribe, family, or class of persons. There is no distinct faculty in human nature by which any normal or abnormal person can prophesy, neither is any special preparation required beforehand for the reception of this gift. Hence Cornely remarks: "Modern authors speak inaccurately of 'schools of prophets', an expression never found in the Scriptures or the Fathers" (Comp. Introduct. in N.T., n. 463). Neither was there ever any external rite by which the office of prophet was inaugurated; its exercise was always extraordinary and depended on the immediate call of God. The prophetic light, according to St. Thomas, is in the soul of the prophet not as a permanent form or habit, but after the manner of a passion or passing impression (Summa II-II:171:2). Hence the ancient prophets by their prayers petitioned for this Divine light (1 Kings, viii, 6; Jer., xxxii, 16; xxiii, 2 sq.; xlii, 4 sq.), and they were liable to error if they gave an answer before invoking God (II Kings, vii, 2,3). Writing on the recipients of prophecy, Benedict XIV (Heroic Virtue, III,144,150) says: "The recipients of prophecy may be angels, devils, men, women, children, heathens, or gentiles; nor is it necessary that a man should be gifted with any particular disposition in order to receive the light of prophecy provided his intellect and senses be adapted for making manifest the things which God reveals to him. Though moral goodness is most profitable to a prophet, yet it is not necessary in order to obtain the gift of prophecy." He also tells us that the angels by their own natural penetration cannot know future events whch are undermined and contingent or uncertain, neither can they know the secrets of the heart of another, whether man or angel. When therefore God reveals to an angel as the medium through which the future is made known to man, the angel also becomes a prophet. As to the Devil, the same author tells us that he cannot of his own natural knowledge foretell future events which are the proper objects of prophecy, yet God may make use of him for this purpose. Thus we read in the Gospel of St. Luke that when the Devil saw Jesus he fell down before Him and, crying out with a loud voice, said: "What have I to do with thee, Jesus, Son of the most high God?" (Luke, viii, 28). There are instances of women and children prophesying in Holy Scripture. Mary, the sister of Moses, is called a prophetess; Anna, the mother of Samuel, prophesied; Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, by a Divine revelation recognized and confessed Mary as the Mother of God. Samuel and Daniel as boys prophesied; Balaam, a Gentile, foretold the advent of the Messias and the devastation of Assyria and Palestine. St. Thomas, in order to prove that the heathens were capable of prophecy, refers to the instance of the Sybils, who make clear mention of the mysteries of the Trinity, of the Incarnation of the Word, of the Life, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ. It is true that the Sybilline poems now extant became in course of time interpolated; but, as Benedict XIV remarks, this does not hinder much of them, especially what the early Fathers referred to, from being genuine and in no wise apocryphal. That the gift of private prophecy exists in the Church is clear from Scripture and the acts of canonization of the saints in every age. To the question, what credence is to be given to these private prophecies, Cardinal Cajetan answers, as stated by Benedict XIV: "Human actions are of two kinds, one of which relates to public duties, and especially to ecclesiastical affairs, such as preaching, celebrating Mass, pronouncing judicial decisions, and the like; with respect to these the question is settled in the canon law, where it is said that no credence is to be publicly given to him who says he has privately received a mission from God, unless he confirms it by a miracle or a special testimony of Holy Scripture. The other class of human actions consists of those of private persons, and speaking of these, he distinguishes between a prophet who enjoins or advises them, according to the universal laws of the Church, and a prophet who does the same without reference to those laws. In the first case every man may abound in his own sense whether or not to direct his actions according to the will of the prophet; in the second case a prophet is not to be listened to" (Heroic Virtue, III, 192). It is also important that those who have to teach and direct others should have rules for their guidance to enable them to distinguish true from false prophets. A summary of those prescribed by theologians for our guidance may be useful to show practically how the doctrine is to be applied to devout souls in order to save them from errors or diabolical delusions: + the recipient of the gift of prophecy should, as a rule, be good and virtuous, for all mystical writers agree that for the most part this gift is granted by God to holy persons. The disposition or temperament of the person should also be considered, as well as the state of health and of the brain; + the prophecy must be conformable to Christian truth and piety, because if it propose anything against faith or morals it cannot proceed from the Spirit od Truth; + the prediction should concern things outside the reach of all natural knowledge, and have for its object future contingent things or those things which God alone knows; + it should also concern something of a grave and important nature, that is something for the good of the Church or the good of souls. This and the preceding rule will help to distinguish true prophecies from the puerile, senseless, and useless predictions of fortune-tellers, crystal-gazers, spiritualists, and charlatans. These may tell things beyond human knowledge and yet within the scope of the natural knowledge of demons, but not those things that are strictly speaking the objects of prophecy; + prophecies or revelations which make known the sins of others, or which announce the predestination or reprobation of souls are to be suspected. Three special secrets of God have always to be deeply respected as they are very rarely revealed, namely: the state of conscience in this life, the state of souls after death unless canonized by the Church, and the mystery of predestination. The secret of predestination has been revealed only in exceptional cases, but that of reprobation has never been revealed, because so long as the soul is in this life, its salvation is possible. The day of General Judgment is also a secret which has never been revealed; + we have afterwards to ascertain whether the prophecy has been fulfilled in the way foretold. There are some limitations to this rule: (1) if the prophecy was not absolute, but containing threats only, and tempered by conditions expressed or understood, as exemplified in the prophecy of Jonas to the Ninivites. and that of Isaias to King Ezechias; (2) it may sometimes happen that the prophecy is true and from God, and the human interpretation of it is false, as men may interpret it otherwise than God intended. It is by these limitations we have to explain the prophecy of St. Bernard regarding the success of the Second Crusade, and that of St. Vincent Ferrer regarding the near approach of the General Judgment in his day. CHIEF PARTICULAR PROPHECIES The last prophetic work which the Church acknowledges as Divinely inspired is the Apocalypse (Revelations). The prophetic spirit did not disappear with the Apostolic times, but the Church has not pronounced any work prophetic since then, though she has canonized numberless saints who were more or less endowed with the gift of prophecy. The Church allows freedom in accepting or rejecting particular or private prophecies according to the evidence for or against them. We should be slow to admit and slow to reject them, and in either case treat them with respect when they come to us from trustworthy sources, and are in accordance with Catholic doctrine and the rules of Catholic morality. The real test of these predictions is their fulfilment; they may be only pious anticipations of the ways of Providence, and they may sometimes be fulfilled in part and in part contradicted by events. The minatory prophecies which announce calamities, being for the most part conditional, may or may not be fulfilled. Many private prophecies have been verified by subsequent events, some have not; others have given rise to a good deal of discussion as to their genuineness. Most of the private prophecies of the saints and servants of God were concerned with individuals, their death, recovery from illness, or vocations. Some foretold things which would affect the fate of nations, as France, England, and Ireland. A great number have reference to popes and to the papacy; and finally we have many such prophecies relating to the end of the world and the approach of the Day of Judgment. The more noteworthy of the prophecies bearing upon "latter times" seem to have one common end, to announce great calamities impending over mankind, the triumph of the Church, and the renovation of the world. All the seers agree in two leading features as outlined by E.H. Thompson in his "Life of Anna Maria Taigi" (ch. 18): "First they all point to some terrible convulsion, to a revolution springing from most deep-rooted impiety, consisting in a formal opposition to God and His truth, and resulting in the most formidable persecution to which the Church has ever been subject. Secondly, they all promise for the Church a victory more splendid than she has ever achieved here below. We may add another point in which there is a remarkable agreement in the catena of modern prophecies, and that is the peculiar connection between the fortunes of France and those of the Church and the Holy See, and also the large part which that country has still to play in the history of the Church and of the world, and will continue to play to the end of time." Some prophetic spirits were prolific in the forecasts of the future. The biographer of St. Philip Neri states that if all the prophecies attributed to this saint were narrated, they alone would fill entire volumes. It is sufficient to give the following as examples of private prophecies. (1) Prophecy of St. Edward the Confessor Ambrose Lisle Philipps in a letter to the Earl of Shrewsbury dated 28 October, 1850, in giving a sketch of English Catholic history, relates the following vision or prophecy made by St. Edward: "During the month of January, 1066, the holy King of England St. Edward the Confessor was confined to his bed by his last illness in his royal Westminster Palace. St. Aelred, Abbott of Recraux, in Yorkshire, relates that a short time before his happy death, this holy king was wrapt in ecstasy, when two pious Benedictine monks of Normandy, whom he had known in his youth, during his exile in that country, appeared to him, and revealed to him what was to happen to England in future centuries, and the cause of the terrible punishment. They said: 'The extreme coruption and wickedness of the English nation has provoked the just anger of God. When malice shall have reached the fulness of its measure, God will, in His wrath, send to the English people wicked spirits, who will punish and afflict them with great severity, by separating the green tree from its parent stem the length of three furlongs. But at last this same tree, through the compassionate mercy of God, and without any national (governmental) assistance, shall return to its original root, reflourish and bear abundant fruit.' After having heard these prophetic words, the saintly King Edward opened his eyes, returned to his senses, and the vision vanished. He immediately related all he had seen and heard to his virgin spouse, Edgitha, to Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury, and to Harold, his successor to the throne, who were in his chamber praying around his bed." (See "Vita beati Edwardi regis et confessoris", from manuscript Selden 55 in Bodleian Library, Oxford.) The interpretation given to this prophecy is remarkable when applied to the events which have happened. The spirits mentioned in it were the Protestant innovators who pretended, in the sixteenth century, to reform the Catholic Church in England. The severance of the green tree from its trunk signifies the separation of the English Church from the root of the Catholic Church, from the Roman See. This tree, however, was to be separated from its life-giving root the distance of "three furlongs". These three furlongs are understood to signify three centuries, at the end of which England would again be reunited to the Catholic Church, and bring forth flowers of virtue and fruits of sanctity. The prophecy was quoted by Ambrose Lisle Philipps on the occasion of the reestablishment of the Catholic hierarchy in England by Pope Pius IX in 1850. (2) Prophecies of St. Malachy Concerning Ireland This prophecy, which is distinct from the prophecies attributed to St. Malachy concerning the popes, is to the effect that his beloved native isle would undergo at the hands of England oppression, persecution, and calamities of every kind, during a week of centuries; but that she would preserve her fidelity to God and to His Church amidst all her trials. At the end of seven centuries she would be delivered from her oppressors (or oppressions), who in their turn would be subjected to dreadful chastisements, and Catholic Ireland would be instrumental in bringing back the British nation to that Divine Faith which Protestant England had, during three hundred years, so rudely endeavoured to wrest from her. This prophecy is said to have been copied by the learned Dom Mabillon from an ancient manuscript preserved at Clairvaux, and transmitted by him to the martyred successor of Oliver Plunkett. Concerning the Popes The most famous and best known prophecies about the popes are those attributed to St. Malachy. In 1139 he went to Rome to give an account of the affairs of his diocese to the pope, Innocent II, who promised him two palliums for the metropolitan Sees of Armagh and Cashel. While at Rome, he received (according to the Abbé Cucherat) the strange vision of the future wherein was unfolded before his mind the long list of illustrious pontiffs who were to rule the Church until the end of time. The same author tells us that St. Malachy gave his manuscript to Innocent II to console him in the midst of his tribulations, and that the document remained unknown in the Roman Archives until its discovery in 1590 (Cucherat, "Proph. de la succession des papes", ch. xv). They were first published by Arnold de Wyon, and ever since there has been much discussion as to whether they are genuine predictions of St. Malachy or forgeries. The silence of 400 years on the part of so many learned authors who had written about the popes, and the silence of St. Bernard especially, who wrote the "Life of St. Malachy", is a strong argument against their authenticity, but it is not conclusive if we adopt Cucherat's theory that they were hidden in the Archives during those 400 years. These short prophetical announcements, in number 112, indicate some noticeable trait of all future popes from Celestine II, who was elected in the year 1130, until the end of the world. They are enunciated under mystical titles. Those who have undertaken to interpret and explain these symbolical prophecies have succeeded in discovering some trait, allusion, point, or similitude in their application to the individual popes, either as to their country, their name, their coat of arms or insignia, their birth-place, their talent or learning, the title of their cardinalate, the dignities which they held etc. For example, the prophecy concerning Urban VIII is Lilium et Rosa (the lily and the rose); he was a native of Florence and on the arms of Florence figured a fleur-de-lis; he had three bees emblazoned on his escutcheon, and the bees gather honey from the lilies and roses. Again, the name accords often with some remarkable and rare circumstance in the pope's career; thus Peregrinus apostolicus (pilgrim pope), which designates Pius VI, appears to be verified by his journey when pope into Germany, by his long career as pope, and by his expatriation from Rome at the end of his pontificate. Those who have lived and followed the course of events in an intelligent manner during the pontificates of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X cannot fail to be impressed with the titles given to each by the prophecies of St. Malachy and their wonderful appropriateness: Crux de Cruce (Cross from a Cross) Pius IX; Lumen in caelo (Light in the Sky) Leo XIII; Ignis ardens (Burning Fire) Pius X. There is something more than coincidence in the designations given to these three popes so many hundred years before their time. We need not have recourse either to the family names, armorial bearings or cardinalatial titles, to see the fitness of their designations as given in the prophecies. The afflictions and crosses of Pius IX were more than fell to the lot of his predecessors; and the more aggravating of these crosses were brought on by the House of Savoy whose emblem was a cross. Leo XIII was a veritable luminary of the papacy. The present pope is truly a burning fire of zeal for the restoration of all things to Christ. The last of these prophecies concerns the end of the world and is as follows: "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End." It has been noticed concerning Petrus Romanus, who according to St. Malachy's list is to be the last pope, that the prophecy does not say that no popes will intervene between him and his predecessor designated Gloria olivoe. It merely says that he is to be the last, so that we may suppose as many popes as we please before "Peter the Roman". Cornelius a Lapide refers to this prophecy in his commentary "On the Gospel of St. John" (C. xvi) and "On the Apocalypse" (cc. xvii-xx), and he endeavours to calculate according to it the remaining years of time. (3) Prophecy of St. Paul of the Cross During more than fifty years St. Paul of the Cross was accustomed to pray for the return of England to the Catholic Faith, and on several occasions had visions and revelations about its re-conversion. In spirit he saw the Passionists established in England and labouring there for the conversion and sanctification of souls. It is well known that several leaders of the Oxford Movement, including Cardinal Newman, and thousands of converts have been received into the Church in England by the Passionist missionaries. There are many other private prophecies concerning the remote and proximate signs which will precede the General Judgment and concerning Antichrist, such as those attributed to St. Hildegarde, St. Bridget of Sweden, Blessed Anna Maria Taigi (the "three days' darkness"), the Curé d'Ars, and many others. These do not enlighten us any more than do the Scriptural prophecies as to the day and the hour of that judgment, which still remains a Divine secret. ARTHUR DEVINE Prophecy, Prophet, and Prophetess Prophecy, Prophet, and Prophetess I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT A. Introduction Yahweh had forbidden Israel all kinds of oracles in vogue among the pagans. If, for a time, he consented to reply by Urim and Thummim (apparently a species of sacred lots which the high-priest carried in the cincture of his ephod, and consulted at the request of the public authorities in matters of graver moment), yet He always abominated those who had recourse to divination and magic, practiced augury and enchantment, trusted in charms, consulted soothsayers or wizards, or interrogate the spirits of the dead (Deut., xviii, 9 sqq.). Speaking of orthodox Yahweism, Balaam could truthfully say "There is no soothsaying in Jacob, nor divination in Israel. In their times it shall be told to Jacob and to Israel what God hath wrought" (Num., xxiii, 23). For the absence of other oracles, the Chosen People were indeed more than compensated by a gift unique in the annals of mankind, to wit, the gift of prophecy and the prophetic office. B. General Idea and the Hebrew Names (1) General Idea -- The Hebrew Prophet was not merely, as the word commonly implies, a man enlightened by God to foretell events; he was the interpreter and supernaturally enlightened herald sent by Yahweh to communicate His will and designs to Israel. His mission consisted in preaching as well as in foretelling. He had to maintain and develop the knowledge of the Old Law among the Chosen People, lead them back when they strayed, and gradually prepare the way for the new kingdom of God, which the messias was to establish on earth. Prophecy, in general, signifies the supernatural message of the Prophet, and more especially, from custom, the predictive element of the prophetic message. (2) The Hebrew Names -- The ordinary Hebrew word for prophet is nabî'. Its etymology is uncertain. According to many recent critics, the root nabî, not employed in Hebrew, signified to speak enthusiastically, " to utter cries, and make more or less wild gestures", like the pagan mantics. Judging from a comparative examination of the cognate words in Hebrew and the other Semitic tongues, it is at least equally probable that the original meaning was merely: to speak, to utter words (cf. Laur, "Die Prophetennamen des A.T.", Fribourg, 1903, 14-38). The historic meaning of nabî' established by biblical usage is "interpreter and mouthpiece of God". This is forcibly illustrated by the passage, where Moses, excusing himself from speaking to Pharao on account of his embarrassment of speech, was answered by Yahweh: "Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall speak to Pharao, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land" (Ex., vii, 1-2). Moses plays towards the King of Egypt the role of God, inspiring what is to be uttered, and Aaron is the prophet, his mouthpiece, transmitting the inspired message he shall receive. The Greek prophetes (from pro-phanai, to speak for, or in the name of someone) translates the Hebrew word accurately. The Greek prophet was the revealer of the future, and the interpreter of divine things, especially of the obscure oracles of the pythoness. Poets were the prophets of the muses: Inspire me, muse, thy prophet I shall be" (Pindar, Bergk, Fragm. 127). The word nabî' expresses more especially a function. The two most usual synonyms ro'éeh and hozéh emphasize more clearly the special source of the prophetic knowledge, the vision, that is, the Divine revelation or inspiration. Both have almost the same meaning; hozéh is employed, however, much more frequently in poetical language and almost always in connexion with a supernatural vision, whereas râ'ah, of which ro'éh is the participle, is the usual word for to see in any manner. The compiler of the first book of Kings (ix, 9) informs us that before his time ro'éh was used where nabî' was then employed. Hozéh is found much more frequently from the days of Amos. There were other less specific or more unusual terms employed, the meaning of which is clear, such as, messenger of God, man of God, servant of God, man of the spirit, or inspired man, etc. It is only rarely, and at a later period, that prophecy is called nebû'ah, a cognate of nabî'; more ordinarily we find hazôn, vision, or word of God, oracle (ne um) of Yahweh, etc. C. Brief Sketch of the History of Prophecy (1) The first person entitled nabî' in the Old Testament is Abraham, father of the elect, the friend of God, favoured with his personal communications (Gen., xx, 7). The next is Moses, the founder and lawgiver of the theocratic nation, the mediator of the Old Covenant holding a degree of authority unequalled till the coming of Jesus Christ. "And there arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and wonders, which he sent by him, to do in the land of Egypt to Pharao, and to all his servants, and to his whole land, and all the mighty hand, and great miracles, which Moses did before all Israel" (Deut., xxxiv, 10 sqq.). There were other Prophets with him, but only of the second rank, such as Aaron and Maria, Eldad and Medad, to whom Yahweh manifested himself in dreams and vision, but not in the audible voice with which He favoured him, who was most faithful in all His house (Num., xii, 7). Of the four institutions concerning which Moses enacted laws, according to Deuteronomy (xiv, 18-xviii), one was prophecy (xviii, 9-22; cf. xiii, 1-5, and Ex., iv, 1 sqq.). Israel was to listen to the true Prophets, and not to heed the false but rather to extirpate them, even had they the appearance of miracle-workers. The former would speak in the name of Yahweh, the one God; and foretell things that would be accomplished or be confirmed by miracles. The latter were to come in the name of the false gods, or teach a doctrine evidently erroneous, or vainly endeavour to foretell events. Later prophetic writers added as other signs of the false Prophets, cupidity, flattery of the people or the nobles, or the promise of Divine favour for the nation weighed down with crime. Balaam is both a Prophet and a soothsayer; a professional soothsayer it would seem, of whom Yahweh makes use to proclaim even in Moab the glorious destiny of the Chosen People, when He was about to lead them into the Promised Land (Num., xxii-xxiv). In the time of the Judges, in addition to an unnamed Prophet (Judges, vi, 8-10), we meet with Debbora (Judges iv-v), "a mother in Israel", judging the people, and communicating the Divine orders concerning the War of Independence to Barac and the tribes. The word of God was rare in those days of anarchy and semi-apostasy, when Yahweh partly abandoned Israel to render it conscious of its feebleness and its sins. In the days of Samuel, on the contrary, prophecy became a permanent institution. Samuel was a new but lesser Moses, whose Divine mission it was to restore the code of the elder, and to supervise the beginning of the royalty. Under his guidance, or at least closely united to him, we find for the first time the nebî'îm (I Sam., x; xix) grouped together to sing the praises of God to the accompaniment of musical instruments. They are not Prophets in the strict sense of the word, nor are they disciples of the Prophets destined to become masters in their turn (the so-called "schools of Prophets"). Did they wander about spreading the oracles of Samuel among the people? Possibly; at all events, in order to waken the faith of Israel and increase the dignity of Divine worship, they seem to have received charismata similar to those bestowed upon the early Christians in the Apostolic days. They may not ineptly be compared with the families of singers gathered around David, under the direction of their three leaders, Asaph, Heman, and Idithum (I Par., xxv, 1-8). Doubtless the benê-nebî'îm of the days of Elias, and Eliseus the "disciples of the Prophets", or "members of the confraternities of the Prophets", forming at least three communities, domiciled respectively at Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho, must be regarded as their successors. St. Jerome seems to have understood their character aright, when he saw in them the germ of the monastic life (P. L., XXII, 583, 1076). Are we to consider as their degenerate and faithless successors those false Prophets of Yahweh whom we meet at the court of Achab, numbering four hundred, and later very numerous, also fighting against Isaias and Micheas and especially against Jeremias and Ezekiel? A definite answer cannot as yet be given, but it is wrong to consider them, as certain critics do, as authentic as the true Prophets, differing from them only by a more retrograde spirit, and less brilliant intellectual gifts. After Samuel the first Prophets properly so called who are explicitly mentioned are Nathan and Gad. They assist David by their counsels, and, when necessary, confront him with energetic protests. Nathan's parable of the little sheep of the poor man is one of the most beautiful passages in prophetic history (II Kings, xii, 1 sqq.). The Books of Kings and Parapilomen mention a number of other "men of the spirit" exercising their ministry in Israel or in Juda. We may mention at least Ahias of Silo, who announced to Jeroboam his elevation to the throne of the Ten Tribes, and the ephemeral character of his dynasty, and Micheas, the son of Jemla, who predicted to Achab, in presence of the four hundred flattering court Prophets, that he would be defeated and killed in his war against the Syrians (III Kings, xxii). But the two greatest figures of prophecy between Samuel and Isaiah are Elias and Eliseus. Yahweism was again endangered, especially by the Tyrian Jezabel, wife of Achab, who had introduced into Samaria the worship of her Phenician gods, and Israel's faith was tottering, as it divided its worship between Baal and Yahweh. In Juda the danger was not less menacing, King Joram had married Athalia, a worthy daughter of Jezabel. At that moment Elias appeared like a mysterious giant, and by his preaching and his miracles led Israel back to the true God and suppressed, or at least moderated, their leaning towards the gods of Chanaan. At Carmel he won a magnificent and terrible victory over the Prophets of Baal; then he proceeded to Horeb to renew within him the spirit of the Covenant and to be present at a marvellous theophany; thence he returned to Samaria to proclaim to Achab the voice of justice calling out for vengeance for the murder of Naboth. When he disappeared in the fiery chariot, he left to his disciple Eliseus, with his mantle, a double share of his spirit. Eliseus continued the master's work against the Chanaanite idolatry with great success, and became such a bulwark to the Kingdom of the North, that King Joas wept for his death and took his farewell with these words: "My father! my father! chariot of Israel and its horsemen"! Not all the Prophets left their oracles in writing. Several of them, however, have written the history of their times. Gad and Nathan, for instance, the history of David; and Nathan that of Solomon; also Semeias and Addo the annals of Roboam; Jehu, son of Hanani those of Josaphat.....Is it possible that the historical books of Josue, Judges, Samuel, and Kings were called in the Jewish canon the "earlier Prophets" because of the belief that they were written by the Prophets or at least based on their writing? To this query there can be no solution. (2) Prophetic Writers -- The prophetic books were entitled in the same canon the "later Prophets". Gradually the custom of calling their authors the prophetic writers crept in. There are four Greater Prophets, that is those whose works are of considerable length. Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, and Daniel, and twelve Minor Prophets, whose works are briefer- Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, and Malachias. The Book of Baruch, which is not included in the Hebrew canon, is united in our Bibles to the Book of Jeremias. The ministry of Amos, the most ancient perhaps of the prophetic writers, is placed about the years 760-50. Osee follows him immediately. Next comes Isaias (about 740-700), and his contemporary Micheas. Sophonias, Nahum, and Habacuc prophesied towards the last quarter of the seventh century. Jeremias about 626-586; Ezechiel between 592-70. The prophecy of Aggeus and in part that of Zacharias are dated exactly in 520 and 520-18. Malachias belongs to the middle of the fifth century. As for Daniel, Abdias, Joel, Baruch, as well as portions of Isaias, Jeremias, Zacharias, their dates being disputed, it is necessary to refer the reader to the special articles treating of them. (3) The Prophetesses -- The Old Testament gives the name nebî'ah, to three women gifted with prophetic charismata: Mary, the sister of Moses; Debbora; and Holda, a contemporary of Jeremias (IV Kings, xxii, 14); also to the wife of Isaias meaning the spouse of a nabî'; finally to Noadia, a false Prophetess if the Hebrew text is accurate, for the Septuagint and Vulgate speak of a false Prophet (Neh., vi, 14). (4) Cessation of Israelitic Prophecy -- The prophetic institution had ceased to exist in the time of the Machabees. Israel clearly recognized this, and was awaiting its reappearance. Its necessity had ceased. Religious revelation and the moral code expressed in Holy Writ were full and clear. The people were being instructed by the scribes and doctors- a living magistracy, fallible, it is true, and bound overmuch by letter of the law, but withal zealous and learned. There was a feeling that the promises were about to be fulfilled and the consequent apocalypse increased and intensified this feeling. It was not unfitting, therefore, for God to allow an interval to elapse between the prophets of the Old Covenant and Jesus Christ, who was to be the crown and consummation of their prophecies. D. Vocation and Supernatural Knowledge of the Prophets (1) The Prophetic Vocation -- "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 Prophets were ever conscious of this Divine mission. I am not a professional or a voluntary Prophet, Amos practically said to Amasias, who wished to prevent him from prophesying at Bethel. "I am a herdsman plucking wild figs. And the Lord took me when I followed the flock, and the Lord said to me: Go, prophesy to my people Israel" (vii, 14 sq.). Again "the lion shall roar, who will not fear? The Lord God hath spoken, who shall not prophesy?" (iii, 8). Isaias saw Yahweh seated on a throne of glory, and when a seraph had purified his lips he heard the command "Go!" and he received his mission of preaching to the people the terrible judgments of God. God made known to Jeremias that he had consecrated him from his mother's womb and appointed him the Prophet of nations; He touched his lips to show that He made them His instrument for proclaiming His just and merciful judgments (i, 10), a duty so painful, that the Prophet endeavoured to be excused and to conceal the oracles entrusted to him. Impossible; his heart was consumed by a flame, which forced from him that touching complaint: "Thou hast deceived me, O Lord, and I am deceived: thou hast been stronger that I, and thou hast prevailed" (xx, 7). Ezechiel sees the glory of God borne on a fiery chariot drawn by celestial beings. He hears a voice commanding him to go and find the children of Israel, that rebellious nation, with hardened heart and brazen face, and without prevarication deliver to them the warnings he was to receive. The other Prophets are silent on the subject of their vocation; doubtless they also received it as clearly and irresistibly. To the preaching and predictions of the false Prophets uttering the fancies of their hearts and saying "the word of Yahweh" when Yahweh spoke to them not, they fearlessly oppose their own oracles as coming from heaven and compelling under penalty of revolt against God. And the manifest sanctity of their lives, the miracles wrought, the prophecies accomplished demonstrate to their contemporaries the truth of their claims. We also separated from them by thousands of years should be convinced by two irrefragable proofs among others: the great phenomenon of Messianism culminating in Christ and the Church, and the excellence of the religious and moral teaching of the Prophets. (2) Supernatural knowledge: inspiration and revelation (a) The fact of revelation -- The Prophet did not receive merely a general mission of preaching or predicting in Yahweh's name: each of his words is Divine, all his teaching is from above, that is, it comes to him by revelation or at least by inspiration. Among the truths he preaches, there are some which he knows naturally by the light of reason or experience. It is not necessary for him to learn them from God, just as if he had been entirely ignorant of them. It suffices if the Divine illumination places them in a new light, strengthens his judgment and preserves it from error concerning these facts, and if a supernatural impulse determines his will to make them the object of his message. This oral inspiration of the Prophets bears an analogy to the Scriptural inspiration, in virtue of which the Prophets and hagiographers composed our canonical books. The entire contents of the prophetic message is not, therefore, within the compass of the natural faculties of the divine messenger. The object of all strictly so-called prediction requires a new manifestation and illumination; unaided the Prophet would remain in more or less absolute obscurity. This, then, is revelation in the full sense of the term. (b) Manner of the revelatory communications; Canons for the interpretation of the prophecies and their fulfilment -- In the words of St. John of The Cross -- and the doctors of mysticism have a special right to be heard in this matter -- "God multiplies the means of transmitting these revelations; at one time he makes use of words, at another of signs, figures, images, similitudes; and again, of both words and symbols together" (The Ascent of Carmel, II, xxvii): To grasp accurately the meaning of the Prophets and judge of the fulfilment of their predictions, these words must be remembered and completed: The material element perceived in the vision may have a strictly literal meaning and simply signify itself. When Micheas, the son of Jemla, beholds "all Israel scattered upon the hills, like sheep that have no shepherd", and hears Yahweh say "These have no master; let every man of them return to his house in peace" (III Kings xxii, 17), he sees exactly what will be the outcome of Achab's expedition against the Syrians at Ramoth of Galaad. Again, the meaning may be entirely symbolic. The almond branch shown to Jeremias (i, 11 sq.) is not shown for itself; it is intended solely to represent by its name vigilant, the Divine watchfulness, which will not allow the word of God to be unfulfilled. Between these two extremes there exists a whole series of intermediary possibilities, of significations imbued with varying degrees of reality or symbolism. The son promised to David in Nathan's prophecy (II Kings, vii) is at once Solomon and the Messianic king. In the last verse of Aggeus Zorobabel signifies himself and also the Messias. Neither the Prophets nor their clear-sighted, sensible hearers were ever misled. It is wronging Isaias to say he believed that at the end of time the hill of Sion would physically surpass all the mountains and hills on the earth (ii, 2). Examples might be multiplied indefinitely. Yet we are not forced to believe that the Prophets were always able to distinguish between the literal and the symbolical significations of their visions. It was sufficient for them not to give, and to be unable to give, in the name of God any erroneous interpretation. It has likewise been long known that the vision very frequently disregards distances of time and place, and that the Messias or the Messianic era almost always appears on the immediate horizon of contemporary history. If to this we add the frequently conditional character of the oracles (cf. Jer., xviii; xxiv, 17 sqq. etc.), and remember moreover that the Prophets convey their message in words of eloquence, expressed in Oriental poetry, so rich in striking colours and bold figures, the pretended distinction between realized and unrealized prophecies, predictions substantially accurate but erroneous in detail, will disappear. (c) State of the Prophet during the Vision -- Ordinarily the vision occurred when the Prophet was awake. Dreams, of which the false Prophets made ill use, are scarcely ever mentioned in the case of true Prophets. Much has been said about the ecstatic state of the latter. Possibly the soul of the Prophet may have been at times, as happened to the mystics, so absorbed by the activity of the spiritual faculties that the activity of the senses was suspended, though no definite instance can be cited. In any case, we must remember what St. Jerome (In Isaiam, Prolog. in P. L., XXIV, 19) and St. John Chrysostom (In I Cor. homil. XXIX in P. G., LXI, 240 sqq.) remarked that the Prophets always retained their self-conciousness and were never subject to the disordered and degrading psychic conditions of the pagan soothsayers and pythias; and, instead of enigmatical and puerile sybilline oracles, their pronouncements were often sublime and always worthy of God. E. The Teaching of the Prophets (1) The exterior form -- They usually taught orally. To this they often added symbolical acts which accorded with Oriental tastes and caught the attention of their hearers. Jeremias, for instance, wandered through Jerusalem under a wooden yoke, symbolizing the approaching subjugation of the nations by the King of Babylon. The false Prophet Hananias, having taken this yoke and broken it on the ground, receives this answer, in the name of Yahweh "Thou hast broken chains of wood, and thou shalt make for them chains of iron" (xxviii, 13). Jeremias and Ezechiel make frequent use of this method of instruction. Amos was probably the first who was inspired to unite the written to the spoken word. His example was followed. The Prophets thus exercised wider and more lasting influence, and left moreover an indisputable proof that God had spoken by them (cf. Isaias, viii, 16). Some prophecies seem to have been made exclusively in writing, for instance, probably the second part of Isaias and all Daniel. The greater part of the prophetic books is couched in rhythmic language perfectly adapted to the popular and, at the same time, sublime character of the oracles. Hardly any kind of Hebrew poesy is absent; epithalamia and lamentations; little satirical songs; odes of wonderful lyrism etc. The fundamental law of Hebrew poetry, the parallelism of the stichs, is usually observed. The metric seems to be based essentially on the number of accents marking a raised intonation. Most exhaustive researches upon the construction of the strophes have been made, but without many definitely accepted conclusions. (2) The Teaching (a) Preaching: religion and morals, in general -- Samuel and Elias sketch out the programme of the religious and moral preaching of the later Prophets. Samuel teaches that the idols are vanity and nothingness (I Kings, xii, 21); that Yahweh alone is essentially true, and immutable (xv, 29); that He prefers obedience to sacrifice (xv, 22). For Elias also Yahweh alone is God, Baal is nothing. Yahweh chastises all iniquity and punishes the injustices of the powerful for the feeble. These are the fundamental points emphasized more and more by the prophetic writers. Their doctrine is based on the existence of one God alone, possessing all the attributes of the true Divinity -- sanctity and justice, mercy and fidelity, supreme dominion over the material and moral world, the control of the cosmic phenomena and of the course of history. The worship desired by God does not consist in the profusion of sacrifices and offerings. They are nauseous to Yahweh unless accompanied by adoration in spirit and in truth. With what greater indignation and disgust will He not turn away from the cruel and unclean practice of human sacrifice and the prostitution of sacred things so common among the neighbouring nations. On being asked with what one should approach and kneel before the Most High God, He replies by the mouth of Micheas: "I will show thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requireth of thee; Verily to do judgment, and to love mercy, and to walk solicitous with thy God" (vi, 8). So religion joins morality, and formulates and imposes its dictates. Yahweh will call the nations to account for violating the natural law, and Israel, in addition, for not observing the Mosaic legislation (cf. Amos, i-ii, etc.). And He will do this, so as to conciliate in a Divine manner the rights of justice with the realization of the promises made to Israel and mankind. (b) Prophetic predictions. The Day of Yahweh; the Saved; Messianism; Eschatology -- The constant subjects of the great prophetic predictions of Israel, the punishment of the guilty nations, and the realization for all of the ancient promises. Directly or indirectly all the prophecies are concerned with the obstacles to be removed before the coming of the new kingdom or with the preparation of the New and final Covenant. From the days of Amos, and clearly it was not even then a new expectation, Israel was awaiting a great day of Yahweh, a day, which it deemed one of extraordinary triumph for it and its God. The Prophets do not deny, but rather declare with absolute certainty that the day must come. They dispel the illusions concerning its nature. For Israel, faithless and burdened with crimes, the day of Yahweh will be "darkness and not light" (Amos, v, 18 sqq.). The time is approaching when the house of Jacob will be sifted among the nations as wheat is shaken in the sieve and not a good seed drops to the ground (ix, 9)/ Alas! the good seed is rare here. The bulk will perish. A remnant alone will be saved, a holy germ from which the Messianic kingdom will arise. The pagan nations will serve as sievers for Israel. But as they have wandered still further from the right path, the day of Yahweh will come for them in turn; finally the remnant of Israel and the converts of the nations will unite to form a single people under the great king, the Son of David. The remnant of Ephraem or of Juda remaining in Palestine at the time of the Exile, the remnant returning from the Captivity to form the post-Exilic community, the Messianic kingdom in its militant state and its final consummation- all these stages of the history of salvation are mingled here and there in one prophetic view. The future life looms up but little, the oracles being addressed principally to the body of the nation, for which there is no future life. However, Ezechiel (xxxvii) alludes to the resurrection of the dead; the apocalypse of Isaias (xxvi, 19 sqq.) mentions it explicitly; Daniel speaks of a resurrection unto life everlasting and a resurrection unto eternal reproach (xii, 2 sqq.). The broad daylight of the Christian Revelation is coming. II. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT When this dawn is about to break, prophecy then long silent finds voices anew to tell the good tidings. Zachary and Elizabeth, Mary the Virgin-Mother, the old man Simeon and Anna the Prophetess are enlightened by the Holy Ghost and unfold the future. Soon the Precursor appears, filled with the spirit and power of Elias. He finds anew the accents of olden prophecy to preach penance and announce the coming of the kingdom. Then it is the Messias in person who, long foretold and awaited as a Prophet (Deut., xviii, 15, 18; Is., xlix, etc.), does not disdain to accept this title and to fulfil its signification. His preaching and His predictions are much closer to the prophetic models than are the teachings of the rabbis. His great predecessors are as far below Him as the servants are below the only Son. Unlike them He does not receive from without the truth which He preaches. Its source is within Him. He promulgates it with an authority thereunto unknown. His revelation is the definite message of the Father. To understand its meaning more and more clearly the Church which He is about to establish will have throughout all ages the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost. However, during the Apostolic times, God continues to select certain instruments like unto the Prophets of the Old Law to make known His will in an extraordinary manner and to foretell coming events: such, for instance, are the Prophets of Antioch (Acts, xiii, 1,8), Agabus, the daughters of the Evangelist Philip, etc. And among the charismata (cf. Prat, `La theologie de Saint Paul", 1 pt., note H, p. 180-4) conferred so abundantly to hasten and fortify the incipient progress of the faith, one of the principal, next after the Apostolic, is the gift of prophecy. It is granted "unto edification, and exhortation, and comfort" (I Cor., xiv, 3). The writer of the "Didache" informs us that in his day it was fairly frequent and widespread, and he indicates the signs by which it may be recognized (xi, 7-12). Finally the Canon of the Scriptures closes with a prophetic book, the Apocalypse of St. John, which describes the struggles and the victories of the new kingdom while awaiting the return of its Chief at the consummation of all things. CORNELY, Historica et crit. introd. in N.T. libros sacros, II, 2 (Paris, 1897), diss. III, i, 267-305; GIGOT, Special Introd. to the Study of the Old Testament, II (New York, 1906) 189-202. JEAN CALÈS Proprium Proprium The Proprium de tempore and the Proprium Sanctorum form in the present liturgy the two principal portions of our Breviary and Missals; the first comprises the parts appointed for the days of the year having special Masses or Offices (introits, prayers, lessons, responses, versicles, antiphons, etc.); the second is devoted to the Offices of the Saints. The Proprium de tempore begins with the first Sunday of Advent and ends with the last Sunday after Pentecost. It includes, after Advent, the parts assigned for the Christmas season (six Sundays); Septuagesima, three weeks; Lent, six weeks; Paschal time, fifty days; Pentecost, and the twenty-four Sundays after. Most of the Sundays comprising this cycle, and often weekdays, have special Offices which composed the Proprium de tempore. The Proprium Sanctorum comprises all the saints' days with special Offices, from St. Andrew on 30 November. The Offices of the saints, like those de tempore, are composed of lessons, antiphons, responses, hymns, or other liturgical passages special to these saints' feasts. It is unnecessary to remark that this arrangement is not primitive. Ages passed before the present liturgical cycle was evolved. In the Liturgical Books before the ninth or eighth century, the Sundays after Pentecost form groups, called after some solemn festival, St. John the Baptist, the Apostles, or St. Michael; the season of Septuagesima did not yet exist, at least in its entirety. A century or two later the Christmas season had not been evolved, even the weeks of Advent had practically no special Offices. In the first ages of the Church, except for the feast of Easter, Christmas Day, and Sundays, the liturgical cycle did not exist. The Divine Office and the Liturgy of the Mass were performed with the help of the books of the old and the New Testaments, and consisted in the chanting of psalms or canticles, readings, exhortations, and impromptu prayers. The liturgical cycle, that is, the feasts of the year or of the martyrs exerted hardly any influence on the Liturgy, and in this sense it may be said that in the beginning there was neither a Proprium de tempore nor a Proprium Sanctorum. Probst (op. cit. infra) thinks that it was at Rome, in the fourth century under Pope Damasus, that this liturgical "reform" took place, especially in arranging the liturgical prayers to suit the season and the feasts of the saints. This may be accepted with some reservations, as it is indisputable that even then the cycle had exerted its influence on the liturgy, in certain special circumstances. It seems certain that the origin of the Common of the Saints is the same as that of the Propria, and that it was at first a Proprium; for instance, the Common of the Apostles was originally the Proprium of the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul; and the Common of a Martyr was originally the Proprium of St. Stephen and St. Lawrence. F. CABROL Proschko, Franz Isidor Franz Isidor Proschko A well-known Austrian author, born at Hohenfurt, Bohemia, 2 April, 1816; died at Vienna, 6 February, 1891. Throughout his life he was engaged in various departments of the public service. A monument was erected on his grave [in his honour (1906).] Of his numerous writings, always characterized by a Catholic spirit, the most important are: "Leuchtkäferchen" (1849) and "Feierstunden" (1854), books for the young; "Höllenmaschine" (2 vols., 1854), "Der Jesuit" (2 vols., 1857) "Die Nadel" (2 vols., 1858), and "Pugatschew' (2 vols., 1860), historical romances; "Ausgewählte Erzählungen und Gedichte" (1873). His complete works were edited in six volumes ("Franz Isidor Proschko, Gesammelte Schriften", 1901-09) by his daughter, Hermione (born at Linz, 29 July, 1851), who is also a distinguished Catholic writer, and whose works include: "Heimatklänge" (poems, 2nd ed., 1879); "Unter Tannen und Palmen" (1880); "Aus Oesterreichs Lorbeerhain" (1891); "In Freud und Not" (1893); "Gott lenkt" (1895). THOMAS KENNEDY. Proselyte Proselyte ( proselytos, stranger or newcomer; Vulgate, advena). The English term "proselyte" occurs only in the New Testament where it signifies a convert to the Jewish religion (Matthew 23:15; Acts 2:11; 6:5; etc.), though the same Greek word is commonly used in the Septuagint to designate a foreign sojourner in Palestine. Thus the term seems to have passed from an original local and chiefly political sense, in which it was used as early as 300 B. C., to a technical and religious meaning in the Judaism of the New Testament epoch. Besides the proselytes in the strict sense who underwent the rite of circumcision and conformed to the precepts of the Jewish Law, there was another class often referred to in the Acts as "fearers of God" (Acts 10:2, 22; 13:16, 26), "worshippers of God" (Acts 16:14), "servers of God" (Acts 13:43; 17:4, 17). These were sympathetic adherents attracted by the Monotheism and higher ideals of the Jewish religion. St. Paul addressed himself especially to them in his missionary journeys, and from them he formed the beginning of many of his Churches. JAMES F. DRISCOLL Prose Or Sequence Prose or Sequence I. DEFINITION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Sequence (Sequentia)-or, more accurately as will be seen further on, the Prose (Prosa)-is the liturgical hymn of the Mass, in which it occurs on festivals between the Gradual and the Gospel, while the hymn, properly so called, belongs to the Breviary. The Sequence differs also in structure and melody from the hymn; for whilst all the strophes of a hymn are always constructed according to the same metre and rhythm and are sung to the same melody as the first strophe, it is the peculiarity of the Sequence, due to its origin, that (at least in those of the first epoch) each strophe or pair of strophes is constructed on a different plan. A sequence usually begins with an independent introductory sentence or an Alleluia (an intonation with its own melody); then follow several pairs of strophes, each pair with its own melody; in the earlier periods the conclusion is uniformly an independent sentence of shorter or longer form. Each pair of strophes is composed of strophe and antistrophe, which exactly agree in their length and the number of their syllables (later also in rhythm and rhyme). The execution was entrusted to two choirs (usually of men and boys, respectively), the strophe being sung by one and the antistrophe by the other to the same melody. Thus, in contrast with the monotony of the hymn, the Sequence shows manifold diversity in outward construction, in melody, and in method of execution. The various transformations which this original plan underwent in the course of the centuries, and according to which we divide sequences into those of the first, the transitional, and the second periods, will be considered in the next paragraph. II. ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND CLASSIFICATION That the Sequence started from the Alleluia is generally admitted, and may be considered as certain; but the manner of its origin and the various phases of its development before we get to what are termed the "versus ad sequentias" (which are the immediate predecessors of the Sequence), are still shrouded in obscurity and cannot now be determined with certainty, as the oldest documents are not contemporary, and from those which we possess no sufficiently definite conclusions can be drawn. With the aid of the "Analecta hymnica medii ævi"-especially the material of the last volume (LIII) edited by the Rev. H. M. Bannister and the writer of the present article-and with the assistance of the material gathered by Bannister for his forthcoming work on the Sequence melodies of all Western countries, we may trace the most probable development of the Sequence as below: (1) The starting-point of the Sequence is the Alleluia with its melisma (i. e. a more or less long melodious succession of notes on its concluding a); in other words, the Alleluia which precedes the versus alleluiaticus. This succession of notes was called sequentia (or sequela, "that which follows"); synonymous terms are jubilus, jubilatio, neuma, melodia, as was later explained by Abbot Gerbert of Saint-Blasien: "Nomen sequentiarum antea jubilationibus ejusmodi proprium fuit, haud dubie, quia soni illi ultimam verbi syllabam seu vocalem sequebantur. 'Sequitur jubilatio', ut habetur in Ordine Romano II, 'quam sequentiam vocant'.... In citatis his locis agitur de Alleluia, in cujus ultima syllaba hujusmodi neumæ haud raro satis longe comparent in veteribus codicibus.... Ipsa illa repetitio a a a cum modulatione sequentia dicebatur. 'Post Alleluia quædam melodia neumatum cantatur, quod sequentiam quidam appellant', ait S. Udalricus lib. I consuet. Cluniac. cap. II. Belethus idem affirmat: 'Moris enim fuit, ut post Alleluia cantaretur neuma; nominatur autem neuma cantus qui sequebatur Alleluia.' Quod tamen ita intelligi debet, ut ipsi ultimæ vocali A conjungeretur" (Gerbertus, "De cantu et musica sacra", Typis St. Blasianis, I, 1774, pp. 338 sq.; cf. "Analecta hymnica", XLVII, 11 sqq.; XLIX, 266 sqq.). Hence sequentia is originally only a musical term; etymologically it is the same as the Greek 'akolouthía, although the latter word actually means something else (cf. Christ and Paranikas, "Anthologia græca", Leipzig, 1871, p. lvii). How far, however, we are justified in supposing Græco-Oriental influence from the similarity of the terms sequentia and 'akolouthía must be left undecided, especially as the Hymn too, though borrowed from the Greek 'úmnos, must be regarded as a genuine Western product without traces of anything essentially Eastern. (2) It was the length of the melisma or jubilus over the ending a (when and how this length arose is not here in question) which probably led to its being divided into several parts (incisa, musical phrases). Each division was then called sequentia, and the whole, as comprising several such divisions, sequentiæ. The reason for this division was a purely practical one, viz. to allow the singers time to take breath, and to effect this the more easily the practice was introduced, so it would seem, of having these divisions of the melody (or sequentiæ) sung by alternate choirs, each musical phrase being sung twice; exception was made in the case of a few jubili, apparently the shorter ones which have no such repetition. This is the origin of the alternate choirs, and of the consequent repetition of all or nearly all the divisions of the melody. In the old musical manuscripts the repetition is indicated by a d (= denuo or dupplex or dis for bis; cf. discantus for biscantus). (3) A much more important advance was made when some of the divisions of the melody or sequentiæ-for it did not as yet apply to all of them-were provided with a text; this text, consisting of short versicles, was appropriately termed in the "Prooe;mium" of Notker "versus ad aliquot sequentias" (i. e. the verses or text to some of the divisions of the melody), in which expression the proper meaning of sequentia is preserved. When we reach these versus ad sequentias we are on safer historical ground. In the "Analecta hymnica", XLIX, nn. 515-30, we have examples of them preserved in some old French and English tropers; not a single example comes from Germany. For the purpose of illustration we may give the first paragraphs of the jubilus "Fulgens præclara" from the Winchester Troper: [IMAGE OMITTED] The first three divisions of the jubilus are here without any text; they are pure melody sung to the vowel a; a text is then provided for the fifth division and its repeat; this is again followed by a on which the melody was sung; a text has been composed for the eighth and twelfth divisions as for the fifth; the ending is three divisions of the melody without any text. (4) From these "versus ad sequentias" to the real Sequence was no great step; a text was now set to all the sequentiæ or divisions of the melody without exception, and we thus have what we call a sequence. The proper and natural title of such a melody with its text (a text which has neither rhythm, metre, nor rhyme) is doubtless "sequentia cum prosa" (melody with its text), a title found in old French sources. As this text (prosa) gradually became more prominent, and as it had to be marked before the melody, the use of the term "Prosa" for both melody and verse was only natural. France adopted and retained this term; on the other hand, Germany, whether from imperfect knowledge of the development or because the original meaning of sequentia was lost, or from opposition to France which is frequently evinced in the language of the sequences, or from whatever other reason, employed almost exclusively the title Sequentia. In this connexion it is interesting to quote the remark of William of Hirschau in his "Consuetudines": "...pro signo prosæ, quam quidam sequentiam vocant". From the single title "Sequentia cum prosa" developed the two titles, "Prosa" and "Sequentia" (Prose and Sequence), which are now used promiscuously; the first is the older and more accurate, the second the more usual. (As a matter of curiosity we may mention that there have been people who took in earnest the interpretation of prosa as = pro sã, i. e. pro sequentia.) This sketch of the development of the Prose or Sequence explains many peculiarities in the oldest sequences. Originally the text was adapted to a melody which already existed; as the divisions of theis melody (clausulæ), with the exception of the introductory and closing ones, were usually repeated by alternative choirs (cf. above II, 2), there arose double strophes of the same length and sung to the same melody-in other words, symmetrically constructed parallel strophes. These somewhat long pieces of melody (a musical division corresponding to the strophe of the text) were further subdivided into smaller divisions, shorter musical phrases with short half-pauses, so that the whole of the melody was divided into a number of short musical phrases of different lengths. Under these circumstances it was natural that at the beginning neither rhythm nor metre (still less rhyme, which is of relatively late origin) was taken into practical account, and the whole presented an appearance and form very different from what we usually understand by a poem. On the whole then the Prosa was true to its name in being prose, except that the fact that the antistrophe had to be as long as the strophe and that the end of the verse had, so far as possible, to correspond with the end of the word imposed a certain restraint. Moreover, as it seems, the first writers of sequences felt themselves especially bound by another law (frequently observed also in later times), which, it is important to note, prevailed without exception in the versus ad sequentias, the predecessors of the Sequence, and which, therefore, may not be considered the product of a later date; the jubilus of the Alleluia was built on its concluding a, and is thus the melody of the a. This a, the original text of the jubilus, ought therefore naturally to be prominent in the text which was introduced to replace it. As a matter of fact, in all versus ad sequentias and in many old sequences (especially the earliest), not only the strophes but often all the verses end in a. But we must not overlook the fact that in those of German origin this law is seldom observed or, more properly speaking, is still only occasionally used (cf. Analecta Hymnica, LIII, nn. 150, 160, 161, 185, 186), and even then it is not the verses but only the strophes which end in a. As an example of these peculiarities we may quote the first strophes of the sequence "Eia recolamus" (Anal. Hymn., LIII, 16), once a favourite Christmas sequence in all countries:- [TABLE TEMPORARILY OMITTED] All unpaired and unsymmetrical sequences of this sort are thus short, and their origin is probably to be explained by the fact that a few relatively short Alleluia-jubili were left without repeats. As the divisions of the melody have no repeat, the strophes set to them are also not repeated (i. e. they have no antistrophe or parallel strophe). If this explanation is right, there is no ground for the suggestion that sequences without parallel strophes are older than those with them; they may date from the same period, but they had a very short life, as sequences without symmetrical pairs of strophes soon became so unusual that antistrophes were added to those earlier without them. With the sequence developed in the way thus indicated, viz. by adapting a text to an already existing melody, it became natural in time to have sequences composed with a melody of their own. The text in this case had no need to follow the Alleluia-jubilus; text and melody would be composed at the same time, and, if need be, the melody might be accommodated to the text. This led to a freer treatment of the text, which otherwise would have to follow syllable by syllable the notes of the melody, and so gradually more attention was paid to rhythm and symmetry in the construction of the verse, as is required by the exigencies of poetry. Even when the text was set to a melody already in use, care was soon taken to observe a certain thythm in the words. In this connexion rhythm does not depend on the quantity of the syllables (with which the sequence has practically no concern), but simply on the accent of the word. In many sequences we find in a few of their verses and strophes this type of symmetrical rhythm (i. e. a rhythm which occurs regularly in a verse and its correspondent); in other sequences we find it in almost all the verses (e. g. in two sequences, for St. Stephen's Day and the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, ascribed to Notker Balbulus). In the St. Stephen sequence "Hanc concordi famulatu" (Anal. Hymn., LIII, n. 215) the rhythm in the first two pairs of strophes which follow the introductory verse is of this kind; the acute accent placed above the words represents the natural intonation of the words:- 2a. 3a. Auctóris illíus exémplo dócti benígno O Stéphane, sígnifer régis súmme bóni, nós exaúdi, 2b. 3b. Pro pérsecutórum precántis fraúde suórum. Profícue quí es pro túis éxaudítus ínimícis. Exactly the same rhythm in strophe and antistrophe, in the verse and its parallel, can be seen in the Apostles' sequence which follows the same plan:- 2a. 3a Ecclésiam véstris doctrínis ílluminátum Nam Dóminus, Pétre, cælórum tíbi cláves dóno dédit 2b. 3b. Per círculum térræ precátus adíuvet véster. Armígerum Béniamin, Chrístus té scit súum vásque eléctum. In both these sequences the end of all the strophes is paroxytone. Like rhythm, assonance, the precursor of rhyme, was also gradually introduced; now a single verse, now several verses, began to end with the same or equivalent vowel (e and i, o and u). This was the beginning of that process which gradually led to the development of sequences characterized by regular rhythm and rhyme and complete uniformity in the construction of the verses (frequently also of the strophes), and thus revealing in structure and technique a strong contrast to the older types, in which the text had almost exclusively the character of prose, the strophes being dissimilar and the verses of unequal length, of different structure, and without rhyme or regular rhythm. These latter are therefore called the sequences of the first epoch; none have been preserved in the liturgy of to-day. (5) The transition from the sequences of the first to those of the second epoch occupied more than a century, viz. from the end of the tenth, when the change made itself visible here and there, to the beginning of the twelfth, when the new style reached its perfection. Sequences with more or less numerous traces of the transition process are so numerous that they may be placed in a class by themselves. While maintining the structure of sequences of the first epoch, these sequences add a greater or less degree of the element of rhyme (although not yet pure rhyme) and greater uniformity of rhythm. They may be enttitled sequences of the transitional style, not of the transitional period; for many sequences of the transitional period still bear the distinct stamp of the older ones, and moreover, when sequences of the second period were in highest favour, some writers of prose utilized the structure of the early period, while employing rhyme according to the style of the second period. It should also be observed that not a few sequences are so very akin to those of the first, whilst others on the contrary are so nearly related to those of the second epoch, that it is very difficult to decide to what group they should be referred. A sharp line of division cannot be drawn, since the development from the older to later forms (sometimes in strong contrast with the first) was not only slow but steady, revealing no abrupt transition or change. A good example of the transition style is the Easter sequence which is still used, but now a little altered in the "Missale Romanum", and which probably was composed by Wipo the Burgundian (d. after 1048):- 1. Victimæ paschali laudes immolent Christiani. 2a. 3a. 4a. Agnus redemit oves, Christiani innocens Patri reconciliavit peccatores. Dic nobis, Maris, quid vidisti in via? Sepulchrum Christi viventis et gloriam vidi resurgentis. Credendum est magis soli Mariæ veraci quam Judæorum turbæ fallaci. 2b. 3b. 4b. Mors et vita duello conflixere mirando: dux vitæ mortuus regnat vivus. Angelicos testes, sudarium et vestes. Surrexit Christus spes mea; præcedet suos in Galilæa. Scimus Christum surrexisse a mortuis vere; tu nobis, victor, Rex, miserere. (6) The final phase of the development is seen in the sequences of the second epoch already described, in which uniformity of rhythm, purity of rhyme, and strict regularity in structure characterize the verses, though the strophes still evince manifold variety. Not infrequently most (sometimes even all) of the pairs of strophes are composed of verses so uniform that the outward difference between these sequences and hymns, though not completely removed, is considerably lessened. The present sequence for Corpus Christi, composed by St. Thomas Aquinas in 1263, may serve as an example:- 1a. Lauda Sion salvatorem, Lauda ducem et pastorem In hymnis et canticis. 1b. Quantum potes, tantum aude, Quia major omni laude, Nec laudare sufficis. If we institute a comparison between this and a strophe of a sequence of the first epoch and a strophe of the following hymn:- Pange lingua gloriosi Corporis mysterium Sanguinisque pretiosi, Quem in mundi pretium Fructus ventris generosi Rex effudit gentium. -it is at once evident how far the sequence strophe given above differs structurally from one of the first epoch, and how nearly it approaches the form of the hymn strophe. With the latter, it has the same kind of verse with its masculine and feminine rhymes and a similar rhythm, the only difference being that the order of the catalectic and acatalectic verses is dissiimilar. Moreover, in the Corpus Christi sequence all the pairs of strophes are like the first, except that the third pair consists of a strophe and antistrophe each composed of six verses, of which the fourth and fifth introduce another rhythm, and the last two pairs of strophes increase the number of verses by one and two verses respectively. The three other sequences which remain in the liturgy-viz. the "Veni sancte Spiritus", "Stabat mater dolorosa", and "Dies iræ dies illa", of which the last two were originally rhymed prayers-show even greater, and in fact complete, symmetry in all the strophes-the sequences for Whitsuntide and the requiem Mass show uniformity even in all the verses. In other respects, however, many sequences of the second epoch, despite their uniformity, evince such variety in the structure of the pairs of strophes that, in contrast with the monotony of the hymn, they present considerable diversity. But the element which is wanting in all of them is the connexion with the Alleluia-jubilus and its melody, and it is only in the repetition of the melody in the antistrophe and in the change of melody in the individual strophes that its origin from the jubilus can still be observed. Of the above-mentioned six phases in the development of the sequence the first and second are very obscure in two respects, as regards (1) the appearance of the Alleluia-jubilus without the text and (2) the relation to the so-called Gregorian Alleluia. To answer the first question, we are naturally tempted to point to the fact that in some of the earliest tropers (e. g. Cod. Sangallen., 484), the Alleluia-jubilus has no text. It is quite true that melodies without text are found there, but the earlier opinion that these are melodies to which texts were subsequently added is not true: they are melodies to previous sequence-texts, as is shown in the introduction to "Anal. hymn.", LIII, pp. xxii sq. The expression "melodies without text" is liable to be, and in fact has been, misunderstood, and should be replaced by "melodies to an existing but unwritten text". No one has as yet found a single Alleluia jubilus without text, whence might have been deduced the existence of jubili in this form before the text and independent of it. The prior existence of such jubili must indeed by admitted, but no example has as yet been discovered, nor is the discovery of such jubili hereafter probable. For, in spite of long and careful research, no liturgical MS. with neums or melodies has been discovered of a date earlier than the ninth century, with the one exception of a Pontifical of Poitiers (Cod. Parisin. Arsen., 227), which is either eighth- or ninth-century; even of the ninth century, however, the textless Alleluia-jubili were already replaced by the versus ad sequentias and many sequences; the form of the textless jubilus can be only provisionally conjectured on the basis of the jubili with the versus ad sequentias (see above, II, 3). For this reason it is still more difficult to give a decided answer to the second question as to the connexion between the jubilus, which forms the basis of the sequence-melodies, and the Gregorian Alleluia. If we take it for granted that the latter have been handed on unaltered and retain the original form in the oldest known sources (though these do not go further back than the ninth century), in other words, that the Alleluia before the Alleluia-verse had in the time of St. Gregory the Great the form which the Benedictines of Solesmes have established for it in their valuable publications, then we must admit that the melismata of the Gregorian Alleluia, even the longest of them, are much shorter than, and are different in kind from, the melismata of the jubilus to which the versus ad sequentias and the sequences proper were attached. According to the "Prooe;mium of Notker", the text of the sequences is so set to the melodia longissimæ of the Alleluia-jubilus that practically one syllable of the text corresponds to one note of the jubilus. What then was the origin of this comparatively long melisma? Was it developed from the Gregorian Alleluia by similar melismatic interpolations and musical embellishments, just as responsories of the Breviary with their final melisma grew into the tropes and verbeta with their more extensive text and music? This view cannot be accepted; for we always straightway recognize the original melisma of the responsory as the basis or leitmotiv of the melody of the verbeta, which at the end of each division and at the conclusion regularly returns to the shorter original melody. Quite different is the case with respect to the sequences of the first epoch. The introduction, it is true, follows the melody of its Alleluia; a few words which follow are frequently adapted to the first notes of the melisma to the Gregorian Alleluia, but the melody of the sequence then entirely deserts the melisma of the Alleluia and never returns to it. Various modern liturgiologists have believed that the long jubilus may be referred to Byzantine influence during the eighth century; however, no direct positive evidence has hitherto been forthcoming, and no example of Byzantine music, which might have served as a model for the long Alleluia jubilus, has come to light. Moreover, assuming a Byzantine model, it is more than enigmatical why writers of proses often adhered so conscientiously to the melody of the Alleluia proper and to the first notes of its concluding a; assuming that the verses were written to fit foreign melodies, we are at a loss to explain why a part is not foreign. Perhaps the difficulty may be explained if we assume that Gregory the Great found a long Alleluia, presumably derived from the Greeks, and gave it the short form preserved in the choir-books of the West. We know that he shortened many parts of the Sacramentary. If this surmise be true, the long jubili may have continued to exist in some places alongside of the shorter ones, and may have served later as the basis of the sequence text. While this attempt at a solution of the great riddle has much in its favour, it is still only an attempt. III. MELODY AND TITLE OF THE MELODY From what has been said it will be seen that there are two classes of sequence melodies: (1) those which originally formed the Alleluia-jubilus. These are the melodies to which a sequence text was later composed; (2) those which originated simultaneously with the text, both being composed by the same person, or those which were comnposed by a musician for a text written by a prosator. Not every sequence has its own melody; often several sequences were written to one and the same melody, and, if this were very popular, many sequences were written to it. Hence many sequences have the same plan and the same melody. In such sequences the obvious thing was to identify the melody by some distinctive word; this word was and is called the title of the melody. About 300 titles of sequences of the first and transitional period are found in the old MSS.; this does not imply that only 300 old melodies are known, for many melodies have come down to us without title. It was natural that the title should be chosen from the initial word of the original sequence, to the melody of which later sequences were adapted; as example we may cite such titles as "Almiphona", "Creator poli", "Digna cultu", "Exsultet elegantis", "Fulgens præclara", etc. It was also natural, if indeed not even more appropriate, to provide as the title of a sequence melody the beginning of the Alleluia-verse whose Alleluia-jubilus gave the melody for the sequence. Hence we explain such titles as "Ostende", "Lætatus sum", "Excita", "Veni Domine", "Dominus regnavit", "Dies sanctificatus", "Multifarie", and several others. Thus the Alleluia-versicle of the Gradual for the first Sunday in Advent is "Ostende nobis Domine misericordiam tuam etc."; for the second Sunday, "Lætatus sum in his etc."; for the third, "Excita Domine potentiam tuam etc.", and so on. In the further development of the Sequence, as the list of titles increased, as the sense of the connexion of the Sequence with the Alleluia and its versicle gradually disappeared, and as for some reason or other the desire for novelty arose, titles were adopted which seem to us rather far-fetched. Important words from the beginning or middle of a sequence were taken as titles. In the sequence "Quid tu virgo mater ploras" (Anal. hymn., LIII, n. 239), the words "virgo" and "ploras" gave the title "Virgo plorans"; from "Hanc concordi famulatu" (Anal. hymn., LIII, n. 215) was taken the title "Concordia"; in the sequence "Virginis venerandæ" (Anal. hymn., LIII, n. 246), the second strophe commences "Filiæ matris", whence was taken the title "Filia matris"; the sequence "Summi triumphum regis" (Anal. hymn., LIII, n. 67) belongs to the alleluia-versicle, "Dominus in Sina in sancto ascendens in altum captivitam duxit captivitatem", and the conspicuous words "captivam ... captivitatem" produced the title "Captiva"; the same is the case with other titles, e. g. "Amoe;na", "Mater", "Maris stella", "Planctus cygni", etc. Several titles are evidently formed on the principle of analogy; from the beginning of the sequences "Lyra pulchra regem" (Anal. hymn., LIII, n. 52) and "Nostra tuba nunc tua" (ibid. n. 14), titles (namely "Lyra" and "Nostra tuba") which indicated musical instruments were introduced; analogous to these are such titles as "Bucca", "Cithara", "Fidicula", "Fistula", "Organa", "Tuba", "Tympanum". Perhaps "Symphonia" is founded on the analogy of "Concordia", and the title "Chorus" related to it. Of somewhat less obvious origin, although they indicate the actual or supposed origin of the melody, are such titles as "Græca", "Romana", "Metensis", "Occidentana". Far-fetched and now scarcely explicable are the titles "Cignea", "Frigdola", "Planctus sterilis", "Duo tres", "Hypodiaconissa", "Vitellia", etc. If the conjecture be accurate that the title of a melody is simpler and more natural the nearer it is to its origin, then the titles, taken in connexion with other facts, provide the means of explaining the question as to the original home of the various sequences. France preferably chose titles from the Incipit of the Sequence or Alleluia-verse; St. Gall and Germany on the contrary never chose titles from the Incipit of the Sequence, but used many unusual titles which to us have little or no meaning. IV. HISTORY OF THE SEQUENCE Formerly the origin of the Sequence was always sought at St. Gall and Notker Balbulus was universally accredited as its inventor. The basis for this supposition was furnished by the so-called "Prooe;mium of Notker", in which Notker tells us that it was the "Antiphonarium" of a monk of Jumièges (in which "aliqui versus ad sequentias erant modulati"), which had suggested to him to place the words of a text under the melodiæ longissimæ of the Alleluia-jubilus in such a way that each word of the text corresponded to a note of the melody. But does this prove that Notker was the first person who did this? In St. Gall, certainly; but elsewhere this might have taken place long before-hand. Besides it is very doubtful on other grounds whether the "Prooe;mium of Notker" is genuine and authentic. Until the last two decades our knowledge of sequence material was entirely inadequate. The older sequences, and especially their melodies, were only known to us through the St. Gall tropers, whose importance was enhanced by their number; other old tropers from Germany, of which scarcely six were known, were treated as copies of those of St. Gall. What France, England, or Italy had done in the production of sequences was scarcely suspected, and one had no idea at all of the relation which their melodies had to the St. Gall melodies. Subsequently it became plain that the St. Gall composer was more than once influenced by an older French exemplar; what has been said above as to the development of the Sequence-it was based on the most extensive collection of original material-undoubtedly goes to prove that all the peculiarities of the sequences in their early stage are found in those of France, whilst those of St. Gall (i. e. the German ones) show signs of a relatively later period and of a phase of greater development, even in the matter of the name of the sequence and of titles of melodies. Further proofs cannot be given here, and we must content ourselves with referring to the discussion in "Analecta hymnica", LIII, the results of which may be summed up in three sentences: (1) proses or sequences did not originate in St. Gall. Notker Balbulus was not their first inventor, although he was their first and most prominent exponent in Germany. Their origin goes further back, probably to the eighth century; (2) failing more definite evidence, it is difficult to say exactly what sequences are to be attributed to Notker Balbulus; meanwhile, we cannot determine what sequences of the first epoch and clearly of German origin come from St. Gall and what from other German abbeys or dioceses; (3) all that has hitherto been discovered as to the origin and development of sequences shows France to have been the original home of the "versus ad sequentias" and of the "sequentia cum prosa". As to the precise locality of that home in France-whether it was Luxeuil, or Fleury-sur-Loire, or Moissac, or St-Martial, must be a matter for conjecture. In what countries and to what extent France made its influence felt in the composition of sequences cannot yet be decided with accuracy. At the end of the tenth and especially in the eleventh century sequences were certainly very widely spread and popular in all countries of the West-even in Italy, which until lately has been overlooked as having scarcely any share in this branch of composition. Not only in Northern but also in Southern Italy, in the neighbourhood of Benevento and Monte Cassino, were schools for sequences, as the discoveries of Bannister at Benevento have proved. Of all these sequences of the first epoch there were some in the eleventh century which were found only in a given country and were therefore local products; others (but they were relatively few) were the common liturgical property of all countries of the West. Besides these, there are two particular groups to be distinguished, viz. such as were used only in France, England, and Spain, and such as were used only in Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. This being the case, we may classify sequences as Gallo-Anglican or Germano-Italian: to the first class belong the Spanish; to the second those of Holland and Belgium. Between the countries which belong to one class, there existed a more or less free exchange of sequences, whilst sequences which belong to the other class were as a whole excluded and only rarely introduced. Thus, between France and Italy, as well as between England and Germany, there existed sometimes a friendly exchange, but scarcely ever between France and Germany. This fact probably played some rôle in the development of sequences in various countries and in the influence which one country exercised upon another. Of the composers of sequences unfortunately only a few names have been preserved; after the great Notker Balbulus of St. Gall (d. 912), the first rank is taken by Ekkehard I of St. Gall (d. 973), Abbot Berno of Reichenau (d. 1048), Hermann Contractus (d. 1054), and Gottschalk of Limburg (d. 1098). If the honour of the invention of sequences belongs to France, the honour of bringing sequences to perfection during the first epoch belongs to Germany. During the second epoch the picture changes: in the abbey of the Canons Regular of St. Victor in Paris the Sequence with rhythm and rhyme reached artistic perfection, combining splendour of form with depth and seriousness of conception. This was the case with Adam of St. Victor (d. 1192); it is unfortunately uncertain whether many of the sequences ascribed to him are really his or belong to his predecessors or imitators. The new style met with an enthusiastic reception. The sequences of Adam of St. Victor came into liturgical use almost everywhere, and found eager and frequently even successful imitation. In French Graduals almost all the sequences of the first epoch were supplanted by the later ones, whereas in Germany, together with the new ones a considerable number of those which are supposed to be Notker's remained in use as late as the fifteenth century. Some precious contributions were furnished by England. Italy on the other hand falls quite behind during the second epoch. However, the two noble sequences still in use, the "Stabat mater" and the "Dies iræ", are the works of two Italian Franciscans, their composition being with some probability assigned to Jacopone da Todi (d. 1305) and Thomas of Celano (d. about 1250); both these works, however, were originally written as rhymed prayers for private use and were only afterwards used as sequences. St. Thomas of Aquinas too (d. 1274) has bequeathed to us the immortal sequence, "Lauda Sion salvatorem", but that is the only one he wrote. Sequences like hymns declined in the fifteenth century, and reached their lowest stage of decadence where they had most flourished in the twelfth and thirteenth (viz. in France). 5000 sequences of the most varying value have already come to light; they are a testimony to the Christian literary activity in the West during seven centuries, and are especially significant for the influence they exercised on the development of poetry and music. For the Gregorian melodies were taken over by them and preserved with fidelity and conservatism; with the admission of sequences and tropes into the liturgy, ecclesiastical music found its opportunity for further development and glorious growth. Trench, Sacred Latin Poetry chiefly Lyrical (London, 1849, 1864, and 1874); Neale, Sequentiæ et missalibus ... collectæ (London, 1852); Frere, The Winchester Troper (London, 1894); Weale and Misset, Analecta liturg. (London and Lille, 1888-92); Julian, Dict. of Hymnology (2nd ed., London, 1907); Bartsch, Die latein. Sequenzen des Mittelalters (Rostock, 1868); Schubiger, Die Sängerschule St. Gallens (Einsiedeln and New York, 1858); Kehrein, Latein. Sequenzen des Mittelalters (Mainz, 1873); Werner, Notkers Sequenzen (Arrau, 1901); Marxer, Zur spätmittelalterl. Choralgesch. St. Gallens (St. Gall, 1908); Misset and Aubrey, Les proses d'Adam de Saint-Victor (Paris, 1900); Blume and Dreves, Analecta hymnica medii ævi, VII-X, XXXIV, XXXVII, XXXIX, XI, XLII, XLIV, LIII (Leipzig, 1899-1911); vols VII-X were edited by Dreves, XI by Bannister, LIII by Blume and Bannister, and the others by Blume; vols. LIV and LV will conclude the collection of all proses or sequences. Clemens Blume. Proske, Karl Karl Proske He was born at Grobing in Upper Silesia, 11 Feb., 1794; died 20 Dec., 1861. He took his degree as Doctor of Medicine at Halle, after which he became court physician at Oppein. From 1813 to 1820 he followed the profession of medicine, and was army surgeon in the campaign of 1813-5. He was also an enthusiastic lover of ecclesiastical chant. At length in 1821 he determined to become a priest, and was ordained at Ratisbon, 11 April, 1826. Henceforward he devoted himself to the acquisition of ancient church music, and spent the whole of his private income as well as the emoluments from his church preferments, searching through Italian and other musical archives. In 1830 he was made Canon and Kappelmeister of Ratisbon cathedral, of which he had been vicar choral since 1827. With unwearied patience he collected and transcribed hundreds of musical scores, and in 1853 started the publication of his invaluable "Musica Divina", the fourth volume of which appeared in 1862; this was followed by a "Selectus Novus Missarum", in two volumes (1857-61). GROVE, Dict, of Music and Musicians, new ed., III (London, 1907); Kirchenmusik Jahrbuch (Ratisbon, 1894); WEINMANN, Karl Proske (Ratisbon, 1906); private correspondence. W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD. Tiro Prosper of Aquitaine Tiro Prosper of Aquitaine The first sure date in the life of Prosper is that of his letter to St. Augustine written under the following circumstances. In 428 or 429 a certain Hilary wrote to St. Augustine in reference to difficulties raised against his doctrine in Marseilles and the neighbourhood. Hilary distrusted his own ability to give St. Augustine a proper grasp of the situation, so he prevailed with a friend whom he described as a man distinguished tum moribus, tum eloquio et studio (for morals, eloquence and zeal) to write also. This friend was Prosper who, though he had never met St. Augustine, had corresponded with him. The two letters were despatched at the same time, and may be said to have opened the semi-Pelagian controversy. St. Augustine replied to the appeal made to him with the two treatises, "De Praedestinatione" and "De Dono Perseverantiae." It was about this time that, Prosper wrote what was really a short treatise on grace and free will, under the form of a letter to a certain Rufinus, and his great dogmatic poem of over a thousand hexameter lines, "De Ingratis", on the semi-Pelagians, who were enemies of grace and are represented as reviving the errors of Pelagianism. Two epigrams of twelve and fourteen lines respectively against an "obtrectator" of St. Augustine seem also to have been composed in the lifetime of the saint. Three opuscules belong to the time immediately after the death of St. Augustine (430): + "Responsiones ad capitula Gallorum." These capitula were a series of fifteen propositions attributed to St. Augustine by his opponents, e.g. "the Saviour was not crucified for the whole world." To each Prosper appended a brief responsio and concluded the treatise with fifteen corresponding sententiae, setting forth what he held to be the true doctrine. + "Ad capitula objectionum Vincentianarum responsiones". The Vincentian objections were like the "capitula Gallorum", but more violent, and they attacked Prosper as well as St. Augustine. Prosper replied to them one by one. The Vincent who drew them up was probably Vincent of Lerins (Bardenhewer, Hauck, Valentin), but some writers have contested this point. + "Pro Augustino responsiones ad excerpta Genuensium". This is an explanation of certain passages in St. Augustine's treatises, "De praedest" and "De dono persev.", which presented difficulties to some priests at Genoa who asked Prosper for an explanation of them. These three opuscula are placed by Bardenhewer after Prosper's visit to Rome. In 431 Prosper and a friend went to Rome to invoke the aid of St. Celestine. The pope responded with the Letter, "Apostolici Verba", addressed to the bishops of Gaul, in which he blamed their remissness with regard to the enemies of grace, and eulogized St. Augustine. On returning to Gaul, Prosper again took up the controversy in his "De Gratia Dei et libero arbitrio; liber contra collatorem". The "Collator" was Cassian who in his "Conferences" had put forward semi-Pelagian doctrine. The date of this, the most important of Prosper's prose writings, can be fixed at about 433, for the author speaks of twenty years and more, having elapsed since the beginning of ihe Pelagian heresy, viz., according to his "Chronicle", A.D. 413. An ironical epitaph on the Nestorian and Pelagian heresies was probably composed shortly after the Council of Ephesus. The "Expositio psalmonum" is substantially an abridgment of the "Enarrationes" of St. Augustine. It probably comprised the whole psalter, but as it has come down to us it only comments on the last fifty. The "Sententiie ex Augustine delibatae" are a collection of sayings extracted from the writings of St. Augustine. In framing them Prosper as a rule dealt rather freely with the text of St. Augustine, chiefly in the interests of rhythmic prose. Canons 9, 14, 15, 16, 18 of the second Council of Orange were taken from sentences 22, 222, 226, 160, 297. The epigram are a number of the sentences turned into verse. Both these works must have been composed about the time of the Council of Chalcedon, and probably, therefore, in Rome, whither Prosper was summoned about A.D. 440 by Leo the Great. According to Gennadius (De vir. ill., 84) he was said to have drawn up the letters written by this pope against Eutyches. The "Chronicle" of Prosper, from the creation to A.D. 378, was an abridgment of St. Jerome's, with, however, some additional matter, e.g. the consuls for each year from the date of the Passion. There seem to have been three editions: the first continued up to 433, the second to 445, the third to 455. This chronicle is sometimes called the "Consular Chronicle", to distinguish it from another ascribed to Prosper where the years are reckoned according to the regnal years of the emperors and which is accordingly called the "Imperial Chronicle". This is certainly not the work of Prosper. It was compiled by a man whose sympathies were not with St. Augustine, and who was formerly supposed to be Tiro Prosper and not Prosper of Aquitaine, but this theory has broken down, for Prosper of Aquitaine in some manuscripts of the "Consular Chronicle" is called Tiro Prosper. With regard to the writings of Prosper not yet mentioned, Valentin pronounces the poem "De providentia" to be genuine; the "Confessio S. Prosperi", and De vocatione gentium" to be probably genuine; the "Epistola ad Demetriadem", the "Praeteritorum sedis Apostolicae auctoritates de Gratia Dei, etc." appended to the Epistle of St. Celestine, and the "Poema mariti ad conjugem" to be very likely genuine. The "De vita contemplativa" and "De promissionibus etc." are not by Prosper, according to Valentin and Hauck. Hauck agrees with Valentin with regard to the "Poema mariti" and the "Confessio", but pronounces against the "De vocatione", the "De providentia", and on the other doubtful works expresses no view. The story that Prosper was Bishop of Reggio in Italy was exploded by Sirmondi and others in the seventeenth century. For the origin of this legend see Dom Morin in "Révue bénédictine", XII, 241 sqq. Prosper was neither bishop nor priest. The question whether he mitigated the severity of St. Augustine's doctrine has been much debated. The difference of opinion probably arises more from different views regarding St. Augustine's doctrine than from different interpretations of Prosper's. The general trend of opinion among Catholic writers seems to be in favour of the affirmative view, e.g. Kraus, Funk, Bardenhewer, Valentin, and others. F.J. BACCHUS Protectorate of Missions Protectorate of Missions The right of protection exercised by a Christian power in an infidel country with regard to the persons and establishments of the missionaries. The term does not apply to all protection of missions, but only to that permanently exercised in virtue of an acquired right, usually established by a treaty or convention (either explicit or tacit), voluntarily consented to or accepted after more or less compulsion by the infidel power. The object of the protectorate may be more or less extensive, according as it embraces only the missionaries who are subjects of the protecting power, or applies to the missionaries of all nations or even to their neophytes, the native Christians. To comprehend fully the nature of the protectorate of missions, as it has been in times past and as it is to-day, it will be necessary to study separately the Protectorate of the Levant and that of the Far East. PROTECTORATE OF THE LEVANT This comprises the missions of the countries under Turkish rule, especially Constantinople, the Archipelago, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Barbary, etc. It is French in origin, and was, until near the end of the nineteenth century, the almost exclusive privilege of France. It was inaugurated in the Holy Land by Charlemagne, who secured from the celebrated Caliph Haroun al-Raschid a sort of share in his sovereignty over the Holy Places of Jerusalem. Charlemagne and his successors made use of this concession to make pious and charitable foundations in the Holy City, to protect the Christian inhabitants and pilgrims, and to insure the perpetuity of Christian worship. The destruction of the Arabian Empire by the Turks put an end to this first protectorate, but the persecutions to which the new Mussulman masters of Jerusalem subjected pious visitors and the clergy in charge of the Holy Sepulchre brought about the Crusades, as a result of which Palestine was conquered from the infidels and became a French kingdom. The Christian rule was later replaced by that of Islam, but during the three centuries of Crusades, which had been undertaken and supported mainly by France, the Christians of the East had grown accustomed to look to that country for assistance in oppression, and the oppressors had learned to esteem and fear the valour of its warriors. In these facts we find the germ of the modern Protectorate of the Levant. The Capitulations The protectorate began to assume a contractual form in the sixteenth century, in the treaties concluded between the kings of France and the sultans of Constantinople, which are historically known as Capitulations. At first this name designated the commercial agreement conceded by the Porte to Latin merchants (first to the Italians), and arose from the fact that the articles of these agreements were called Capitoli in the Italian redaction: the term has not, therefore, the same meaning as in military parlance. Francis I was the first king of France who sought an alliance with Turkey. To this he was urged, not by the spirit of the Crusaders, but entirely by the desire to break in Europe the dominating power of the House of Austria. By compelling Austria to spend its forces in defence against the Turks in the East, he hoped to weaken it and render it unable to increase or even to maintain its power in the West. His successors down to Louis XV followed the same policy, which, whatever criticism it merits, was as a matter of fact favourable to Christianity in the Levant. The French kings sought, by their zeal in defending Christian interests at the Porte, to extenuate their alliance with infidels, which was a source of scandal even in France. As early as 1528, Francis I had appealed to Solyman II to restore to the Christians of Jerusalem a church which the Turks had converted into a mosque. The sultan refused on the plea that his religion would not permit alteration of the purpose of a mosque, but he promised to maintain the Christians in possession of all the other places occupied by them and to defend them against all oppression. However, religion was not the object of a formal convention between France and Turkey prior to 1604, when Henry IV secured from Ahmed I the insertion, in the capitulations of 20 May, of two clauses relative to the protection of pilgrims and of the religious in charge of the church of the Holy Sepulchre. The following are the clauses, which form articles IV and V of the treaty: "IV. We also desire and command that the subjects of the said Emperor of France, and those of the princes who are his friends and allies, may be free to visit the Holy Places of Jerusalem, and no one shall attempt to prevent them nor do them injury"; "V. Moreover, for the honour and friendship of this Emperor, we desire that the religious living in Jerusalem and serving the church of Comane [the Resurrection] may dwell there, come and go without let or hindrance, and be well received, protected, assisted, and helped in consideration of the above." It is noteworthy that the same advantages are stipulated for the French and for the friends and allies of France, but for the latter in consideration of, and at the recommendation of France. The fortunate result of this friendship was the development of the missions, which began to flourish through the assistance of Henry IV and Louis XIII and through the zeal of the French missionaries. Before the middle of the seventeenth century religious of various orders (Capuchin, Carmelite, Dominican, Franciscan, and Jesuit) were established, as chaplains of the French ambassadors and consuls, in the chief cities of the Levant (Constantinople, Alexandria, Smyrna, Aleppo, Damascus, etc.), Lebanon, and the islands of the Archipelago. Here they assembled the Catholics to instruct and confirm them in the Faith, opened schools to which flocked the children of all rites, relieved the spiritual and corporal miseries of the Christians languishing in the frightful Turkish prisons, and nursed the pest-stricken, which last office frequently made them martyrs of charity. During the reign of Louis XIV the missionaries multiplied and extended the field of their activities. This monarch gave them at once a material and a moral support, which the prestige of his victories and conquests rendered irresistible at the Porte. Thanks to him, the often precarious tolerance, on which the existence of the missions had previously depended, was officially recognized in 1673, when on 5 June, Mohammed IV not only confirmed the earlier capitulations guaranteeing the safety of pilgrims and the religious guardians of the Holy Sepulchre, but signed four new articles, all beneficial to the missionaries. The first decrees in a general manner "that all bishops or other religious of the Latin sect who are subjects of France, whatever their condition, shall be throughout our empire as they have been hitherto, and [may] there perform their functions, and no one shall trouble or hinder them"; the others secure the tranquil possession of their churches, explicitly to the Jesuits and Capuchins, and in general "to the French at Smyrna, Saïd, Alexandria, and in all other ports of the Ottoman Empire". The reign of Louis XIV marked the apogee of the French Protectorate in the East, for not only the Latin missionaries of all nationalities, but also the heads of all Catholic communities, regardless of rite or nationality, appealed to the Grand Roi, and, at the recommendation of his ambassadors and consuls to the Porte and the pashas, obtained justice and protection from their enemies. Though the missionaries were sometimes on such amicable terms with the non-Catholic clergy that the latter authorized them to preach in their churches, they usually experienced a lively hostility from that quarter. On several occasions the Greek and Armenian schismatical patriarchs, displeased at seeing a great portion of their flocks abandon them for the Roman priests, on various pretexts persuaded the Turkish Government to forbid all propagandism by the latter. The representatives of Louis XIV successfully opposed this ill-will. At the beginning of the reign of Louis XV the preponderance of French influence with the Porte was also manifested in the authority granted the Franciscans, who were protégés of France, to repair the dome of the Holy Sepulchre: this meant the recognition of their right of proprietorship in the Holy Sepulchre as superior to the claims of the Greeks and the Armenians. In 1723 the schismatical patriarchs succeeded in obtaining from the Sultan a "command" forbidding his Christian subjects to embrace the Roman religion, and the Latin religious to hold any communication with the Greeks, Armenians, and Syrians, on the pretext of instructing them. For a long time French diplomacy sought in vain to have this disastrous measure revoked. At last, as a reward for the services rendered to Turkey during its wars with Russia and Austria (1736-9), the French succeeded in 1740 in securing the renewal of the capitulations, with additions which explicitly confirmed the right of the French Protectorate, and at least implicitly guaranteed the liberty of the Catholic apostolate. By the eighty-seventh of the articles signed, 28 May, 1740, Sultan Mahmud declares: " . . . The bishops and religious subject to the Emperor of France living in my empire shall be protected while they confine themselves to the exercise of their office, and no one may prevent them from practising their rite according to their custom in the churches in their possession, as well as in the other places they inhabit; and, when our tributary subjects and the French hold intercourse for purposes of selling, buying, and other business, no one may molest them for this sake in violation of the sacred laws." In subsequent treaties between France and Turkey the capitulations are not repeated verbatim, but they are recalled and confirmed (e. g. in 1802 and 1838). The various regimes which succeeded the monarchy of St. Louis and of Louis XIV all maintained in law, and in fact, the ancient privilege of France in the protection of the missionaries and Christian communities of the Orient. The expedition in 1860 sent by Napoleon III to put a stop to the massacre of the Maronites was in harmony with the ancient rôle of France, and would have been more so if its work of justice had been more complete. The decline in recent years of the French Protectorate in the Levant will be treated below. PROTECTORATE OF THE FAR EAST Portuguese Patronage In the Far East this refers especially to China -- there was not, prior to the nineteenth century, any protectorate properly so called or based on a treaty. What is sometimes called the "Portuguese Protectorate of Missions" was only the "Portuguese Patronage" (Padroado). This was the privilege, granted by the popes to the Crown of Portugal, of designating candidates for the sees and ecclesiastical benefices in the vast domains acquired through the expeditions of its navigators and captains in Africa and the East Indies. This concession, which brought to the King of Portugal a certain portion of the ecclesiastical revenues of his kingdom, carried the condition that he should send good missionaries to his new subjects, and that he should provide with a fitting endowment such dioceses, parishes, and religious establishments as should be established in his acquired territories. At first Portugal's zeal and generosity for the spread of Christianity corresponded to the liberality of the sovereign pontiffs manifested in the grant of the padroado; but in the course of time this patronage became the source of most unpleasant annoyances to the Holy See and one of the chief obstacles to the progress of the missions. The main cause of this regrettable change was the failure of Portugal to observe the conditions agreed upon at the time of the bestowal of the privilege: another reason was the disagreement between Portugal and the Holy See with regard to the extent of the patronage, for, while Rome maintained that it had never granted the privilege except for really conquered countries, Lisbon claimed the right for all the countries designated by the famous demarcation of Alexander VI as future possessions of Portugal. In virtue of this interpretation the Portuguese Government violently contested the papal right to appoint, without its consent, missionary bishops or vicars Apostolic in countries which were never subject to its dominion, such as the greater part of India, Tong-king, Cochin-China, Siam, and especially China. In the vast Chinese empire, where Portugal had never possessed more than Macao, the popes consented to end the strife by a sort of compromise. Besides the See of Macao they created in the two chief cities, Peking and Nanking, bishoprics in the appointment of the King of Portugal, to which were assigned five of the Chinese provinces; the other provinces were left to the vicars Apostolic named personally by the pope. This system lasted from 1696 to 1856, when Pius IX suppressed the titles of the sees of Peking and Nanking; thenceforth all the Christian settlements of China were administered only by vicars Apostolic. Passing over the quarrels regarding the padroado, we must confess that the missions of the East owe much to the munificence of the kings of Portugal, although these were never accepted by the infidel sovereigns as the official protectors of the missionaries, much less of the native Christians. Portugal strove to play this honourable rôle in China, especially by dispatching formal embassies to Peking during the eighteenth century, for, besides their ostensible instructions, the ambassadors received orders to intervene as much as possible in behalf of the missionaries and native Christians, who were then being cruelly persecuted in the provinces. The first of these embassies (1727) almost had a disastrous ending, when the Portuguese envoy, Dom Metello de Souza, petitioned the Emperor Yung-ching to recognize the liberty of Christian preaching; the second (1753) avoided a similar danger by maintaining silence on this critical point. It is only just to add that these embassies, having flattered Chinese vanity, procured for the mission a measure of respite from, or moderation of, the persecution. Later, by expelling the Jesuits and other religious societies which had established for it such successful missions, Portugal excluded itself from subsequently occupying any position in a sphere in which it had earlier been foremost, and by its own act destroyed the basis of its patronage and its protectorate, such as it was. French Protectorate in China The protectorate still exercised by France over the missions in the Chinese Empire dates, as far as a regular convention is concerned, only from the middle of the nineteenth century, but the way was prepared by the protection which French statesmen had accorded the missionaries for almost two centuries. The zeal and liberality of Louis XIV permitted the foundation of the great French Jesuit mission, which in less than fifteen years (1687-1701) more than doubled the number of apostolic workers in China, and which never ceased to produce most capable workers. The first official relations were formed between France and China when the missionaries brought thither by the "Amphitrite", the first French vessel seen in Chinese waters (1699), presented gifts from Louis XIV to Emperor K'ang-hi. The two monarchs shared the expense of erecting the first French church at Peking: the emperor donated the ground, within the limits of the imperial city, and the building materials, while the French king supplied the money to pay for the labour, the decoration, and the magnificent liturgical ornaments. Several other churches erected in the provinces through the munificence of Louis XIV increased the prestige of France throughout the empire. Under Louis XV the mission in China, like many other things, was somewhat overlooked, but the government did not wholly neglect it. It found a zealous protector in Louis XVI's minister, Bertin, but it felt keenly the suppression of the Society of Jesus and the French Revolution with all its consequences, which dried up the source of the apostolate in Europe. It was a handful of French missionaries (Lazarists or members of the Society of Foreign Missions), assisted by some Chinese priests, who preserved the Faith throughout the persecutions of the early nineteenth century, during which several of them were martyred. Treaties of T'ien-tsin When the English, after the so-called Opium War, imposed on China the Treaty of Nanking (1842), they did not at first ask for religious liberty, but the murder of the Lazarist John Gabriel Perboyre (11 Sept., 1840) becoming known, they added an article stipulating that thenceforth a missionary taken in the interior of the country should not be tried by the Chinese authorities, but should be delivered to the nearest consul of his country. On 24 Oct., 1844, Théodose de Lagrené, French ambassador, secured further concessions which inaugurated a new era. The treaty properly so-called, which was signed on that date at Wampoa (near Canton), speaks only of liberty for the French to settle in certain territory in the open ports, but, at the request of the ambassador, an imperial edict was sent to the mandarins and at least partially promulgated, which praised the Christian religion and removed the prohibition for Chinese to practise it. However, the murder of the missionary Chapdeleine (1856) and other facts showed the insufficiency of the guarantees accorded to Europeans; to obtain others, England and France had recourse to arms. The war (1858-60), which showed China its weakness, was ended by the treaties of T'ien-tsin (24-25 Oct., 1860). They contained an article which stipulated freedom for the missionaries to preach and for the Chinese to embrace Christianity. This article was included in the treaties which other powers a little later concluded with China. To the treaty with France was also added a supplementary article, which reads as follows: "An imperial edict conformable to the imperial edict of 20 Feb., 1846 [that secured by M. de Lagrené], will inform the people of the whole empire that soldiers and civilians be permitted to propagate and practise the religion of the Lord of Heaven [Catholic], to assemble for explanation of doctrine, to build churches wherein to celebrate their ceremonies. Those [the mandarins] who henceforth make searches or arbitrary arrests must be punished. Furthermore, the temples of the Lord of Heaven, together with the schools, cemeteries, lands, buildings etc., which were confiscated formerly when the followers of the religion of the Lord of Heaven were persecuted, shall be either restored or compensated for. Restoration is to be made to the French ambassador residing at Peking, who will transfer the property to the Christians of the localities concerned. In all the provinces also the missionaries shall be permitted to rent or purchase lands and erect buildings at will". The general and exclusive right of protection granted to the French over all the Catholic missions in China could not be more explicitly recognized than it was by this agreement, which made the French ambassador the indispensable intermediary in the matter of all restitutions. And the representatives of France never ceased to make full use of this right in favour of the missionaries, whom from the middle of the nineteenth century a revival of Apostolic zeal drew from all countries to China. From them the passports necessary to penetrate into the interior of the country were regularly sought, and to them were addressed complaints and claims, which it was their duty to lay before the Chinese Government. The French ministers also secured, not without difficulty, the necessary additions to the Treaty of T'ien-tsin -- such, for instance, as the Berthemy Convention (1865) with the Gerard addition (1895), regulating the important question of the purchase of lands and buildings in the interior. Rivals of the French Protectorate The foregoing historical sketch shows that the ancient French right of protection over the missions, in both Turkey and China, was established as much by constant exercise and by services rendered as by treaties. Furthermore, it was based on the fundamental right of the Church, derived from God Himself, to preach the Gospel everywhere and to receive from Christian powers the assistance necessary to enable her to perform her task untrammelled. The desire to further the Church's mission, which always guided the French monarchs to a greater or less extent, does not influence the present government. The latter endeavours, however, to preserve the prerogative of its predecessors, and continues to lend protection, though much diminished, to the Catholic missionary undertakings -- even to those directed by religious who are proscribed in France (e. g. it subsidizes the Jesuit schools in Syria). The advantages of the protectorate are too obvious even to the least clerical of the ministers for them not to attempt to retain them, whatever the resulting contradictions in their policy. It is very evident that France owes to this protectorate throughout the Levant and in the Far East a prestige and a moral influence which no commerce or conquest could ever have given her. Thanks to the protectorate, the treasures of respect, gratitude, and affection won by the Catholic missionaries have to a certain extent become the property of France; and, if the French entertained doubts as to the utility of this time-honoured privilege (a few anti-clericals attempt to obscure the evidence on this point), the efforts of rival nations to secure a share of it would prove enlightening. These efforts have been frequent, especially since 1870, and have been to a large extent successful. As early as 1875, at the time of the negotiations between France and Egypt with regard to judiciary reform, the German Government declared "that it recognized no exclusive right of protection of any power in behalf of Catholic establishments in the East, and that it reserved its rights with regard to German subjects belonging to any of these establishments." In Germany and Italy a paragraph of article sixty-two of the Treaty of Berlin, which had been signed by all the European powers in 1878, was used as a weapon against the exclusive protectorate of France: "Ecclesiastics, pilgrims, and monks of all nationalities travelling in Turkey in Europe or Turkey in Asia shall enjoy the same rights, advantages, and privileges. The official right of protection of the diplomatic and consular agents of the Powers in Turkey is recognized, with regard both to the above-mentioned persons and to their religious, charitable, and other establishments in the Holy Places and elsewhere." The passage immediately following this paragraph in the article was overlooked: "The acquired rights of France are explicitly reserved, and there shall be no interference with the statu quo in the Holy Places." Thus the protection guaranteed to all ecclesiastics, etc., no matter what their nationality or religion, as well as the generally recognized right of all the powers to watch over this protection, should be understood with the reservation of the "acquired rights" of France i. e. of its ancient protectorate in behalf of Catholics. This protectorate is, therefore, really confirmed by the Treaty of Berlin. But, as a matter of fact, the influence of Russia, which has assumed the protectorate of Christians of the Greek Rite, has already greatly affected the standing which the ancient French Protectorate had assured to Catholics in Palestine and especially in Jerusalem. Moreover, Emperor William II of Germany has installed Protestantism with a magnificent church beside the Holy Sepulchre (1898). As a sort of compensation he has indeed ceded to German Catholics the site of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin, which he obtained from the sultan; here a church and a monastery have been erected and, together with the other German establishments, have been placed under the protection of the German Empire, without the slightest deference to the ancient prerogative of France. A similar situation prevails in China. First, in 1888, Germany obtained from the Chinese Government that German passports should insure the same advantages to the missionaries as those secured at the French legation. At the same time the German Catholic missionaries of Shan-tung, who had much to endure from the infidels, were on several occasions offered the powerful protection of the German Empire. Mgr Anzer, the vicar Apostolic, decided to accept it, after having, as he declares, several times sought unsuccessfully the aid of the French minister. In 1896 the German ambassador at Peking received from Berlin the command not only to support energetically the claims of the Catholic missionaries but even to declare that the German Empire would pledge itself to defend against all unjust oppression the persons and property of the mission of Shan-tung, together with freedom of preaching, in the same measure in which such had been formerly guaranteed by the French Protectorate. The murder of two of the Shan-tung missionaries in Nov., 1897, afforded the occasion for a more solemn affirmation of the new protectorate, while it furnished a long-sought pretext for the occupation of Kiao-chow. Austria had a better foundation for claiming a share in the Catholic protectorate, as, in various treaties concluded with the Porte (1699, 1718, and 1739), it had secured a right of protection over "the religious" in the Turkish Empire and even at Jerusalem. Whatever the meaning of this concession (apparently it did not include liberty of worship), it was never confirmed by usage, except in the countries bordering on Austria (notably Albania and Macedonia). In 1848 the Austrian Protectorate was extended to the mission of the Sudan and Nigritia, which was in the care of Austrian priests; apparently for this reason, when the Coptic Catholic hierarchy was restored in Egypt by Leo XIII (1895), the new patriarch and his suffragans placed themselves under the protection of Austria. Italy also has been very active in seeking to acquire a protectorate of missions, by patronizing societies for the assistance of the missionaries and by legislative measures intended to prove its benevolence to the Italian missionaries and persuade them to accept its protection. It even attempted by attractive promises to win over the Propaganda, but the Sacred Congregation discouraged it by a circular addressed to the Italian missionaries of the Levant and the Far East on 22 May, 1888. This not only forbade the missionaries to adopt towards official representatives of Italy any attitude which might be interpreted as favouring the Piedmontese usurpations in Italy, but once more affirmed the privilege of France in the most formal manner: "They [the missionaries] know that the Protectorate of the French Nation in the countries of the East has been established for centuries and sanctioned even by treaties between the empires. Therefore, there must be absolutely no innovation in this matter; this protectorate, wherever it is in force, is to be religiously preserved, and the missionaries are warned that, if they have need of any help, they are to have recourse to the consuls and other ministers of France." THE PROTECTORATE AND THE HOLY SEE The instance just mentioned was not the only occasion on which the Holy See undertook the defence of the French Protectorate. Whenever missionaries sought protection other than that of France, French diplomacy complained to Rome, and the Propaganda was always careful to reprimand the missionaries and to remind them that it appertained to France alone to protect them against infidel powers. Two such instances relating to the years 1744 and 1844 and selected from many others, are cited by the author of the study of the French Protectorate in the "Civiltà Cattolica" (5 November, 1904). To these may be added Leo XIII's confirmation of the Decree of 1888 in his reply to Cardinal Langénieux, Archbishop of Reims, dated 1 August, 1898: "France has a special mission in the East confided to her by Providence -- a noble mission consecrated not alone by ancient usage, but also by international treaties, as has been recognized recently by Our Congregation of the Propaganda in its deliberation of 22 May, 1888. The Holy See does not wish to interfere with the glorious patrimony which France has received from its ancestors and which beyond a doubt it means to deserve by always showing itself equal to its task." This attitude of the Holy See is the best defence of the French Proteotorate, and is in fact its only defence against the manoeuvres of its rivals as regards missions not under the direction of French subjects. The latter would have difficulty in resisting the pressing invitations extended to them from other quarters, if the Holy See left them free to accept. Rome gives still another proof of respect for the acquired rights of France by refusing, as it has hitherto done, to accredit permanent legates or ministers to Constantinople and Peking. For a time the idea, supported by the official agents of the Turkish and Chinese governments, attracted Leo XIII, but he dismissed it at the instance of French diplomats, who represented to him that the object was less to establish amicable relations between the Holy See and Turkey or China than to evade the tutelage of the lay protectorate. Pius X has done nothing to alter the protectorate, although some action in this direction would perhaps have been but a just reprisal for the disloyal separation. Some Objections The protectorate of missions is, however, open to some criticism both in theory and in practice. This article will not deal with attacks based solely on hatred of religion; the following are the most plausible objections which have influenced even friends of the apostolate to the extent of making them sometimes doubtful of the usefulness of the institution, even for the missions. The protectorate, it is said, is unwillingly tolerated by the authorities of infidel countries; it embitters the antipathy and hatred excited by the Christians in those countries, and causes the missionaries, who rely on its support, to be insufficiently mindful of the sensibilities of the natives and on their guard against excessive zeal. The modicum of truth contained in these objections shows that the exercise of the protectorate requires great wisdom and discretion. Naturally, the infidel powers chafe somewhat under it as a yoke and an uncomfortable and even humiliating servitude, but so long as they do not assure to the missionaries and their works the security and guarantees of justice which are found in Christian countries (and experience has shown how little this is the case in Turkey and China), the proteotorate remains the best means of providing them. But, to obviate as much as possible the odium attached to the meddling of one foreign power in the affairs of another, this intervention is reduced to what is absolutely necessary. The solution of the delicate problem lies in the cordial union and prudent collaboration of the agents of the protectorate and the heads of the mission, and these things it is not impossible to realize in practice. When it is learned that the superior of the mission of south-east Chi-li during the difficult period from 1862 to 1884 had recourse to the French legation only three times and arranged all other difficulties directly with the local Chinese authorities (Em. Becker, "Le R. P. Joseph Gonnet", Ho-kien-fou, 1907, p. 275), it will be understood that the French Protectorate is not necessarily a heavy burden, either for those who exercise it or for those bound by it. The abuses which may arise are due to the men, not to the system; for, after all, the missionaries, though not faultless, are most anxious that it should not be abused. Perhaps the abuse most to be feared is that the protectors should seek payment for their services by trammelling the spiritual direction of the mission or by demanding political services in exchange: a complete history of the protectorate would show, we believe, such abuses and others to be insignificant when compared with the benefits conferred by this institution on religion and civilization. CONCERNING THE LEVANT. -- CHARRIÈRE, Négociations de la France dans le Levant (4 vols., Paris, 1848); SCHOPOFF, Les réformes et la protection des chrét. en Turquie 1673-1904, Firmans, bérats, . . . traités (Paris, 1904); PÉLISSIÉ DU RAUSAS, Le régime des capitulations dans l'empire ottoman (Paris, 1902-5), I, 190-202; II, 80-176; REY, De la protection diplomatique et consulaire dans les échelles du Levant et de Barbarie (Paris, 1899); DE SAINT-PRIEST, Mémoires sur l'ambassade de France en Turquie . . suivis du texte des traductions originales des capitulations et des traités conclus avec la Sublime Porte (Paris 1877); CHARMES, Politique extérieure et coloniale (Paris, 1885), 303-84, 387-428; Le régime des capitulations par un ancien diplomate (Paris, 1898); BURNICHON, Les capitulations et les congregations religieuses en Orient in Etudes, LX (1893), 55; PRÉLOT, Le protectorat de la France sur les chrétiens d'Orient in Etudes, LXXVII (1898), 433, 651; LXXVIII, 38, 172; RABBATH, Documents inéd. pour servir à l'hist. du Christianisme en Orient, XVI-XIX siècle (Paris, 1907-10); CARAYON, Relations inéd. des missions de la C. de J. à Constantinople et dans le Levant au XVII ^e siècle (Paris, 1864); Lettres, édifiantes et curieuses. CONCERNING THE FAR EAST. -- CORDIER, Hist. des relations de la Chine avec les puissances occidentales (Paris, 1901-2); COUVREUR, Choix de documents, lettres officielles, proclamations, édits . . . Texte chinois avec traduction en français et en latin (Ho-kien-fu, 1894); WIEGER, Rudiments de parler et de style chinois, XI, Textes historiques (Ho-kien-fu, 1905), 2070-38; COGORDAN, Les missions cathol. en Chine et le protectorat de la France in Revue des deux mondes, LXXVIII (15 December, 1886), 765-98; FAUVEL, Les Allemands en Chine in Le Correspondant, CXCI (1898), 538-58, 758-74; LAUNAY in PIOLET, Les missions cathol., III, 270-75; DE LANESSAN, Les missions et leur protectorat (Paris, 1907), written against the protectorate and very unfriendly towards the missionaries. FOR THE PORTUGUESE PATRONAGE. -- JORDÃO, Bullarium patronatus Portugallioe regum in ecclesiis Africoe, Asioe atque Oceanioe (Lisbon, 1868); DE BUSSIERRE, Hist. du schisme portugais dans les Indes (Paris, 1854). JOSEPH BRUCKER. Protectories Protectories The institutions for the shelter and training of the young, designed to afford neglected or abandoned children shelter, food, raiment, and the rudiments of an education in religion, morals, science, and manual training or industrial pursuits. Institutions of this character are to be found in most of the dioceses of the United States. They are usually open to the reception of juvenile delinquents, who, under the better ideas now obtaining in criminal procedure, are committed by the courts, especially by Juvenile Courts (q. v.), to educational rather than to penal institutions. San Michéle, the first protectory for youth, was founded at Rome in 1704 by Clement XI. When John Howard, the English prison reformer (1726-90), visited the institution, he read above the entrance this inscription: "Clement XI, Supreme Pontiff, for the reformation and education of criminal youths, to the end that those who when idle had been injurious to the State, might, when better instructed and trained, become useful to it. In the Year of Grace 1704; of the Pontiff, the fourth". On a marble slab inserted in one of the interior walls he read further: "It is of little use to restrain criminals by punishment, unless you reform them by education". This has become the key-note of modern penology. The inmates worked together by day in a large hall where was hung up in large letters, visible to all, the word silentium, indicating that the work must go on in silence. At night they slept in separate cells. This system of associated or congregate labour in silence by day and cellular separation at night, for which, under the name of the Auburn System, so much excellence has been claimed in American penology, was thus inaugurated at Rome in the beginning of the eighteenth century, more than a hundred years prior to the introduction of the method into use here. The same wise pontiff established in connexion with this foundation of San Michéle a special court for the trial of offenders under twenty years of age, a plan that has re-appeared in the last decade in the Juvenile Courts established in America for the trial of delinquents under seventeen years of age. Secular protectories or reform schools, now termed "training schools", were instituted in America during the initial quarter of the nineteenth century. On 1 Jan., 1825, the House of Refuge was opened with appropriate exercises on what is now Madison Square, New York City. Nine children, just gathered from the streets, were present and formed the nucleus of the new establishment that has since grown to vast proportions in its present location on Randall's Island. Boston followed with a similar institution in 1826; Philadelphia in 1828; and in 1855 a girls' reformatory was founded at Lancaster in Massachusetts on the family or cottage plan, dividing the institution into three separate houses of thirty girls each, with their three matrons, all under the general supervision of a superintendent. In 1904, according to the U. S. Census Reports, there were thirty-nine states and territories with institutions for juvenile delinquents, and these had ninety-three institutions exclusively for such children, reporting a population; between seven and twenty-one years of age, of 23,034 as against 14,846 population in such institutions on 1 June, 1890. It is stated that these figures do not include children placed in these institutions by parents or guardians without the sanction or order of a magistrate or other lawful committing authority. Nor do these figures include persons under twenty-one years of age committed to institutions that are not exclusively for juveniles, as, for instance, jails and workhouses. Inquiry at the Census Office in Washington shows there were one hundred and three institutions for juvenile delinquents (1910); eighty-seven of these institutions reported 22,096 inmates on 1 January, 1910. In the great majority of cases the institutions are public. But the report of the Census entitled "Prisoners and Juvenile Delinquents in Institutions: 1904" observes that in several states the reformation and correction of delinquents are entrusted in whole or in part to private or religious agencies, and distinguishes as the most notable among these the Catholic Protectory at Westchester, New York, the largest institution of the kind in the country, which in 1904 contained 2566 delinquents and dependents. The actual number present in this institution on 31 December, 1909, was 2320, of whom 540 were girls accommodated in a department and buildings separate from the boys under the care of the Sisters of Charity. The boys are in charge of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, of the Institute founded by St. John Baptiste de la Salle. Another large protectory is St. Mary's Industrial School for Boys in charge of the Xaverian Brothers at Baltimore, Md. It had a juvenile population of 748 on 1 December, 1909. Since 1866, St. Mary's has cared for 7593 boys. Similar institutions are: in the United States, at Chicago, Illinois; Arlington, New Jersey (Diocese of Newark); Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Utica, New York (Diocese of Syracuse). In Canada, 4 in the Archdiocese of Montreal. In England: for boys, at Walthamstow, Essex; Farnworth, Lancashire; Birkdale, Lancashire; and Market Weighton, Yorkshire: for girls, at Bristol, Gloucestershire; and Liverpool, Lancashire. In Scotland, at Parkhead, Glasgow. In Ireland: for boys, at Glencree, Co. Wicklow, and Philipstown, King's Co.; for girls, at Drumcondra, Co. Dublin. Most of the juvenile delinquents sent to institutions in the United States are committed either during minority or for an indeterminate period. Statistics show that female delinquents are committed during minority more frequently than the males. On the other hand, commitment for an indeterminate period was more frequently imposed upon males than females. Most of these delinquents are literate. During 1904, of the male delinquents, 84.7 per cent could both read and write; the per cent of literate females was as high as 89.4. The length of stay in the institution is as a general rule not long. Under the system of parole and probation, the actual restraint is much shortened. The average duration of residence of 1508 boys discharged from the New York Catholic Protectory had been fifteen and two-thirds months; of two hundred and fifty girls, thirty-two and one-half months. The management of the Protectory claim that the girls' department cannot be considered a reformatory or even a home for delinquent children, and express their satisfaction with the recent amendment of the law in New York to prohibit the conviction of children under sixteen years of age of crime as such, restricting the complaint to delinquency. At St-Yon, in France, in the first quarter of the eighteenth century, St. John Baptiste de la Salle undertook the training and correction of wayward youth. The methods which are now employed at the New York Catholic Protectory, which is under the care of the order established by him, may well be taken as indicative of the general plan of protectories or the ideals which they seek to attain. The Protectory aims to form the youth committed to its care by vigilance, good example, and instruction: vigilance, to remove from the children the many occasions of offending; example, that the teachers be exemplars of the virtues they inculcate, for example is much better than precept; instruction, that they may become intelligent scholars, not only in the secular sciences but in religion, which is the warmth that gives life and light to all other learning, without which there is danger that knowledge may but minister to evil. Many of the boys received have been truant players with a strong disinclination to study. To overcome this and to train and develop the receptive faculties in the usual school studies entails much labour upon the Brothers. Moreover, it is felt that for these children especially vocational studies should not be postponed until mature years, but should be commenced early, so as to accustom the boy to what may afterwards prove to be the means of earning his own livelihood when he shall have left the Protectory. Accordingly, the effective faculties are instructed in different industries, in printing in all its branches, photography, tailoring, shoemaking, laundry work, industrial and ornamental drawing, sign-painting, painting, wheel-wrighting, blacksmithing, plumbing, carpentry, bricklaying, stone-work, baking in its different branches, and in practical knowledge of boilers, engines, dynamos, and electric wiring. At the Lincoln Agricultural School, a subsidiary institution, the boys, moreover, receive a training in dairy-farming and other agriculture. It is felt that if these children should not acquire a taste for the farm and for husbandry, but should return later to the city, they will have passed the trying period of their lives under conditions that will help them to be good men and assist them in health and in many other ways in after-life. While the productivity of these protectories is sometimes considerable, this is not the aim, but simply incidental to their primary object, which is the development of an industrious boy of good character for the glory of God and the good of the country. Protectories are always desirous of allowing their inmates to go out into the world, if they are prepared for it. They are impressed with the truth in the statement of Archbishop Hughes in his letter of 19 June, 1863, to Dr. Ives: "Let the children be in their house of protection just as short as possible. Their lot is, and is to be, in one sense, a sufficiently hard one under any circumstances, but the sooner they know what it is to be the better they will be prepared for encountering its trials and difficulties". These protectories have established working boys' homes, like St. Philip's of New York City, St. James' of Baltimore, the Working Boys' Home of Chicago, and other places, where the children may be safely housed and fed, taught manners, trained in the amenities of life, and somewhat accustomed to the use of money and economic conditions before they become incorporated in the great mass of citizenship. U. S. Census: Prisoners and Juvenile Delinquents in Institutions: 1904 (Washington, 1907); Proceedings of the National Conference of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, held at Richmond, Va., 1908 (New York, 1909); Proceedings of the First National Conference of Catholic Charities, held at the Catholic University of America, 1910 (Washington, 1911); F. H. WINES, Punishment and Reformation (New York, 1895); The Life and Works of the Venerable J. B. de la Salle (New York and Montreal, 1878); E. C. WINES, The State of Prisons and of Child-Saving Institutions in the Civilized World (Cambridge, 1880); Annual Reports of the New York Catholic Protectory and others in U. S. WILLIAM H. DELACY. Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America The history of this religious organization divides itself naturally into two portions: the period of its dependence upon the Church of England and that of its separate existence with a hierarchy of its own. I. BEFORE THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION The Church of England was planted permanently in Virginia in 1607, at the foundation of the Jamestown Colony. There had been sporadic attempts before this date -- in 1585 and 1587, under the auspices of Walter Raleigh in the Carolinas, and in 1607, under the auspices of Chief Justice Popham and Sir Ferdinando Gorges in Maine. The attempt to found colonies had failed, and with it, of course, the attempt to plant the English ecclesiastical institutions. During the colonial period the Church of England achieved a quasi-establishment in Maryland and Virginia, and to a lesser extent in the other colonies, with the exception of New England, where for many years the few Episcopalians were bitterly persecuted and at best barely tolerated. In the Southern states -- notably in Virginia and Maryland, in the latter of which the Church of England has dispossessed the Catholics not only of their political power, but even of religious liberty -- the Church of England, although well provided for from a worldly point of view, was by no means in a strong state, either spiritually or intellectually. The appointment to parishes was almost wholly in the hands of vestries who refused to induct ministers and so give them a title to the emoluments of their office, but preferred to pay chaplains whom they could dismiss at their pleasure. This naturally resulted in filling the ranks of the ministry with very unworthy candidates, and reduced the clergy to a position of contempt in the eyes of the laity. As there were no bishops in America, the churches in the colonies were under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London, who governed them by means of commissaries; but, although among the commissaries were men of such eminence as Dr. Bray in Maryland, and Dr. Blair, the founder of William and Mary College in Virginia, the lay power was so strong and the class of men willing to undertake the work of the ministry so inferior that very little could be done. Even the efforts of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel proved of very little effect in the South, though in Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey it bore much better fruit. But, while the Anglican church was sunk in spiritual and intellectual lethargy in the South, and while it had a rather attenuated existence in the Middle states, an event occurred in New England in 1722 which was of the greatest promise for the future of Anglicanism, and which shook Congregationalism in New England to its very foundations. Timothy Cutler, the rector of Yale College, with six other Congregational ministers, all men of learning and piety, announced to their brethren in the Congregational ministry of Connecticut that they could no longer remain out of visible communion with an Episcopal Church: that some of them doubted of the validity, while others were persuaded of the invalidity, of Presbyterian ordinations. Three of them were subsequently persuaded to remain in the Congregational ministry, the rest becoming Episcopalians, and three of them, Messrs. Cutler, Johnson, and Brown, were ordained to the ministry of the Anglican Church. During the Revolution. During the period of the Revolution the Church of England in America suffered greatly in the estimation of Americans by its strong attachment to the cause of the British Crown. But there were not wanting both clergymen and laymen most eminent in their loyalty to the cause of the colonies and in the patriotic sacrifices which they made to the cause of independence. Among the clergy two such men were Mr. White, an assistant of Christ Church, Philadelphia, and Mr. Provost, assistant of Trinity Church, New York. The rectors of these churches being Tories, these gentlemen subsequently succeeded them in the pastorate of their respective parishes. II. AFTER THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION The Seabury Faction. At the close of the war, Episcopalians, as they were already commonly called, realized that, if they were to play any part in the national life, their church must have a national organization. the greatest obstacle to this organization was the obtaining of bishops to carry on a national hierarchy. In Connecticut, where those who had gone into the Episcopal Church had not only read themselves into a belief in the necessity of Episcopacy, but had also adopted many other tenets of the Caroline divines, a bishop was considered of absolute necessity, and, accordingly, the clergy of that state elected the Rev. Samuel Seabury and requested him to go abroad and obtain the episcopal character. It was found impossible to obtain the episcopate in England, owing to the fact that the bishops there could not by law consecrate any man who would not take the oath of allegiance, and, although during the War of the Revolution, Seabury had been widely known for his Tory sympathies, it would have been impossible for him to return to America if he had received consecration as a British subject. Upon the refusal of the English bishops to confer the episcopate, he proceeded to Scotland, where, after prolonged negotiations, the Nonjuring bishops consented to confer the episcopal character upon him. These bishops were the remnant of the Episcopal Church which the Stuarts had so ardently desired to set up in Scotland and which had lost the protection of the State, together with all its endowments, by its fidelity to James II. Their religious principles were looked upon by Scottish Presbyterians as scarcely less obnoxious than those of Catholics and politically they were considered quite as dangerous. They were indeed exceedingly High Churchmen, and had made such alterations in the liturgy as brought their doctrine of the Holy Eucharist very near to that of the Catholic Church. They had even been known to use chrism in confirmation, and they were strong believers in the sacerdotal character of the Christian ministry and in the necessity of Apostolic succession and episcopal ordination. Dr. Seabury was consecrated by them in 1784, and, being of very similar theological opinions himself, he signed a concordat immediately after his consecration, where by he agreed to do his utmost to introduce the liturgical and doctrinal peculiarities of the Nonjurors into Connecticut. Upon his return to his own state he proceeded to organize and govern his diocese very much as a Catholic bishop would do; he excluded the laity from all deliberations and ecclesiastical councils and, as much as he could, from all control of ecclesiastical affairs. The White and Provost Factions. But if sacerdotalism was triumphant in Connecticut, a very different view was taken in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Dr. White, now rector of Christ Church, and a doctor of divinity, believed that if the Episcopal Church was ever to live and grow in America it must assent to, and adopt as far as possible, the principle of representative government. He would have been willing to go on without the episcopate until such time as it could have been obtained from England, and in the meantime to ordain candidates to the ministry by means of Presbyterian ordination, with the proviso, however, that upon the obtaining of a bishop these gentlemen were to be conditionally re-ordained. This last suggestion, however, found little favour among Episcopalians, and at last, after considerable difficulty, an Act was passed in Parliament whereby the English bishops were empowered to confer the episcopate upon men who were not subject to the British Crown. Accordingly, Dr. White, being elected Bishop of Pennsylvania, and Dr. Provost, Bishop of New York, proceeded to England and received consecration at the hands of the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Moore, on Septuagesima Sunday, 1787; Tenuous Union of the Various Factions. Upon their return to America, although there were now three bishops in the United States, there were so many differences between the Connecticut churchmen and those of the Middle and Southern states, especially with regard to the presence of laymen in ecclesiastical councils, that it was not until 1789 that a union was effected. Even after that date, when Dr. Madison was elected by Virginia to be its bishop, he proceeded to England for his consecration because Bishop Provost, of New York, refused to act in conjunction with the Bishop of Connecticut. The union, however, was finally cemented in 1792, when Dr. Claggert being elected Bishop of Maryland, and there being three bishops in the country of the Anglican line exclusive of Dr. Seabury, the Bishop of New York withdrew his objections as far as to allow Dr. Seabury to make a fourth. If Dr. Seabury had not been invited to take part in the consecration of Dr. Claggert, a schism between Connecticut an the rest of the country would have been the immediate result. III. THE THREE PARTIES OF EPISCOPALIANS Almost from the very beginning of its independent life, the tendencies which have shown themselves in the three parties in the Episcopal Church of the present day were not only evident, but were even embodied in the members of the Episcopate. Bishop Provost, of New York, represented the rationalistic temper of the eighteenth century, which has eventuated in what is called the Broad Church Party. Bishop White represented the Evangelical Party, with its belief in the desirability rather than the necessity of Apostolic succession and its desire to fraternize as nearly as possible with the other progeny of the Reformation. Bishop Seabury, on the other hand, represented the traditional High Church position, intellectual rather than emotional, and laying more stress upon the outward ecclesiastical organization of the Church than upon emotional religion. High Church Party. This school has played a very important part in the history of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States; and, while it was undoubtedly influenced to a large extent by the Oxford Movement, it was existent and energetic long before 1833. Indeed, in the twenties Bishop Hobart was already presenting that type of evangelical piety, united with high sacramental ideas, which has been the principal characteristic of the party ever since. The Oxford Movement, however, was not without its influence, and as early as 1843 the disputes between the extreme High Churchmen and the rest of the Episcopal Church had reached a condition of such acerbity that when the Rev. Arthur Cary, in his examination for orders, avowed the principles of "Tract 90" -- and in spite of that fact was not refused ordination -- the controversy broke out into an open war. The Bishop of Philadelphia, Dr. Onderdonk, was suspended from his office on a charge of drunkenness, the real reason being his sympathy with High Churchmen; and his dispossession was so unjust that it was declared by the famous legal authority, Horace Binney, to be absolutely illegal. He was not, however, restored to the exercise of his functions for more than ten years. His brother bishop of New York fared even worse. Charges of immorality were preferred against him, and he was suspended from his office for the rest of his life, despite the fact that the vast majority of his fellow-citizens, whether they belonged to his communion or not, firmly believed in his innocence. An attempt, however, to suspend a third bishop of High Church views, the father of the late Monsignor Doane, failed after he had been presented four times. Bishop Doane, not only by his unrivalled diplomatic skill, but by the goodness and probity of his life, made an ecclesiastical trial impossible. In 1852 the Bishop of North Carolina, Dr. Ives, resigned his position in the Episcopal Church and submitted to the Apostolic See, and he was followed into the Catholic Church by a considerable number, both of clergymen and laymen. His secession drew out of the Episcopal Church all those of distinctly Roman sympathies, but the High Church Party lived on, grown, and in some degrees prospering, in spite of hostile legislation, while in course of time a pro-Roman party sprang up again. After the passing of the open-pulpit canon in the General Convention of 1907, some twenty clergymen and a large number of the laity submitted to the Catholic Church. Evangelical Party. On the other hand, the extreme Evangelical Party, disturbed by the growth of ritualism, and unable to drive out High Churchmen in any large numbers, themselves seceded from the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1873, and formed what is known as the Reformed Episcopal Church. Unlike many of the Protestant bodies, the Episcopal Church was not permanently disrupted by the Civil War, for with the collapse of the Confederacy the separate organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States ceased. Broad Church Party. The Broad Church party, however, have remained in the Protestant Episcopal Church, and of late years have seriously affected its attitude towards such subjects as higher criticism and the necessity of episcopal ordination. The most outspoken advocates of this school, who in their conclusions differed little or not at all from the extreme modernists, have not been able seriously to alter the teaching of the Episcopal Church upon such fundamental truths as the Trinity and Incarnation; and in a few cases the High Church Party and the Evangelical, by combining, have been strong enough to exclude them from the Episcopal Church. The party, however, is gaining strength; its clergymen are men of intellect and vigour, and the laity who support the party are in the main people of large means. To it the future of Anglicanism belongs more than to any other school of thought within the Anglican body. IV. STATISTICS In 1907, the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America possessed a hierarch of 5413 clergy, 438 candidates for orders, and 946,252 communicants. These communicants should be multiplied at least three times in order to give an idea of the adherents of the Protestant Episcopal Church. It possessed nine colleges and universities and fifteen theological seminaries. TIFFANY, Hist. of the Prot. Episc. Church in the U.S. of America, in American Church History Series, VII (New York, 1907); McCONNEL, Hist. of the Am. Ep. Church from the Planting of the Colonies to the End of the Civil War (New York, 1890); WHITE, Memoirs of the Prot. Ep. Church in the U.S. (New York, 1880); COLEMAN. The Church in America (New York, 1895). SIGOURNEY W. FAY Protestantism Protestantism The subject will be treated under the following heads, viz.: I. Origin of the Name. II. Characteristic Protestant Principles. III. Discussion of the Three Fundamental Principles of Protestantism: A. The Supremacy of the Bible; B. Justification by Faith Alone; C. The Universal Priesthood of Believers. IV. Private Judgment in Practice. V. "Justification by Faith Alone" in Practice. VI. Advent of a New Order: Cæsaropapism. VII. Rapidity of Protestant Progress Explained. VIII. Present-day Protestantism. IX. Popular Protestantism. X. Protestantism and Progress: A. Prejudices; B. Progress in Church and Churches; C. Progress in Civil Society; D. Progress in Religious Toleration; E. The Test of Vitality. XI. Conclusion. I. ORIGIN OF THE NAME The Diet of the Holy Roman Empire, assembled at Speyer in April, 1529, resolved that, according to a decree promulgated at the Diet of Worms (1524), communities in which the new religion was so far established that it could not without great trouble be altered should be free to maintain it, but until the meeting of the council they should introduce no further innovations in religion, and should not forbid the Mass, or hinder Catholics from assisting thereat. Against this decree, and especially against the last article, the adherents of the new Evangel -- the Elector Frederick of Saxony, the Landgrave of Hesse, the Margrave Albert of Brandenburg, the Dukes of Lüneburg, the Prince of Anhalt, together with the deputies of fourteen of the free and imperial cities -- entered a solemn protest as unjust and impious. The meaning of the protest was that the dissentients did not intend to tolerate Catholicism within their borders. On that account they were called Protestants. In course of time the original connotation of "no toleration for Catholics" was lost sight of, and the term is now applied to, and accepted by, members of those Western Churches and sects which, in the sixteenth century, were set up by the Reformers in direct opposition to the Catholic Church. The same man may call himself Protestant or Reformed: the term Protestant lays more stress on antagonism to Rome; the term Reformed emphasizes adherence to any of the Reformers. Where religious indifference is prevalent, many will say they are Protestants, merely to signify that they are not Catholics. In some such vague, negative sense, the word stands in the new formula of the Declaration of Faith to be made by the King of England at his coronation; viz.: "I declare that I am a faithful Protestant". During the debates in Parliament it was observed that the proposed formula effectively debarred Catholics from the throne, whilst it committed the king to no particular creed, as no man knows what the creed of a faithful Protestant is or should be. II. CHARACTERISTIC PROTESTANT PRINCIPLES However vague and indefinite the creed of individual Protestants may be, it always rests on a few standard rules, or principles, bearing on the Sources of faith, the means of justification, and the constitution of the Church. An acknowledged Protestant authority, Philip Schaff (in "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge", s.v. Reformation), sums up the principles of Protestantism in the following words: The Protestant goes directly to the Word of God for instruction, and to the throne of grace in his devotions; whilst the pious Roman Catholic consults the teaching of his church, and prefers to offer his prayers through the medium of the Virgin Mary and the saints. From this general principle of Evangelical freedom, and direct individual relationship of the believer to Christ, proceed the three fundamental doctrines of Protestantism -- the absolute supremacy of (1) the Word, and of (2) the grace of Christ, and (3) the general priesthood of believers. . . . 1. Sola Scriptura ("Bible Alone") The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants." Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. The Calvinistic branches of Protestantism went farther in their antagonism to the received traditions than the Lutheran and the Anglican; but all united in rejecting the authority of the pope. Melanchthon for a while was willing to concede this, but only jure humano, or a limited disciplinary superintendency of the Church], the meritoriousness of good works, indulgences, the worship of the Virgin, saints, and relics, the sacraments (other than baptism and the Eucharist), the dogma of transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass, purgatory, and prayers for the dead, auricular confession, celibacy of the clergy, the monastic system, and the use of the Latin tongue in public worship, for which the vernacular languages were substituted. 2. Sola Fide ("Faith Alone") The subjective principle of the Reformation is justification by faith alone, or, rather, by free grace through faith operative in good works. It has reference to the personal appropriation of the Christian salvation, and aims to give all glory to Christ, by declaring that the sinner is justified before God (i.e. is acquitted of guilt, and declared righteous) solely on the ground of the all-sufficient merits of Christ as apprehended by a living faith, in opposition to the theory -- then prevalent, and substantially sanctioned by the Council of Trent -- which makes faith and good works co-ordinate sources of justification, laying the chief stress upon works. Protestantism does not depreciate good works; but it denies their value as sources or conditions of justification, and insists on them as the necessary fruits of faith, and evidence of justification. 3. Priesthood of All Believers The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system, which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people". See also Schaff "The Principle of Protestantism, German and English" (1845). III. DISCUSSION OF THE THREE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF PROTESTANTISM A. Sola Scriptura ("Bible Alone") The belief in the Bible as the sole source of faith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to the virtue of faith, and destructive of unity. It is unhistorical. No one denies the fact that Christ and the Apostles founded the Church by preaching and exacting faith in their doctrines. No book told as yet of the Divinity of Christ, the redeeming value of His Passion, or of His coming to judge the world; these and all similar revelations had to be believed on the word of the Apostles, who were, as their powers showed, messengers from God. And those who received their word did so solely on authority. As immediate, implicit submission of the mind was in the lifetime of the Apostles the only necessary token of faith, there was no room whatever for what is now called private judgment. This is quite clear from the words of Scripture: "Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God" (I Thessalonians 2:13). The word of hearing is received through a human teacher and is believed on the authority of God, who is its first author (cf. Romans 10:17). But, if in the time of the Apostles, faith consisted in submitting to authorized teaching, it does so now; for the essence of things never changes and the foundation of the Church and of our salvation is immovable. Again, it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book. For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority. But such trust in one's own light is not faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith. John Henry Newman says "I think I may assume that this virtue, which was exercised by the first Christians, is not known at all amongst Protestants now; or at least if there are instances of it, it is exercised toward those, I mean their teachers and divines, who expressly disclaim that they are objects of it, and exhort their people to judge for themselves" ("Discourses to Mixed Congregations", Faith and Private Judgment). And in proof he advances the instability of Protestant so-called faith: "They are as children tossed to and fro and carried along by every gale of doctrine. If they had faith they would not change. They look upon the simple faith of Catholics as if unworthy the dignity of human nature, as slavish and foolish". Yet upon that simple, unquestioning faith the Church was built up and is held together to this day. Where absolute reliance on God's word, proclaimed by his accredited ambassadors, is wanting, i.e. where there is not the virtue of faith, there can be no unity of Church. It stands to reason, and Protestant history confirms it. The "unhappy divisions", not only between sect and sect but within the same sect, have become a byword. They are due to the pride of private intellect, and they can only be healed by humble submission to a Divine authority. B. Sola Fide (Justification by "Faith Alone") See the separate article Justification. C. Priesthood of All Believers The "universal priesthood of believers" is a fond fancy which goes well with the other fundamental tenets of Protestantism. For, if every man is his own supreme teacher and is able to justify himself by an easy act of faith, there is no further need of ordained teachers and ministers of sacrifice and sacraments. The sacraments themselves, in fact, become superfluous. The abolition of priests, sacrifices, and sacraments is the logical consequence of false premises, i.e. the right of private judgment and justification by faith alone; it is, therefore, as illusory as these. It is moreover contrary to Scripture, to tradition, to reason. The Protestant position is that the clergy had originally been representatives of the people, deriving all their power from them, and only doing, for the sake of order and convenience, what laymen might do also. But Scripture speaks of bishops, priests, deacons as invested with spiritual powers not possessed by the community at large, and transmitted by an external sign, the imposition of hands, thus creating a separate order, a hierarchy. Scripture shows the Church starting with an ordained priesthood as its central element. History likewise shows this priesthood living on in unbroken succession to the present day in East and West, even in Churches separated from Rome. And reason requires such an institution; a society confessedly established to continue the saving work of Christ must possess and perpetuate His saving power; it must have a teaching and ministering order commissioned by Christ, as Christ was commissioned by God; "As the Father has sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21). Sects which are at best shadows of Churches wax and wane with the priestly powers they subconsciously or instinctively attribute to their pastors, elders, ministers, preachers, and other leaders. IV. PRIVATE JUDGMENT IN PRACTICE At first sight it seems that private judgment as a rule of faith would at once dissolve all creeds and confessions into individual opinions, thus making impossible any church life based upon a common faith. For quot capita tot sensus: no two men think exactly alike on any subject. Yet we are faced by the fact that Protestant churches have lived through several centuries and have moulded the character not only of individuals but of whole nations; that millions of souls have found and are finding in them the spiritual food which satisfies their spiritual cravings; that their missionary and charitable activity is covering wide fields at home and abroad. The apparent incongruity does not exist in reality, for private judgment is never and nowhere allowed full play in the framing of religions. The open Bible and the open mind on its interpretation are rather a lure to entice the masses, by flattering their pride and deceiving their ignorance, than a workable principle of faith. The first limitation imposed on the application of private judgment is the incapacity of most men to judge for themselves on matters above their physical needs. How many Christians are made by the tons of Testaments distributed by missionaries to the heathen? What religion could even a well-schooled man extract from the Bible if he had nought but his brain and his book to guide him? The second limitation arises from environment and prejudices. The assumed right of private judgment is not exercised until the mind is already stocked with ideas and notions supplied by family and community, foremost among these being the current conceptions of religious dogmas and duties. People are said to be Catholics, Protestants, Mahommedans, Pagans "by birth", because the environment in which they are born invariably endows them with the local religion long before they are able to judge and choose for themselves. And the firm hold which this initial training gets on the mind is well illustrated by the fewness of changes in later life. Conversions from one belief to another are of comparatively rare occurrence. The number of converts in any denomination compared to the number of stauncher adherents is a negligible quantity. Even where private judgment has led to the conviction that some other form of religion is preferable to the one professed, conversion is not always achieved. The convert, beside and beyond his knowledge, must have sufficient strength of will to break with old associations, old friendships, old habits, and to face the uncertainties of life in new surroundings. His sense of duty, in many eases, must be of heroical temper. A third limitation put on the exercise of private judgment is the authority of Church and State. The Reformers took full advantage of their emancipation from papal authority, but they showed no inclination to allow their followers the same freedom. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Knox were as intolerant of private judgment when it went against their own conceits as any pope in Rome was ever intolerant of heresy. Confessions of faith, symbols, and catechism were set up everywhere, and were invariably backed by the secular power. In fact, the secular power in the several parts of Germany, England, Scotland, and elsewhere has had more to do with the moulding of religious denominations than private judgment and justification by faith alone. Rulers were guided by political and material considerations in their adherence to particular forms of faith, and they usurped the right of imposing their own choice on their subjects, regardless of private opinions: cujus regio hujus religio. The above considerations show that the first Protestant principle, free judgment, never influenced the Protestant masses at large. Its influence is limited to a few leaders of the movement, to the men who by dint of strong character were capable of creating separate sects. They indeed spurned the authority of the Old Church, but soon transferred it to their own persons and institutions, if not to secular princes. How mercilessly the new authority was exercised is matter of history. Moreover, in the course of time, private judgment has ripened into unbridled freethought, Rationalism, Modernism, now rampant in most universities, cultured society, and the Press. Planted by Luther and other reformers the seed took no root, or soon withered, among the half-educated masses who still clung to authority or were coerced by the secular arm; but it flourished and produced its full fruit chiefly in the schools and among the ranks of society which draw their intellectual life from that source. The modern Press is at infinite pains to spread free judgment and its latest results to the reading public. It should be remarked that the first Protestants, without exception, pretended to be the true Church founded by Christ, and all retained the Apostles' Creed with the article "I believe in the Catholic Church". The fact of their Catholic origin and surroundings accounts both for their good intention and for the confessions of faith to which they bound themselves. Yet such confessions, if there be any truth in the assertion that private judgment and the open Bible are the only sources of Protestant faith, are directly antagonistic to the Protestant spirit. This is recognized, among others, by J. H. Blunt, who writes: "The mere existence of such confessions of faith as binding on all or any of the members of the Christian community is inconsistent with the great principles on which the Protestant bodies justified their separation from the Church, the right of private judgment. Has not any member as just a right to criticise and to reject them as his forefathers had a right to reject the Catholic creeds or the canons of general councils? They appear to violate another prominent doctrine of the Reformers, the sufficiency of Holy Scripture to salvation. If the Bible alone is enough, what need is there for adding articles? If it is rejoined that they are not additions to, but merely explanations of, the Word of God, the further question arises, amid the many explanations, more or less at variance with each other given by the different sects of Protestantism, who is to decide which is the true one? Their professed object being to secure uniformity, the experience of three hundred years has proved to us what may not have been foreseen by their originators, that they have had a diametrically opposite result, and have been productive not of union but of variance" (Dict. of Sects, Heresies, etc.", London, 1886, s.v. Protestant Confessions of Faith). By pinning private judgment to the Bible the Reformers started a book religion, i.e. a religion of which, theoretically, the law of faith and conduct is contained in a written document without method, without authority, without an authorized interpreter. The collection of books called "the Bible" is not a methodical code of faith and morals; if it be separated from the stream of tradition which asserts its Divine inspiration, it has no special authority, and, in the hands of private interpreters, its meaning is easily twisted to suit every private mind. Our modern laws, elaborated by modern minds for modern requirements, are daily obscured and diverted from their object by interested pleaders: judges are an absolute necessity for their right interpretation and application, and unless we say that religion is but a personal concern, that coherent religious bodies or churches are superfluous, we must admit that judges of faith and morals are as necessary to them as judges of civil law are to States. And that is another reason why private judgment, though upheld in theory, has not been carried out in practice. As a matter of fact, all Protestant denominations are under constituted authorities, be they called priest or presbyters, elders or ministers, pastors or presidents. Notwithstanding the contradiction between the freedom they proclaim and the obedience they exact, their rule has often been tyrannical to a degree, especially in Calvinistic communities. Thus in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there was no more priest-ridden country in the world than Presbyterian Scotland. A book-religion has, moreover, another drawback. Its devotees can draw devotion from it only as fetish worshippers draw it from their idol, viz. by firmly believing in its hidden spirit. Remove belief in Divine inspiration from the sacred books, and what remains may be regarded as simply a human document of religious illusion or even of fraud. Now, in the course of centuries, private judgment has partly succeeded in taking the spirit out of the Bible, leaving little else than the letter, for critics, high and low, to discuss without any spiritual advantage. V. "JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE" IN PRACTICE This principle bears upon conduct, unlike free judgment, which bears on faith. It is not subject to the same limitations, for its practical application requires less mental capacity; its working cannot be tested by anyone; it is strictly personal and internal, thus escaping such violent conflicts with community or state as would lead to repression. On the other hand, as it evades coercion, lends itself to practical application at every step in man's life, and favours man's inclination to evil by rendering a so-called "conversion" ludicrously easy, its baneful influence on morals is manifest. Add to justification by faith alone the doctrines of predestination to heaven or hell regardless of man's actions, and the slavery of the human will, and it seems inconceivable that any good action at all could result from such beliefs. As a matter of history, public morality did at once deteriorate to an appalling degree wherever Protestantism was introduced. Not to mention the robberies of Church goods, brutal treatment meted out to the clergy, secular and regular, who remained faithful, and the horrors of so many wars of religion, we have Luther's own testimony as to the evil results of his teaching (see Janssen, "History of the German People", Eng. tr., vol. V, London and St. Louis, 1908, 27-83, where each quotation is documented by a reference to Luther's works as published by de Wette). VI. ADVENT OF A NEW ORDER: CÆSAROPAPISM A similar picture of religious and moral degradation may easily be drawn from contemporary Protestant writers for all countries after the first introduction of Protestantism. It could not be otherwise. The immense fermentation caused by the introduction of subversive principles into the life of a people naturally brings to the surface and shows in its utmost ugliness all that is brutal in human nature. But only for a time. The ferment exhausts itself, the fermentation subsides, and order reappears, possibly under new forms. The new form of social and religious order, which is the residue of the great Protestant upheaval in Europe, is territorial or State Religion -- an order based on the religious supremacy of the temporal ruler, in contradistinction to the old order in which the temporal ruler took an oath of obedience to the Church. For the right understanding of Protestantism it is necessary to describe the genesis of this far-reaching change. Luther's first reformatory attempts were radically democratic. He sought to benefit the people at large by curtailing the powers of both Church and State. The German princes, to him, were "usually the biggest fools or the worst scoundrels on earth". In 1523 he wrote: "The people will not, cannot, shall not endure your tyranny and oppression any longer. The world is not now what it was formerly, when you could chase and drive the people like game". This manifesto, addressed to the poorer masses, was taken up by Franz von Sickingen, a Knight of the Empire, who entered the field in execution of its threats. His object was two-fold: to strengthen the political power of the knights -- the inferior nobility -- against the princes, and to open the road to the new Gospel by overthrowing the bishops. His enterprise had, however, the opposite result. The knights were beaten; they lost what influence they had possessed, and the princes were proportionately strengthened. The rising of the peasants likewise turned to the advantage of the princes: the fearful slaughter of Frankenhausen (1525) left the princes without an enemy and the new Gospel without its natural defenders. The victorious princes used their augmented power entirely for their own advantage in opposition to the authority of the emperor and the freedom of the nation; the new Gospel was also to be made subservient to this end, and this by the help of Luther himself. After the failure of the revolution, Luther and Melanchthon began to proclaim the doctrine of the rulers' unlimited power over their subjects. Their dissolving principles had, within less than ten years, destroyed the existing order, but were unable to knit together its debris into a new system. So the secular powers were called on for help; the Church was placed at the service of the State, its authority, its wealth, its institutions all passed into the hands of kings, princes, and town magistrates. The one discarded Pope of Rome was replaced by scores of popes at home. These, "to strengthen themselves by alliances for the promulgation of the Gospel", banded together within the limits of the German Empire and made common cause against the emperor. From this time forward the progress of Protestantism is on political rather than on religious lines; the people are not clamouring for innovations, but the rulers find their advantage in being supreme bishops, and by force, or cunning, or both impose the yoke of the new Gospel on their subjects. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, and all the small principalities and imperial towns in Germany are examples in point. The supreme heads and governors were well aware that the principles which had brought down the authority of Rome would equally bring down their own; hence the penal laws everywhere enacted against dissenters from the state religion decreed by the temporal ruler. England under Henry VIII, Elizabeth, and the Puritans elaborated the most ferocious of all penal codes against Catholics and others unwilling to conform to the established religion. To sum up: the much-vaunted Protestant principles only wrought disaster and confusion where they were allowed free play; order was only restored by reverting to something like the old system: symbols of faith imposed by an outside authority and enforced by the secular arm. No bond of union exists between the many national Churches, except their common hatred for "Rome", which is the birthmark of all, and the trade-mark of many, even unto our day. VII. RAPIDITY OF PROTESTANT PROGRESS EXPLAINED Before we pass on to the study of contemporary Protestantism, we will answer a question and solve a difficulty. How is the rapid spread of Protestantism accounted for? Is it not a proof that God was on the side of the Reformers, inspiring, fostering, and crowning their endeavours? Surely, as we consider the growth of early Christianity and its rapid conquest of the Roman Empire, as proofs of its Divine origin, so we should draw the same conclusion in favour of Protestantism from its rapid spread in Germany and the northern parts of Europe. In fact the Reformation spread much faster than the Apostolic Church. When the last of the Apostles died, no kingdoms, no vast tracts of lands, were entirely Christian; Christianity was still hiding in the catacombs and in out-of-the-way suburbs of heathen towns. Whereas, in a period of similar duration, say seventy years, Protestantism had taken hold of the better part of Germany, Scandinavia, Switzerland, England, and Scotland. A moment's consideration supplies the solution of this difficulty. Success is not invariably due to intrinsic goodness, nor is failure a certain proof of intrinsic badness. Both largely depend on circumstances: on the means employed, the obstacles in the way, the receptivity of the public. The success of Protestantism, therefore, must itself be tested before it can be used as a test of intrinsic goodness. The reformatory movement of the sixteenth century found the ground well prepared for its reception. The cry for a thorough reformation of the Church in head and members had been ringing through Europe for a full century; it was justified by the worldly lives of many of the clergy, high and low, by abuses in church administration, by money extortions, by the neglect of religious duties reaching far and wide through the body of the faithful. Had Protestantism offered a reform in the sense of amendment, probably all the corrupt elements in the Church would have turned against it, as Jews and pagans turned against Christ and the Apostles. But what the Reformers aimed at was, at least in the first instance, the radical overthrow of the existing Church, and this overthrow was effected by pandering to all the worst instincts of man. A bait was tendered to the seven-headed concupiscence which dwells in every human heart; pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, sloth, and all their offspring were covered and healed by easy trust in God. No good works were required: the immense fortune of the Church was the prize of apostasy: political and religous independence allured the kings and princes: the abolition of tithes, confession, fasting, and other irksome obligations attracted the masses. Many persons were deceived into the new religion by outward appearances of Catholicism which the innovators carefully maintained, e.g. in England and the Scandinavian kingdoms. Evidently we need not look for Divine intervention to account for the rapid spread of Protestantism. It would be more plausible to see the finger of God in the stopping of its progress. VIII. PRESENT-DAY PROTESTANTISM Theology After nearly four centuries of existence, Protestantism in Europe is still the religion of millions, but it is no more the original Protestantism. It has been, and is, in a perpetual flux: the principle of untrammelled free judgment, or, as it is now called, Subjectivism, has been swaying its adherents to and fro from orthodoxy to Pietism, from Rationalism to Indifferentism. The movement has been most pronounced in intellectual centres, in universities and among theologians generally, yet it has spread down to the lowest classes. The modern Ritschl-Harnack school, also called Modernism, has disciples everywhere and not only among Protestants. For an accurate and exhaustive survey of its main lines of thought we refer the reader to the Encyclical "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" (8 Sept., 1907), the professed aim of which is to defend the Catholic Church against Protestant infiltration's. In one point, indeed, the Modernist condemned by Pius X differs from his intellectual brothers: he remains, and wishes to remain, inside the Catholic Church, in order to leaven it with his ideas; the other stands frankly outside, an enemy or a supercilious student of religious evolution. It should also be noted that not every item of the Modernist programme need be traced to the Protestant Reformation; for the modern spirit is the distilled residue of many philosophies and many religions: the point is that Protestantism proclaims itself its standard-bearer, and claims credit for its achievements. Moreover, Modernistic views in philosophy, theology, history, criticism, apologetics, church reform etc., are advocated m nine-tenths of the Protestant theological literature in Germany, France, and America, England only slightly lagging behind. Now, Modernism is at the antipodes of sixteenth-century Protestantism. To use Ritschl's terminology, it gives new "values" to the old beliefs. Scripture is still spoken of as inspired, but its inspiration is only the impassioned expression of human religious experiences; Christ is the Son of God, but His Son-ship is like that of any other good man; the very ideas of God, religion, Church, sacraments, have lost their old values: they stand for nothing real outside the subject in whose religious life they form a kind of fool's paradise. The fundamental fact of Christ's Resurrection is an historical fact no longer; it is but another freak of the believing mind. Harnack puts the essence of Christianity, that is the whole teaching of Christ, into the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of man: Christ Himself is no part of the Gospel! Such was not the teaching of the Reformers. Present-day Protestantism, therefore, may be compared with Gnosticism, Manichæism, the Renaissance, eighteenth-century Philosophism, in so far as these were virulent attacks on Christianity, aiming at nothing less than its destruction. It has achieved important victories in a kind of civil war between orthodoxy and unbelief within the Protestant pale; it is no mean enemy at the gate of the Catholic Church. IX. POPULAR PROTESTANTISM In Germany, especially in the greater towns, Protestantism, as a positive guide in faith and morals, is rapidly dying out. It has lost all hold of the working classes. Its ministers, when not themselves infidels, fold their hands in helpless despair. The old faith is but little preached and with little profit. The ministerial energies are turned towards works of charity, foreign missions, polemics against Catholics. Among the English-speaking nations things seem just a little better. Here the grip of Protestantism on the masses was much tighter than in Germany, the Wesleyan revival and the High Church party among Anglicans did much to keep some faith alive, and the deleterious teaching of English Deists and Rationalists did not penetrate into the heart of the people. Presbyterianism in Scotland and elsewhere has also shown more vitality than less well-organized sects. "England", says J. R. Green, "became the people of a book", and that book was the Bible. It was as yet the one English book which was familiar to every Englishman; it was read in the churches and read at home, and everywhere its words, as they fell on ears which custom had not deadened, kindled a startling enthusiasm. . . . So far as the nation at large was concerned, no history, no romance, hardly any poetry, save the little-known verse of Chaucer, existed in the English tongue when the Bible was ordered to be set up in churches. . . . The power of the book over the mass of Englishmen showed itself in a thousand superficial ways, and in none more conspicuously than in the influence exerted on ordinary speech. . . . But far greater than its effect on literature or social phrase was the effect of the Bible on the character of the people at large . . . (Hist. of the English People, chap. viii, 1). X. PROTESTANTISM AND PROGRESS A. Prejudices The human mind is so constituted that it colours with its own previous conceptions any new notion that presents itself for acceptance. Though truth be objective and of its nature one and unchangeable, personal conditions are largely relative, dependent on preconceptions, and changeable. The arguments, for example, which three hundred years ago convinced our fathers of the existence of witches and sent millions of them to the torture and the stake, make no impression on our more enlightened minds. The same may be said of the whole theological controversy of the sixteenth century. To the modern man it is a dark body, of whose existence he is aware, but whose contact he avoids. With the controversies have gone the coarse, unscrupulous methods of attack. The adversaries are now facing each other like parliamentarians of opposite parties, with a common desire of polite fairness, no longer like armed troopers only intent on killing, by fair means or foul. Exceptions there are still, but only at low depths in the literary strata. Whence this change of behaviour, notwithstanding the identity of positions? Because we are more reasonable, more civilized; because we have evolved from medieval darkness to modern comparative light. And whence this progress? Here Protestantism puts in its claim, that, by freeing the mind from Roman thraldom, it opened the way for religious and political liberty; for untrammelled evolution on the basis of self-reliance; for a higher standard of morality; for the advancement of science -- in short for every good thing that has come into the world since the Reformation. With the majority of non-Catholics, this notion has hardened into a prejudice which no reasoning can break up: the following discussion, therefore, shall not be a battle royal for final victory, but rather a peaceful review of facts and principles. B. Progress in Church and Churches The Catholic Church of the twentieth century is vastly in advance of that of the sixteenth. She has made up her loss in political power and worldly wealth by increased spiritual influences and efficiency; her adherents are more widespread, more numerous, more fervent than at any time in her history, and they are bound to the central Government at Rome by a more filial affection and a clearer sense of duty. Religious education is abundantly provided for clergy and laity; religious practice, morality, and works of charity are flourishing; the Catholic mission-field is world-wide and rich in harvest. The hierarchy was never so united, never so devoted to the pope. The Roman unity is successfully resisting the inroads of sects, of philosophies, of politics. Can our separated brethren tell a similar tale of their many Churches, even in lands where they are ruled and backed by the secular power? We do not rejoice at their disintegration, at their falling into religious indifference, or returning into political parties. No, for any shred of Christianity is better than blank worldliness. But we do draw this conclusion: that after four centuries the Catholic principle of authority is still working out the salvation of the Church, whereas among Protestants the principle of Subjectivism is destroying what remains of their former faith and driving multitudes into religious indifference and estrangement from the supernatural. C. Progress in Civil Society The political and social organization of Europe has undergone greater changes than the Churches. Royal prerogatives, like that exercised, for instance, by the Tudor dynasty in England, are gone for ever. "The prerogative was absolute, both in theory and in practice. Government was identified with the will of the sovereign, his word was law for the conscience as well as the conduct of his subjects" (Brewer, "Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic etc.", II, pt. I, 1, p. ccxxiv). Nowhere now is persecution for conscience' sake inscribed on the national statute-books, or left to the caprice of the rulers. Where still carried on it is the work of anti-religious passion temporarily in power, rather than the expression of the national will; at any rate it has lost much of its former barbarity. Education is placed within reach of the poorest and lowest. The punishment of crime is no longer an occasion for the spectacular display of human cruelty to human beings. Poverty is largely prevented and largely relieved. Wars diminish in number and are waged with humanity; atrocities like those of the Thirty Years War in Germany, the Huguenot wars in France, the Spanish wars in the Netherlands, and Cromwell's invasion of Ireland are gone beyond the possibility of return. The witch-finder, the witchburner, the inquisitor, the disbanded mercenary soldier have ceased to plague the people. Science has been able to check the outbursts of pestilence, cholera, smallpox, and other epidemics; human life has been lengthened and its amenities increased a hundredfold. Steam and electricity in the service of industry, trade, and international communication, are even now drawing humanity together into one vast family, with many common interests and a tendency to uniform civilization. From the sixteenth to the twentieth century there has indeed been progress. Who have been its chief promoters? Catholics, or Protestants, or neither? The civil wars and revolutions of the seventeenth century which put an end to the royal prerogatives in England, and set up a real government of the people by the people, were religious throughout and Protestant to the core. "Liberty of conscience" was the cry of the Puritans, which, however, meant liberty for themselves against established Episcopacy. Tyrannical abuse of their victory in oppressing the Episcopalians brought about their downfall, and they in turn were the victims of intolerance. James II, himself a Catholic, was the first to strive by all the means at his command, to secure for his subjects of all the denominations "liberty of conscience for all future time" (Declaration of Indulgence, 1688). His premature Liberalism was acquiesced in by many of the clergy and laity of the Established Church, which alone had nothing to gain by it, but excited the most violent opposition among the Protestant Nonconformists who, with the exception of the Quakers, preferred a continuance of bondage to emancipation if shared with the hated and dreaded "Papists". So strong was this feeling that it overcame all those principles of patriotism and respect for the law of which the English people are wont to boast, leading them to welcome a foreign usurper and foreign troops for no other reason than to obtain their assistance against their Catholic fellow-subjects, in part to do precisely what the latter were falsely accused of doing in the time of Elizabeth. The Stuart dynasty lost the throne, and their successors were reduced to mere figure-heads. Political freedom had been achieved, but the times were not yet ripe for the wider freedom of conscience. The penal laws against Catholics and Dissenters were aggravated instead of abolished. That the French Revolution of 1789 was largely influenced by the English events of the preceding century is beyond doubt; it is, however, equally certain that its moving spirit was not English Puritanism, for the men who set up a declaration of the Rights of Man against the Rights of God, and who enthroned the Goddess of Reason in the Cathedral Church of Paris, drew their ideals from Pagan Rome rather than from Protestant England. D. Progress in Religious Toleration As regards Protestant influence on the general progress of civilization since the origin of Protestantism we must mark off at least two periods: the first from the beginning in 1517 to the end of the Thirty Years War (1648), the second from 1648 to the present day; the period of youthful expansion, and the period of maturity and decay. But before apportioning its influence on civilization the previous questions should be examined: in how far does Christianity contribute to the amelioration of man -- intellectual, moral, material -- in this world: for its salutary effects on mans soul after death cannot be tested, and consequently cannot be used as arguments in a purely scientific disquisition. There were highly-civilized nations in antiquity, Assyria, Egypt, Greece, Rome: and there are now China and Japan, whose culture owes nothing to Christianity. When Christ came to enlighten the world, the light of Roman and Greek culture was shining its brightest, and for at least three centuries longer the new religion added nothing to its lustre. The spirit of Christian charity, however, gradually leavened the heathen mass, softening the hearts of rulers and improving the condition of the ruled, especially of the poor, the slave, the prisoner. The close union of Church and State, begun with Constantine and continued under his successors, the Roman emperors of East and West, led to much good, but probably to more evil. The lay episcopacy which the princes assumed well-nigh reduced the medieval Church to a state of abject vassalage, the secular clergy to ignorance and worldliness, the peasant to bondage and often to misery. Had it not been for the monasteries the Church of the Middle Ages would not have saved, as it did, the remnant of Roman and Greek culture which so powerfully helped to civilize Western Europe after the barbarian invasions. Dotted all over the West, the monks formed model societies, well-organized, justly ruled, and prospering by the work of their hands, true ideals of a superior civilization. It was still the ancient Roman civilization, permeated with Christianity, but shackled by the jarring interests of Church and State. Was Christian Europe, from a worldly point of view, better off at the beginning of the fifteenth century than pagan Europe at the beginning of the fourth? For the beginning of our distinctly modern progress we must go back to the Renaissance, the Humanistic or classical, i.e. pagan revival, following upon the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks (1453); upon the discovery of the new Indian trade route round the Cape of Good Hope by the Portuguese; upon the discovery of America by the Spaniards, and upon the development of all European interests, fostered or initiated at the end of the fifteenth century, just before the birth of Protestantism. The opening of the New World was for Europe a new creation. Minds expanded with the vast spaces submitted to them for investigation; the study of astronomy, at first in the service of navigation, Soon reaped its own reward by discoveries in its proper domain, the starry heavens; descriptive geography, botany, anthropology, and kindred sciences demanded study of those who would reap a share in the great harvest East and West. The new impulse and new direction given to commerce changed the political aspect of old Europe. Men and nations were brought into that close contact of common interests, which is the root of all civilization; wealth and the printing-press supplied the means for satisfying the awakened craving for art, science, literature, and more refined living. Amid this outburst of new life Protestantism appears on the scene, itself a child of the times. Did it help or hinder the forward movement? The youth of Protestantism was, naturally enough, a period of turmoil, of disturbing confusion in all the spheres of life. No one nowadays can read without a sense of shame and sadness the history of those years of religious and political strife,; of religion everywhere made the handmaid of politics; of wanton destruction of churches and shrines and treasures of sacred art; of wars between citizens of the same land conducted with incredible ferocity; of territories laid waste, towns pillaged and levelled to the ground, poor people sent adrift to die of starvation in their barren fields; of commercial prosperity cut down at a stroke; of seats of learning reduced to ranting and loose living; of charity banished from social intercourse to give place to slander and abuse, of coarseness in speech and manners, of barbarous cruelty on the part of princes, nobles, and judges in their dealings with the "subject" and the prisoner, in short of the almost sudden drop of whole countries into worse than primitive savagery. "Greed, robbery, oppression, rebellion, repression, wars, devastation, degradation" would be a fitting inscription on the tombstone of early Protestantism. But violenta non durant. Protestantism has now grown into a sedate something, difficult to define. In some form or other it is the official religion in many lands of Teutonic race, it also counts among its adherents an enormous number of independent religious bodies. These Protestant Teutons and semi-Teutons claim to be leaders in modern civilization: to possess the greatest wealth, the best education, the purest morals; in every respect they feel themselves superior to the Latin races who still profess the Catholic religion, and they ascribe their superiority to their Protestantism. Man knows himself but imperfectly: the exact state of his health, the truth of his knowledge, the real motives of his actions, are all veiled in semi-obscurity; of his neighbour he knows even less than of himself, and his generalizations of national character, typified by nicknames, are worthless caricatures. Antipathies rooted in ancient quarrels -- political or religious -- enter largely into the judgments on nations and Churches. Opprobrious, and so far as sense goes obsolete epithets applied in the heat and passion of battle still cling to the ancient foe and create prejudice against him. Conceptions formed three hundred years ago amid a state of things which has long ceased to be, still survive and distort our judgments. How slowly the terms Protestant, Papist, Romanist, Nonconformist, and others are losing their old unsavoury connotation. Again: Is there any of the greater nations that is purely Protestant? The richest provinces of the German Empire are Catholic, and contain fully one-third of its entire population. In the United States of America, according to the latest census, Catholics form the majority of the church-going population in many of the largest cities: San Francisco (81.1 per cent); New Orleans (79.7 per cent); New York (76.9 per cent); St. Louis (69 per cent); Boston (68.7 per cent); Chicago (68.2 per cent); Philadelphia (51.8 per cent). Great Britain and its colonies have a Catholic population of over twelve millions. Holland and Switzerland have powerful Catholic provinces and cantons; only the small Scandinavian kingdoms have succeeded in keeping down the old religion. A further question suggests itself: granting that some states are more prosperous than others, is their greater prosperity due to the particular form of Christianity they profess? The idea is absurd. For all Christian denominations have the same moral code -- the Decalogue -- and believe in the same rewards for the good and punishments for the wicked. We hear it asserted that Protestantism produces self-reliance, whereas Catholicism extinguishes it. Against this may be set the statement that Catholicism produces disciplined order -- an equally good commercial asset. The truth of the matter is that self-reliance is best fostered by free political institutions and a decentralized government. These existed in England before the Reformation and have survived it; they likewise existed in Germany, but were crushed out by Protestant Cæsaropapism, never to revive with their primitive vigour. Medieval Italy, the Italy of the Renaissance, enjoyed free municipal government in its many towns and principalities: though the country was Catholic, it brought forth a crop of undisciplined self-reliant men, great in many walks of life, good and evil. And looking at history, we see Catholic France and Spain attaining the zenith of their national grandeur, whilst Germany was undermining and disintegrating that Holy Roman Empire vested in the German nation -- an empire which was its glory, its strength, the source and mainstay of its culture and prosperity. England's grandeur during the same epoch is due to the same cause as that of Spain: the impulse given to all national forces by the discovery of the New World. Both Spain and England began by securing religious unity. In Spain the Inquisition at a small cost of human life preserved the old faith; in England the infinitely more cruel penal laws stamped out all opposition to the innovations imported from Germany. Germany itself did not recover the prominent position it held in Europe under the Emperor Charles V until the constitution of the new empire during the Franco-German War (1871) Since then its advance in every direction, except that of religion, has been such as seriously to threaten the commercial and maritime supremacy of England. The truth of the whole matter is this: religious toleration has been placed on the statute books of modern nations; the civil power has severed itself from the ecclesiastical; the governing classes have grown alarmingly indifferent to things spiritual; the educated classes are largely Rationalistic; the working classes are widely infected with anti-religious socialism; a prolific press daily and periodically preaches the gospel of Naturalism overtly or covertly to countless eager readers; in many lands Christian teaching is banished from the public schools; and revealed religion is fast losing that power of fashioning politics, culture, home life, and personal character which it used to exercise for the benefit of Christian states. Amid this almost general flight from God to the creature, Catholicism alone makes a stand: its teaching is intact, its discipline stronger than ever, its confidence in final victory is unshaken. E. The Test of Vitality A better standard for comparison than the glamour of worldly progress, at best an accidental result of a religious system, is the Power of self-preservation and propagation, i. e. vital energy. What are the facts? "The anti-Protestant movement in the Roman Church" says a Protestant writer, "which is generally called the Counter-Reformation, is really at least as remarkable as the Reformation itself. Probably it would be no exaggeration to call it the most remarkable single episode that has ever occurred in the history of the Christian Church. Its immediate success was greater than that of the Protestant movement, and its permanent results are fully as large at the present day. It called forth a burst of missionary enthusiasm such as has not been seen since the first day of Pentecost. So far as organization is concerned, there can be no question that the mantle of the men who made the Roman Empire has fallen upon the Roman Church; and it has never given more striking proof of its vitality and power than it did at this time, immediately after a large portion of Europe had been torn from its grasp. Printing-presses poured forth literature not only to meet the controversial needs of the moment but also admirable editions of the early Fathers to whom the Reformed Churches appealed -- sometimes with more confidence than knowledge. Armies of devoted missionaries were scientifically marshalled. Regions of Europe which had seemed to be lost for ever [for example, the southern portion of Germany and parts of Austria-Hungary] were recovered to the Papacy, and the claims of the Vicar of Christ were carried far and wide through countries where they had never been heard before" (R. H. Maiden, classical lecturer, Selwyn College, Cambridge, in "Foreign Missions", London, 1910, 119-20). Dr. G. Warneck, a protagonist of the Evangelical Alliance in Germany, thus describes the result of the Kulturkampf: "The Kulturkampf (i. e. struggle for superiority of Protestantism against Catholicism in Prussia), which was inspired by political, national, and liberal-religious motives, ended with a complete victory for Rome. When it began, a few men, who knew Rome and the weapons used against her, foretold with certainty that a contest with Romanism on such lines would of necessity end in defeat for the State and in an increase of power for Romanism. . . . The enemy whom we met in battle has brilliantly conquered us, though we had all the arms civil power can supply. True, the victory is partly owing to the ability of the leaders of the Centre party, but it is truer still that the weapons used on our side were blunted tools, unfit for doing serious harm. The Roman Church is indeed, like the State, a political power, worldly to the core, but after all she is a Church, and therefore disposes of religious powers which she invariably brings into action when contending with civil powers for Supremacy. The State has no equivalent power to Oppose. You cannot hit a spirit, not even the Roman spirit . . ." (Der evangelische Bund und seine Gegner", 13-14). The anti-religious Government of France is actually renewing the Kulturkampf; but no more than its German models does it succeed in "hitting the Roman spirit". Endowments, churches, schools, convents have been confiscated, yet the spirit lives. The other mark of Catholic vitality -- the power of propagation -- is evident in missionary work. Long before the birth of Protestantism, Catholic missionaries had converted Europe and carried the Faith as far as China. After the Reformation they reconquered for the Church the Rhinelands, Bavaria, Austria, part of Hungary, and Poland; they established flourishing Christian communities all over North and South America and in the Portuguese colonies, wherever, in short, Catholic powers allowed them free play. For nearly three hundred years Protestants were too intent on self-preservation to think of foreign missionary work. At the present day, however, they develop great activity in all heathen countries, an not without a fair success. Malden, in the work quoted above, compares Catholic with Protestant methods and results: although his sympathy is naturally with his own, his approbation is all for the other side. XI. CONCLUSION Catholicism numbers some 270 millions of adherents, all professing the same Faith, using the same sacraments, living under the same discipline; Protestantism claims roundly 100 millions of Christians, products of the Gospel and the fancies of a hundred reformers, people constantly bewailing their "unhappy divisions" and vainly crying for a union which is only possible under that very central authority, protestation against which is their only common denominator. For controversial matter see any Catholic or Protestant textbooks. The Catholic standard work is BELLARMINE, Disputations de Controversiis Christianoe fidei etc. (4 vols., Rome, 1832-8); on the Protestant side: GERHARD, Loci Theologici, etc. (9 vols., Berlin, 1863-75). For the historical, political, and social history of Protestantism the best works are: DÖLLINGER, Die Reformation (3 VOLS., Ratisbon, 1843-51); The Church and the Churches, tr. MACCABE (1862); JANSSEN, Hist. of the German People at the close of the Middle Ages, tr. CHRISTIE (London, 1896-1910); PASTOR, Hist. of the Popes from the close of the Middle Ages, tr. ANTROBUS (London, 1891-1910); BALMES, Protestantism and Catholicity in their effects on the civilization of Europe, tr. HANFORD AND KERSHAW (1849); BAUDRILLART, The Catholic Church, the Renaissance and Protestantism, tr. GIBBS (London, 1908), these are illuminating lectures given at the Institut Catholique of Paris by its rector. On the Protestant side may be recommended the voluminous writings of CREIGHTON and GARDINER, both fair-minded. J. WILHELM Prothonotary Apostolic Prothonotary Apostolic A member of the highest college of prelates in the Roman Curia, and also of the honorary prelates on whom the pope has conferred this title and its special privileges. In later antiquity there were in Rome seven regional notaries, who, on the further development of the papal administration and the accompanying increase of the notaries, remained the supreme palace notaries of the papal chancery (notarii apostolici or protonotarii). In the Middle Ages the prothonotaries were very high papal officials, and were often raised directly from this office to the cardinalate. Sixtus V (1585-90) increased their number to twelve. Their importance gradually diminished, and at the time of the French Revolution the office had almost entirely disappeared. On 8 February, 1838, Gregory XVI re-established the college of real prothonotaries with seven members called "protonotarii de numero participantium", because they shared in the revenues. Since the sixteenth century the popes had also appointed honorary prothonotaries, who enjoyed the same privileges as the seven real members of the college; and titular prothonotaries, who held a corresponding position in the administration of the episcopal ordinariate or in the collegiate chapter. By the Motu Proprio "Inter multiplices" of 21 February, 1905, Pius X exactly defined the position of the prothonotaries. These are divided into four classes: + the "Protonotarii apostolici de numero participantium", (members of the college of prelates), who exercise their office in connection with the acts of consistories and canonizations, have a representative in the Congregation of the Propaganda, and, according to the reorganization of the Curia by the Constitution "Sapienti consilio" of 29 June, 1908, sign the papal Bulls instead of the earlier abbreviators (q.v.). They enjoy the use of pontificals and numerous privileges, and may also, after examining the candidates, name annually a fixed number of doctors of theology and of canon law; + the "Protonotarii apostolici supranumerarii", a dignity to which only the canons of the three Roman patriarchal churches (the Lateran, St. Peter's, and St. Mary Major), and of cathedral chapters outside of Rome to which the privilege has been granted, can be raised; + the "Protonotarii apostolici ad instar (sc. participantium)", who are appointed by the pope and have the same external insignia as the real prothonotaries; + the "Protonotarii titulares seu honorarii", who are found outside of Rome, and who may receive this dignity from the nuncios or as a special privilege. The privileges, dress, and insignia of the members of these four classes are exactly defined by the above mentioned Motu Proprio. See the bibliography of PRELATE. J.P. KIRSCH Protocol Protocol The formula used at the beginning of public acts drawn up by notaries, e.g., mention of the reign, time, place, etc. (Justinian, "Novels", 43); also, the compact register in which notaries register the acts drawn up by them, in order of date; finally, the first draft of these acts (called minutes, because they are wntten in small characters), which remain in care of the notary, and from which a copy or transcript (said to be engrossed, because wntten in larger characters) is made, and sent to the interested parties. In tribunals where the registrars have retained the name notary, the protocol is the register in which records of the proceedings are preserved and the office in which the originals of these documents are kept (cf. Regulation of the Rota, 4 August, 1910, art. 2). Public acts, official records, ought to be either the originals (engrossed) or authentic copies, i.e., certified to be faithful copies of the original preserved in the protocol, the notary who transcribes the document witnessing on the copy itself that it is exact; this is what is known as fides instrumentorum, or trustworthiness of the documents. DU CANGE, Glossarium, s. v. Protocollum; the canonical writers on the title De fide instrumentorum, II, tit. xxii. A. BOUDINHON Protopope Protopope A priest of higher rank in thc Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Churches, corresponding in general to the Western archpriest or dean. The rights and duties of these dignitaries have varied to some extent at different times and in different local Churches. Roughly the titles archpriest (archipresbyteros), protopriest (protoiereus, protopresbyteros), protopope (protopapas) may be taken as meaning; the same thing, though they have occasionally been distinguished. The general idea is that the archpriest has the highest rank in his order; he comes immediately after the bishop. In the fifth century he appears as head of the college of priests, as the bishop's delegate for certain duties of visitation and judgment, as his representative in case of absence or death (sede vacante). So Liberatus: "Breviarium", XIV (P. L., LXVIII, 1016). He therefore combined the offices of our modern dean of the chapter, vicar-general and vicar capitular. The title recurs constantly in the early Middle Ages (Bingham, op. cit., I, 292 sqq.). At Constantinople there was an elaborately organized court of ecclesiastical persons around the patriarch, whose various places in choir when the patriarch celebrated are given in the Euchologion together with a statement of their duties. Among these the protopope had the first place on the left. "The protopope stands above the left choir when the pontiff celebrates, he gives to him [the pontiff] Holy Communion and in the same way the pontiff to the protopope and he has all first places [ta proteia panta] in the church" (Goar, 225). Under him is the "second one" (ho deutereuon), who takes his place in his absence (ibid.). So also Leo Allatius's list, where it is said further that: "he holds the place [kraton topon, as deputy] of the pontiff" (ibid., 229). He is promoted by presentation to the patriarch, who lays his hand on him with prayer, and the clergy cry "axios" three times (the rite from Allatius is given by Goar, 238). Goar notes that the protopope, at least to some extent, succeeded to the place of the chorepiscopus. He could ordain lectors; at concelebrations where no bishop is present he presided and said the Ekphoneseis. In the bishop's absence he took his place as president, and had jurisdiction over his fellow-clergy. George Kodinos (fourteenth century) says of the protopope: "he is first in the tribunal [tou bematos, in authority] holding the second place after the pontiff" (De Officiis, I, quoted by Goar 237). Distinct from the official of the patriarchal court, though bearing the same title, were the protopopes in the country parishes. They correspond to our rural deans, having delegate episcopal jurisdiction for minor cases, from which appeal may be made to the bishop. So Theodore Balsamon (twelfth century): "It is forbidden by the canons that there should be bishops in small towns and villages and because of this they ordain for these, priests who are protopopes and chorepiscopi" (Syntagma, III, 142). There are cases in which a protopope in a remote place has episcopal jurisdiction, but not orders, like some vicars Apostolic, or the archpriests in England from 1599 to 1621. In such cases they are distinguished from archpriests and have such officials under them (so the introduction to Nicholas Bulgaris's "Sacred Catechism", Venice, l681). In modern times the Orthodox (and Eastern Catholic) title of protopope often means hardly more than a complimentary title conveying a certain rank and precedence with sometimes a few unimportant rights. Often in a church that has several priests (as we should say a rector and curates) the first (rector) is called protopope. In Russia, Bulgaria, Rumania, and Austria the protopopes have authority over a district containing several parishes. They have to visit these occasionally and represent for the clergy the court of first instance. In Orthodox Hungary and Transylvania there are protopresbyterates (eparchies), in which the protopope is elected by clergy and people and rules under the bishop. In these cases he may be compared to our rural deans. Such an office is the highest to which a married Orthodox priest may aspire, since bishops are always monks. In Russia the protopope (protoierei) sometimes wears the Byzantine mitre and epigonation, but not the omophorion or sakkos. GOAR, Euchologion (Venice, 1730): BINGHAM, Origines sive antiquitates ecclesiastic (London, 1723); MILASCH, Das Kirchenrecht der morgenländischen Kirche (2nd ed., Mostar, 1905); KNIE, Die russisch-schismatische Kirche (Graz, 1894). ADRIAN FORTESCUE Sts. Protus and Hyacinth Sts. Protus and Hyacinth Martyrs during the persecution of Valerian (257-9). The day of their annual commemoration is mentioned in the "Depositio Martyrum" in the chronographia for 354 (Ruinart, "Acta martyrum", ed. Tatisbon, 632) under 11 September. The chronographia also mentions their graves, in the Coemeterium of Basilla on the Via Salaria, later the Catacomb of St. Hermes. The Itineraries and other early authorities likewise give this place of burial (De Rossi, "Roma sotterranea", I, 176-7). In 1845 Father Marchi discovered the still undisturbed grave of St. Hyacinth in a crypt of the above- mentioned catacomb. It was a small square niche in which lay the ashes and pieces of burned bone wrapped in the remains of costly stuffs (Marchi, "Monumenti primitivi: I, Architettura della Roma sotterranea cristina", Rome, 1844, 238 sqq., 264 sqq.). Evidently the saint had been burnt; most probably both martyrs had suffered death by fire. The niche was closed by a marble slab similar to that used to close a loculus, and bearing the original inscription that confirmed the date in the old Martyrology: D P III IDUS SEPTEBR YACINTHUS MARTYR (Buried on 11 September Hyacinthus Martyr). In the same chamber were found fragments of an architrave belonging to some later decoration, with the words: . . . S E P U L C R U M P R O T I M(artyris) . . . (Grave of the Martyr Protus) Thus both martyrs were buried in the same crypt. Pope Damasus wrote an epitaph in honour of the two martyrs, part of which still exists (Ihm, "Damasi epigrammata", 52, 49). In the epitaph Damasus calls Protus and Hyacinth brothers. When Leo IV (847-55) translated the bones of a large number of Roman martyrs to the churches of Rome, the relics of these two saints were to be translated also; but, probably on account of the devastation of the burial chamber, only the grave of St. Protus was found. His bones were transferred to San Salvatore on the Palatine. The remains of St. Hyacinth were placed (1849) in the chapel of the Propaganda. Later the tombs of the two saints and a stairway built at the end of the fourth century were discovered and restored. ALLARD, Rome souterraine (2nd ed., Paris, 1877), 529 sqq.; MARUCCHI, Les catacombes romaines (2nd ed., Rome, 1903), 480 sqq.; Nuovo Bull. di arch. crist. (1895), 11 sqq.; (1898), 77 sqq.; Bibliotheca hagiographica latina, II, 1015; DUFOURCQ, Les Gesta martyrum romains, I, 222sq. J.P. KIRSCH Father Prout Father Prout The name by which the Rev. Francis Sylvester Mahony (O'Mahony), author of "The Bells of Shandon", is generally known; b. at Cork, 31 Dec., 1804; d. in Paris, 18 May, 1866. Educated at Clongowes Wood College, and St.-Achuel, France (1815-21), he entered the Jesuit novitiate in Paris in 1821, and in 1823 was sent to Rome for his course in philosophy. In 1825 he returned to Clongowes as disciplinarian, and after a brief stay there, going subsequently to Freiburg and Florence, he left the Society of Jesus and entered the Irish College at Rome as a student for the priesthood. He did not complete his course there, but in 1832 was ordained at Lucca -- a step against which practically all his religious supervisors had advised him. He returned to his native diocese and for a time served there as a priest, being conspicuous for his heroism and devotion as chaplain to the Cork Cholera Hospital during the terrible epidemic that visited the city at that time. Developing some differences with his superiors, he went to London in 1834, and almost immediately commenced his literary career, joining "Fraser's Magazine", then under the editorship of his fellow-townsman, Maginn. For three years, he wrote in "Fraser's" (1834-7), then in "Bentley's Magazine", edited by Charles Dickens, and in 1846 was sent by Dickens to Rome as correspondent for the "Daily News". For twelve years he filled that post, then went to Paris (1858) as correspondent of the "Globe" and spent the rest of his life there. After his death his remains were brought to Cork and, after a public funeral, were interred in the family vault in Shandon churchyard. Although for thirty years Mahony did not exercise his priestly duties, he never wavered in his deep loyalty to the church, recited his Office daily, and received the last sacraments at the hands of his old friend, Abbé Rogerson, who left abundant testimony of his excellent dispositions. Popularly best known as the author of the famous lyric, "The Bells of Shandon", Mahony's claim to literary fame rests more securely on the collection known as "The Reliques of Fr. Prout". Dowered with a retentive memory, irrepressible humor, large powers of expression, and a strongly satiric turn of mind, an omnivorous reader, well-trained in the Latin classics, thoroughly at home in the French and Italian languages, and a ready writer of rhythmic verse in English, Latin, and French, he produced such articles as "An Apology for Lent", "Literature and the Jesuits", and "The Rogueries of Tom Moore", an extraordinary mixture of erudition, fancy, and wit, such as is practically without precise parallel in contemporary literature. The best of his work appeared in "Fraser's Magazine" during the first three years of his literary life. He translated largely from Horace, and the poets of France and Italy, including a complete and free metrical rendering of Gresset's famous mocking poem "Vert-Vert" and Jerome Vida's "Silkworm". But his newspaper correspondence from Rome and Paris is notable chiefly for the vigours of his criticisms upon men and measures, expressed, as these were, in most caustic language. Seven years before his death he edited the first authorized edition of "Reliques", and in 1860 wrote the inaugural ode for "Cornhill Magazine", then starting under Thackeray's editorship. No complete biography of "Father Prout" has yet been written but fragmentary materials are now available. O'NEIL, Journal of the Ivernian Society (Cork, Oct.-Dec., 1910); The Clogownian (Dublin, 1904); LEE in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. Mahony, Francis Sylvester (London, 1876); SHEEHAN, Bentley Ballads (London, 1869). THOMAS F. WOODLOCK Leon Abel Provancher Léon Abel Provancher Naturalist, b. 10 March, 1820, in the parish of Béconcourt, Nicolet county, Province of Quebec; d. at Cap Rouge, P.Q., 23 March, 1892. He studied at the College and Seminary of Nicolet, was ordained 12 Sept., 1844, and for the next twenty-five years laboured zealously and fearlessly. He organized two pilgrimages to Jerusalem, one of which he conducted in person. In 1865 he established in his parish at Portneuf a confraternity of the Third Order of St. Francis, probably the first of its kind in Canada. From childhood he had a special love for the study of nature and all the time he could spare from his pastoral duties was devoted to the study and description of the fauna and flora of Canada; his extensive pioneer work in this domain won for him the appellation of the "Father of Natural History in Canada". In 1868 he founded the "Naturaliste Canadiene", a monthly publication which he edited for twenty years, and from 1869 until his death he was engaged almost exclusively in scientific work. Among his chief writings are: "Traité élémentaire de Botanique" (Quebec, 1858); "Flore du Canada" (2 vols., Quebec, 1862); "Le Verger Canadien" (Quebec, 1862); "Le Verger, le Potager et le Parterre" (Quebec, 1874); "Faune entomologique du Canada" (3 vols., 1877-90); "De Québec à Jérusalem" (1884); "Une Excursion aux Climats tropicaux" (1890) "Les Mollusques de la Province de Québec". LAFLAMME, Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada for 1892, Presidential Address (Ottawa, 1893); HUARD, L'Abbé Provancher in Le Naturaliste Canadien, XXI-XXVI, XXX (Chicoutimi, 1894-9; Quebec, 1903). EDWARD C. PHILLIPS Proverbs Book of Proverbs One of the Sapiential writings of the Old Testament placed in the Hebrew Bible among the Hagiographa, and found in the Vulgate after the books of Psalms and Job. I. NAMES AND GENERAL OBJECT In the Masoretic Text, the Book of Proverbs has for its natural heading the words 12505b01.gif , Míshlê Shelomoh (Proverbs of Solomon), wherewith this sacred writing begins (cf. x). In the Talmud and in later Jewish works the Book of Proverbs is oftentimes designated by the single word Míshlê, and this abridged title is expressly mentioned in the superscription "Liber Proverbiorum, quem Hebræi Misle appellant", found in the official edition of the Vulgate. In the Septuagint MSS., the two Hebrew titles are rendered by 12505b02.gif and 12505b03.gif , respectively. From these Greek titles again are immediately derived the Latin renderings, "Parabolæ Salomonis", "Parabolæ", a trace of which appears in the Tridentine "Decretum de Canon. Script.", wherein the Book of Proverbs is simply called "Parabolæ". The ordinary title "Proverbia Salomonis" was apparently taken from the Old Latin Version into the Vulgate, whence comes directly the usual English title of "Proverbs". In the Church's liturgy, the Book of Proverbs is, like the other Sapiential writings, designated by the common term "Wisdom". This is consonant to the practice, common in early Christian times, of designating such books by the word "Wisdom" or by some expresion in which this word occurs, as "All-virtuous Wisdom", etc. Indeed, it is probable that the title 12505b04.gif , "Wisdom", was common in Jewish circles at the beginning of Christianity, and that it passed from them to the early Fathers of the Church (cf. Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xxii, xxvi). Of the various names given to the Book of Proverbs, that of Wisdom best sets forth the ethical object of this inspired writing. However disconnected the pithy sayings or vivid descriptions which make up the book may appear, they, each and all, are bound by one and the same moral purpose: they aim at inculcating wisdom as understook by the Hebrews of old, that is perfection of knowledge showing itself in action, whether in the case of king or peasant, statesman or artisan, philosopher or unlearned. Differently from the term "Wisdom", the title Míshlê (St. Jerome, Masloth) has a distinct reference to the symbolic character and poetical form of the sayings which are gathered together in the Book of Proverbs. In general, the Hebrew word Mashal (constr. plur. Míshlê) denotes a representative saying, that is, a statement which, however deduced from a single instance, is capable of application to other instances of a similar kind. Taken in this sense, it corresponds pretty well to the words proverb, parable, maxim etc., in our Western literatures. But besides, it has the meaning of sentences constructed in parallelism; and in point of fact, the contents of the Book of Proverbs exhibit, from beginning to end, this leading feature of Hebrew poetry. Hence, it appears that, as prefixed to this inspired writing, the word Míshlê describes the general character of the Book of Proverbs as a manual of practical rules which are set forth in a poetical form. II. DIVISIONS AND CONTENTS As it stands at the present day, the Book of Proverbs begins with the general title, "Míshlê Shelomoh, the son of David, king of Israel", which is immediately followed by a prologue (i, 2-6), stating the aim and importance of the entire work: the whole collection aims at imparting wisdom and at enabling men to understand all kinds of Mashals. The first part of the book (i, 7-ix), itself a hortatory introduction to the collection of proverbs which follows, is a commendation of wisdom. After a deeply religious epigraph (i, 7), the writer, speaking like a father, gives a series of exhortations and warnings to an imagined pupil or disciple. He warns him against evil company (i, 8-19); describes to him the advantages attending the pursuit of wisdom, and the evils to be avoided by such course (ii); exhorts him to obedience, to trust in God, to the payment of legal offerings, to patience under the Divine chastisements, and sets forth the priceless value of wisdom (iii, 1-26). After some miscellaneous precepts (iii, 27-35), he renews his pressing exhortation to wisdom and virtue (iv), and gives several warnings against unchaste women (v; vi, 20-35; vii), after the first of which are inserted warnings against suretyship, indolence, falsehood, and various vices (vi, 1-19. At several points (i, 20-33; viii; ix) Wisdom herself is introduced as speaking and as displaying her charms, origin, and power to men. The style of this first part is flowing, and the thoughts therein expressed are generally developed in the form of connected discourses. The second part of the book (x-xxii, 16) has for its distinct heading: "Míshlê Shelomoh", and is made up of disconnected sayings in couplet form, arranged in no particular order, so that it is impossible to give a summary of them. In many instances a saying is repeated within this large collection, usually in identical terms, at times with some slight changes of expression. Appended to this second part of the book are two minor collections (xxii, 17-xxiv, 22; ssiv, 23-34), chiefly made up of aphoristic quatrains. The opening verses (xxii, 17-21) of the first appendix request attention to the "words of the wise" which follow (xxii, 22-xxiv, 22), and which, in a consecutive form recalling that of the first part of the book, set forth warnings against various excesses. The second appendix has for its title: "These also are words of the wise", and the few proverbs it contains conclude with two verses (33, 34), apparently taken over from vi, 10, 11. The third part of the book (xxv-xxix) bears the inscription: "These are also Míshlê Shelomoh, which the men of Ezechias, king of Juda, copied out." By their miscellaneous character, their couplet form, etc., the proverbs of this third part resemble those of x-xxii, 16. Like them also, they are followed by two minor collections (xxx and xxxi, 1-9), each suplied with its respective title. The first of these minor collections has for its heading: "Words of Agur, the son of Takeh", and its principal contents are Agur's meditation on the Divine transcendence (xxx, 2-9), and groups of numerical proverbs. The second minor collection is inscribed: "The Words of Lamuel, a king: the oracle which his mother taught him." In it the queen-mother warns her son against sensuality, drunkenness, and injustice. Nothing is known of Agur and Lamuel; their names are possibly symbolical. The book concludes with an alphabetical poem descriptive of the virtuous woman (xxxi, 10-39). III. HEBREW TEXT AND ANCIENT VERSIONS A close study of the present Hebrew Text of the Book of Proverbs proves that the primitive wording of the pithy sayings which make up this manual of Hebrew wisdom has experienced numerous alterations in the course of its transmission. Some of these imperfections have, with some probability, been assigned to the period during which the maxims of the "wise men" were preserved orally. Most of them belong undoubtedly to the time after these sententious or enigmatic sayings had been written down. The Book of Proverbs was numbered among the "Hagiographa" (writings held by the ancient Hebrews as less sacred and authoritative than either the "Law" or the "Prophets"), and, in consequence, copyists felt naturally less bound to transcribe its text with scrupulous accuracy. Again, the copyists of Proverbs knew, or at least thought they knew, by memory the exact words of the pithy sayings they had to write out; hence arose involuntary changes which, once introduced, were perpetuated or even added to by subsequent transcribers. Finally, the obscure or enigmatic character of a certain number of maxims led to the deliberate insertion of glosses in the text, so that primitive distichs now wrongly appear in the form of tristichs, etc. (cf. Knabenbauer, "Comm. in Proverbia", Paris, 1910). Of the ancient versions of the Book of Proverbs, the Septuagint is the most valuable. It probably dates from the middle of the second century b.c., and exhibits very important differences from the Massoretic Text in point of omissions, transpositions, and additions. The translator was a Jew conversant indeed with the Greek language, but had at times to use paraphrases owing to the difficulty of rendering Hebrew pithy sayings into intelligible Greek. After full allowance has been made for the translator's freedom in rendering, and for the alterations introduced into the primitive wording of this version by later transcribers and revisers, two things remain quite certain: first, the Septuagint may occasionally be utilized for the discovery and the enmendation of inaccurate readings in our present Hebrew Text; and next, the most important variations which this Greek Version presents, especially in the line of additions and transpositions, point to the fact that the translator rendered a Hebrew original which differed considerably from the one embodied in the Massoretic Bibles. It is well known that the Sahidic Version of Proverbs was made from the Septuagint, before the latter had been subjected to recensions, and hence this Coptic Version is useful for the control of the Greek Text. The present Peshito, or Syriac Version of Proverbs was probably based on the Hebrew Text, with which it generally agrees with regard to material and arrangement. At the same time, it was most likely made with respect to the Septuagint, the peculiar readings of which it repeatedly adopts. The Latin Version of Proverbs, which is embodied in the Vulgate, goes back to St. Jerome, and for the most part closely agrees with the Massoretic Text. It is probable that many of its present deviations from the Hebrew in conformity with the Septuagint should be referred to later copyists anxious to complete St. Jerome's work by means of the "Vetus Itala", which had been closely made from the Greek. IV. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE The vexed questions anent the authorship and date of the collections which make up the Book of Proverbs go back only to the sixteenth century of our era, when the Hebrew Text began to be studied more closely than previously. They were not even suspected by the early Fathers who, following implicitly the inscriptions in i, 1; x, 1; xxiv, 1 (which bear direct witness to the Solomonic authorship of large collections of proverbs), and being misled by the Greek rendering of the titles in xxx, 1; xxxi, 1 (which does away altogether with the references to Agur and Lamuel as authors distinct from Solomon), regarded King Solomon as the author of the whole Book of Proverbs. Nor were they real questions for the subsequent writers of the West, although these medieval authors had in the Vulgate a more faithful rendering of xxx, 1; xxxi, 1, which might have led them to reject the Solomonic origin of the sections ascribed to Agur and Lamuel respectively, for in their eyes the words Agur and Lamuel were but symbolical names of Solomon. At the present day, most Catholic scholars feel free to treat as non-Solomonic not only the short sections which are ascribed in the Hebrew Text to Agur and Lamuel, but also the minor collections which their titles attribute to "the wise" (xxii, 16- xxiv, 22; xxiv, 23-34), and the alphabetical poem concerning the virtuous woman which is appended to the whole book. With regard to the other parts of the work (i-ix; x-xxii, 16; xxv-xxix), Catholic writers are wellnigh unanimous in ascribing them to Solomon. Bearing distinctly in mind the statement in III (A. V. I) Kings, iv, 29-32, that, in his great wisdom, Solomon "spoke 3000 Mashals", they have no difficulty in admitting that this monarch may be the author of the much smaller number of proverbs included in the three collections in question. Guided by ancient Jewish and Christian tradition they feel constrained to abide by the explicit titles to the same collections, all the more so because the titles in the Book of Proverbs are manifestly discriminating with respect to authorship, and because the title, "These also are Mishle Shelomoh, which the men of Ezechias, King of Juda, copied out" (xxv, 1), in particular, bears the impress of definiteness and accuracy. Lastly, looking into the contents of these three large collections, they do not think that anything found therein with respect to style, ideas, historic background etc. should compel anyone to give up the traditional authorship, at whatever time-either under Ezechias, or as late as Esdras-all the collections embodied in the Book of Proverbs reached their present form and arrangement. A very different view concerning the authorship and date of the collections ascribed to Solomon by their titles is gaining favour among non-Catholic scholars. It treats the headings of these collections as no more reliable than the titles of the Psalms. It maintains that none of the collections comes from Solomon's own hand and that the general tenor of their contents bespeaks a late post-exilic date. The following are the principal arguments usually set forth in favour of this opinion. In these collections there is no challenge of idolatry, such as would naturally be expected if they were pre-exilic, and monogamy is everywhere presupposed. It is very remarkable, too, that throughout no mention is made of Israel or of any institution peculiar to Israel. Again, the subject of those collections is not the nation, which apparently no longer enjoys independence, but the individual, to whom wisdom appeals in a merely ethical, and hence very late, manner. The personification of wisdom, in particular (chap. viii), is either the direct result of the influence of Greek upon Jewish thought, or, if independent of Greek philosophy, the product of late Jewish metaphysics. Finally, the close spiritual and intellectual relation of Proverbs to Ecclesiasticus shows that, however great and numerous are the differences in detail between them, the two works cannot be separated by an interval of several centuries. Despite the confidence with which some modern scholars urge these arguments against the traditional authorship of i-ix; x-xxii, 16; xxv,- xxix, a close examination of their value leaves one unconvinced of their proving force. I. NAMES AND GENERAL OBJECT The Book of Proverbs is justly numbered among the protocanonical writings of the Old Testament. In the first century of our era its canonical authority was certainly acknowledged in Jewish and Christian circles, for the Sacred Writers of the New Testament make a frequent use of its contents, quoting them at times explicitly as Holy Writ (cf. Rom., xii, 19, 20; Heb., xii, 5, 6; James, iv, 5, 6, etc.). It is true that certain doubts as to the inspiration of the Book of Proverbs, which had been entertained by ancient rabbis who belonged to the School of Shammai, reappeared in the Jewish assembly at Jamnia (about a.d. 100); but these were only theoretical difficulties which could not induce the Jewish leaders of the time to count this book out of the Canon, and which in fact were there and then set at rest for ever. The subsequent assaults of Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 429), of Spinoza (d. 1677), and of Le Clerc (d. 1736) against the inspiration of that sacred book left likewise its canonical authority unshaken. For Introductions to the Old Testament see Introduction. Recent commentaries-Catholic: Rohling, (Mainz, 1879); LesÊtre (Paris, 1879); Fillion (Paris, 1892); Vigouroux (Paris, 1903); Knabenbauer (Paris, 1910). Protestant: ZÖckler (tr. New York, 1870); Delitsch (tr. Edinburgh, 1874); Nowack (Leipzig, 1883); Wildeboer (Freiburg, 1897); Frankenberg (Göttingen, 1898); Strack (Nördlingen, 1899); Toy (New York, 1899). General works: Meignan, Solomon, son règne, ses écrits (Paris, 1890); Cheyne, Job and Solomon, (New York, 1899); Kent, The Wise Men of Ancient Israel (New York, 1899); Davison, The Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament (London, 1900). Francis E. Gigot Daughters of Providence Congregations of Providence (I) DAUGHTERS OF PROVIDENCE Founded at Paris, by Madame Polaillon (Marie de Lumague), a devout widow. In 1643 Madame Polaillon, having obtained letters patent from Louis XIII, opened a home to provide protection and instruction for young girls, whom beauty, poverty, or parental neglect exposed to the loss of Faith and other spiritual perils, placing it under the protection of Providence, with the name Seminary of Providence. Among the many who sought admission were some capable of instructing the rest, and of these, seven, who gave evidence of a religious vocation, were selected to form a religious community under rules drawn up for their use by St. Vincent de Paul at the direction of François de Gondy, Archbishop of Paris (1647). New letters patent were granted by Louis XIV, whose mother, Anne of Austria, gave the institute its first fixed abode, the Hospital de la Santé in Faubourg Saint-Marcel (1651), previously a home for convalescents from the Hôtel-Dieu, a grant confirmed by royal letters in 1667, bestowing on the religious all the privileges, rights, and exemptions accorded to hospitals of royal foundation. The Archbishop of Paris established other houses in various parts of the city, and foundations were made first at Metz and Sedan, where special attention was devoted to Jewish converts and the reclamation of heretics. After two years of probation candidates were admitted to the simple vows of chastity, obedience, the service of others, and perpetual stability. The superior, elected every three years, and the ecclesiastical superior, appointed by the Archbishop of Paris, were assisted in the temporal administration of the community by two pious matrons, chosen from among the principal benefactresses. In 1681 some members of the congregation joined the Sisters of Charitable Instruction of the Child Jesus of Saint-Maur, established by Nicolas Barré in 1678, thenceforth known as the Ladies of Saint-Maur and of Providence; the remaining members became canonesses of the Congregation of Our Lady, founded by St. Peter Fourier. The foregoing congregation became a model for others established to carry on a similar work in various dioceses of France, whose activities, however, came eventually to embrace the administration of elementary schools for girls, orphanages, and asylums for the blind and deaf mutes, and the care of the sick in hospitals and their own homes. In 1903 the number of Sisters of Providence in France exceeded 10,000. From the original seminary of Providence also came the religious who formed the nucleus of the Congregation of Christian Union subsequently established by M. le Vachet, a priest whose counsels had encouraged Madame Polaillon. HÉLYOT, Dict. des ordres relig. (Paris, 1859); HEIMBUCHER, Orden u. Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1908); FAIDEAU, Vie de Madame Lumague (Paris, 1659); Règlements de la maison et hospital des filles de la Providence de Dieu (Paris, 1657). Florence Rudge McGahan. Sisters of Providence Congregations of Providence II SISTERS OF PROVIDENCE (St. Mary-of-the-Woods) Among the teaching religious orders that originated in France at the close of the Revolution was the Congregation of the Sisters of Providence of Ruillésur-Loir, founded in 1806 by M. Jacques-François Dujarié, Curé of Ruillé (Sarthe). The society had a struggling existence for several years, but was finally established with the collaboration of Joséphine Zoé du Roscoät, the first superior general. Mother du Roscoät was of an ancient noble Breton family and was renowned for her piety, charity, and zeal. Many followed her to Ruillé and the community prospered. Though the sisters devoted themselves to various works of mercy and charity, the instruction of youth was their primary object. They soon had schools not only throughout the diocese, but in distant countries also. In 1839 Rt. Rev. Simon-Gabriel Bruté, first Bishop of Vincennes, commissioned his vicar-general, Mgr de la Hailandière, to return to his native country to procure priests and religious teachers for his immense diocese. Scarcely had he arrived in France when the death of Bishop Bruté was announced, followed by the appointment of Mgr de la Hailandière as his successor. The newly-consecrated bishop obtained from Mother Mary a colony of religious for Indiana. Six sisters, under the leadership of Mother Theodore Guérin, a woman of exceptional qualifications and high spiritual attainments, reached their home in the New World, 22 Oct., 1840. Instead of being established in the episcopal city, as they had been led to expect, they were taken to a densely wooded country, where only the foundation of a building for them was completed; and they were obliged to find shelter in a neighbouring farmhouse, one room and a corn loft being at their disposal. After a few weeks the community obtained sole possession of this house, which then became the mother-house, called St. Mary-of-the-Woods. In the summer of 1841 the new building being completed, a boarding school was opened with seven pupils. In 1841 another member from the French mother-house arrived at St. Mary's, Irma Le Fer de la Motte, Sister St. Francis Xavier, who became mistress of novices. The foundress showed her foresight and capacity for organization and administration, in an educational plan providing for the advanced studies and culture of the time. As early as 1846, a charter was granted by the State empowering the institution to confer academic honours and collegiate degrees. While the new foundation prospered, many sufferings and hardships were endured, arising from the rigours of the climate, poverty, isolation, a foreign language, troublesome subjects, and the like. The keenest trial of all was misunderstanding with the bishop. It lasted seven years. At the Seventh Council of Baltimore, the bishop placed his difficulties before the assembly and offered his resignation, at the same time strongly denouncing the Sisters of Providence. In 1847, just as he had informed Mother Theodore that he deposed her from her office as superior-general (in which she had, with his consent, been confirmed for life), released her from her vows, and dismissed her from her congregation, the Papal Brief appointing Bishop Bazin to the See of Vincennes was received from Rome. The death of Mother Theodore occurred 14 May, 1856, and so eminent was her holiness that preliminaries have been undertaken for introducing the cause of her beatification at Rome. The sisters take simple vows. The postulantship, two months, is followed by a novitiate of two years, at the end of which vows are taken for three years, renewed then for five years, if the subject is satisfactory and desires to persevere. A year of second novitiate precedes the final and perpetual vows. This year, during which the nuns devote themselves entirely to the spiritual life, is passed at the mother-house. A course of normal training is carried on in connexion with the novitiate properly so called, and summer sessions are held during the vacation for all teachers who return to the mother-house for the annual retreat, The administrative faculty is an elective body comprising a superior-general and three assistants, a secretary, procuratrix, treasurer, and a general chapter. The rules and constitutions received final approval from the Holy See in 1887. Among prominent members of the order were: Sister St. Francis Xavier (Irma Le Fer de la Motte), born at St. Servan, Brittany, 16 April, 1818; died at St. Mary-of-the-Woods, 30 January, 1856, whose life has been published under the title "An Apostolic Woman", and Sister M. Joseph (Elvire le Fer de la Motte), born at St. Servan, 16 February, 1825; died at St. Mary-of-the-Woods, 12 December, 1881, a sketch of whose life has been published in French. The sisters conduct parochial schools and academies in the Archdioceses of Baltimore, Boston, and Chicago; in the Dioceses of Indianapolis, Ft. Wayne, Peoria, and Grand Rapids; orphanages at Vincennes and Terre Haute; an industrial school at Indianapolis; a college four miles west of Terre Haute. Statistics for 1910 are: 937 sisters; 68 parochial schools; 15 academies; 2 orphan asylums; 1 industrial school; 20,000 children. SISTER MARY THEODOSIA. Sisters of Charity of Providence Congregations of Providence (III) SISTERS OF CHARITY The Sisters of Providence, known also as Sisters of Charity, were founded in Montreal, Canada, 25 March, 1843, under the Rule of St. Vincent de Paul, by Rt. Rev. Ignace Bourget. In December, 1861, a branch of the order, with intention to form a mother-house, was established at Kingston, Ontario, under the protection of Rt. Rev. Edward J. Horan, then bishop of that diocese. From this establishment four sisters were sent in November, 1873, to open a mission in Holyoke, Massachusetts. In 1892 this branch of the order, with permission of the Holy See, became a diocesan establishment, with Rt. Rev. Thomas D. Beaven, Bishop of Springfield, Massachusetts, as ecclesiastical superior. There are no lay sisters in the order, and the members are devoted exclusively to the works of charity. Since they became diocesan their membership approximates three hundred, and the institutes of charity entrusted to their management have been multiplied. In the present year (1908) they have in charge four diocesan hospitals and one sanatorium, with an annual total of about five thousand patients treated therein. Connected with these hospitals is a training school for pupil nurses, and the sisters also receive a professional training and personally care for and supervise the treatment of their patients. They have two orphan asylums, caring for about three hundred children; an infant asylum of modern construction capable of sheltering one hundred and fifty little ones, ranging from infancy to six years. Their duties also extend to the aged of both sexes. They care for one hundred and forty aged and infirm women, and for eighty aged men, in three separate homes of recent construction. They have two homes for working girls, and the provisions of their rule permit them to undertake any work of charity which the bishop of the diocese may see fit to place in their keeping. (See CHARITY, SISTERS OF. Sisters of Charity of Providence.) SISTER MARY OF PROVIDENCE. Sisters of Sainte Anne of Providence Congregations of Providence (IV) SISTERS OF SAINT ANNE Founded at Turin in 1834 by the Marchesa Julia Falletti de Barolo for the care of children and the sick. The order was approved by the Holy See 8 March, 1848. Its mother-house is at Florence, and there are daughter institutions at Bagnoria, Castelfidardo, and Assisi, where the sisters conduct the industrial school of San Francesco, founded in 1902. In Rome their two infant asylums of St. Anne (Via dei Gracchi) and the Sacred Heart (Via Conde) harbour three hundred children. At Secunderabad in the Diocese of Hyderabad, India, they have a convent where they educate European and Eurasian girls, and they also conduct a school at Kazipet in the same diocese. In Italian Eritrea they have a home for children redeemed from slavery. HEIMBUCHER, Orden u. Kongregationen, III (Paderborn, 1908), 387. BLANCHE M. KELLY. Sisters of the Institute of Charity of Providence Congregations of Providence (V) SISTERS OF THE INSTITUTE OF CHARITY An offshoot from the Sisters of Providence, founded by Jean-Martin Moye in France in 1762 for teaching poor girls and tending the sick. Their present existence, constitution, and religious character are due to Antonio Rosmini, of whose institute they really form a part. In 1831, at the request of Abbé Löwenbruck, the French sisters received into their house at Portieux four pious but uneducated young women from the Val d'Ossola and neighbouring Swiss valleys. This priest, one of the moving spirits in the Institute of Charity then beginning at Domodossola, wished these young women to receive a religious training at Portieux and then to found a house in Italy. They returned in 1832 and joined a community already organized at Locarno in Ticino, and designed to be a novitiate as well as a school for the poor. He provided no funds, however, and though they opened a school, being but slenderly educated they could get no salaries as recognized teachers. This bad management induced Rosmini to intervene. He reformed their rule to suit it to its new conditions, and thenceforward had to assume entire responsibility for them. Thus they were from the first a distinct body, the "Rosminiane", as the Italians call them. A house for novices and school for the education of teaching sisters was formed at Domodossola in a former Ursuline convent. The Holy See in its solemn approval of the Institute of Charity in 1839 gave an indirect recognition of the sisters also, as adopted children of the institute, From that time they have steadily increased. The order is mainly contemplative; but, when necessary, they undertake any charitable work suitable to women, especially the teaching of girls and young children, visiting the sick, and instructing in Christian doctrine. The central houses have smaller establishments emanating from and depending upon them. For each of these groups there is one superioress, elected by the professed sisters for three years, and eligible for three years more. Aided by assistants, she appoints a procuratrix over each lesser establishment and assigns the grades and most of the offices. All the sisters return to their central house every summer for a retreat and to hold a chapter for the election of officers. The novitiate lasts three years; the usual three vows are then taken, at first for three years, then either renewed or made perpetual. In each diocese the bishop is protector. There are houses in Italy, England, and Wales. In Italy there were in 1908 about 600 sisters and 60 novices. They have 64 establishments, most of which are elementary schools for children and girls; there are also several boarding-schools for girls, a few orphanages, and a home for poor old men. They are scattered in nine dioceses, some in Piedmont, others in Lombardy. The principal houses are those of Borgomanero, the central house for Italy, Domodossola, Intra, and Biella. The English branch began in 1843 on the initiative of Lady Mary Arundel, who had taken a house at Loughborough in order to aid the Fathers of the Institute in that mission. Into this house, fitted as a convent, she received two Italian sisters, the first nuns to wear a religious habit in the English Midlands since the Reformation. A year later they opened a girls' and infants' school, which was the first day-school for the poor taught by nuns in England. The first English superioress was Mary Agnes Amherst, niece of the Earl of Shrewsbury. Under her rule the present central house was built at Loughborough. A boarding-school and middle and elementary schools are conducted by the nuns. There are six other establishments. At St. Etheldreda's in London and at Whitwick, Rugby, and Bexhill they have girls' and infants' schools, at Cardiff, two houses, one for visiting the sick and aiding the poor, and the other a secondary school and pupil-teachers' centre. Whitwick and St. David's, Cardiff, are the only places in which their work is not auxiliary to that of the Fathers of the Institute. (See ROSMINIANS.) WILLIAM HENRY POLLARD. Providence, Rhode Island Diocese of Providence (PROVIDENTIENSIS) Co-extensive with the State of Rhode Island. When erected (17 Feb., 1872) it included also that portion of south-eastern Massachusetts which has since 14 March, 1904, been set off as the Diocese of Fall River (q. v.). It thus embraces an entire state, the majority of whose population is Roman Catholic (State Census, 1905). The city of Providence was the residence of the Bishop of Hartford from the establishment of that see in 1844 (see HARTFORD, DIOCESE OF). In 1847 a Brief authorizing this transfer of residence was obtained from the Propaganda. The first appearance of Roman Catholic worship in the colony of Rhode Island was in the latter part of 1780, when the French army under Rochambeau encamped at Newport and Providence. It is known that there were several chaplains with the army who often said Mass publicly. Shortly afterwards (Feb., 1783) the colonial legislature repealed the act disfranchising Roman Catholics. The Negro uprising in Guadeloupe, which followed the French Revolution, drove several Catholic families (French) to Newport and Bristol. In Newport also about 1808 there died one Joseph Wiseman, Vice-Consul to His Catholic Majesty of Spain. The building of Fort Adams at Newport and the beginnings of the cotton-mill industry in Pawtucket brought in some Catholics to these parts in the twenties. The first priest assigned to Rhode Island was the Rev. Robert Woodley in 1828. The first land owned in the state for church purposes was purchased in Newport in 1828. During the thirties the growth was gradual and fluctuating. It was only in November, 1837, that Mass was said for the first time in Providence in a Catholic church built for that purpose. In 1842 another parish was erected in Providence, but when Bishop Tyler (see HARTFORD) died in June, 1849, there were but six small parishes in the state. The famine in Ireland (1848) brought thousands to these parts who found work in the factories, foundries, machine shops, and jewelry shops then beginning to flourish in Rhode Island. During the fifties most of the still large and important English-speaking parishes were established; several costly churches were attempted; an orphan asylum was founded; and a few very primitive schools were begun. The Knownothing Movement in March, 1855, disturbed Catholics because of threats against the convent. In the sixties the growth was appreciable but not extraordinary, and most of the congregations were in debt with very little to show for it -- an evidence of their extreme poverty. When Bishop McFarland left Providence in 1872 to fix his residence at Hartford, he left behind him a poor cathedral and episcopal residence and a debt of $16,000 -- so unable or so indifferent was his flock to second his admirable zeal and devotion. Thomas Francis Hendricken, the first Bishop of Providence, was born in Kilkenny 5 May, 1827. He made his preliminary studies at St. Kieran's College, Kilkenny, which he attended in 1844, He took up the study of theology at Maynooth in 1847 and was ordained by Bishop O'Reilly of Hartford at All Hallows College in 1851. After a short period as assistant and pastor of a small parish he was transferred to Waterbury, Conn., where he proved to be a successful church builder. He transformed the parish and seemed to be equal to any financial burden. Perhaps because of this remarkable talent he recommended himself to Bishop McFarland as the man best fitted for the heavy labours that then awaited the first Bishop of Providence. He was consecrated bishop in the cathedral at Providence on April 28, 1872, by Archbishop McCloskey of New York, the metropolitan of the province. He set to work at once to build an episcopal residence and a suitable cathedral. He had no sooner begun than the panic set in. Nothing daunted, and in spite of failing health, he began a tour of his diocese to collect, and succeeded in raising some hundreds of thousands of dollars in a few years, so that when he died (May, 1886) the new cathedral was almost completed without any debt encumbering it. It was during his episcopate that the French Canadian Catholics began to come to the diocese in considerable numbers, first to Woonsocket and then to the various mill towns along the little streams of the Blackstone and the Pawtucket, and above all to Fall River. The bishop, engrossed with other things, did not realize apparently the magnitude of the problem, and his attempts to deal with it were not infrequently a cause of anxiety and pain to himself and others. Rt. Rev. Matthew Harkins succeeded Bishop Hendricken after an interval of eleven months. Born in Boston 17 Nov., 1845, educated at the Boston Latin School, Holy Cross College, and Douai College in France, he made his theological studies at Saint Sulpice (Paris), where he was ordained in 1869. The Vatican Council took place while he was continuing his studies in Rome. Made pastor of Arlington in 1876, he was transferred to St. James' parish, Boston, in 1884, in succession to Bishop Healy of Portland and Archbishop Williams of Boston, its former pastors. On the 14 April, 1887, Bishop Harkins was consecrated in the new (uncompleted) Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul in Providence which had first been opened a year before for the obsequies of his predecessor. A man of wide reading, acute mind, and judicial temperament, a lover of order and method, he has devoted himself to the task of organizing his diocese. He has particularly made his own the diocesan charities. The orphan asylum begun in 1851, transferred in 1862, had always obtained a precarious income from fairs and donations, and for these he substituted parochial assessments. Through the generosity of Joseph Banigan the Home for the Aged in Pawtucket was built in 1881. Mr. Banigan also built the large St. Maria Working Girls' Home in Providence in 1894 at a cost of $80,000, and either gave in his lifetime or left by will (1897) sums of $25,000 or more to nearly every diocesan charity. St. Joseph's Hospital was begun in 1891 and the St. Vincent de Paul Infant Asylum in the following year; the Working Boys' Home began in 1897, the House of the Good Shepherd in 1904, Nazareth Home (a day-nursery, that also supplies nurses in the homes of the poor) in 1906. In Woonsocket and Newport and other parts of the diocese similar charitable institutions have been erected at the suggestion and advice of Bishop Harkins. Almost twenty parishes out of a total of seventy-nine are exclusively French Canadian, while there are a few small parishes of mixed French and English-speaking Catholics. In the last fifteen years (1911) the Italians have come to Providence and the vicinity in large numbers, so that now there are perhaps between thirty and forty thousand of them in the diocese. Two churches for the Italians were dedicated in Providence in 1910 and other smaller parishes provide for their needs in the outlying districts. The four colonies of Poles have four Polish parishes, while the Portuguese have one in Providence. One Syrian parish in Central Falls ministers to some of the Orientais in these parts. Parochial schools are established in the greater number of the English-speaking parishes of the cities. Thus out of seventeen English-speaking parishes in Providence, nine have large and well-equipped schools; of the four in Pawtucket, three have schools; the three parishes in Newport have schools. The others are either very small or heavily in debt or unable to procure suitable teachers. Among the French Canadians, with whom the church school is a patriotic as well as a religious institution, it is rare to find a parish without its school. Religious women are usually the teachers (in ten schools, the Sisters of Mercy); in only three are there Brothers for the larger boys. La Salle Academy, a diocesan High School of which the bishop is president, obtained a university charter from the state (1910). The teachers are diocesan priests (for the classics) and Christian Brothers. It is conveniently situated in Providence. One day high school (St. Francis Xavier's Academy) and two boarding schools (Bayview, Sisters of Mercy, and Elmhurst, Religious of the Sacred Heart) provide similar training for the girls. In all there are some eighteen thousand children receiving Catholic training in the diocese. A diocesan weekly paper, the "Providence Visitor", sanctioned by the bishop and edited by diocesan priests, has a considerable influence among the Catholics of the state. The Catholic Club for men, established in 1909, has its own home in Providence and a large and influential membership. The Catholic Woman's Club, established in 1901, has a membership of four hundred and is noted for considerable literary and social activity. Although in a numerical majority, Catholics do not exert any perceptible influence on public life. They receive their share of elective offices, the last two governors, the one a democrat, the other a republican, being Catholics. Frequently the mayors and other city officials are Catholics. There has, however, never been a Catholic judge of a superior court. The clergy until recently was nearly exclusively diocesan. From 1878 to 1899 the Jesuits had St. Joseph's parish in Providence, but left there, as there was no prospect of opening a college. Now various small communities of men have parishes in outlying districts, Westerly (1905, Marist Fathers), Portsmouth (1907, Congregation of the Holy Ghost), Natick (1899, Sacred Heart Fathers); in 1910 the Dominicans began a new parish between Pawtucket and Providence. The Catholic population of the diocese, approximately from 250,000 to 275,000, live for the most part in the densely inhabited Providence County, only eighteen parishes, and several of them very small, existing in the four other counties of the state, while there are sixty-one in Providence county. History of the Catholic Church in New England: Diocese of Providence, I; Chancery Records. AUSTIN DOWLING. Divine Providence Divine Providence (Lat., Providentia; Greek, pronoia). Providence in general, or foresight, is a function of the virtue of prudence, and may be defined as the practical reason, adapting means to an end. As applied to God, Providence is God Himself considered in that act by which in His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized. That end is that all creatures should manifest the glory of God, and in particular that man should glorify Him, recognizing in nature the work of His hand, serving Him in obedience and love, and thereby attaining to the full development of his nature and to eternal happiness in God. The universe is a system of real beings created by God and directed by Him to this supreme end, the concurrence of God being necessary for all natural operations, whether of things animate or inanimate, and still more so for operations of the supernatural order. God preserves the universe in being; He acts in and with every creature in each and all its activities. In spite of sin, which is due to the wilful perversion of human liberty, acting with the concurrence, but contrary to the purpose and intention of God and in spite of evil which is the consequence of sin, He directs all, even evil and sin itself, to the final end for which the universe was created. All these operations on God's part, with the exception of creation, are attributed in Catholic theology to Divine Providence. The Testimony of Universal Belief For all religions, whether Christian or pagan, belief in Providence, understood in the wider sense of a superhuman being who governs the universe and directs the course of human affairs with definite purpose and beneficent design, has always been a very real and practical belief. Prayer, divination, blessing and curse, oracle and sacred rite, all testify to a belief in some over-ruling power, divine or quasi-divine in character; and such phenomena are found in every race and tribe, however uncivilized or degraded. We find it, for instance, not only amongst the savages of to-day, but also among the early Greeks, who, though they do not appear to have clearly distinguished between Providence and Fate, and though their gods were little more than glorified human beings, subject to human frailty and marred by human passion, they none the less watched over the home and the family, took sides in human warfare, and were the protectors and avengers of mankind. The intimate connection of the gods with human affairs was even more marked in the religion of the early Romans, who had a special god to look after each detail of their daily life, their labours in the field, and the business of the state. The ancient religions of the East present the same characteristics. Auramazda, the supreme god of the Persians during the period of the great kings, is the ruler of the world, the maker of kings and nations, who punishes the wicked and hearkens to the prayers of the good (see cuneiform inscriptions translated by Casartelli in the "Hist. of Relig.", II, 13 sq.). A similar notion prevailed in Egypt. All things are in God's gift. He loves the obedient and humbles the proud, rewards the good and smites the wicked (Renouf 100 sq.). Osiris, the king of the gods, judges the world according to his will, and to all nations, past, present, and future, gives his commands (op. cit., 218 sq.). Amon Ra-is, the lord of the thrones of the earth, the end of all existence, the support of all things, just of heart when one cries to him, deliverer of the poor and oppressed (op. cit., 225 sq.). Assyrian and Babylonian records are no less clear. Marduk, the lord of the universe, shows mercy to all, implants fear in their hearts, and controls their lives; while Shamash directs the law of nature, and is the supreme god of heaven and earth (Jastrow, 296, 300, 301). The books of the Avesta, though they depict a dualistic system, represent the good god, Mazdah Ahura, with his court, as helping those who worship him against the principle of evil (Hist. of Relig., II, 14). In the dualism of the Gnostic theories, on the other hand, the world is shut off from the supreme god, Bythos, who has nothing directly to do with human affairs before or after the incarnation. This idea of a remote and transcendent deity was probably derived from Greek philosophy. Socrates certainly admitted Providence, and believed in inspiration and divination; but for Aristotle the doctrine of Providence was mere opinion. It is true that the world was for him the instrument and expression of the Divine thought, but God Himself lived a life wholly apart. The Epicureans explicitly denied Providence, on the ground that if God cares for men He can be neither happy nor good. Everything is due, they said, to chance or free will. On both these points they were opposed by the Stoics, who insisted that God must love men, otherwise the very notion of God would be destroyed (Plutarch, "De comm. notit.", 32; "De stoic. rep.", 38). They also attempted to prove the action or existence of Providence from the adaptation of means to ends in nature, in which evil is merely an accident, a detail, or a punishment. On the other hand, the notions of god, nature, force, and fate were not clearly distinguished by the Stoics, who regarded them as practically the same thing. While even Cicero, who works out the argument from adaptation at considerable length in his "De natura deorum", ends unsatisfactorily with the statement, "Magna Dii curant, parva negligunt", as his ultimate solution of the problem of evil (n. 51-66). The Testimony of Scripture Though the term Providence is applied to God only three times in Scripture (Eccl., v, 5; Wis., xiv, 3; Judith, ix, 5), and once to Wisdom (Wis., vi, 17), the general doctrine of Providence is consistently taught throughout both the Old and New Testaments. God not only implants in the nature of things the potentiality of future development (Gen., i, 7, 12, 22, 28; viii, 17; ix, 1, 7; xii, 2; xv, 5), but in this development, as in all the operations of nature, He co-operates; so that in Scriptural language what nature does, God is said to do (Gen., ii, 5, cf. 9; vii, 4, cf. 10; vii, 19-22, cf. 23; viii, 1, 2, cf. 5 sq.). Seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, the clouds and the rain, the fruits of the earth, life itself alike are His gift (Gen., ii, 7; viii, 2; Ps. cxlvi, 8, 9; xxviii; ciii; cxlviii; Job, xxxviii, 37; Joel, ii, 21 sq.; Ecclus., xi, 14). So too with man. Man tills the ground (Gen., iii, 17 sq.; iv, 12; ix, 20), but human labours without Divine assistance are of no avail (Ps. cxxvi, 1; lix, 13; Prov., xxi, 31). Even for an act of sin, Divine concurrence is necessary. Hence in Scripture the expressions "God hardened Pharao's heart" (Ex., vii, 3; ix, 12; x, 1, 20, 27; xi, 10; xiv, 8), "Pharao's heart was hardened" (Ex., vii, 13; viii, 19, 32; ix, 7, 35), "Pharao hardened his heart" (viii, 15) and "Pharao did not set his heart to do it" (vii, 23), or "hearkened not" (vii, 4; viii, 19), or "increased his sin" (ix, 34), are practically synonymous. God is the sole ruler of the world (Job, xxxiv, 13). His will governs all things (Ps. cxlviii, 8; Job, ix, 7; Is., xl, 22-6; xliv, 24-8; Ecclus., xvi, 18-27; Esther, xiii, 9). He loves all men (Wis., xi, 25, 27), desires the salvation of all (Is., xlv, 22; Wis., xii, 16), and His providence extends to all nations (Deut., ii, 19; Wis., vi, 8; Is., lxvi, 18). He desires not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should repent (Ezech., xviii, 20-32; xxxiii, 11; Wis., xi, 24); for He is above all things a merciful God and a God of much compassion (Ex., xxxiv, 6; Num., xiv, 18; Deut., v, 10; Ps. xxxii, 5; cii, 8-17; cxliv, 9; Ecclus., ii, 23). Yet He is a just God, as well as a Saviour (Is., xlv, 21). Hence both good and evil proceed from Him (Lam., iii, 38; Amos, iii, 6; Is., xlv, 7; Eccl., vii; 15; Ecclus., xi, 14), good as a bounteous gift freely bestowed (Ps. cxliv, 16; Eccl., v, 18; I Par., xxix, 12-4), evil as the consequence of sin (Lam., iii, 39; Joel ii, 20; Amos, iii, 10, 11; Is., v, 4, 5). For God rewards men according to their works (Lam., iii, 64; Job, xxxiv, 10-7; Ps. xvii, 27; Ecclus., xvi, 12, 13; xi, 28; I Kings, xxvi, 23), their thoughts, and their devices (Jer., xvii, 10; xxxii, 19; Ps. vii, 10). From His anger there is no escape (Job, ix, 13; Ps. xxxii, 16, 17; Wis., xvi, 13-8); and none can prevail against Him (Ecclus., xviii, 1; Wis., xi, 22-3; Prov., xxi, 30; Ps. ii, 1-4; xxxii, 10; Judith, xvi, 16, 17). If the wicked are spared for a time (Jer., xii, 1; Job, xxi, 7-15; Ps. lxxii, 12-3; Eccl., viii, 12), they will ultimately receive their deserts if they do not repent (Jer., xii, 13-7; Job, xxi, 17, 18; xxvii, 13-23); while the good, though they may suffer for a time, are comforted by God (Ps. xc, 15; Is., li, 12), who will build them up, and will not cease to do them good (Jer., xxxi, 28 sq.; xxxii, 41). For in spite of the wicked, God's counsels are never changed or thwarted (Is., xiv, 24-7; xliii, 13; xlvi, 10; Ps. xxxii, 11; cxlviii, 6). Evil He converts into good (Gen., 1, 20; cf. Ps. xc, 10); and suffering He uses as an instrument whereby to train men up as a father traineth up his children (Deut., viii, 1-6; Ps. lxv, 10-2; Wis., xii, 1, 2); so that in very truth the world fighteth for the just (Wis., xvi, 17). The teaching of the Old Testament on Providence is assumed by Our Lord, who draws therefrom practical lessons both in regard to confidence in God (Matt., vi, 25-33; vii, 7-11; x, 28-31; Mark, xi, 22-4; Luke, xi, 9-13; John, xvi, 26, 27) and in regard to the forgiveness of our enemies (Matt., v, 39-45; Luke, vi, 27-38); while in St. Paul it becomes the basis of a definite and systematic theology. To the Athenians in the Areopagus Paul declares: + that God made the universe and is its supreme Lord (Acts, xvii, 24); + that He sustains the universe in its existence, giving life and breath to all things (verse 25), and hence, as the source whence they all proceed, must Himself lack nothing nor stand in need of any human service; + that He has directed the growth of nations and their distribution (verse 26), and + this to the end that they should seek Him (verse 27) in Whom we live and move and have our being, and whose offspring we are (verse 28). Being therefore the offspring of God, it is absurd for us to liken Him to things inanimate (verse 29), and though God has borne with this ignorance on man's part for a time, now He demands penance (verse 30), and, having sent Christ, Whose authority is guaranteed by His Resurrection, has appointed a day when the world shall be judged by Him in justice (verse 31). In the Epistle to the Romans the supernatural character of Divine Providence is further evolved, and the doctrine of Providence becomes identical with that of grace. Nature manifests so clearly the power and the divinity of God that failure to recognize it is inexcusable (Rom., i, 20-2). Hence God in His anger (verse 18) gives man over to the desires of his heart (verse 24), to a reprobate sense (verse 28). Some day He will vindicate Himself (ii, 2-5), rendering to every man according to his works (ii, 6-8; cf. II Cor., v, 10; Gal., vi, 8), his knowledge (Rom., ii, 9 sq.), and his secret thoughts (ii, 16); but for the present He forbears (iii, 26; cf. ix, 22; II Peter, ii, 9) and is ready to justify all men freely through the redemption of Jesus Christ (Rom., iii, 22, 24, 25); for all men stand in need of God's help (iii, 23). Christians, moreover, having already received the grace of redemption (v, 1), should glory in tribulation, knowing that it is but a trial which strengtheneth patience and hope (v, 3, 4). For the graces that are to come are far greater than those already received (v, 10 sq.) and far more abundant than the consequences of sin (v, 17). Life everlasting is promised to us (v, 21); but unaided we can do nothing to gain it (vii, 18-24). It is the grace of Christ that delivers us (vii, 25) and makes us co-heirs with Him (viii, 17). Yet we must also suffer with Him (verse 17) and be patient (verse 25), knowing that all things work together for good to them that love God; for God in His Providence has regarded us with love from all eternity, has predestined us to be made conformable to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn of many brethren, has called us (II Thes., ii, 13), has justified us (Rom., v, 1; I Cor., vi 11), and even now has begun to accomplish within us the work of glorification (Rom., viii, 29, 30; cf. Eph., i, 3 sq., II Cor., iii, 18; II Thes., ii, 13). This, the beneficent purpose of an all-seeing Providence, is wholly gratuitous, entirely unmerited (Rom., iii, 24; ix, 11-2). It extends to all men (Rom., ii, 10; I Tim., ii, 4), even to the reprobate Jews (Rom., xi, 26 sq.); and by it all God's dealings with man are regulated (Eph., i, 11). The Testimony of the Fathers The Testimony of the Fathers is, it need hardly be said, perfectly unanimous from the very outset. Even those Fathers -- and they are not many -- who do not treat expressly of the subject use the doctrine of Providence as the basis of their teaching, both dogmatic and practical (e.g. Clement, "I Epis. ad Cor.", xix sq., xxvii, xxviii in "P.G.", I, 247-54, 267-70). God governs the whole universe [Aristides, "Apol.", I, xv in "Texts and Studies" (1891), 35, 50; "Anon. epis. ad Diog.", vii in "P.G.", II, 1175 sq.; Origen, "Contra Celsum", IV, n. 75 in "P.G.", XI, 1146; St. Cyprian "Lib de idol. van.", viii, ix in "P.L.", IV, 596-7; St. John Chrysostom, "Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt", V in "P.G.", LII, 487; St. Augustine, "De gen. ad lit.", V, xxi, n. 42 in "P.L.", XXXIV, 335-8; St. Gregory the Great, "Lib. moral.", XXXII, n. 7 in "P.L.", LXXVI, 637 sq.; XVI, xii in "P.L.", lxxv, 1126]. It extends to every individual, adapting itself to the needs of each (St. John Chrysostom, "Hom. xxviii in Matt.", n. 3 in "P.G.", LVII, 354), and embraces even what we think is due to our own initiative (Hom. xxi, n. 3 in "P.G.", 298). All things are created and governed with a view to man, to the development of his life and his intelligence, and to the satisfaction of his needs (Aristides, "Apol.", i, v, vi, xv, xvi; Origen, "Contra Celsum", IV, lxxiv, lxxviii in "P.G.", XI, 1143-51; Lactantius, "De ira Dei", xiii, xv in "P.L.", VII, 115 sq.; St. John Chrysostom, "Hom. xiii in Matt.", n. 5 in "P.G.", LVII, 216, 217; "Ad eos qui scand.", vii, viii in "P.G.", LII, 491-8; "Ad Stagir.", I, iv in "P.G.", XLVII, 432-4; St. Augustine, "De div. quæst.", xxx, xxxi in "P.L.", XL, 19, 20). The chief proof of this doctrine is derived from the adaptation of means to an end, which, since it takes place in the universe comprising a vast multitude of relatively independent individuals differing in nature, function, and end, implies the continuous control and unifying governance of a single supreme Being (Minucius Felix, "Octavius", xvii in Halm, "Corp. Scrip. Eccl. Lat.", II, 21, 22; Tertullian, "Adv. Marcion.", II, iii, iv in "P.L.", II, 313-5; Origen, "Contra Celsum", IV, lxxiv sq. in "P.G.", XI, 1143 sq.; Lactantius, "De ira Dei", x-xv in "P.L.", VII, 100 sq.; St. John Chrysostom, "Hom. ad Pop. Ant.", ix, 3, 4 in "P.G.", XLIX, 106-9; "Ad eos. qui seand.", v, vii, viii in "P.G.", LII, 488-98; "In Ps.", v, n. 9 in "P.G.", LV, 54-6; "Ad Demetrium", ii, 5 in "P.G.", XLVII, 418, 419; "Ad Stagir.", passim in "P.G.", XLVII, 423 sq.; St. Augustine, "De gen. ad lit.", V, xx-xxiii in "P.L.", XXXIV, 335 sq.; "In Ps.", cxlviii, n. 9-15 in "P.L.", XXXVII, 1942-7; Theodoret, "De prov. orat.", i-v in "P.G.", LXXXIII, 555 sq.; St. John Damascene, "De fid. orth.", i, 3 in "P.G.", XCIV, 795 sq.). Again, from the fact that God has created the universe, it shows that He must also govern it; for just as the contrivances of man demand attention and guidance, so God, as a good workman, must care for His work (St. Ambrose, "De Offic. minist.", XIII in "P.L.", XVI, 41; St. Augustine, "In Ps.", cxlv, n. 12, 13 in "P.L.", XXXVII, 1892-3; Theodoret, "Deprov. orat.", i, ii in "P.G.", LXXXIII, 564, 581-4; Salvianus, "De gub. Dei", I, viii-xii in "P.L.", LIII, 40 sq.; St. Gregory the Great, "Lib. moral.", xxiv, n. 46 in "P.L.", LXXVI, 314). In addition to this, Tertullian ("De testim. animæ" in "P.L.", I, 681 sq.) and St. Cyprian (loc. cit.) appeal to the testimony of the human soul as expressed in sayings common to all mankind (cf. Salvianus, loc. cit.); while Lactantius ("De ira Dei", viii, xii, xvi in "P.L.", VII, 97, 114, 115, 126) uses a distinctly pragmatic argument based on the utter ruin that would result to society, were the Providence of God generally denied. The question of Providence in the Fathers is almost invariably connected with the problem of evil. How can evil and suffering be compatible with the beneficent providence of an all-powerful God? And why especially should the just be allowed to suffer while the wicked are apparently prosperous and happy? Patristic solutions to these problems may be summed up under the following heads: + Sin is not ordained by the will of God, though it happens with His permission. It can be ascribed to Providence only as a secondary result (Origen, "Contra Celsum", IV, lxviii in "P.G.", XI, 1516-7; St. John Damascene, "De fid. orth.", ii, 21 in "P.G.", XCIV, 95 sq.). + Sin is due to the abuse of free will; an abuse which was certainly foreseen by God, but could have been prevented only by depriving man of his most noble attribute (Tertullian, "Adv. Marcion.", II, v-vii in "P.L.", II, 317-20; St. Cyril of Alexandria "In Julian.", IX, xiii, 10, 11, 18 in "P.G.", LXXIV, 120-1, 127-32; Theodoret, "De prov. orat.", IX, vi in "P.G.", LXXXIII, 662). + Moreover, in this world man has to learn by experience and contrast, and to develop by the overcoming of obstacles (Lactantius, "De ira Dei", xiii, xv in "P.L.", VII, 115-24; St. Augustine, "De ordine", I, vii, n. 18 in "P.L.", XXXII, 986). + One reason therefore why God permits sin is that man may arrive at once at a consciousness of righteousness and of his own inability to attain it, and so may put his trust in God (Anon. epis. ad Diog., vii-ix in "P.G.", II, 1175 sq.; St. Gregory the Great, "Lib. moral.", III, lvii in "P.L.", LXXV, 627). + For sin itself God is not responsible, but only for the evils that result as a punishment of sin (Tertullian, "Adv. Marc.", II, xiv, xv in "P.L.", II, 327 sq.), evils which happen without God's will but are not contrary to it (St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VI, xxxii in "P.L.", LXXVII, 746, 747). + Had there been no sin, physical evil would have been inconsistent with the Divine goodness (St. Augustine, "De div. quæst.", lxxxii in "P.L.", LX, 98, 99); nor would God permit evil at all, unless He could draw good out of evil (St. Augustine, "Enchir.", xi in "P.L.", LX, 236; "Serm.", ccxiv, 3 in "P.L.", XXXVIII, 1067; St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VI, xxxii, XVIII, xlvi in "P.L.", LXXV, 747; LXXVI, 61-2). + All physical evil, therefore, is the consequence of sin, the inevitable result of the Fall (St. John Chrysostom, "Ad Stagir.", I, ii in "P.G.", LXVII, 428, 429; St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VIII, li, lii in "P.L.", LXXV, 833, 834), and regarded in this light is seen to be at once a medicine (St. Augustine, "De div. quæst.", lxxxii in "P.L.", XL, 98, 99; "Serm.", xvii, 4, 5 in "P.L.", XXXVIII, 126-8), a discipline ("Serm.", xv, 4-9 in "P.L.", XXXVIII, 118-21; St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., V, xxxv; VII, xxix; XIV, xl in "P.L.", LXXV, 698, 818, 1060), and an occasion of charity (St. Gregory the Great, VII, xxix). Evil and suffering thus tend to the increase of merit (XIV, xxxvi, xxxvii in "P.L.", 1058, 1059), and in this way the function of justice becomes an agency for goodness (Tertullian, c. "Adv. Marc.", II, xi, xiii in "P.L.", 324 sq.). + Evil, therefore, ministers to God's design (St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VI, xxxii in "P.L.", LXXV, 747; Theodoret, "De prov. orat.", v-viii in "P.L.", LXXXIII, 652 sq.). Hence, if the universe be considered as a whole it will be found that that which for the individual is evil will in the end turn out to be consistent with Divine goodness, in conformity with justice and right order (Origen, "Contra Celsum", IV, xcix in "P.G.", XI, 1177-80; St. Augustine, "De ordine", I, i-v, 9; II, iv in "P.L.", XXXII, 977-87, 990, 999-1002). + It is the end that proves happiness (Lactantius, "De ira Dei", xx in "P.L.", VII, 137 sq.; St. Ambrose, "De offic. minist.", XVI, cf. XII, XV in "P.L.", XVI, 44-6, 38 sq.; St. John Chrysostom, "Hom. xiii in Matt.", n. 5 in "P.G.", LXVII, 216, 217; St. Augustine "In Ps.", xci, n. 8 in "P.L.", XXXIII, 1176; Theodoret, "De prov. orat.", ix in "P.G.", LXXXIII, 727 sq.). In the Last Judgment the problem of evil will be solved, but till then the workings of Providence will remain more or less a mystery (St. Augustine, "De div. quæst.", lxxxii in "P.L.", XL, 98, 99; St. John Chrysostom, "Ad eos qui scand.", VIII, IX in "P.G.", LII, 494, 495). In regard to poverty and suffering, however, it is well to bear in mind that in depriving us of earthly goods, God is but recalling what is His own (St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., II, xxxi in "P.L.", LXXVII, 571); and secondly that, as Salvianus tells us ("De gub. Dei", I, i, 2 in "P.L.", LIII, 29 sq.), nothing is so light that it does not appear heavy to him who bears it unwillingly, and nothing so heavy that it does not appear light to him who bears it with goodwill. The Testimony of the Councils From the creeds we learn that God the Father is the omnipotent creator of heaven and earth; that God the Son descended from heaven, became man, suffered and died for our salvation, and is to be the judge of the living and the dead; that the Holy Ghost inspired the Prophets and the Apostles, and dwells in the saints -- all of which implies Providence, natural and supernatural. The Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldenses in 1208 declares God to be the governor and disposer of all things corporeal and spiritual (Denzinger, 10th ed., 1908, n. 421). The council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. vi, A.D. 816) defines that evil is in the power of man, and that evil deeds are not to be attributed to God in the same sense as good deeds, but permissive only, so that the vocation of Paul is God's work in a much truer sense than the treachery of Judas. The Council of the Vatican sums up past doctrine in the statement that God in His Providence protects and governs all things (Sess. III, c. I, d. 1784). Philosophical Developments The basis of all further philosophical speculations among Scholastics in regard to the precise nature of Providence, its relation to other Divine attributes, and of creation, was laid by Boethius in the "De consol. phil." (IV, vi sq. in ""P.L.", LXIII, 813 sq.). Providence is the Divine Intelligence itself as it exists in the supreme principle of all things and disposes all things; or, again, it is the evolution of things temporal as conceived and brought to unity in the Divine Intelligence, which, as St. Thomas says (Summa I, G. xxii, a. 1), is the cause of all things. Providence, therefore, pertains primarily to the Intelligence of God, though it implies also will (I, Q. xxii, a. 1, ad 3 urn), and hence is defined by St. John Damascene as "the will of God by which all things are ruled according to right reason" ("De fid. orth.", i, 3 in "P.G.", XCIV, 963, 964). The term "Providence", however, must not be taken too literally. It is not merely sight, or fore-sight. It involves more than mere vision or knowledge, for it implies the active disposition and arrangement of things with a view to a definite end; but it does not involve succession. God beholds all things together in one comprehensive act (I, Q. xxii, a. 3, ad 3 um), and by the same act produces, conserves, and concurs in all things (I, Q. civ a. 1, ad 4 urn). Providence as expressed in the created order of things is by Boethius called Fate (loc. cit.); but St. Thomas naturally objects to the use of this term (I, Q. cxvi, a. 1). Strictly only those things which are ordained by God to the production of certain determinate effects are subject to necessity or Fate (I, Q. xxii, a. 4; Q. cii, a. 3; Q. cxvi, a. 1, 2, 4). This excludes chance, which is a relative term and implies merely that some things happen irrespective of, or even contrary to, the natural purpose and tendency of some particular agent, natural or free (I, Q. xxii, a. 2; Q. cvi, a. 7; Q. cxvi, a. 1); not that things happen irrespective of the supreme and universal cause of all things. But it does not exclude free will. Some causes are not determined ad unum, but are free to choose between the effects which they are capable of producing (I, Q. xxii, a. 2 ad 4 um; cf. Boethius, op. cit., V, ii, in "P.L.", LXIII, 835). Thus things happen contingently as well as of necessity (I, Q. xxii, a. 4), for God has given to different things different ways of acting, and His concurrence is given accordingly (I, Q. xxii, a. 4). Yet all things, whether due to necessary causes or to the free choice of man, are foreseen by God and preordained in accordance with His all-embracing purpose. Hence Providence is at once universal, immediate, efficacious, and without violence: universal, because all things are subject to it (I, Q. xxii, a. 2; ciii, a. 5); immediate, in that though God acts through secondary causes, yet all alike postulate Divine concurrence and receive their powers of operation from Him (I, Q. xxii, a. 3; Q. ciii, a. 6); efficacious, in that all things minister to God's final purpose, a purpose which cannot be frustrated (Contra Gent., III, xciv); without violence (suavis), because it violates no natural law, but rather effects its purpose through these laws (I, Q. ciii, a. 8). The functions of Providence are threefold. As physical, it conserves what is and concurs with what acts or becomes; as moral, it bestows upon man the natural law, a conscience, sanctions -- physical, moral, and social -- answers human prayers, and in general governs both the nation and the individual. That God should answer prayer must not be understood as a violation of the order of natural Providence, but rather as the carrying of Providence into effect, "because this very arrangement that such a concession be made to such a petitioner, falls under the order of Divine Providence. Therefore to say that we should not pray to gain anything of God, because the order of His Providence is unchangeable, is like saying that we should not walk to get to a place, or eat to support life" (Contra Gent., III, xcv). The Providence whereby we are enabled to overcome sin and to merit eternal life -- supernatural Providence -- pertains to another order, and for a discussion of it the reader is referred to GRACE; PREDESTINATION. St. Thomas' treatment of the problem of evil in relation to Providence is based upon the consideration of the universe as a whole. God wills that His nature should be manifested in the highest possible way, and hence has created things like to Himself not only in that they are good in se, but also in that they are the cause of good in others (I, Q. ciii, a. 4, 6). In other words He has created a universe, not a number of isolated beings. Whence it follows, according to St. Thomas, that natural operations tend to what is better for the whole, but not necessarily what is better for each part except in relation to the whole (I, Q. xxii, a. 2, ad 2 um; Q. lviii, a. 2, ad 3 um; Contra Gent., III, xciv). Sin and suffering are evils because they are contrary to the good of the individual and to God's original purpose in regard to the individual, but they are not contrary to the good of the universe, and this good will ultimately be realized by the omnipotent Providence of God. CAIRD, The Evolution of Theology in Greek Philosophers (Glasgow, 1904); CASARTELLI, Leaves from My Eastern Garden; CICERO, De natura deorum; FOX, Religion and Morality (New York, 1899); JASTROW, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898); Hist. of Religions (London, 1910); LOUIS, Doctrines Religieuses des Philosophes Grecs (Paris, 1909); ed. MULLER, Sacred Books of the East, IV, XXIII, XXXI, The Zend-Avesta, tr. DARMESTETER AND MILLS (London, 1880-7); MURRAY, Hellenistic Philosophy in Hibbert Journal (Oct., 1910); PIAT, Socrate (Paris, 1909); PLUTARCH, De communibus notitiis; IDEM, De stoicorum repugnantiis; LE PAGE RENOUF, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as illustrated by the Religions of Ancient Egypt (London, 1880); SAYCE, The Religion of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia (Edinburgh, 1902); TOLMAN, Ancient Persian Lexicon and Texts (New York, 1908); ZELLER, Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics (London, 1880). BUTLER, Analogy of Religion, ed. GLADSTONE (Oxford, 1896); BRUCE, The Moral Order of the World (London, 1899); IDEM, The Providential Orders of the World (London, 1897); LACORDAIRE, De l'Economie de la Réparation in uvres, IV (Paris. 1857); MACCOSH, The Method of Divine Government (Edinburgh, 1850); VACANT, Dict. Apol. de la Foi Cath. (Paris and Lyons, 1889), s.v. LESLIE J. WALKER Ecclesiastical Province Ecclesiastical Province The name given to an ecclesiastical administrative district under the jurisdiction of an archbishop (q.v.). Ecclesiastical provinces first assumed a fixed form in the Eastern Roman Empire. The more important centres (e.g. Antioch for Syria, Ephesus for the Province of Asia, Alexandria for Egypt, Rome for Italy), whence Christian missionaries issued to preach the Gospel, were regarded as the mother-churches of the newly-founded Christian communities. From the second half of the second century the bishops of the territories within the same natural geographical boundaries were accustomed to assemble on important occasions for common counsel in synods. From the end of that century the summons to attend these increasingly important synods was usually issued by the bishop of the capital of the state province (eparchy), who also presided over the assembly, especially in the East. Important communications were also forwarded to the bishop of the provincial capital to be brought to the notice of the other bishops. Thus in the East during the third century the bishop of the provincial metropolis came gradually to occupy a certain superior position, and received the name of metropolitan. At the Council of Nicæa (325) this position of the metropolitan was taken for granted, and was made the basis for conceding to him definite rights over the other bishops and dioceses of the state province. In Eastern canon law since the fourth century (cf. also the Synod of Antioch of 341, can. ix), it was a principle that every civil province was likewise a church province under the supreme direction of the metropolitan, i.e. of the bishop of the provincial capital. This division into ecclesiastical provinces did not develop so early in the Western Empire. In North Africa the first metropolitan appears during the fourth century, the Bishop of Carthage being recognized as primate of the dioceses of Northern Africa; metropolitans of the separate provinces gradually appear, although the boundaries of these provinces did not coincide with the divisions of the empire. A similar development was witnessed in Spain, Gaul, and Italy. The migration of the nations, however, prevented an equally stable formation of ecclesiastical provinces in the Christian West as in the East. It was only after the fifth century that such gradually developed mostly in accordance with the ancient divisions of the Roman Empire. In Italy alone, on account of the central ecclesiastical position of Rome, this development was slower. However, at the end of antiquity the existence of church provinces as the basis of ecclesiastical administration was fairly universal in the West. In the Carlovingian period they were reorganized, and have retained their place till the present day. The delimitation of church provinces is since the Middle Ages a right reserved to the pope. There have always been, and are to-day, individual dioceses which do not belong to any province, but are directly subject to the Holy See. For the present boundaries of ecclesiastical provinces see articles on the various countries. (See METROPOLITAN.) HATCH, Growth of Church Institutions (London, 1887); DUCHESNE, Origines du culte chrétien(4th ed., Paris, 1909, 1 sqq.); L=DCBECK, Reichseinteilung u. kirchl. Hierarchie des Ostens bis zum Ausgange des 4. Jahrh. in Kirchenzgesch. Studien, V (Münster, 1901); SIEKE, Die Entwickelung des Metropolitanwesens im Frankenreich bis auf Bonifaz (Marburg, 1899); WERMINHOFF, Gesch. d. Kirchenverfassung Deutschlands im Mittelalter, I (Hanover, 1905); PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht, II (Ratisbon, 1846). J.P. KIRSCH Provincial Provincial An officer acting under the superior general of a religious order, and exercising a general supervision over all the local superiors in a division of the order called a province. The division is to a certain extent geographical, and may consist of one or more countries, or of a part of a country only; however, one or more houses of one province may be situated within the territory of another, and the jurisdiction over the religious is personal rather than territorial. The old orders had no provincial superiors; even when the monasteries were united to form congregations, the arch-abbot of each congregation was in the position of a superior general whose powers were limited to particular cases, almost like the powers of an archbishop over the dioceses of his suffragans. Provincials are found in the congregations of comparatively recent formation, which began with the mendicant orders. The Holy See hesitated for a long time before allowing the division of congregations with simple vows, especially congregations of women into different provinces as a regular institution, and some congregations have no such division. The provincial is ordinarily appointed by the provincial chapter, subject to confirmation by the general chapter: in the Society of Jesus; he is appointed by the general. The "Regulations" (Normae) of 18 June, 1901, vest the appointment of the provincial in the general council. The provincial is never elected for life, but ordinarily for three or six years. In religious orders he is a regular prelate, and has the rank of ordinary with quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. He appoints the regular confessors, calls together the provincial chapter, presides over its deliberations, and takes care that the orders of the general chapter and the superior general are properly carried out. He is an ex officio member of the general chapter. His principal duty is to make regular visitations of the houses in his province in the name of the general and to report to the latter on all the religious and the property of the order; his authority over the various houses and local superiors differs in different orders. He has in many cases the right of appointment to the less important offices. At the end of his term of office, the provincial is bound, according to the Constitution "Nuper" of Innocent XII (23 Dec., 1697), to prove that he has complied with all the precepts of that decree concerning masses; if he fails to do so, he loses his right to be elected and to vote in the general chapter. In accordance with the privilege granted to the Society of Jesus, the provincial of a religious order is authorized to approve of oratories set apart for the celebration of Mass in the convents of his order; these oratories may receive the blessing usually given to public oratories, and may not be permanently diverted from their sacred uses except for good reason and with the approval of the provincial. In congregations with simple vows and not exempt, the provincial has no power of jurisdiction. According to the "Regulations" of 1901, his duty is also to supervise the financial administration of the provincial procurator and the local superiors. A. VERMEERSCH. Provincial Council Provincial Council A deliberative assembly of the bishops of an ecclesiastical province, summoned and presided over by the metropolitan, to discuss ecclesiastical affairs and enact disciplinary regulations for the province. The good government of a society as vast as the Church required grouping of those dioceses whose similar interests would gain by common treatment. This led to the organization of ecclesiastical provinces and so of provincial councils. As long as administrative centralization in the great sees was imperfect, and while the general canon law was being slowly evolved, this provincial grouping was very important. The Councils of Nicæa (325, can. v), Antioch (341, can. xx), and others ordered the bishops of each province to meet twice a year; however, even in the East, the law was not long observed; the Councils "in Trullo" (692, can. viii) and Nicæa (787, can. vi) prescribe, but with little success, only one meeting each year. In the West, except in Africa, and in a certain sense also at Rome, provincial councils were neither frequent nor regular; most of those that were held, and which have left us precious documents, were episcopal assemblies of several provinces or regions. In spite of the frequent renewal of the ancient legislation provincial councils did not become a regular institution. The great Lateran Council (1215) also ordered an annual provincial council, but it was not long obeyed. The Councils of Basle (1433) and Trent also tried to revive the provincial councils, and ordered them to be held at least every three years (sees. XXIV, c. ii), laying down for them a certain programme. As a result there was, towards the end of the sixteenth century, in Catholic countries, a remarkable series of provincial councils, notably those of Milan, under St. Charles Borromeo; but the movement soon waned. Towards the middle of the nineteenth century there was a fresh series of provincial councils in almost all Catholic countries, but they were never assembled with the punctuality prescribed by the law. Leo XIII authorized Latin America to hold them every twelve years (1897; cf. "Cone. plen.", 1899, n. 283). It must be admitted, however, that modern facilities of communication, and still more the custom of unconventional episcopal reunions or conferences, have compensated for the rarity of provincial councils to a large extent. (1) The metropolitan has the right and the duty of convoking the council; the Council of Trent (cit. c. ii) ordered it to be convoked, first in the year following its own close, and then every third year at least; if the metropolitan is prevented or the see is vacant, the senior suffragan acts. The time appointed is after the octave of Easter, "or at another more opportune time, according to the usage of the province". It is not necessary to hold the council in the metropolitan city; any town in the province may be selected. The penalty of suspension with which the Councils of the Lateran (c. xxv, "De accusat.") and Trent threatened negligent metropolitans has certainly fallen into desuetude, (2) All those who, "by right or by custom", have the right to assist at the council are to be convoked. These are, first, the suffragan bishops; exempt bishops, immediately subject to the Holy See, must choose, once for all, the metropolitan whose council they will attend, without prejudice to their exemptions and privileges. Secondly, those who exercise an external jurisdiction: prelates nullius, vicars capitular or administrators Apostolic of vacant sees, and vicars Apostolic if any. These have the right to take part in the deliberations. The council may allow this also to titular bishops, and the representatives of bishops prevented from attending. The other persons convoked, with a right only to take part in consultations, are non-exempt abbots, deputies of cathedral or even collegiate chapters, superiors of religious institutes, deputies of the universities and rectors of seminaries, and lastly the consultors, theologians, and canonists. The persons called to the council are strictly obliged to attend, unless legitimately prevented, in which case they must excuse themselves under penalty of censure. Formerly, negligent bishops were deprived of communion with their colleagues (cf. can. x, xiii, xiv, Dist. xviii); but this penalty is obsolete. It is not permissible to leave the council before its close without a just and approved reason. (3) The ceremonies of the provincial council are regulated by the Pontifical (3rd part, "Ordo ad synodum"), and the Ceremonial of the Bishops (lib. I, c. xxxi); they include in particular the profession of faith. The work of the council is prepared in special commissions or congregations; the decrees are enacted in private or public sessions, and are decided by a majority of the members having a deliberative vote. The metropolitan presides, directs the discussions, proposes the subjects, but he has not a preponderating voice and the bishops can take up whatever matters or proposals they judge fitting. The adjournment or close, generally at a solemn public session, is announced by the metropolitan with the consent of the bishops. (4) The provincial council is not competent to deal directly with matters of faith, by defining or condemning; yet it may treat of such from a disciplinary point of view: promoting religious teaching, pointing out the errors of the day, defending the truth. Its proper sphere is ecclesiastical discipline; to correct abuses, to watch over the observance of laws, especially the reform laws of the Council of Trent; to promote the Christian life of the clergy and people, to settle disputes, to decide minor differences between bishops, to adopt measures and make suitable regulations for all these objects. The decrees of the provincial councils are binding on the whole province; each bishop, however, may prudently grant dispensations in his own diocese, as he is the legislator; but he may not abrogate the decrees of the Council. If the Council deems any derogation from the common law useful, it ought to send a postulatum to the pope. (5) Within the limits indicated above, a provincial council is a legislative body whose acts do not require papal confirmation for their validity. It is customary indeed to ask for the pontifical approbation; but the latter is generally given in common form only, so that the decrees continue to be provincial decrees, and can be abrogated by a later council; if, however, the approval is given in specific form, as the Council of Mount Lebanon was approved by Benedict XIV, the decrees acquire a supplementary authority and may not be modified without the papal consent. In any case, the decrees of every provincial council must be revised; Sixtus V (1587) so ordered, and the revision was entrusted to the Sacred Congregation of the Council; but in virtue of the Constitution "Sapienti" of Pius X (29 June, 1908) the duty now devolves on the Sacred Congregation of the Consistory. The monographs of FESSLER, Ueber d. Provinzialkonzilien und Diözesansynoden (Innsbruck, 1849); BOUIX, Du concile provincial (Paris, 1850); BENEDICT XIV, De synodo. The ancient provincial councils have been reproduced in the great collections, those from the Council of Trent up to 1870 are contained in the Collectio Lacensis (7 vols., Freiburg, 1870-); TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), 531-4. A. BOUDINHON. Canonical Provincial Canonical Provision Canonical Provision is a term signifying regular induction into a benefice, comprising three distinct acts -- the designation of the person, canonical institution, and installation. In various ways a person may be designated to fill a vacant benefice: by election, postulation, presentation, or recommendation, resignation made in one's favour, or approved exchange. In all cases confirmation by the proper ecclesiastical superior of the selection made is required, while letters of appointment, as a rule, must be presented. Reception of administration by a chapter without such letters brings excommunication reserved to the pope, together with privation of the fruits of the benefice; and the nominee loses ipso facto all right to the prelacy. Ordinarily greater benefices are conferred by the pope; minor benefices by the bishop, who as a rule has the power of appointing to all benefices in his diocese. The pope, however, owing to the fullness of his jurisdiction, may appoint to any benefice whatsoever. These extraordinary provisions became common in the eleventh and subsequent centuries, and met at times with stern opposition. In 1351 an English statute (Statute of Provisors) was enacted, designed to prevent the pope from exercising this prerogative. Similar enactments were made in 1390 and in later years. At present only in certain defined circumstances does the Supreme Pontiff make use of this right. The bishop's power is further restricted at times to confirming an election or postulation; or to approving candidates presented by one who enjoys the right of presentation by privilege, custom, or prescription. Canonical institution or collation is the concession of a vacant benefice by one who has the authority. If made by the sole right of the prelate, it is free; if made by legal necessity, for example, after due presentation or election, or at the command of a superior, it is styled necessary. An ecclesiastical benefice cannot be lawfully obtained without canonical institution. Installation, called corporal or real institution, is the induction into the actual possession of a benefice. In the case of a bishop it is known as enthronization or enthronement. Corporal institution, according to common law, belongs to the archdeacon; by custom to the bishop or his vicar-general. It may take place by proxy: the rite observed depends much on custom. To installation belong the profession of faith and oath, when prescribed. (See BENEFICE; INSTITUTION, CANONICAL; INSTALLATION.) ANDREW B. MEEHAN. Statue of Provisors Statute of Provisors The English statute usually so designated is the 25th of Edward III, St. 4 (1350-1), otherwise termed "The Statute of Provisors of Benefices", or anciently "Statutu de p'visoribs" or "Lestatut de revâcons & pvis". This was among the statutes incidental to the "long and angry controversy" [to quote Dr. Lingard, "The History of England" (London, 1883), III, 349] between the English kings and the Court of Rome concerning filling of ecclesiastical benefices by means of papal provisions "by which the Pope, suspending for the time the right of the patron, nominated of his own authority, to the vacant benefice" (op. cit., II, 416), the papal nominee being called a provisor. The resulting possession by Italians of church livings in England provoked at one period during the thirteenth century acts of lawless violence (ibid.). Pope Gregory IX (1227-41) pronounced against the propriety of such provisions as interfered with the rights of lay patrons (ibid., 417). And Pope Innocent IV expressed, in 1253, general disapprobation of these nominations (ibid., 419). From the recitals of "The Statute of Provisors" it appears that the bestowal by the pope of English benefices and ecclesiastical possessions "as if he had been patron or avowee . . . as he was not of right by the law of England", and his "accroching to him the seignories" was complained of as not only an illegal injury to the property rights of particular patrons, but also as injurious spiritually and economically to the community in general. The holy church of England, " seinte eglise d'Engleterre", was said to have been founded by the sovereigns and the nobles to inform them and the people of the law of God and also to make hospitalities, alms, and other works of charity in the places where churches were founded, and possessions assigned for such purposes to prelates, religious, and other people of holy church; and these purposes were said to be defeated by this granting of benefices to aliens who did not, and to cardinals who might not, live in England "and to others as well aliens as denizens". Certain of the economic evils had been dealt with by a Statute of Edward I (35 Edward I, St. 1, c. 1, 1306-07), forbidding alien priors or governors of a religious house to impose charges or burdens on their houses and forbidding abbots, priors or other religious to send out of the kingdom any tax imposed on them. But the "Statute of Provisors" recites that the evils complained of in the petition leading to this Statute of Edward I still continue, and "that our holy father, the Pope" (Notre seinte piere le Pape), still reserves to his collation benefices in England, giving them to aliens and denizens and taking first fruits and other profits, the purchasers of benefices taking out of the kingdom a great part of its treasure. The Statute, therefore, enacts that elections of bishops shall be free, that owners of advowsons shall have free collation and presentment, and that attempted reservation, collation, or provision by the Court of Rome shall cause the right of collation to revert to the king. Later Statutes are 27 Edward III, St. 1, c. 1; 38 Edward III, St. 2; 3 Richard II; 7 Richard II, c. XII; 12 Richard II, c. XV; 13 Richard II, St. 2; 16 Richard II, c. 5, and finally in the parliament of 1400-1, the Statute 2 Henry IV, c. 3, c. 4. Concerning adverse legislation of the Council of Trent respecting provisions, see BENEFICE. The Statutes of the Realm (1810), I, 150, 316, 323, 329, 385; II, 13, 14, 32, 60, 70, 84, 121; The Statutes at Large (Cambridge, 1762), ed. PICKERING, I, 326; PULTON, A Collection of Statutes, now in use (London, 1670); LINGARD, op. cit., II, 416-419; III, 253-265, 343-349. CHARLES W. SLOANE. Provost Provost (Lat., proepositus; Fr., prévôt; Ger., Probst) Anciently (St. Jerome, "Ep.", II, xiv: Ad Rusticum monach.) every chapter (q. v.) had an archpriest and an archdeacon. The former officiated in the absence of the bishop and had general supervision of the choir, while the latter was the head of the chapter and administered its temporal affairs. Later the archpriest was called decanus (dean) and the archdeacon proepositus (provost). At present the chief dignity of a chapter is usually styled dean, though in some countries, as in England, the term provost is applied to him. The provost, by whatever name he may be known, is appointed by the Holy See in accordance with the fourth rule of the Roman Chancery. It is his duty to see that all capitular statutes are observed. To be authentic, all acts of the chapter, in addition to the seal of the chapter, require his signature. Extraordinary meetings of the chapter are convened by him, generally, however, on written request of a majority of the chapter, and with the consent of the bishop. He presides in chapter at the election of a vicar capitular, who within eight days of the death of the bishop is to be chosen as the administrator of the vacant see. He conducts the ceremonies at the installation (q. v.) of canons-elect, investing them with the capitular insignia, assigning them places in choir, etc. In choir, the first place after the bishop belongs to him. In the absence of the bishop, or in case the see is vacant, the provost conducts episcopal ceremonial functions, while he takes precedence of all, even of the vicar capitular. He must be present, however, personally, not being allowed a substitute. When the bishop pontificates, the provost is assistant priest. It is his office to administer Viaticum to the bishop, and to conduct the bishop's obsequies. TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906); FERRARIS, Bibliotheca canonica (Roman ed., 1888-96), s. v. ANDREW B. MEEHAN. Prudence Prudence (Latin prudentia, contracted from providentia, seeing ahead). One of the four cardinal virtues. Definitions of it are plentiful from Aristotle down. His "recta ratio agibilium" has the merits of brevity and inclusiveness. Father Rickaby aptly renders it as "right reason applied to practice". A fuller description and one more serviceable is this: an intellectual habit enabling us to see in any given juncture of human affairs what is virtuous and what is not, and how to come at the one and avoid the other. It is to be observed that prudence, whilst possessing in some sort an empire over all the moral virtues, itself aims to perfect not the will but the intellect in its practical decisions. Its function is to point out which course of action is to be taken in any round of concrete circumstances. It indicates which, here and now, is the golden mean wherein the essence of all virtue lies. It has nothing to do with directly willing the good it discerns. That is done by the particular moral virtue within whose province it falls. Prudence, therefore, has a directive capacity with regard to the other virtues. It lights the way and measures the arena for their exercise. The insight it confers makes one distinguish successfully between their mere semblance and their reality. It must preside over the eliciting of all acts proper to any one of them at least if they be taken in their formal sense. Thus, without prudence bravery becomes foolhardiness; mercy sinks into weakness, and temperance into fanaticism. But it must not be forgotten that prudence is a virtue adequately distinct from the others, and not simply a condition attendant upon their operation. Its office is to determine for each in practice those circumstances of time, place, manner, etc. which should be observed, and which the Scholastics comprise under the term medium rationis. So it is that whilst it qualifies immediately the intellect and not the will, it is nevertheless rightly styled a moral virtue. This is because the moral agent finds in it, if not the eliciting, at any rate the directive principle of virtuous actions. According to St. Thomas (II-II, Q. xlvii, a. 8) it is its function to do three things: to take counsel, i.e. to cast about for the means suited in the particular case under consideration to reach the end of any one moral virtue; to judge soundly of the fitness of the means suggested; and, finally, to command their employment. If these are to be done well they necessarily exclude remissness and lack of concern; they demand the use of such diligence and care that the resultant act can be described as prudent, in spite of whatever speculative error may have been at the bottom of the process. Readiness in finding out and ability in adapting means to an end does not always imply prudence. If the end happens to be a vicious one, a certain adroitness or sagacity may be exhibited in its pursuit. This, however, according to St. Thomas, will only deserve to be called false prudence and is identical with that referred to in Rom., viii, 6, "the wisdom of the flesh is death". Besides the prudence which is the fruit of training and experience, and is developed into a stable habit by repeated acts, there is another sort termed "infused". This is directly bestowed by God's bounty. It is inseparable from the condition of supernatural charity and so is to be found only in those who are in the state of grace. Its scope of course is to make provision of what is necessary for eternal salvation. Although acquired prudence considered as a principle of operation is quite compatible with sin in the agent, still it is well to note that vice obscures or at times utterly beclouds its judgment. Thus it is true that prudence and the other moral virtues are mutually interdependent. Imprudence in so far as it implies a want of obligatory prudence and not a mere gap in practical mentality is a sin, not however always necessarily distinct from the special wicked indulgence which it happens to accompany. If it proceeds to the length of formal scorn of the Divine utterances on the point, it will be a mortal sin. RICKABY, The Moral Teaching of St. Thomas (London, 1896); LEHMKUHL, Theologia Moralis (Freiburg, 1887); RICKABY, Ethics and Natural Law (London, 1908); St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Turin, 1885). JOSEPH F. DELANEY Aurelius Clemens Prudentius Aurelius Clemens Prudentius A Christian poet, boen in the Tarraconensis, Northern Spain, 348; died probably in Spain, after 405. He must have been born a Christian, for he nowhere speaks of his conversion. The place of his birth is uncertain; it may have been Saragossa, Tarragona, or Calahorra. He practised law with some success, and in later life deplored the zeal he had devoted to his profession. He was twice provincial governor, perhaps in his native country, before the emperor summoned him to court. Towards the end of his life Prudentius renounced the vanities of the world to practise a rigorous asceticism, fasting until evening (Cath., iii, 88) and abstaining entirely from animal food (ibid., 56). The Christian poems were written during this period; he later collected them and wrote a preface, which he himself dated 405. A little before (perhaps in 403) he had to go to Rome, doubtless to make some appeal to the emperor. A number of his poems (Peristephanon, vii, ix, xi, xii, xiv) were written subsequently to this journey, of which he took advantage to visit the sanctuaries and tombs of the martyrs. "Contra Symmachum" must have been written at Rome; the second book belongs to the period between 29 March and December, 403. All other works antedate the journey to Rome. Prudentius wrote to glorify God and atone for his sins. His works fall into three groups: lyrical, didactic, and polemical. The lyrics form two collections. In the "Cathemerinon" the hymns are for the sanctification of the hours of the day or certain important occasions, such as Christmas, the Epiphany, obsequies, etc. Some continue the liturgical tradition of Saint Ambrose, and are written in the Ambrosian iambic dimeter; others are an attempt to enlist the metres of Horace in the service of Christian lyrical poetry. Despite his negligence Prudentius displays more art than Ambrose. Hymn xii, on the feast of the Epiphany, contains the two celebrated stanzas, "Saluete flores martyrum", characterized by profound feeling united to the purest art; hymn x on burial is likewise very remarkable. However, his style is generally diffuse, and the hymns admitted to the Roman Breviary had to be curtailed. The "Peristephanon" is dedicated to the glory of the martyrs: Emeterius and Chelidonius of Calahorra, Lawrence the Deacon, Eulalia, the eighteen martyrs of Saragossa, Vincent, Fructuosus with Augurius and Eulogius, Quirinus of Siscia, the martyrs of Calahorra put to death on the site of the baptistery, Cassianus of the Forum Cornelium, Romanus, Hippolytus, Peter and Paul, Cyprian, and Agnes. Taken altogether, it is an endeavour to endow Christianity with a lyrical poetry independent of liturgical uses and traditions. Unfortunately, neither Prudentius's talent nor current taste favoured such an enterprise. The narratives are spoiled with too much rhetoric. There are, however, beautiful passages, a kind of grave power, and some pretty details, as in the hymns on St. Eulalia (see v. 206-15) and St. Agnes. Certain others, such as that on St. Hippolytus, have an archæological interest. The whole collection is curious, but of unequal merit. The two principal didactic poems are the "Apotheosis", on the dogma of the Trinity, and the "Hamartigenia", on the origin of sin. One is somewhat astonished to find Prudentius attacking ancient heresies, such as those of Sabellius and Marcian, and having nothing to say on Arianism. It is due to the fact that he closely follows and imitates Tertullian, whose rugged genius resembles his own. These poems are interesting examples of passionate, glowing abstractions, precise exposition being combined with poetic fantasy. Some brilliant scenes, like the sacrifice of Julian (Apot.h., 460), merit quotation. The comparison of souls led astray by sin with doves caught in snares (Ham., 779) has a charm that recalls the happy inspiration of "Saluete flores". Orthodoxy is his great preoccupation in these poems, and he invokes all kinds of punishments on heresy. Yet he is not always free from error, here or elsewhere. He believes that only a small number of souls are lost (Cath., vi, 95). It is an exaggeration of the meaning of his metaphors to assert that he makes the soul material. The "Psychomachia "is the model of a style destined to be lovingly cultivated in the Middle Ages, i. e., allegorical poetry, of which before Prudentius only the merest traces are found (in such authors as Apuleius, Tertullian, and Claudian). In Tertullian's "De Spectaculis", 29, we find its first conception; he personifies the vices and the virtues and shows them contending for the soul. The army of vices is that of idolatry, the army of the virtues that of faith. The poem is, therefore, at once moral and apologetic. It would be difficult to imagine anything more unfortunate or insupportable. Incidents, action, and characters of the Æneid are here travestied, and the deplorable effect is heightened by the borrowing of numerous hemistichs divested of their proper meaning. The "Dittochæon", forty-nine hexameter tetrastichs commenting on various events of the Old and New Testament, must be included among the didactic poems of Prudentius. Doubts have been raised regarding the authenticity of these verses but with very little reason. Gennadius (De viris illustr., xiii) furthermore attributes to Prudentius, mistakenly perhaps, a "Hexaemeron" of which we know nothing. His most personal work is the invective against Symmachus. It shows how the Christians reconciled their patriotism with their faith. Prudentius identifies the Church with Rome and, in thus transforming it, preserves that ancient belief in the eternity of the city. He can be impartial towards the pagan and praise him for services rendered the State. He is proud of the senate, seeing its majority Christian. Christianity is come to crown the Roman institutions. Romans are superior to the barbarians, as man is superior to the animals. These two books against Symmachus undertake, therefore, to solve the problem which presented itself to the mind of the still hesitant pagan. A genius more powerful than pliant, Prudentius displays a more versatile and richer talent than that of his pagan contemporary, Claudian. The rhetoric he disparages, he himself misuses; he often exaggerates, but is never commonplace. The superior of many pagan poets, among the Christian he is the greatest and the most truly poetic. His style is not bad considering the period in which he wrote, and, while there are occasional errors in his prosody due to the pronunciation then current, he shows himself a careful versifier and has the gift (then become rare) of varying his metres. An edition of Prudentius is to appear in the "Corpus" of Vienna, edited by J. Bergman. The best manuscript is at Paris, in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Latin department, 8084; on one of its margins is the half-effaced name of Vettius Agorius Basilius Mavortius (consul in 527), who made a recension of the works of Horace. This manuscript is free from the dogmatic corrections which are found in others. GLOVER, Life and Letters in the Fourth Century (Cambridge, 1901), 249-77; SCHANZ, Gesch. der röm. Litteratur, IV, I, 211; PUECH, Prudence (Paris, 1888); LEASE, A Syntactic, Stylistic and Metrical Study of Prudentius (Baltimore, 1895); ROBERT, Notice sur le Manuscript de Prudence B. N. lat. 8084 in Mélanges Graux (Paris, 1884), 406; BERGMAN, De codicum prudentianorum generibus et virtute in Sitzungsberichte d. Wiener Akademie, CLVII, n. 5; LOCK in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. PAUL LEJAY. Prudentius Prudentius (GALINDO) A Bishop of Troyes, born in Spain; died at Troyes on 6 April, 861; celebrated opponent of Hincmar in the controversy on predestination. He left Spain in his youth, probably on account of the Saracen persecution, and came to the Frankish Empire where he changed his native name Galindo into Prudentius. He was educated at the Palatine school, and became Bishop of Troyes shortly before 847. In the controversy on predestination between Gottschalc of Orbais, Archbishop Hincmar of Reims, and Bishop Pardulus of Laon, he opposed Hincmar in an epistle addressed to him. In this epistle, which was written about 849, he defends against Hincmar a double predestination, viz, one for reward, the other for punishment, not, however, for sin. He further upholds that Christ died only for those who are actually saved. The same opinion he defends in his "De prædestinatione contra Johannem Scotum", which he wrote in 851 at the instance of Archbishop Wenilo of Sens who had sent him nineteen articles of Eriugena's work on predestination for refutation. Still it appears that at the synod of Quierzy, he subscribed to four articles of Hincmar which admit only one predestination, perhaps out of reverence for the archbishop, or out of fear of King Charles the Bald. In his "Epistola tractoria ad Wenilonem", written about 856, he again upholds his former opinion and makes his approval of the ordination of the new bishop Æneas of Paris depend on the latter's subscription to four articles favouring a double predestination. Of great historical value is his continuation of the "Annales Bertiniani" from 835-61, in which he presents a reliable history of that period of the Western Frankish Empire. He is also the author of "Vita Sanctæ Mauræ Virginis" (Acta SS. Sept. VI, 275-8) and some poems. At Troyes his feast is celebrated on 6 April as that of a saint, though the Bollandists do not recognize his cult (Acta SS. Apr. I, 531). His works, with the exception of his poems, are printed in P. L., CXV, 971-1458; his poems in Mon. Germ. Poetæ Lat., II, 679 sq. GIRGENSOHN, Prudentius und die Bertinianischen Annalene (Riga, 1875); FREYSTEDT, Ueber den Prädestinationsstreit in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie (1893), 315 sq., 447 sq.; BREYER, Les vies de St. Prudence Evéque de Troyes, et de St. Maura, vierge (Troyes, 1725); MIDDELDORFF, De Prudentio et theologia Prudentiana commentatio in Zeitschrift für histor. Theol., II (1832), 127-190. MICHAEL OTT. Prum Prüm A former Benedictine abbey in Lorraine, now in the Diocese of Trier, founded by a Frankish widow Bertrada, and her son Charibert, 23 June, 720. The first head of the abbey was Angloardus. Bertrada's grand-daughter was Bertha, wife of King Pepin (751-68), and Prüm became the favourite monastery of the Carlovingians and received large endowments and privileges. Pepin rebuilt the monastery and bestowed great estates upon it, 13 August, 762. The king brought monks from Meaux under Abbot Assuerus to the monastery. The church, dedicated to the Saviour (Salvator), was not completed until the reign of Charlemagne, and was consecrated, 26 July, 799, by Pope Leo III. Charlemagne and succeeding emperors were liberal patrons of the abbey. Several of the Carlovingians entered the religious life at Prüm; among these was Lothair I, who became a monk in 855. His grave was rediscovered in 1860; in 1874 the Emperor William I erected a monument over it. In 882 and 892 the monastery was plundered and devastated by the Normans, but it soon recovered. The landed possessions were so large that the abbey developed into a principality. At times during the eleventh and twelfth centuries the monastery contained over three hundred monks. The period of its internal prosperity extends to the thirteenth century. The monks were energetic cultivators of the land. About 836 Abbot Marquard founded a new monastery, Münstereifel; in 1017 Abbot Urald founded at Prüm a collegiate foundation for twelve priests; in 1190 Abbot Gerhard founded a house for ladies of noble birth at Niederprüm. The monastery cared for the poor and sick. Learning was also cultivated. Among those who taught in the school of the monastery were Ado, later Archbishop of Vienne (860-75). Another head of the school, Wandelbert (813-70), was a distinguished poet. Abbot Regino (893-99) made a name for himself as historian and codifier of canon law. Cæsarius of Heisterbach is only brought into the list of authors of this monastery by being confounded with Abbot Cæsarius of Prüm (1212-16). In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the monastery declined, partly from the oppression of its secular administrators, but more from internal decay. It reached such a pass that the monks divided the revenues among themselves and lived apart from one another. Consequently the archbishops of Trier sought to incorporate the abbey in the archdiocese. In 1376 Charles IV gave his consent to this, as did Boniface IX in 1379, but the pope's consent was recalled in 1398; Sixtus IV about 1473 also gave his approval to the incorporation. But the abbots refused to submit and even in 1511 carried on war against the archbishop. Finally, when the abbey was near ruin, Gregory XIII issued the decree of incorporation 24 Aug., 1574, which was carried into effect in 1576 after the death of Abbot Christopher von Manderscheid. After this the archbishops of Trier were "perpetual administrators" of the abbey. The abbey was now brought into order within and without, and once more flourished to such a degree that the two archæologists Martène and Durand, who visited the monastery in 1718, state in their "Voyage littéraire" that of all the monasteries in Germany Prüm showed the best spirit, and study was zealously pursued. The monks made efforts even in the eighteenth century to shake off the supremacy of Trier. In 1801 Prüm fell to France, was secularized, and its estates sold. Napoleon gave its buildings to the city. Since 1815 Prüm has belonged to Prussia. The church, built in 1721 by the Elector Louis, is now a parish church. The monastic buildings are now used for the district court and the high-school. The sandals of Christ are considered to be the most notable of the many relics of the church; they are mentioned by Pepin in the deed of 762. He is said to have received them from Rome as a gift of Pope Zacharias or Pope Stephen. MARX, Gesch, des Erzstifts Trier, II (Trier, 1860), i, 271-322; WILLEMS, Prüm u. seine Heiligthümer (Trier, 1896); FRENZ, Die letze Chronik v. Prüm in Stud. u. Mitteil. aus dem Benediktinerund Zistercienserorden, XXVIII (1907), 609-42. KLEMENS LÖFFLER. Prusias Ad Hypium Prusias ad Hypium Titular see, suffragan of Claudiopolis in the Honoriad. Memnon, the historian, says that Prusias I, King of Bithynia (237-192 B.C.), captured from the Heracleans the town of Kieros, united it to his dominions and changed its name to Prusias ("Frag. histor. Graec.", coll. Didot, frag. 27 and 47; fragment 41 treats of Kios or Guemlek, also called Prusias, and not of Kieros, as the copyist has written; this has given rise to numerous confusions). Pliny (Hist. nat., V, 43) and Ptolemy (V, i, 13) merely mention it, one below Mt. Hypius, the other near the River Hypius or Milan-Sou. Several of its bishops are known; George (not Hesychius, as Le Quien says), 325; Olympus in 451; Dometius in 681; Theophilus in 787; Constantine in 869; Leo in 879; St. Paul, martyred by the iconoclasts in the ninth century (Le Quien, "Oriens christ." I, 579). It is not known when this see disappeared, which still existed in the tenth century (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte . . . Texte der Notiyiæ episcopatuum", 554). The ruins of Prusias are found to-day at the little Mussulman village of Eski Bagh or rather Uskub in the caza of Duzdjé and the vilayet of Castamouni. The region is very rich, especially in fruit trees. Ruins are still seen of the walls and the Roman theatre forty-six miles in circumference. DE HELL, Voyage en Turquie et Perse, IV, 334-38, 353-73; TEXIER, Asie Mineure, 85; LE BAR, Voyage archéologique, 1174-82; PERROT, Expédition archéologique de la Galatie et de la Bithynie (Paris, 1872, 20-42. S. VAILHÉ Prussia Prussia The Kingdom of Prussia at the present time covers 134,616 square miles and includes about 64.8 per cent of the area of the German Empire. It includes the greater part of the plain of northern Germany and of the central mountain chain of Germany. With exception of the small Hohenzollern district, the original domain of the Prussian royal family, it does not extend beyond the Main. However, in a south-westerly direction west of the Rhine it includes a considerable portion of the basin of the Saar and of the plateau of Lorraine. All the large German rivers flow through it, and it contains the greater part of the mineral wealth of Germany, coal, iron, salt, and potash. Of the area devoted to agriculture over 2.5 per cent are used for the cultivation of grain as follows: 25.91 per cent for rye, 15.37 per cent oats, 6.86 per cent wheat. In 1905 the population was 37,282,935, that is 61.5 per cent of the population of the German Empire. The annual increase of the population is about 1.5 per cent, but this results from the decline of emigration and the decrease of the death-rate. In 1905 about 11.5 per cent were Slavs, of whom 8.887 per cent were Poles. In religion 63.29 per cent were Protestants, 35.14 per cent Catholics, 0.13 per cent Jews. In 1895 34.18 per cent of the population was employed in agriculture, 38.7 per cent in manufactures. About one-half of all the manufacturing industries are carried on in the provinces of the Rhine, Westphalia, and Silesia. It is only since 1866 that Prussia has had its present area, and not until 1871 did it become the ruling state of Germany. Its present area and power are the result of a gradual development extending over more than seven centuries. I. The beginnings of the state are connected with the bloody struggles and with the wonderful cultural and missionary labours by means of which the territories on the Baltic between the Elbe and Memel were wrested in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries from the Slavs and won for Germany and the Catholic Church. In this era the region on the Vistula and the Pregel Rivers, which originally was the only part of the territory bearing the name of Prussia, was conquered by the Teutonic Knights in 1230 and converted to Christianity. In 1309 the Grand Master of the order transferred his residence to the Marienburg, a castle noted for its artistic importance, which has been restored by the Emperor William II. The order and the region ruled by the order attained their highest development in the years succeeding this especially under the government of Winrich of Kniprode (1351-82). Pomerania, the district along the coast to the right and left of the mouth of the Oder, continued to be ruled by its dynasty of Slavonic dukes, nevertheless it was also under German influence and was converted to Christianity in the first half of the twelfth century by St. Otto of Bamberg. The inland territory between the Elbe and Oder, and the region drained by the Warthe and Netze, first called the Electorate of Brandenburg and the New Mark, were acquired from 1134 onwards by the Ascanian line, which also had possessions in Saxony. Before long this line also gained the feudal suzerainty over Pomerania. In all three districts the Teutonic Knights, who carried on wars and colonized at the same time, had the principal share in reconstructing the political conditions. The Cistercian Order had also a large part in the peaceful development of civilization; the order founded flourishing monasteries beginning at Lehnin, and Chorin and extending as far as Oliva near Danzig, and Christianized the natives. In all these territories, though, numerous German cities were founded and German peasants were settled on the soil. After the extinction of the Ascanian line in 1320 the Electorate of Brandenburg became a possession of the Bavarian House of Wittelsbach, and in 1373 of the House of Luxemburg. Under the new rulers the government and the country greatly declined and the nobility ruled with an iron hand. In order to restore order the last member of the Luxemburg line transferred Brandenburg, at first temporarily, then on 30 April, 1415, as a fief to Frederick of Hohenzollern. This was the birthday of the future great state of Prussia, for Prussia has not become a great power from natural, geographical, or national conditions, but is the product of the work of its kings of the House of Hohenzollern. Frederick I probably desired to make Brandenburg a great kingdom on the Baltic for himself; however, he limited himself to crushing the power of the nobles and then devoted his attention again to imperial affairs. During the next two centuries his descendants did not do much to increase the power of Brandenburg, and they never attained the power of the last members of the Ascanian line. The most important event was the "Dispositio Achillea" of 1473, by which Brandenburg was made the chief possession of the Hohenzollern family and primogeniture was established, as the law of its inheritance. Of the Hohenzollern rulers of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries only Frederick II (1440-70) and Joachim I Nestor (1499-1535) were men of any prominence. They were more successful in internal affairs than in the endeavour to extend the size and importance of their realm. Frederick II separated the towns of Brandenburg from the Hanseatic League, and forced them to become a part of the territory of Brandenburg. He also brought the clergy under the power of the state by aid of two Bulls of 1447, which he obtained from Pope Nicholas V, and laid the foundation of the later State Church system established by his family. His efforts to enlarge his territories were checked by the rapid development of the power of Poland at this time, which was followed by the rising importance of Hungary. The result was that all the German possessions along the coast of the Baltic were endangered; and the greater part of the territory of the Teutonic Knights, comprising the region of the Vistula, was conquered together with Danzig by the Poles after two wars: in the war of 1410-11 the Teutonic Knights were defeated by the Poles at the battle of Tannenberg; this was followed by the First Peace of Thorn; after the war of 1456-66 came the Second Peace of Thorn. The Poles also took part in the war which Frederick II waged with Pomerania over the possession of Stettin. When Frederick's nephew and successor sought compensation for Stettin in Silesia, he was opposed by Hungary and had to retire there also. As ruler Joachim I was even firmer than Frederick II. During his administration the nobility were forced to give up their freebooting expeditions. Following this example the ruling family of Pomerania, of which the most important member of this era was Bogislaw X (reigned 1478-1524), put an end to the excesses of the Pomeranian nobility also. In the provinces along the Baltic the nobility had then a force of armed men at their disposal probably equal to similar forces of the princes. Thus, for example, a family called Wedel had so many branches that in the sixteenth century it could at one time reckon on two hundred men among its own members capable of bearing arms. When these rode out to war with their squires and mounted men they formed a body of soldiers, which, owing to the scarcity of money, was difficult for the ruling princes to meet. Both in Brandenburg and Pomerania the establishment of order was followed by an improvement in the laws and the courts, and by a reorganization of the administration. This latter brought about the gradual formation of a class of civil officials, who had in part legal training, and who were dependent not on the nobility but on the ruling princes. The beginnings were also made of an economical policy. Joachim I sought to turn to the advantage of the Hohenzollerns the fact that the Wettin line ruling in Saxony, which up to that time had been of more importance than the Hohenzollerns, had paralyzed its future development in 1485 by dividing its possessions between two branches of the line. These two dynastic families, Wettin and Hohenzollern, were active competitors for the great spiritual principalities of the empire. In 1513 Joachim's brother Albrecht became Archbishop of Magdeburg and Bishop of Halberstadt, and in 1514 Archbishop of Mainz. At the same time, another member of the Hohenzollern family, one belonging to the Franconian branch of the line, became Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, that is, he was the ruler of that portion of Prussia which still belonged to the order. In 1525 he brought about the secularization of the territory of the order, and made it a permanent possession of his family; in return for this, however, he was obliged to acknowledge the feudal suzerainty of Poland. Joachim was unable to maintain his claims to the right of succession on the extinction of the Pomeranian dukes, but had to give up the claim to feudal supremacy (Treaty of Grimnitz, 1529). Of all the ecclesiastical principalities, Joachim's successors were able to retain Magdeburg alone, and this only to the end of the century. In Prussia (1569) they obtained the right to joint feudal possession, and thus gained for the main branch of the family a claim to the Duchy of Prussia. Taken altogether, however, the Hohenzollern power declined very decidedly. The ruling branch in Brandenburg was badly crippled by debts, and the last member of the line ruling in Prussia was weak-minded. This enabled the Estates, which had rapidly developed in all German territories from the second half of the fifteenth century, to obtain great influence over the administration, both in Prussia and Brandenburg. This influence was due to the fact that the Estates, owing to their possessing the right of granting the taxes, were equivalent to a representative assembly composed in part of the landowners, the nobility, and the clergy, and in part of the cities, who controlled considerable ready money. At first the nobility was the most powerful section of the Estates. In order to keep the nobles well-disposed the ruling princes, both in Brandenburg and Prussia, and also in Pomerania, transferred to them the greater part of the princely jurisdiction and other legal rights over the peasants, so that the feudal lords were able to bring the peasants into complete economic dependence upon themselves and to make them serfs. As a result the influence of the nobility constantly grew. But as the nobles were men without breadth of view, and in all foreign complications saw the means of reviving the power of the princes and of imposing taxes, the strength of the three Baltic duchies waned equally in the second half of the sixteenth century. None of them seemed to have any future. II. At this juncture the head of the Franconian branch of the Hohenzollern family, George Frederick of Ansbach-Bayreuth, persuaded the Brandenburg branch of the family to enter upon a far-reaching policy of extension which, in the end, resulted in leading the dynasty and the state over which it reigned into an entirely new path. Influenced by George Frederick, John George of Brandenburg (1571-98) strengthened his claim upon Prussia by marrying his daughter to the weak-minded Duke of Prussia, and secured for himself by another marriage a new reversionary right to the Duchy of Cleve-Jülich, the ruling family of which was nearing extinction. Up to this time Prussian policy had been entirely directed to gaining control in eastern Germany, and this marriage was the first attempt to make acquisitions in western Germany. During the reign of John Sigismund (1608-19) the ducal line of Cleve-Jülich became extinct in 1609, and in 1618 that of Prussia. Of the possessions of Cleve-Jülich, however, Jülich and Berg were claimed by the Wittelsbach family, and Brandenburg was only able to acquire Cleve and a few adjacent districts (1614); even the hold on this inheritance was for a long time very insecure. On the other hand Prussia was united with Brandenburg without any dispute arising because Poland in the meantime had become involved in war with Gustavus Adolphus and was obliged to act with caution. At about the same time the ducal House of Pomerania was nearing extinction, so that all at once the state ruled by the Hohenzollerns seemed to approach a great extension of its territories. In 1613 John Sigismund became a Calvinist, a faith at that time which had a great attraction for all the energetic and ambitious among the German Protestant princes. The ruler of Brandenburg and Prussia became the son-in-law of the leader of the Calvinistic party, the Elector Palatinate, and his daughter married Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. However, on account of the great power which the Estates had acquired in his dominions John Sigismund was not able to undertake a vigorous policy. The Estates were strongly opposed to his adoption of Calvinism, and his promise to leave the Lutheran Confession undisturbed hardly satisfied them, nor were they willing to grant any money for his external policies. On account of these financial difficulties his successor, George William (1619-40), during the Thirty Years' War, came near losing the territories just inherited; and he was not able to make good his claims to Pomerania when, in 1637, his right of inheritance was to be enforced. It became evident that the power of the Estates must be crushed and the people forced to pay their taxes regularly, before the Hohenzollerns could obtain firm possession of their newly acquired domain, establish their authority in Pomerania, and then build up their power in the Baltic coast lands in the valleys of the Oder and Vistula. George William's chief adviser, Count Adam von Schwarzenberg, recognized this and made the attempt to carry out this policy; from 1637 he was engaged in a severe struggle with Sweden, to prevent the Swedes from taking possession of Pomerania. The merit of finally carrying out this policy and of turning the small and far from cultured state into a strong instrument for political and military aggression belongs to the Great Elector, Frederick William (1640-88), and to his grandson, King Frederick William I (1713-40). In 1644 the Great Elector laid the foundation of the standing army with the aid of which his successors raised Brandenburg-Prussia to its leading position; Frederick William I increased the standing army to 83,000 men. In order to procure the resources for maintaining his army the Great Elector gradually reorganized the country on entirely different principles, and did his utmost to further the prosperity of his people so as to enable them to bear increased taxation. His grandson continued and completed the same policy. At this period a like internal policy was followed in all the states of the German Empire, including the larger ones. Nowhere, however, was it carried out in so rational and systematic a manner as in Brandenburg-Prussia, and nowhere else were its results so permanent. In this, not in its originality, consists the greatness of the political achievement of the Hohenzollerns. The Estates and their provincial diets were not opposed and put down on principle, but they were forced in Prussia and Cleve to grant what was needed for the army; the cities were then subjected to a special indirect taxation (excise duties), and in this way were withdrawn from the government of the Estates. The nobility, now the only members of the Estates, were subjected to personal taxation by reforms in the existing system of direct taxation, by the abolition of the feudal system, and especially by the introduction into Prussia of the general taxation of land. At the same time the control that the Estates had acquired over the collection and administration of the taxes was abolished, and the assessment and collection of the taxes was transferred to the officials of the Government, who had originally charge only of the administrative and commissariat departments of the army. All these officials were placed under a central bureau, the general commissariat, and a more rigid and regular state system of state receipts and expenditures was established. Among the changes were the founding of the exchequer, the drawing-up of a budget, which was prepared for the first time in 1689, and the creation of an audit-office. Moreover, there was a stricter regulation of the finances in every part of the Government, and an extension of the supervision of every branch of the administration by the fiscal authorities so as to include even the independent departments of the state, the result being that these bodies, especially the cities, were actually ruled by these officials. These reforms reached their culmination in the founding of the "General Directory", at Berlin, and of the Boards of War and Finance in the provinces in 1721. The result was that the entire official life of Prussia became bureaucratic, and financial considerations had the preponderating influence in the internal administration of the country, as is still strikingly noticeable. Those departments of national administration that yielded little revenue, or were apt to cost more than they could be counted upon to yield, were for the present neglected, or in part still left under the control of the Estates, in those cases where the Estates had acquired the supervision of them; such were, above all, the administration of law, ecclesiastical affairs, and the schools. On the other hand great attention was given to improving economic conditions, and gradually all the measures were used in Prussia that the genius of a Colbert had planned during the reign of Louis XIV to raise France to the place of the first power in the world. Accordingly the population was increased by encouraging the immigration of the Dutch, Huguenots, and finally of the Protestants, who were driven out of Salzburg. Much also was done to improve the soil and the breeding of cattle. In agreement with the prevailing principles of economics, i.e. as much money as possible should be brought into the country, but that its export should be prevented, manufacture and commerce were to be stimulated in every possible way. The Great Elector even established a navy and also founded colonies on the African Gold Coast; in 1717 Frederick William I sold the colonies. Many excellent officials were drawn from other countries to aid in the administration. However, the ruling prince was the centre of the Government. The result of this was that, as early as the latter years of the reign of the Elector, the principal boards of administration and the ministers presiding over them sank more and more into mere tools for carrying out the will of the ruling prince, and decisions were made, not in the boards, but in the cabinet of the prince. This method of administration became completely systematized in the reign of Frederick William I; consequently it is customary to speak of the cabinet government of Prussia. This form of administration was maintained until 1806. The success of the organizing energy of the ruling princes was so evident that even before the end of the seventeenth century Leibniz said: "This country is a kingdom in all but name." The lacking name of kingdom was given to the country when Frederick I (1688-1713), the son of the Great Elector, crowned himself on 18 January, 1701, at Königsberg, with the title "King in Prussia", meaning of the former duchy. As long as the development of the internal strength of the country was backward there was little chance of gaining any important additions of territory, even though the great wars of the period made such efforts very tempting. The Great Elector was a man of uncontrolled and passionate character, and of much military ambition; it was very hard for him to let others reap where he had sown, for he had taken part in nearly all the wars of his era. Frederick William I also was alive to his country's glory, but was more inclined to prepare for war than to carry it on; in many respects his character recalls that of the later William I. In this period the chief object of the foreign policy of the Hohenzollerns was to increase their possessions along the Baltic. Above all they desired to own Pomerania, which Sweden retained. By the Treaty of Westphalia the Great Elector received only Further Pomerania (Hinterpommern), which was of little value. He gained nothing from the first Northern War (1655-60) in which he took part; his victory over the Swedes in the battle of Fehrbellin (1675) proved fruitless. His grandson finally acquired Stettin and the mouth of the Oder in 1720, and Hither Pomerania (Vorpommern) did not become apart of Prussia until 1815. The Great Elector was more fortunate in obtaining the release of the Duchy of Prussia from the feudal suzerainty of Poland (1658), and was also able to increase its area by the addition of Ermland. He further desired to acquire Silesia. In these years the chief battlefield of Europe was the western part of the Continent. This was unfavourable for the schemes of the Hohenzollerns, for at that time they had no definite policy of territorial extension in western Europe, and consequently no interests of any importance there. In the west the Great Elector limited himself to securing the lasting possession of Cleve (1667) and the occupation of the territories which France had secured for him in exchange for Pomerania, namely Minden, Halberstadt, and Magdeburg, which before this had been ecclesiastical principalities. These gave him strategetically important positions controlling points of crossing the Elbe and the Weser; but he could not obtain Magdeburg until 1666, and did not gain full possession of it until 1680. During the reigns of his son and grandson some small and unimportant territories to the west of these were obtained. Taken altogether Brandenburg-Prussia had by 1740 increased in area from 9000 square miles under the first Hohenzollern Elector and 31,600 square miles in the reign of John Sigismund to about 46,800 square miles with a population of about 2,250,000. Up to now the bulk of the area of the country had lain towards the east, but from this period onward the preponderating part of its territories began to be found in the west. The wife of the Great Elector belonged to the family of the Princes of Orange, and this led the Elector to consider Holland in his foreign policy; in 1672 especially this influenced him to take part in the war between Holland and Louis XIV. He also gave more attention to imperial affairs than his immediate predecessors. In the politics of the empire sometimes he sided with the emperor. At times, however, he adhered to the views held by the German ruling princes of that time that there was an inner Germany consisting of the various states of the empire, and that this was the real Germany, the interests of which did not always coincide with those of Austria or of the reigning emperor. He believed that the real Germany must at times maintain its interests against Austria by the aid of one of the guaranteeing powers of the Peace of Westphalia, viz. France and Sweden. The only times he paid no attention in his policies to his duty as a prince of the empire was at the beginning of his reign when influenced by religious prejudices, and towards its end when disappointed by the Peace of St.-Germain-en-Laye (1679). Another sign that the Prussian state was becoming gradually involved in the affairs of western Europe was the fact that as a second wife the Great Elector married a Guelph, to which family the wives both of his son and grandson belonged. In the second half of the seventeenth century the Guelph line founded the Electorate of Hanover in north-western Germany, the only state in this section of Germany that, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, could in any way compete with Brandenburg-Prussia for the leading position. The founding of the Academy of Berlin is due to Sophia Charlotte, wife of Frederick I. The same royal couple established the University of Halle, which soon gained a European reputation on account of its professors Thomasius and Christian Wolf and the institutions for the poor founded by Professor Francke. The fine addition in the royal castle at Berlin and the splendid statue of the Great Elector by Andreas Schlüter were both works of this reign. III. Frederick II, The Great (1740-88), son of Frederick William I, had probably more intellectual ability than any other Hohenzollern known to history; he had in him a touch of genius. What checked development and exercise of his ability was, however, that he seemed from his natural predispositions, and from the way in which in youth he looked upon life, to be born for entirely different conditions than those prevailing in the Prussia of that era. He was more inclined to literature and music than to official routine work and military service, and early became a free-thinker. He preferred the literature of France and despised that of Germany, and was indifferent to Prussia and its people. When a young man these tastes led to conflicts with his father, who resolved on this account to exclude Frederick from the succession, and imprisoned him for several years in the fortress at Küstrin. Frederick was then married against his will, by the advice of Austria, to the Princess Elizabeth of Brunswick-Bevern, personally an excellent and good woman. He finally learned self-control and applied himself with gradually increasing zeal and intensity to the civil and military affairs of the state, but he did this not from a sense of pleasure in such occupations, but from one of discipline and necessity. This may be the reason why in his civil administration and in the aims of his foreign policy he showed little originality in comparison to his natural abilities. On the other hand, in the conduct of war the king showed extraordinary energy, great intellectual activity, and ceaseless personal attention to his task. In his foreign policy Frederick followed the principles of his predecessors and sought above all to develop his domain towards the east. The precarious position of Austria at the beginning of the reign of Maria Theresa was taken advantage of by Frederick to begin a campaign in Silesia in Dec., 1740. As a pretext for the war he took the treaties of succession of his forefathers with the rulers of several of the smaller Silesian duchies, made in 1537, for the nonfulfilment of which Austria seemingly was alone to blame. He gained the battle of Mollwitz 10 April, 1741, and on 5 June formed an alliance with France, the chief of the other opponents of Maria Theresa; the intervention of England led him to agree to a truce on 9 October, which enabled Austria to make its military force equal to that of France. In alarm Frederick advanced into Moravia, gained the battle of Chotusitz, 17 May, 1742, and in the Peace of Breslau, of 1 June of the same year, obtained from Austria the whole of Silesia, excepting the Countships of Glatz, Troppau, and Teschen. As in the war between Austria and France, which still went on, the advantage of the former continually increased, Frederick once more formed an alliance with Austria's opponents and began a campaign in Bohemia in Sept., 1744, but was obliged to withdraw from this province in December. His position in Silesia now became precarious, but he extricated himself by the victory at Hohenfriedberg, 4 June, 1745, and then defeated the enemy, already on the march to Berlin, at Soor 20 Sept., at Katholisch-Hennersdorf 23 Nov., and at Kesselsdorf 15 Dec. By the Peace of Dresden of 25 Dec., 1745, Frederick retained Silesia. Maria Theresa, however, was not willing to give up Silesia without further effort. Consequently after peace had been made between Austria and France, Kaunitz, who was now Maria Theresa's minister of foreign affairs, sought to form more friendly relations with France and to strengthen those already existing with Russia. So little, however, was attained in France that Kaunitz wished to drop the negotiations, but Maria Theresa's persistence and the measures taken by Frederick in 1756 led to the formation of the alliance. Made uneasy by the weakness of France, Frederick did not maintain the amicable relations that had existed until then between himself and that power. When war broke out between England and France over the colonies in 1755-6, England negotiated with Russia for the sending of auxiliary troops. Frederick feared to permit such auxiliaries to march through Prussia and offered to guarantee England's possession on the Continent himself (Convention of Westminster, Jan., 1756). France and Austria now agreed to help each other in case of attack by Frederick (First Alliance of Versailles, 1 May, 1756). Upon this Frederick, led perhaps by fear of attack by a coalition stronger than himself, perhaps also by the hope of making fresh gains by daring seizures, began a third war, the Seven Years' War, with Austria, taking as a pretext the advance of the Austrian troops. Without any declaration of war he advanced into the Electorate of Saxony, which was friendly to Austria, and besieged Dresden 9 Sept., but the Saxon troops kept up a longer resistance than he had counted upon, so it was 1757 before he could begin a campaign in Bohemia. In the meantime Russia and Austria had signed an alliance for war against him 2 Feb., 1757; in addition both the Empire and Sweden declared war against him, and on 1 May, 1757, France and Austria agreed in the Second Alliance of Versailles to adopt the offensive together against him. Frederick's opponents could produce a force of 430,000 men, while he with the aid of England and Hanover (Treaty of 11 January, 1757) controlled about 210,000 men. It was most important for him to force the matter to a conclusion as quickly as possible, before the means of his still poor country were exhausted. On 6 May he won a bloody battle near Prague, but on 18 June he was defeated near Kollin and suffered losses by the new Austrian commander Daun which he could not repair. Frederick was forced to return to Saxony, while the French defeated the Hanoverian army at Kastenbeck on 6 July, and the Russians defeated a Prussian army at Grossjägerndorf on 30 Aug. However, the Russians and French did not form a junction with the Austrians quickly enough. When finally the united French and Imperial army advanced, Frederick defeated the joint forces badly at Rossbach on 5 Nov., and then turned against Daun, who had entered Silesia and had taken Breslau. Frederick defeated him at Leuthen on 5 Dec. Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick continued to lead the Hanoverian and Prussian forces that fought against the French and drove the latter to the Rhine in the battle of Crefeld, 23 June, 1758. The progress of the war in the east did not equal the great expectations aroused by the success at Leuthen. In 1758 the Russians advanced. Frederick maintained himself against them at Zorndorf, 25 August, but the battle was not decisive, from here he hastened to Saxony, where the troops he had left behind were threatened by Daun, and he was surprised by Daun at Hochkirch on 14 Oct. At the end of 1758 the majority of his officers were dead, and he could only fill the gaps among the soldiery by the compulsory enlistment of mercenaries. His treasury was empty, and he struck debased coin. He exhausted the resources of Saxony. On the other hand the Austrian army was always ready for the field, and the Austrian artillery was superior to his. Accordingly his opponents in the campaign of 1759 forced Frederick to take the defensive. The united Russians and Austrians decisively defeated Frederick at Kunersdorf on 12 August. The result was a series of capitulations. Frederick lost Saxony, the greater part of Silesia was taken from him in 1760-61, largely by Laudon. What saved him, besides his own energy, was the gradual dissolution of the alliances between his enemies. France began to withdraw in the Third Alliance of Versailles of 30-31 December, 1757. At first Russia and Austria drew all the closer together in the Treaty of St. Petersburg of 1 April, 1760. The Russians plundered Berlin in Oct., 1760. At this most critical moment Frederick maintained himself only by the almost unexpected victory of Torgau, 3 Nov., 1760, which enabled him once more to occupy a secure position in Saxony. As early as 1761 the Russian interest in the war began to decline, and when in January, 1762 Peter III, an admirer of Frederick, became tsar, he took sides with Frederick (truce in March, peace 5 May, alliance 19 June). It was also an advantage to Frederick that Turkey began a war against Austria. In July, 1762, Peter III was succeeded by the famous Catherine II. She wished to have a European peace, and continually urged Maria Theresa to yield. On the Rhine Ferdinand of Brunswick continued to keep the French in check. As the French were also successful in their war with England, they withdrew from the struggle against Frederick by the preliminary Peace of Fontainebleau (3 Nov., 1762). The imperial army broke up. Finally Austria also grew weary of the struggle. On 15 Feb., 1763, the Peace of Hubertusburg closed the Austro-Prussian war. Frederick retained Silesia, but made no new acquisitions. However, his personal importance and the respect for the military prowess of Prussia were so greatly increased that henceforth Prussia was treated by the other countries as a great power. After this Frederick's administration was a peaceful one. He was able to increase his realm by taking part in the First Partition of Poland (1772), whereby he gained Polish Prussia with the exception of Danzig and Thorn. The War of the Bavarian Succession (1778-79), which Frederick declared against Austria to prevent Bavaria becoming part of that monarchy, caused but little bloodshed. In the Peace of Teschen Austria abandoned all claim to the Bavarian succession. In 1781 Frederick took part in the "Naval Alliance of Neutral Powers". This was formed by Catherine II, and intended mainly to limit the power of England on the Baltic, but it was of small importance. It should also be mentioned that in 1744 East Frisia became a part of Prussia by inheritance. The most important measure of domestic policy carried out by Frederick in the first half of his reign with the help of his minister Cocceji, was the reorganization of the department of justice, which had been neglected during the reign of his father. After the Seven Years' War his personal influence became more manifest in the other departments of state. It must be confessed, however, that at the same time he obstinately adhered both to the forms and principles of government that he had inherited. At the most it was only in isolated cases that power was exercised with moderation or that the administration was modified in harmony with the spirit of the times, although this spirit, animated by humanitarian ideas and a tolerance arising from indifference, was also alive in him. He even exaggerated many of the objectionable sides of the old system of government. He ruled the country and especially the new provinces as an enlightened despot, exclusively from the cabinet, though as a writer he approved of Rousseau's views as set down in the "Social Contract". In addition he employed the higher officials as if they were subalterns. The officials throughout the country during his reign developed more and more of a tendency to treat the people and especially the middle classes with bureaucratic contempt. Though proud of their victories in the Seven Years' War, the people manifested no consciousness of their belonging to a unified Prussian State. It is true that in the last years of his reign Frederick regarded it as his duty to inspire the entire Prussian people in their economic and social feelings with the sense of their direct relations to the Government, so that every Prussian in all his doings should have in view not only his own personal advantage but also the welfare and strengthening of the state. Practically, however, this idea, only led him to accentuate the social differences, the abolition of which was demanded by the needs of the time. At the end of his reign the Prussian State, of which he was more than ever the monarch, ended just as at the beginning of this rule, with the president of each district. As regards his economic policy, he held on to the worn-out mercantile system. The great errors of this policy, e.g., the neglect of agriculture, the failure to abolish serfdom, the retention of the double system of taxation (direct for the country and indirect for the cities), a system that paralyzed all economic development, the maintenance of the excessively high system of protection with its many internal duties, were due to this cause. The same may be said of many of his failures, such as the mercantile enterprises which he founded, or his partial failures, such as the transfer of several industries, in particular the porcelain and silk industries, to the leading provinces of the state. His adherence to the mercantile system of economics was necessitated by his adherence to the one-sided conception of national finances which led the Prussian Government to provide for the economic prosperity of the population, with the intention of bringing as much money as possible into the country in order to have it for government purposes. Frederick, therefore, made no changes in the financial theories of Prussian policy. These theories led him, for instance, in imitation of French fiscal methods, to introduce the Regie, i.e. to farm out the customs and indirect taxes, and to make the sale of tobacco, coffee, and salt absolute monopolies. The Regie made him very unpopular. It is all the more surprising that, notwithstanding the reactionary character of his internal policy, he made the country politically capable of performing all the unusual tasks that he imposed on it, that he changed his possessions into a well-regulated state, and that he succeeded, by political measures, in repairing the terrible injuries of the Seven Years' War in a comparatively short time. Large extents of moor-land and swamp were brought under cultivation, a hundred thousand colonists were settled in deserted districts, and the revenues yielded by manufacture and industry were decidedly increased. The great estates were aided to pay off their debts by encouraging union credit associations, and Frederick sought to regulate and give independence to the circulation of money by founding the Prussian Bank. In harmony with the spirit of the times he also undertook a comprehensive codification and revision of the laws of the state, which was completed after his death and culminated in the publication of the general "Prussian Statute Book" of 1794; Suarez was the chief compiler. Towards the end of his reign he encouraged the efforts made on behalf of the Catholic public schools by the provost Felbiger, and those for the Protestants by Freiherr von Zedlitz and the cathedral canon Rochow, but he never at any time gave the schools sufficient money. The new code laid down the principle that the public schools were a state organization. Frederick's government, internal and foreign, was marked by a mixture of strong and weak characteristics. It was the policy of a man of genius who was entirely devoted to his task; too intellectual and enlightened to be a reactionary, but one who showed himself greater in carrying out and in utilizing the policies of his predecessors, than in establishing what was necessary to ensure the future development of the state. Great as were his achievements, he ended by paralyzing Prussia's vital powers and engaged the resources of the country in a direction opposed to its development. Frederick gave Prussia the position of a Great Power. But, outside of his personal importance, this position of the state rested exclusively on its military power, not yet, as in the case of the other Great Powers, upon the area of the country and the economic efficiency of the population. Consequently, the position of Prussia as a Great Power needed to be placed on a stronger basis. Its people had to make marked advances culturally, and develop a real national spirit. Furthermore, the effort must be made to bring the future development of Prussia into close connexion with the leading movements of the coming generation, so that the roots of its life should receive fresh nourishment. Both problems could best be solved by furthering the transfer towards the west of the centre of gravity of the Prussian states already begun under Frederick's predecessors. This western development of his territory was also a policy furthered by Frederick, but he pursued it unwillingly and cared little for it. By this one-sidedness he lessened his services to Prussia when he enlarged his territories in the district of the Oder and Vistula, where the foundations of the state had been laid during the Middle Ages. There is no doubt that in 1757-58 the coalition formed against him would have crushed him had not Hanover fought on his side and given him the strategic control of north-western Germany. As even after 1763 he regarded Austria, as the deadly enemy of Prussia, he could not fail to see that for strategic reasons it was absolutely necessary for Prussia to have the whole of north-western Germany within its sphere of influence; but he did nothing to attain this end. Moreover, he could not abstain from interfering in imperial politics in order to keep Austria from making southern Germany dependent on itself. He, therefore, urged on the War of the Bavarian Succession against Austria in 1778-79, and in 1783 was for a time the leader of the "League of Princes" formed among the German princes of the empire against Joseph II. However, all imperial, that is to say, German politics were distasteful to him. By his example he, more than any one else, contributed to smother all interest in the empire on the part of the German statesmen. He preferred rather to rest Prussian policy on that of Russia, and to lay his political schemes in the east of Europe. In like manner in his internal administration he deliberately neglected his western provinces, although it was just this part of his kingdom that lay in the centre of the rising economic life of Europe, and contained, along with Silesia, the mineral treasures that in the future were to make the country and its population rich. It was also the population of this section that was to prove itself unusually energetic and capable in economic life. Fortunately for the realm Frederick's excellent minister of commerce, Heynitz, did not neglect the western provinces. In these provinces the young Freiherr von Stein passed the first years of his career in the service of the Government. During Frederick's reign the eastern provinces of Prussia were also brought into connexion with the cultural development of the civilization of Western Europe. In order to meet the growing demand of England for grain, their great estates were worked on a capitalistic basis. The younger civil officials and nobility admired England as a model country and were full of interest in all the liberal ideas of the period. Prominent among these was Theodore von Schön. But a number of other young jurists called for a constitution. The University of Königsberg had a large share in producing this development. One of its professors, Kraus, a political economist, spread the theories of Adam Smith; another professor was Kant, who also started with the English philosophy. During Frederick's reign a novel element found its way into the Prussian State. By the conquest of Silesia, Prussia for the first time acquired a province that was predominantly Catholic; in annexing Polish Prussia it annexed one that was half Catholic. Up to then the only Catholics in Prussia were a few in Cleve. During the reign of the Great Elector, Catholic Ermland also became a part of Prussia, but this province never was considered of much importance. The church privileges of the Catholics here as there rested upon national treaties. As a rule they were respected. However, a strict watch was kept that the position of the Catholics should be an exceptional one. Attempts to introduce Protestantism among them were encouraged. In ecclesiastical matters Frederick followed in the path of his predecessors. Being a free-thinker the tolerance of his predecessors, based on treaty obligations, became under him a policy merely of religious indifference. "In my kingdom, each may go to Heaven after his own fashion". He provided for the religious and educational needs even of the Catholics, and showed favour to the Jesuits. Still, in his reign Catholics were not allowed to hold office except inferior ones. In its foreign policy the State remained the champion of Protestant interests. This policy could be continued, notwithstanding the great increase in the number of Catholics, because the population of Prussia was accustomed to obey the Government without claiming any rights for itself. In the course of time difficulties would naturally arise from this policy. IV. When Frederick II died the area of Prussia was about 78,100 square miles and its population 5,500,000. Since 1740 the annual revenues of the State had risen from 7,500,000 to 22,000,000 thalers; the national treasury contained 54,000,000 thalers. Frederick's successor, his nephew Frederick William II (1786-97), was a man of some ability, but was soon led astray by his taste for loose living, and fell under the influence of bad counsellors, such as the theologian and Rosicrucian von Wöllner, and Colonel von Bischoffswerder. Frederick William III (1797-1840) was a man without much ability, somewhat like a subordinate official in instinct, of good intentions but little force. In consequence of the Revolution whose spirit spread throughout Europe the demands of the new era made themselves heard in Prussia also. Both the ministry and the cabinet were constantly occupied with plans for reform, but there was a lack of united and harmonious working and of ability to come to a decision. Dangerous agitations arose among the civil officials. Government by the cabinet became intolerable to the ministers, as the administration was no longer exercised by the king himself but by the secretaries of the cabinet, who during this reign were von Beyme, Lombard, and Mencken. Thus the zeal for reform only increased the dissatisfaction, and very little was accomplished. In foreign politics Frederick William II disavowed the opposition to Austria when he signed the Reichenbach Convention of 27 July, 1790, with the Emperor Leopold II. In 1792 he even became an ally of Leopold's in the war with France, in order to combat the "principles" of the Revolution. His army, however, accomplished but little in this war, and on 5 April, 1795, he signed a separate treaty of peace with France at Basle, thus deserting Austria. For a number of years following this treaty he and his successor, Frederick William III, pursued a policy of neutrality in the great events of Western Europe. Still they sought to gain advantages out of them. According to the Treaty of Basle, Frederick William II agreed with France upon a line of demarcation by which nearly all of northern Germany was declared neutral under the protection of Prussia. Prussia worked energetically for the secularization of the Catholic ecclesiastical principalities, and by agreement with France in 1802 obtained the Dioceses of Paderborn, Fulda, a part of Münster, Eichsfeld, the domains of several abbeys, and the cities of Erfurt and Dortmund; the decision of the imperial delegation of 1803 confirmed it in the possession of these territories. Prussia kept a close watch upon the fate of Hanover in the wars between Napoleon and England, being desirous to annex Hanover if possible. For a considerable length of time Napoleon tempted Prussia by holding out the hope of this acquisition, and in 1806 by the plan of a North German Confederation of which Prussia was to be the leader, Frederick William II even sought to gain territory in southern Germany. By an agreement made with the Hohenzollern Line of southern Germany he obtained in 1791 the Principalities of Ansbach and Bayreuth; in 1796 he made an unexpected attack upon Nuremberg but soon vacated it. None of these undertakings were conducted with much energy or with any clearly-defined end in view, for at the same time the political plans of Prussia in Eastern Europe exceeded her strength. Not only did Prussia obtain Danzig and Thorn in the Second Partition of Poland (1792), but in the Third Partition (1795) she acquired the central basin of the Vistula, with Warsaw as its capital. Prussia now included the entire basins of the Oder and Vistula. But it was no longer possible to make the eastern territories the preponderating part of the State. Besides the country was now half Slavonic, and the majority of its inhabitants were henceforward to be Catholic. The old Prussian territories had by this time been brought to a higher state of culture and had become in some measure capable of meeting the demands made upon them. The State now undertook another task: this was to bring the demoralized Polish provinces into order, to organize them, bring them to economic prosperity, and give them civil officials and teachers. In 1806 Prussia became involved in a war with Napoleon, which made evident the confusion of its internal affairs, and its lack of strength. Its army, led by the grey-haired Ferdinand of Brunswick, was cut to pieces in the battles of Jena and Auerstädt, fought on the same day (14 Oct.), after a skirmish at Saalfeld; Prince Louis Ferdinand died 18 October. Most of the fortresses capitulated without any real resistance. The bureaucracy of government officials lost its head and acted in a cowardly manner. The people were apathetic. The king, however, made some resistance, with the aid of Russia. Napoleon wished to make an end of Prussia as a State, and only the intercession of Russia preserved for the Hohenzollern dynasty a part at least of its territories. By the Peace of Tilsit, 9 July, 1807, Prussia lost the Franconian provinces and all those west of the Elbe, as well as the Polish acquisitions outside of Polish Prussia. Moreover, French troops were garrisoned in the districts still remaining to it, and an enormous war indemnity was demanded (Convention of Königsberg, 12 July, 1807). However, Prussia's terrible humiliation, notwithstanding all its mournful results, first opened the way for the exercise of those energies of the country that had been until now suppressed. The king showed great endurance in his misfortunes. His wife Louise made herself the intermediary between him and the men from whom the restoration of the country was to come. During the war Scharnhorst the future reorganizer of the Prussian army had had his first opportunity to distinguish himself at the battle of Eylau, 7-8 February, 1807. In the winter of 1806-07 the philosopher Fichte delivered his celebrated "addresses to the German nation" at Berlin. In the spring of 1807 the king appointed Count Hardenburg, a native of Hanover, minister of foreign affairs, but was obliged to dismiss him in July at Napoleon's bidding; the count, however, still continued to advise the king. Shortly after the Peace of Tilsit Scharnhorst was given charge of military affairs. From this time the army consisted only of natives of the kingdom, the soldiers were better treated, a thorough education was required from those desiring to become officers, and the people were gradually accustomed to the idea of universal military service, until it was introduced by the law of 3 Sept., 1814. On 5 October, 1807, Freiherr von Stein, a native of Nassau, was placed at the head of all the internal affairs of Prussia. With his appointment the real reform minister came into power. He was able to retain his position only a year, but this sufficed to impress on the legislation of the time a character of grandeur, although he could not control its details. Stein found the kingdom reduced in reality to the present province of East Prussia, and there the liberal officials were already preparing radical changes. The law of 9 Oct., 1807, was already enacted, according to which the peasant serfs were declared free; every Prussian was authorized to hold landed property and to follow any occupation he chose. Stein only signed the decree. The law made it necessary to readjust all peasant holdings and the taxes upon them. This readjustment dragged on during a number of years, and was not finally completed until the middle of the century. After Stein's retirement this measure frequently proved the economic ruin of the peasants. Another consequence of this law, as completed by the law on trade taxation, Oct., 1810, and by the Edict of 7 Sept., 1811, was the adoption by Prussia of liberty of occupation. Prussia led the way in this reform in Germany. Stein's chief personal interest was in the reform of the constitution and of the administration. His desire was to create a union between the Government and the people that was then lacking, to awaken in the Government officials a spirit of initiative and responsibility, to enkindle in Prussia popular sentiment for Germany. The lesser offices in Prussia were to be divided into two classes; the former following the historical and geographical divisions of the country (provinces, circles, communes); the second determined wholly by the needs of the Government (Regierungsbezirke). The duties of the former were to be performed by administrative bodies, who were to act as the representatives or as the deputies of the people; the latter by government officials. With the administrative body, in some cases, a government official was associated (provincial president); in other cases certain government duties were confided to their heads. (Landrät, Bürgermeister). On the other hand representatives of the people were to have a share in the Government, and in the course of time, as a counterpoise to the ministerial bureaucracy, the members of the national diet were to be elected from the provincial diets. Stein substantially gave the franchise only to land owners. He desired that the people in general should be prepared for taking part in the Government by the schools and universities. Freedom of action was to be restored to the state officials by putting an end to cabinet government, and giving each minister the independent administration of his own department. Personally, Stein was only able to initiate these reforms by the municipal legislation of 19 Nov., 1808, and the "laws on the changed constitution of the highest administration of the realm" of 24 Nov., 1808. His fiery temperament and his strong German sympathies made him too impatient. Together with Scharnhorst he planned measures to rouse the German people for a war against Napoleon. Consequently he was obliged to resign. Moreover, he did not sufficiently gauge the peculiarities of Prussia, particularistic, dynastic, and bureaucratic. His work, however, did not perish. In 1810 the University of Berlin was founded as the great national centre of education; in 1811 the University of Breslau. In 1810 Hardenberg re-entered the Government and as chancellor carried on the work of reform systematically until his death in 1822. He skilfully managed the king and accommodated himself to the peculiarities of the Prussian character: like Stein he thoroughly believed in the necessity of a complete reconstruction of the State. He made special efforts to reform the system of taxation, but he was not able to do this at once. In 1810 and 1815 he even promised to call a national parliament. After his own fashion he liberalized or bureaucratized Stein's plans, often taking the Napoleonic legislation for his model. Only the opposition of the Prussian nobility prevented him from sacrificing the very corner-stone of Stein's reform of the administration (1812) by substituting the French system of prefecture and municipality for the self-governing institutions of district and city. These reforms led to the awakening of a sense of nationality both in the educated classes and the common people; and when in 1813 Napoleon returned defeated from Russia the whole population of Prussia rose of their own accord for king and country, and also for the liberation of Germany about which the kings had not concerned themselves. During the War of Liberation of 1813-14 and 1815 the Prussian army had a large share in the overthrow of Napoleon. At the Peace of Paris (20 May, 1814) and the Congress of Vienna, which rearranged the map of Europe, Hardenberg represented Prussia. He desired to form a permanent agreement in policy between Prussia and Austria, while the king preferred to join his interests with those of Russia. At the important moment (Nov., 1814) the king decided against his minister, whereby a fresh European war was nearly kindled. The question was whether the greater part of western Poland should henceforth belong to Russia, and what compensation Prussia should receive for its share of Poland. Russia was successful, and only Polish Prussia and the Grand Duchy of Posen were given to Prussia. As a compensation for the loss of Warsaw, Prussia demanded Saxony. Owing to Austria's opposition it received only the present Prussian province of Saxony and, instead of the remainder of Saxony, the Westphalian and Rhenish provinces, where before 1802 it had possessed only small districts. Austria hoped that in this way Prussia would be so entangled in Western Europe that it could no longer pursue a policy of neutrality, such as it had adopted after the Treaty of Basle. By this means, however, the centre of gravity of Prussia was completely shifted towards Western Europe. Henceforth Prussia could scarcely give up the military control of northern Germany; should opposition arise, it must endeavour to incorporate into its own territories the districts between its eastern and western provinces. It soon felt the temptation to become the leader of Germany, especially as Austria at the same time gave up its old possessions in Swabia and on the Rhine, and had no longer any territories in Germany. In 1814-15 the area of Prussia was increased to 108,000 square miles, and its population reached 10,500,000. The geographical and political changes which took place in 1807-15, years of suffering and war, had been too rapid. Much remained to be done. Reactionary forces asserted themselves once more. Until 1840 old and new ideas struggled against each other, even among the ruling statesmen. The reactionary tendencies, especially of the era of Frederick the Great, reappeared with the king's approval. However, government by cabinet order was not re-established. The higher officials, who under Frederick the Great had been the king's executive tools, now practically carried on the Government in the name of the king. The minister Nagler spoke of "the limited intelligence of the subject". The promise to call a national representative assembly was limited to the case of the State needing a national loan; but care was taken that no such necessity occurred. The Prussian Government not only took part in all the attempts of Austria and Russia since 1818 to suppress all revolutionary and politically liberal movements among the people, but even showed the greatest zeal and severity in doing so; e.g. the persecution of student societies, the imprisonment of Jahn, the order forbidding Arndt to lecture, and the expulsion of Görres from Germany. Partly through attachment to the king, with whom they had been united in common sufferings and partly because of the generally excellent behaviour of the officials, the people of the old Prussian provinces maintained an attitude of expectancy. With the new provinces, however, serious friction arose. Having belonged to France during the years 1795-1814, these provinces had grown accustomed to democratic forms and frequently had a racial dislike to Prussians. The struggle began with the question whether the Prussian statute-book should replace the French "Code civile" in the province of the Rhine. The conflict was intensified by the appointment of many old Prussian officials to positions in the Rhineland and was greatly augmented by quarrels about methods of Church government and the claims of the State in matters of religion. The territories annexed in 1814-15 were mostly peopled by Catholics. Hitherto the State had controlled the Catholic Church authorities of the kingdom in the same way as the Protestants. This not only aroused the opposition of the democratically-inclined Rhenish provinces, but also excited the resistance of the new western Catholic movement, which, without much regard to diplomacy, strove to secure complete liberty for the Church by vigorous defence of her rights. The question in what cases it was the duty of the Catholic priest to bless mixed marriages was the accidental but highly opportune occasion of bringing the matter to an issue. The Archbishop of Cologne, von Droste zu Vischering, led the opposition. The Prussian Government imprisoned him in a fortress as a "disobedient servant of the state". A powerful popular commotion throughout the Rhine country was the result; this gained its echo in a Polish national movement in Posen, where Archbishop Dunin resisted the marriage laws and was arrested. Success was on the side of the Catholics and the new provinces. But alongside of these after effects of the spirit of Frederick II the Stein-Hardenberg policy continued to gain ground, especially after 1815. The reform of taxation was now carried through under the direction of the statistician J. G. Hoffmann. Organization of the provinces was completed, and an edict granting provincial diets was issued in 1823. General communal legislation was postponed because the economic and social conditions of the eastern and western provinces still differed widely. Allenstein and Johannes Schulze did much for education. Under the lead of the king, the Government compelled the union of the Lutheran and the Reformed churches; in order to give the union a firm basis, a new liturgy was issued in 1821. The old Lutherans who opposed the union of the two denominations were subjected to severe police restraint. By the Papal Bull "De salute animarum", and the Brief "Quod de fidelium", two Catholic church provinces were erected 16 July, 1821: the Archdiocese of Gnesen-Posen, with the suffragan Diocese of Culm; and the Archdiocese of Cologne, with Trier, Münster, and Paderborn as suffragans. In addition the exempt Bishoprics of Breslau and Ermland were established. The bishops were to be elected by the cathedral chapters, but were to be directed by the pope not to choose any person not acceptable to the king. The endowment of the bishoprics with landed estates proposed in 1803 was not carried out; hitherto the State has provided yearly subventions in accordance with the budget of the ministry of worship. Prussia's greatest progress at this time was in the field of political economy. The post office was well organized by Postmaster-General Nagler. By the law of 26 May, 1818, Prussia changed from a prohibitive high tariff to a low tariff system, almost completely suppressed the taxes on exports, and maintained a high duty only on goods in transit. It thereby simplified its administration of the customs, and made business easier for its subjects, but the law fell heavily on the provinces belonging to other German states that were surrounded by Prussian territory, and gradually effected the states of middle and southern Germany, whose traffic with the North Sea and the Baltic had to be carried on across Prussian territory. After violent disputes a Zollverein (customs union) was gradually formed; the first to join with Prussia in such a union were the smaller states of Northern Germany, beginning with Sondershausen in 1819; in 1828 Hesse-Darmstadt; in 1831 Electoral Hesse; from 1 Jan., 1834, the kingdoms of Southern Germany, Saxony, and the customs and commercial union of the Thuringian States. By the beginning of 1836 Baden, Nassau, and Frankfort had also joined. With the exception of the non-Prussian north-western districts, besides Mecklenburg and the Hanseatic cities, all non-Austrian Germany was now economically under Prussian hegemony. The different states joined the Zollverein by terminable agreements. Each of the larger states retained its own customs administration; changes in the Zollverein could only be made by a unanimous vote. These states simply agreed in their economic policy and in the administration of the customs. They did not form a unified Germany from an economic point of view. The men who deserve the chief credit for the establishment of the Zollverein are Motz (d. 1830) and his successor Nassen. From the first, Prussia was determined that Austria should not be admitted as a member of the new customs union. Politically this union did not bring its members into closer alliance, but it was probably the cause of a great increase of their economic prosperity. The greatest benefit from it was gained by the Prussian Rhenish provinces. Consequently the trading element of the Rhineland, generally Liberal in politics, gradually grew friendly to the Prussian Government; it hoped to be able to dictate Prussia's economic policy in the course of time. The result was that political conditions within the country improved. In all its other relations to the newly acquired provinces the State had been forced to give way (e.g. the continued existence of the "Code civile") or would have to in the future (e.g. in its ecclesiastical policy). Now the Rhenish provinces began to divide politically. The State was furthermore consolidated by gaining the sympathetic support of the teachers and professors as an after effect of the patriotic movement in the War of Liberation and partly owing to its energy in the cause of education. The Prussian political system, of meddling with everything, perhaps justified by necessity, was at this time philosophically defended and glorified by the philosopher Hegel. V. Frederick William IV (1840-61) in his youth had enthusiastically taken part in the War of Liberation, and afterwards in all the efforts for the reorganization of the State. His character was inconsistent; while a man of ability, he was subject to the influence of others. Soon after his accession he conciliated the Catholics (Johann Geissel as coadjutor of Cologne; establishment of a Catholic department in the Ministry of Worship and Education). Although personally a Conservative, he appointed some moderate Liberals to places of prominence. He first called forth opposition among the doctrinaire and radical elements of the eastern provinces by condemning their ideas of popular sovereignty and popular representation on the occasion of his coronation at Königsberg. In accordance with Stein's original plan he intended to give to Prussia a legislature chosen by the several provincial diets. Too much time was spent in discussion without coming to any decision. In the meantime the western provinces also joined the movement for more liberal institutions, largely as a consequence of the debates in the provincial diet of the Rhine, in 1845. The restlessness was increased by economic distress, especially among the weavers of Silesia, by contradictory ordinances issued by the Government, and by the discovery of a national Polish conspiracy in the province of Posen. Finally in Feb., 1847, the king summoned to Berlin a "first united diet", composed of all the provincial diets. The authority of the united diets was to be small, its future sittings were to depend on the pleasure of the king. The more liberal element of the eastern provinces wished to reject this diet as in-. sufficient. The more politic liberals of the western provinces, however, gained the victory for the new diet, for they hoped in this way to attain to power in the State. The united diet was opened 11 April, 1847. Passionate differences of opinion showed themselves in the debates over the wording of an address to the king, in which, although moderately expressed, the demand for such a "national parliament" as had been promised in 1815 was put forth. Motions made in favour of the granting of a national parliament, and finally the refusal of the diet to take decisive action on a proposed railroad loan, so angered the king that he closed the sessions of the diet towards the end of June. Throughout the country the movement to obtain a parliamentary chamber directly elected by the people was kept up. When in March, 1848, there was danger that the revolution would break out in Prussia, on 7 March the king made the concession that the united diet should meet every fourth year. On 14 March he summoned the second united diet to meet at the end of April, but he was not willing to concede the election by the people and a written constitution. On 15 March barricades were built in the streets of Berlin. On the evening of 17 March the king decided to grant a constitution, to set the date of the assembling of the second united diet for 2 April, and to take part in the movement for forming a German national state. Notwithstanding the announcement of this decision, bloody fighting broke out in the streets of Berlin 18 March. The next day the king withdrew the troops who were confronting those in revolt. In Posen the Poles gained control of the Government, while the Rhine province threatened to separate from Prussia and to become the first province of the future united Germany, On 20 March Frederick William announced that Prussia would devote its entire strength to the movement for a united Germany, and to maintaining the rights of Germany in Schleswig and Holstein by war with Denmark. At the end of the month the king entrusted the Government to the Rhenish Liberals. The brief session of the second united diet had for a time a quieting effect, the Radical element predominated in the Prussian National Assembly which opened 22 May, and the king's ministers, chosen from the Rhenish Liberals, were not able to keep it in check. During the summer the Conservative element, especially that of the old Prussian provinces, bestirred itself and held the "Junker Parliament"; founded the "Kreuzzeitung", and won influence over the masses by appealing to the sentiments of Prussian particularism and loyalty to the king. When the Radicals favoured street riots, sought to place the army under the control of parliament, and resolved upon the abolition of the nobility, of kingship by the grace of God, and demanded that the Government should support the revolutionary party in Vienna, the king dismissed his Rhenish ministers. In the German movement also they had, in his opinion, failed. The war in Schleswig-Holstein had brought Prussia into a dangerous European position (Armistice of Malmö, 26 Aug., 1848). The king now commissioned Count Brandenburg on 2 Nov. to form a Conservative ministry. The most important places in it were given to men from the old Prussian provinces. On 9 Nov., 1848, the National Assembly was adjourned and removed from Berlin. Martial law was proclaimed in the city. On 5 Dec. the National Assembly was dissolved, and a constitution was published on the king's sole authority. Nearly all the Liberal demands of the National Assembly were granted in it, and the upper and lower houses of parliament provided for. Much was done to meet the demand of the Catholics for the complete liberty of the Church. After the failure of the Rhenish Liberal Government, the king hoped for support from the Catholics of the western provinces, and this was at first given. In order to satisfy public opinion a series of laws, intended to meet Liberal wishes, was promulgated in the course of the next few weeks. In accordance with the recently imposed constitution, a new chamber of deputies was immediately elected and opened 26 Feb., 1849, in order that it might express its opinion on the Constitution. However it came to no agreement with the Government. The three-class system of election, which is still in force, was now introduced for elections to the second chamber. In each election district all voters who pay taxes are divided into three classes, so that one-third of the taxes is paid by each class; each class elects the same number of electors, and these electors elect the deputies. Upon this the Radicals abstained from voting. The Conservatives were in the majority in the new chamber. The revision of the Constitution could now be proceeded with, and it was proclaimed on 31 Jan., 1850. According to its provisions Prussia was to be a constitutional kingdom with a diet of two chambers; great power was left to the Crown, which was moreover favoured by obscurities and omissions in the document. After the convulsions of 1848 Prussia had much need of rest. During this year the course of the German national movement had, however, excited the hopes of the king that Germany would acquire the unity which even he desired to see, and that Prussia would, as a result of this unity, be the leader of the German national armies, or perhaps control the new state. The Liberals were estranged from the king in the autumn of 1848, and the wish was frankly expressed, if not fulfilled, that the future constitution of Germany should be decided in agreement with Austria, and if possible in agreement with all other German princes. These difficulties led the king to decline the German imperial crown when it was offered to him by the Frankfort assembly in April, 1848. He would not accept it from a parliament claiming its power from the sovereignty of the people. Soon after this, influenced by General Radowitz, he himself decided to open new negotiations on the question of German unity. The intention was that Prussia should unite with other German states that were ready to join in a confederation called the "union", and that the union should adopt a constitution and have a diet. This confederation was to form a further indissoluble union with Austria, by which each should bind itself to assist the other in defending its territories. As Prussia had aided the principalities of central Germany to suppress internal revolts in the spring of 1849, these countries did not at first venture to disagree with Prussia, as appears from the agreement of 26 May with Saxony and Hanover, called the "union of the three kings". Nearly all the smaller principalities joined also. Bavaria, however, refused to enter the union, and Austria worked against this plan. In the summer of 1849 Austria proposed to the Prussian Government that the two powers should revive the old German Confederation which had been cast aside the year before, and should henceforth lead it in common ("Interim", 30 Sept., 1849). Russia, which had generally supported Prussia, now upheld Austria. Nevertheless the king, although much opposed by members of his Government, persisted in his scheme of a union. The constitution planned for the union was laid before a diet of the principalities belonging to the union, summoned to meet at Erfurt. The Diet in session from 20 March to 29 April, 1850, accepted the Constitution. Upon this Austria encouraged the states of central Germany to form a confederation among themselves to which neither Prussia nor Austria should belong. This confederation was to act as a counterbalance to Prussia and at the same time was a menace to the Prussian supremacy in the Zollverein. In the autumn of 1850 war between the two parties seemed unavoidable. Russia, however, not wishing an open rupture, urged both sides to mutual concessions. Prussia now finally gave up its scheme of the "union", and promised to re-enter the federal diet (Agreement of Olmütz, 29 Nov., 1850; further conferences, Jan. to April, 1851). The dispute between the two powers as to which should control the Zollverein continued for two years longer. The ability of Prussia to accomplish the difficult task of defeating the attacks of Austria was probably due to the expert knowledge and clearness of the chief representative of its economic policy, Rudolf von Delbrück, and to the fact that Hanover joined the Zollverein in Sept., 1851. Still, concessions had to be made to Austria in the Treaty of 19 Feb., 1853, which crippled the Zollverein until 1865. In all questions of foreign politics the relations between Prussia and Austria remained suspicious and cool. Prussia felt that the dispute had resulted in a painful weakening of its European position. The damage was further increased by the irresolute policy of the king during the Crimean War, which caused England to try to exclude Prussia from the congress at Paris in 1856. A small group of Prussian politicians, especially Bismarck, began to urge an aggressive policy and the seeking of support from Napoleon III for such a policy, but neither Frederick William IV nor his brother William who succeeded him would listen to the suggestion. As regards the internal condition of the country, after the close of the revolutionary movements the Conservatives obtained a large majority in both houses of the Prussian Diet. The more determined members of the Conservative party in the diet demanded a complete restoration of conditions existing before the revolution. They were supported in these demands by the camarilla which had been active at the court since 30 March, 1848, and among the members of which were the brothers Leopold and Ludwig von Gerlach. Among the measures desired by the Conservatives were: abandonment of the German national policy; limitations of Prussian policy to northern Germany, closer connexion with England; the adoption of free trade as an economic policy; restoration of judicial and police power on their estates to the nobility; alteration of the Constitution of 1850; and restoration of the Protestant character of the country. Otto von Manteuffel, who had been minister-president since Nov., 1850, was able to defeat the most extreme demands. His chief effort was to suppress all parties as much as possible, and to make the Government official body once more the great power in the State. Up to 1854 there were bitter disputes as to the constitution of the upper house of the diet. At last it was agreed that it should be composed partly of representatives of the great estates, partly of representatives of the large cities and universities, and partly of members independently appointed by the king. The bureaucratic administration established by Manteuffel led to many arbitrary acts by the police, who were under the supervision of Minister of the Interior von Westphalen; the result was much bitterness among the people. Von der Heydt, Minister of Commerce, pursued a sensible policy, declining to favour concentration of capital, and protecting the small mechanical industries that were threatened with a crisis. From 1854 the influence of the churches over the primary schools was strengthened by the regulations issued by Raumer, Minister of Worship and Education. A defection from the Conservative party, led by von Bethmann-Hollweg (grandfather of the present Chancellor of Germany), was of little parliamentary importance, but apparently influenced the heir to the throne. In the same way the "Catholic Fraction" (1852), formed to oppose the re-establishment of the Protestant character of the State, proved to be only temporary. In 1857 the king fell ill, and on 23 Oct., 1857, he appointed his brother William to act for him; on 26 Oct., 1858, William was made regent. All extremes of policy and religion were distasteful to William, and he began his reign with many misconceptions of the position of domestic politics. He therefore dismissed Manteuffel and formed his first ministry, the ministry of the "new era", of men of the Bethmann-Hollweg party and of moderate Liberals, the premier being Prince Karl of Hohenzollern. He desired by this selection to assure the public of an evenly balanced nonpartizan administration. The Liberals, however, regarded it as a sign that the moment had come to repair the failure in 1848 to obtain a parliament and a Liberal form of government for Prussia. The war between Austria and France in 1859 obliged William to give his entire attention to the reorganization of the Prussian army, which was still dependent on the law of 1814, and had shown many deficiencies when mobilized on account of the war. In Dec., 1859, the regent appointed von Roon minister of war. A bill laid before the Diet in 1860 called for the reconstruction of the military forces, which since the War of Liberation had been disorganized; the army was once more to be a centralized professional force, and at the same time be enlarged without a great increase of expense. The Diet avoided taking any positive stand on the question. William, however, went on with the reorganization. In Jan., 1861, he became king (1861-88). In June, 1861, most of the Liberals united in the Radical "German party of progress". The elections at the end of the year placed this party in the majority. Bills upon questions of internal politics that were intended to meet Liberal wishes were laid before the Diet in vain, nor did the resumption of the policy of the "union" by Count Bernstorff, Minister of Foreign Affairs, nor the commercial treaty with France in 1862 pacify the Liberals. A conflict between the Crown and the Diet began. The money demanded for the army was refused in 1862. In Sept., 1862, the king called Bismarck to the head of affairs. He was ready to carry on the administration without the approval of the budget. In 1863 Bismarck dissolved the lower house of the Diet, took arbitrary measures against the Press, and sought to bring the Liberals in disfavour with the people by a daring and successful foreign policy. His first opportunity for this came when strained relations developed between the German Confederation and Denmark in regard to the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. The upper house of the Diet now refused to grant the money for the expenses of the war against Denmark. Bismarck nevertheless carried on the war jointly with Austria; among its events were the successful storming of the Düppeler entrenchments on 18 April, and the crossing to the Island of Alsen in the night of 28-29 June, 1864. Even these events caused public opinion to change. At the next election the Conservatives were in the majority, and signs of disruption in the "German party of progress" were evident. The disputes which arose between Austria and Prussia as a result of the war with Denmark caused Bismarck to go to war with Austria in the early summer of 1866. The "party of progress" was now completely divided. At a fresh election for the House of Deputies on 3 July, accidentally the day of the victory of Königgrätz (Sadowa), the Conservatives gained one-half of the seats. The enthusiasm over the defeat of Austria and over the definite settlement thereby of Prussia's leading position in non-Austrian Germany was so great that the difficulties besetting the internal policies could be regarded as removed. Bismarck made retreat easy for his opponents by asking indemnity for the period in which he had carried on the administration without a budget. The greater part of the "party of progress" now became supporters of Bismarck under the name of the "National Liberal" party; the leaders of the National Liberals were Twesten, Lasker, and Forckenbeck. Only a small section of the former "party of progress", under the leadership of Waldeck, and Schultz-Delitzsch, remained in the opposition. As time went on Bismarck found it more convenient to manage parliamentary business through the National Liberals, and consequently made more concessions to Liberalism both in Prussia proper and throughout the kingdom than were in harmony with Prussian Conservative traditions. In return the Liberals gradually abandoned their opposition to the military form of government in Prussia, and avoided disputes concerning constitutional law. Prussia received a large increase of territory by the war with Austria. After it had gained in 1865 Lauenburg, it also obtained Schleswig and Holstein, and with them a good maritime position, with Kiel as a naval station on the Baltic. Before this, early in 1868, it had obtained Wilhelmshafen from Oldenburg as a naval station on the North Atlantic. The war also gave to Prussia the Kingdom of Hanover, Electoral Hesse, the Duchy of Nassau, and the city of Frankfort-on-the-Main. Its area was increased to 132,000 square miles, its population to 20,000,000; at present the population numbers about 40,000,000. A still more important gain was that its western and eastern provinces were now united, and that it had complete military control of northern Germany. The additions of territory gave Protestantism once more the preponderance, as the Protestants now numbered two-thirds of the population. The Catholics of the new districts belonged ecclesiastically partly to the church province of the Upper Rhine, partly to the exempt Bishoprics of Osnabrück and Hildesheim; no change was made in these relations. An Apostolic prefecture was connected with Osnabrück, to which the Catholics of Schleswig-Holstein belonged. VI. Prussia had now reached the goal which for three hundred years it had steadily sought to attain. Its ambitions were now satisfied; it ceased to pursue an independent foreign policy and directed that of the new German Confederation that was established under its headship in 1867-71. At first, both in southern Germany and in the small countries adjacent to Germany, it was feared that Prussia would continue its policy of conquest in order to create a "Greater Prussia". This, however, was a mistaken opinion, as is also the belief that the German Empire is simply the heir to the position of Prussia as a great power. It is true that Bismarck after 1871 seems to have held this view, and to have regarded it as the sole task of his foreign policy to secure what had been attained by large military forces, by a peaceful policy of treaties, and by directing the attention of the other great powers to questions outside of central Europe. Soon, however, the empire was confronted by new and far-extending problems and combinations with which Prussia had never had to reckon. So after 1866 only the domestic policy of Prussia comes under consideration. After the war with Austria its first task was to combine the new provinces with the old in its state organization. This was much more easily accomplished than the similar task in 1815, both because the populations were more easily adapted to each other, and because the Government proceeded more circumspectly. It was only in Hanover that a strong party, that of the Guelphs, maintained a persistent opposition. The war had also made it possible for Prussia to restore the efficiency of the Zollverein. The resulting great economic development of Germany was of much benefit to Prussia's western provinces, for the commerce of the Rhine and the manufacturing districts of the lower Rhine and Westphalia rapidly grew in importance. Berlin also shared in the general increase of prosperity, it became a city of a million inhabitants, a centre of wealth, was almost entirely rebuilt, and covers a larger area each year. In its active mercantile life it is a symbol of the present character of Prussia just as Potsdam, near by, still preserves the character of the Prussia of the era of Frederick the Great. The result of the great economic development was a renewed growth in influence of the Liberal party, which, however, did not last beyond 1877. From 1870 the Liberals were opposed by the new and strong Centre party, in which the great majority of the non-Liberal, Catholic population of the western provinces were combined. The opposition between the Centre and the Liberals made it possible for the Conservatives to gain time to form a more effective political organization than any they had had before, and to regain for the elements holding to old Prussian traditions a marked influence upon Prussia's domestic policy, notwithstanding the fact that since 1866 the western provinces included the greater part of the territory and population of the country. From 1871 the Government took part in the struggle in which Liberals and Catholics fought out their opinions. It restricted the share of the churches in the direction of primary schools, and passed laws that destroyed the ruling position of orthodoxy in the Protestant church system. It sought to bring the clergy once more under the power of the State. During the eighties Bismarck abandoned the Kulturkampf, so far as government interference in Catholic church life extended. There was no essential change in the policy affecting the Evangelical Church. The Evangelical Church has a supreme church council, and by the law of 1873 it received a synodal and parish organization; in 1876 a general synod was established by law. Few changes were made in the school laws. The final decision concerning them has not yet been reached, as in the Constitution of 1850 a special law of primary schools was promised, and this promise must now be fulfilled. A bitter struggle arose over this question. The bill of 1891 was dropped as too liberal; that of 1892 was withdrawn on account of the opposition of the Liberals. After this the matter was allowed to rest. In 1906, owing to the necessities of the situation, a law was passed by a combination of the Government with the Conservatives and National Liberals, with the tacit consent of the Centre. The question to be settled was who should bear the expense of the public schools? It was laid down that the public schools were in general to be denominational in character; but that everywhere, as exceptions, undenominational public schools were permissible, and in two provinces, Nassau and Posen, should be the rule. The share of the Church in them was not defined, and the struggle as to its rights of supervision still continues. The general level of national education is satisfactory. Only .04 per cent of the recruits have had no schooling. In 1901 there were 36,756 public primary schools, of which 10,749 were Catholic. These schools had altogether 90,208 teachers, and 5,670,870 pupils. Only 315 primary schools were private institutions. For higher education Prussia has 10 universities, 1 Catholic lyceum, 5 polytechnic institutions, and 2 commercial training colleges. Unfortunately there grew out of the Kulturkampf not only the conflict over the schools, but also the conflict against the Polish population. The Government has always distrusted the Poles. This distrust has been increased by the democratic propaganda among the Poles, by their progress in economic organization, and their rapid social development. Moreover, the rapid increase of the Polish population and its growing prosperity have enabled the Poles to outstrip the German element, which does not seem capable of much resistance, in the provinces of East and West Prussia, and of late in Silesia. In 1885 the Government began a land policy on a large scale. The scheme was to purchase from the Poles as many estates as possible with government funds, to form from these farms to be sold by the Government on easy terms, and by establishing villages to settle a large number of German peasants in these provinces, which, on account of the many baronial estates, were thinly populated, and thus to strengthen the German element in them (1890, law for the forming of these government-leased, or sold, farms; 1891, law for a bank in support of these holdings). The Government began by banishing large numbers of Poles, then set systematically to work to germanize the Poles by limiting the use of their language; thus, even in purely Polish districts, Polish was almost entirely excluded from the public schools as the language of instruction, even for teaching religion. With exception of a break in the early part (1890-94) of the reign of William II, this anti-Polish policy has been carried on with steadily increasing vigour. At last in 1908 the Government by law acquired the right to expropriate Polish lands for its colonizing scheme, as voluntary sale of such lands had almost entirely ceased. So far no use has been made of this authority. The harsh policy of the Government greatly promoted the growth of Radicalism among the Poles; of late, however, the more sober elements seem to have regained influence over them. Besides the increase of the Polish population in the eastern provinces, there has also been a large emigration of Poles into the western provinces, factory hands, so that in some of the western election districts the Poles hold the balance of power. Outside of its Polish policy Prussia since 1870 has done much for agriculture. Mention should be made of the founding of the central credit association fund, the first director of which was Freiherr von Huene, a member of the Centre party of the Prussian Diet. The reform of the system of taxation, however, was the main cause of the improvement and reorganization of the entire economic life. Indirect taxes were restored, the direct taxes of the country were based on an income-tax, from which very small incomes were exempted. The income-tax was supplanted by a moderate property tax. The taxes on profits were left to the communes for their purposes. Preparations for the tax-reform were made from 1881 by Bitter, Minister of Finance, and the reform was carried out (1890-93) by Miquel, Minister of Finance, a former leader of the National Liberal party. The introduction of the reform was simplified by the fact that only one-eleventh of the direct taxes were needed for the requirements of the Government, and of this eleventh the income-tax yielded 80 per cent. Five-sixths of the revenues of the Government come from the surplus earnings of the railways, as since 1879 nearly all the railways within its territories have been purchased by the State. As these surpluses vary they effect the uniformity of the budget, especially in periods of economic depression. Since 1909, however, provision has been made for this in the budget. The purchase of the railways by the State affected for some time the improvement of the waterways, on account of the advantage to the State of the railway revenues. In 1886 the improvement of water communication, which is still urgent in the eastern provinces, was taken up both in the form of a regulation of the rivers and in the form of a canal policy. In 1897 a bill was laid before the Diet, which sought to relieve the railways from overtaxing with freight, by a comprehensive construction of canals from the Rhine to the Oder. The bill was rejected. It was once more brought up, and this time the provision was included that the Government should have a monopoly of the towing on the canals to be built. The bill was accepted in this shape in 1905. One result of the Government improvements of the waterways is its endeavour to limit the entire freedom of river navigation which has grown up in Germany on the basis of the acts of the Congress of Vienna. So far the Government has not been able to overcome the opposition to this plan in the empire and the neighbouring states; a bill to this end is before the Diet. Since 1870 Prussia has also considered large schemes for improving the organization of the administration. The organization of the district and country communes had not been settled in the earlier period; the organization of the provinces had also to be perfected. The law regulating the administration of the districts was passed in 1872 under the influence of the National Liberal party; the law affecting the provinces in 1875. At the same time a law, which met with general approval, in regard to the entire administrative jurisdiction was carried. In 1897 the difficulties were finally removed which up to then had prevented the Government from obtaining a law to regulate the country communes. This was effected by abandoning the effort to have one law for the entire country, and by passing one simply for the eastern provinces, where the need was most pressing. Since then there has been no further legislation as regards the organization of the administration. In the future new and large questions as to administration will have to be settled, which in the meantime are being discussed by a commission appointed by the king in 1908, who are to report directly to him. Of late, public opinion has also been occupied with constitutional questions, especially of the Centre and the parties of the Left for the adoption of the imperial system of electing the Reichstag in Prussia. The Government is not ready for this, and desires only to modify the three-class system. The first bill for this did not meet with the approval of the Prussian Diet, and was withdrawn in May, 1910. PRUTZ, Preussische Gesch. (4 vols., 1899-1902). Among earlier histories should be mentioned: STENZEL, Gesch. des Preussischen Staats (5 vols., 1830-54), extends to 1763; RANKE, Zwölf Bücher Preussischer Gesch. (5 vols., 1874); DROYSEN, Gesch. der preuss. Politik (14 vols., 1855-86), extends to 1756. Reviews of historical works on Prussia appear regularly in the semi-annual Forschungen zur Brandenburgischen und Preussischen Gesch. Authorities: LEHMANN, Preussen und die katholische Kirche seit 1640 (1807), up to now 9 vols.; Urkunden und Aktenstücke zur Gesch. des Kurfürsten Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg (1864==), up to now about 20 vols.; Protokolle und Relationen des Brandenburgischen Geheimen Rates aus der Zeit des Kurfürsten Friedrich Wilhelm (5 vols., 1889==); Politische Korrespondenz Friedrichs des Grossen (32 vols., 1879==); Preussische und österreichische Akten zur Vorgeschichte des 7. jährigen Krieges, eds. VON VOLZ and KÜNTZEL (1899); Acta Borussica. Denkmäler der Preussischen Staatsverwaltung im 18. Jahrhundert (1892==), in course of publication; Briefwechsel König Friedrich Wilhelm III und der Königin Luise mit Kaiser Alexander, ed. BAILLEU (1900); Preussen und Frankreich von 1795-1807, ed. IDEM (2 vols., 1881-87); Denkwürdigkeiten des Staatskanzlers Fürsten von Hardenberg, ed. RANKE (5 vols., 1877); Aus den Papieren des Ministers Th. von Schön (1877-83); VON HUMBOLDT, Politische Denkschriften, ed. GEBHARDT (3 vols., 1903-04); Wilhelm des Grossen Briefe, Reden und Schriften, ed. BERNER (2 vols., 1906); PUFENDORF, De rebus gestis Friderici Wilhelmi Magni electoris Brandenburgici commentariorum libri XIX (Berlin, 1695); FREDERICK THE GREAT, Works; WADDINGTON, Le Grand électeur Frédéric Guillaume de Brandebourg. Sa politique extérieure (1905==); PAGES, Le Grand Electeur et Louis XIV, 1660-68 (1905); SCHMOLLER, Umrisse und Untersuchungen zur Verfassungs-usw. Gesch., besonders des Preussischen Staats im 18. und 19. Jahrh. (1898); KOSER, König Friedrich der Grosse (2 vols., 1893-1903); CARLYLE, History of Frederick II of Prussia (6 vols., 1858-65); Die Kriege Friedrichs des Grossen, ed. by the GROSSER GENERALSTAB (1890==), in course of publication; BROGLIE, Frédéric II et Marie-Thérèse, 1740-42 (2 vols., 1883);. IDEM, Frédéric II et Louis XV, 1742-1744 (2 vols., 1885); HÜFFER, Die Kabinetsregierung in Preussen und Johann Wilhelm Lombard (1891); IDEM, Amastasius Ludwig Mencken (1891); ULMANN, Russisch-Preussische Politik unter Alexander I und Friedrich Wilhelm III bis 1806 (1899); LEHMANN, Freiherr von Stein (3 vols., 1902-04); CAVAIGNAC, La formation de la Prusse contemporaine, 1806-13 (2 vols., 1891-98); TREITSCHKE, Deutsche Geschichte im 19. Jahrhundert (5 vols., 1848, 1879-94); KNAPP, Die Bauernbefreiung und der Ursprung der Landarbeiter in den älteren Teilen Preussens (2 vols., 1887); ZIMMERMANN, Gesch. der Preussisch-Deutschen Handelspolitik (1892); PARISET, L'Etat et l'Eglise en Prusse sous Frédéric Guillaume I (1897). MARTIN SPAHN Przemysl Przemysl (PREMISLIENSIS) Latin see in Galicia, suffragan of Lemberg. After conquering Halicz and Wladimir, Casimir the Great suggested to the pope the creation of seven Latin sees in places where, from the beginning of the fourteenth century, schismatics had at least nominal sees: Halicz, Przemysl, Chelm, Vladimir, Lutzk, Kieff, and Lemberg. Franciscans and Dominicans immediately began to establish missions. When the Bishop of Lebus appointed an incumbent for Przemysl, the pope refused to recognize his jurisdiction and designated (1353) as successor the Dominican prior of Sandomir, Nicolaus Ruthenus. The latter was consecrated at the papal Court and the pope declared this diocese directly subject to the Holy See. As the see was insufficiently endowed, the bishop did not reside in his cathedral town. After the death of Nicolaus the Bishop of Lebus again endeavoured to assert jurisdiction over Przemysl, but Gregory XI appointed Eric de Winsen (1377), who became the first actual bishop of Przemysl. Blessed Jacob Strepa rendered important services to the Diocese of Przemysl. In 1237 Boleslas the Chaste had introduced the Franciscans to Cracow; about one hundred years later they came to Lemberg, where, for three years, Strepa was protector of the order. During that time, Archbishop Bernard laid Lemberg under an interdict and excommunicated the town councillors. Strepa took up the cause of the city to protect it from the influence of the neighbouring schismatics. In addition, he had to defend the Franciscans and Dominicans against the accusation of the secular clergy, who maintained that their administration of the sacraments was invalid. In 1391 Strepa became Archbishop of Galicia. In that capacity he adjusted the ancient quarrel between the Dioceses of Halicz and Pzemysl. In 1844 Bishop Franz Zachariasiewicz published the "Lives" (mentioned below), which mention fifty-seven of his predecessors; six bishops have succeeded him (1911). To the "Lives" are prefixed important data concerning the early history of the Latin sees in Russia (pp. xxv-xxxix) and concerning the Latin dioceses of Galicia (pp. xl-lxxxviii). At present the Latin Diocese of Przemysl numbers 1,152,000 Catholics; 547 secular priests; 369 religious men in 27 convents, and 698 religious women in 97 (99) convents. Monumenta med. ævi hist. res gestas Poloniæ illustrantia (Cracow, 1872-); THEINER, Vet. mon. Poloniæ hist. Illustrantia (3 vols., Rome, 1860-4); ABRAHAM, Der sel. Jakob von Strepa (Lemberg, 1908); PAWLOWSKY, Premislia sacra, sive series et gesta episcoporum r. l. Premisliensium (Cracow, 1870); REIFENKUGEL, Die Grundung der röm. kath. Bistümer in den Territorien Halicz u. Wladimir in Arch. für öst. Gesch., XLII (Vienna, 1875); SCROBISSEVI, Vitâ epp. Haliciensium et Leopolinesium (Lemberg, 1628); ZACHARIASIEWICZ, Vitâ epp. Premislien (Vienna, 1844). C. WOLFSGRUBER Przemysl, Sambor, and Sanok Diocese of Przemysl, Sambor, and Sanok (PREMISLIENSIS, SAMBORIENSIS, ET SANOCHIENSIS) A Græco-Ruthenian Uniat diocese of Western Galicia, Austria. It is really the Diocese of Przemysl (Ruthenian, Peremyshl) of the Greek Rite, since the See of Sambor represents only a former contest between the Catholic and the Orthodox about the time of the union of the churches, and there never was at any time a Bishopric of Sanok. Przemysl is a fortified town situated on the River San, in the Crownland of Galicia, about fifty-four miles west of Lemberg. Its population in 1900 was 46,350, and it contains the Cathedral Church of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist and the diocesan seminary of the Ruthenian Greek Catholics. Sambor is a manufacturing town situated about ten miles away upon the River Dniester; it had in 1900 some 17,350 inhabitants. Sanok is a still smaller town, situated on the River San about twenty-five miles southwest of Przemysl, and has about 5000 inhabitants. The original cathedral church of Przemysl was a church connected with the great castle, but this was given to the Latins by King Wladislaw in 1412. The Ruthenians then took the present Church of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist for their cathedral. The cathedral church of Sambor, dedicated to the Transfiguration, is situated near the town of Old Sambor. All this part of the country was the Kingdom of Poland, and on its partition the Diocese of Przemysl fell to Austria. The present Greek Catholic diocese is divided into 40 deaneries, containing 688 organized parishes, 1334 churches and chapels, 6 monasteries of Basilian monks, and 2 convents of Greek nuns. The clergy consists of 803 secular priests, as follows: 662 married, 129 widowers, and 12 celibates, together with 36 monastic priests. The Greek Catholic population of this diocese is 1,198,398. The Diocese of Przemysl stretched over a large part of Red Russia, covering some 900 square miles, west of the Archdiocese of Lemberg. It is perhaps the oldest of the Ruthenian dioceses, and Sts. Cyril and Methodius are said to have preached Christianity there. It is certain that this part of south-west Russia received Christianity nearly one hundred years before the conversion of King Vladimir at Kieff. The names of its early missionary bishops are lost, but from 1218 the succession is unbroken. Antonius (1218-25) is the first bishop whose name is recorded. He was a monk and Bishop of Novgorod, but was banished from there and then became Bishop of Przemysl, succeeding a former bishop who had just died. King Danilo at this time was in union with the Holy See, and for over one hundred years the Greek bishops of Przemysl were likewise united with Rome. Hilarion (1254), Abraham (1271), Jeremias (1282), Memnon (1288), Hilarion (1292), George (1315), Mark (1330), Cyril (1353), Hilarion (1366), Basil (1385), Athanasius (1392), and Gelasius (1412) ruled this see during its peace with Rome. In 1416 the Bishop of Przemysl embraced the schism. Elias (1422) was the first bishop who took the title Przemysl and Sambor. The See of Sambor was founded in the thirteenth century, and shortly afterwards the two dioceses were united, although the double name was not used until assumed by Elias. Athanasius (1440-49) opposed the union of the Council of Florence. The succeeding bishops of Przemysl adhered to the schism, and remained schismatic for over a century. In 1594 Bishop Michael Kopystynski (1591-1610) took up the idea of reunion with Rome and added his name to the declaration of union at the Synod of Brest. Later he withdrew it and was excommunicated by the Greek Catholic Metropolitan of Kieff, Michael Ragosa. His successor, Athanasius Krupetzki (1610-52), was a zealous Catholic bishop. Meanwhile the schismatics elected another bishop and drove out Athanasius; and for nearly a century there was a double line of Greek bishops, the Orthodox holding the see at Przemysl, and the Catholics holding it at Sambor. In 1668 the Orthodox coadjutor bishop, George Hoshovski, took up his residence at Sanok, and from that date the title of Bishop of Przemysl, Sambor, and Sanok was assumed, although no see was established at Sanok. The succeeding Catholic bishops were Procopius Chmelovski (1652), Anthony Terletzki (1662), and John Malachovski (1669). The next Orthodox bishop was Innocent Vinnitzki (1680-1700), and during his administration the Catholic Bishop Malachovski left his see and went to Warsaw, where he died in 1691. From the time of his consecration Bishop Innocent had announced his intention of uniting with the Holy See. He prepared his clergy for the union, and on 23 June, 1691, he renounced the schism and signed the act of union. Since then the Greek Diocese of Przemysl has always been Catholic. In 1694 the first Catholic diocesan synod of the Greek Rite was held at Sambor, where the new situation of the Greek Catholic clergy was canonically established. The bishops succeeding him were George Vinnitzki (1700-13), Jerome Ustritzki (1715-46), Onuphrius Shumlanski (1746-62), Athanasius Szepticki (1762-79), Maximilian Ryllo (1780-94), and Anton Angelovich (1795-1808). The see remained vacant from 1808 until 1813, during the Napoleonic wars, but was administered by the Metropolitan of Lemberg, the well-known historian of the Greek Uniats, Michael Harasievich, The succeeding bishops were Michael Levitzki (1813-16), John Snigurski (1818-47), Gregor Jachimovich (1848-59), Thomas Polanski (1860-69), John Stupnitzki (1872-90), and Julian Pelesz (1891-96), the renowned author of the "History of the Union of the Ruthenian Church with Rome". The present bishop (1911) is Constantine Chekhovich. DOBRANSKI, Istoria Peremyshkoi Eparkhii (Lemberg, 1893); PELESZ, Gesch. der Union, II (Vienna, 1880); Schematismus Eparkhii Peremyshkoi, Samborskoi i Sianotzkoi (Golkiew, 1910); BATTANDIER, Annuaire Pontificale Catholique (Paris, 1910). ANDREW J. SHIPMAN. Psalms Psalms The Psalter, or Book of Psalms, is the first book of the "Writings" (Kethubhim or Hagiographa), i.e. of the third section of the printed Hebrew Bible of to-day. In this section of the Hebrew Bible the canonical order of books has varied greatly; whereas in the first and second sections, that is, in the Law and the Prophets, the books have always been in pretty much the same order. The Talmudic list (Baba Bathra 14 b) gives Ruth precedence to Psalms. St. Jerome heads the "Writings" with Psalms, in his "Epistola ad Paulinum" (P.L., XXII, 547); with Job in his "Prologus Galeatus" (P.L., XXVIII, 555). Many Masoretic MSS., especially Spanish, begin the "Writings" with Paralipomena or Chronicles. German Massoretic MSS. have led to the order of book in the Kethubhim of the modern Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint puts Psalms first among the Sapiential Books. These latter books, in "Cod. Alexandrinus", belong to the third section and follow the Prophets. The Clementine Vulgate has Psalms and the Sapiential Books in the second section, and after Job. This article will treat the name of the Psalter, its contents, the authors of the Psalms, their canonicity, text, versions, poetic form, poetic beauty, theological value, and liturgical use. I. NAME The Book of Psalms has various names in the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Vulgate texts. A. The Hebrew name is 12533a01.gif , "praises" (from 12533a02.gif , "to praise"); or 12533a03.gif , "book of praises". This latter name was known to Hippolytus, who wrote Hebraioi periegrapsanten biblon Sephra theleim (ed. Lagarde, 188). There is some doubt in regard to the authenticity of this fragment. There can be no doubt, however, in regard to the transliteration Spharthelleim by Origen (P.G., XII, 1084); and " sephar tallim, quod interpretatur volumen hymnorum" by St. Jerome (P.L., XXVIII, 1124). The name "praises" does not indicate the contents of all the Psalms. Only Ps. cxliv (cxlv) is entitled "praise" ( 12533a04.gif ). A synonymous name hallel was, in later Jewish ritual, given to four groups of songs of praise, Pss. civ-cvii, cxi-cxvii, cxxxv-cxxxvi, cxlvi-cl (Vulg., ciii-cvi, cx-cxvi, cxxxvi-cxxxviii, cxlv-cl). Not only these songs of praise, but the entire collection of psalms made up a manual for temple service == a service chiefly of praise; hence the name "Praises" was given to the manual itself. B. The Septuagint MSS. of the Book of Psalms read either psalmoi, psalms, or psalterion, psalter. The word psalmos is a translation of 12533a05.gif , which occurs in the titles of fifty-seven psalms. Psalmos in classical Greek meant the twang of the strings of a musical instrument; its Hebrew equivalent (from 12533a06.gif , "to trim") means a poem of "trimmed" and measured form. The two words show us that a psalm was a poem of set structure to be sung to the accompaniment of stringed instruments. The New Testament text uses the names psalmoi (Luke, xxiv, 44), biblos psalmon (Luke, xx, 42; Acts, i, 20), and Daveid (Heb., iv, 7). C. The Vulgate follows the Greek text and translates psalmi, liber psalmorum. The Syriac Bible in like manner names the collection Mazmore. II. CONTENTS The Book of Psalms contains 150 psalms, divided into five books, together with four doxologies and the titles of most of the psalms. A. NUMBER The printed Hebrew Bible lists 150 psalms. Fewer are given by some Massoretic MSS. The older Septuagint MSS. (Codd. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus) give 151, but expressly state that the last psalm is not canonical: "This psalm was written by David with his own hand and is outside the number", exothen tou arithmou. The Vulgate follows the numeration of the Septuagint but omits Ps. cli. The differences in the numerations of the Hebrew and Vulgate texts may be seen in the following scheme: Hebrew 1-8 = Septuagint/Vulgate 1-8 Hebrew 9 = Septuagint/Vulgate 9-10 Hebrew 10-112 = Septuagint/Vulgate 11-113 Hebrew 113 = Septuagint/Vulgate 114-115 Hebrew 114-115 = Septuagint/Vulgate 116 Hebrew 116-145 = Septuagint/Vulgate 117-146 Hebrew 146-147 = Septuagint/Vulgate 147 Hebrew 148-150 = Septuagint/Vulgate 148-150 In the course of this article, we shall follow the Hebrew numeration and bracket that of the Septuagint and Vulgate. Each numeration has its defects; neither is preferable to the other. The variance between Massorah and Septuagint texts in this numeration is likely enough due to a gradual neglect of the original poetic form of the Psalms; such neglect was occasioned by liturgical uses and carelessness of copyists. It is admitted by all that Pss. ix and x were originally a single acrostic poem; they have been wrongly separated by Massorah, rightly united by the Septuagint and Vulgate. On the other hand Ps. cxliv (cxlv) is made up of two songs == verses 1-11 and 12-15. Pss. xlii and xliii (xli and xlii) are shown by identity of subject (yearning for the house of Jahweh), of metrical structure and of refrain (cf. Heb. Ps. xlii, 6, 12; xliii, 5), to be three strophes of one and the same poem. The Hebrew text is correct in counting as one Ps. cxvi (cxiv + cxv) and Ps. cxlvii (cxlvi + cxlviii). Later liturgical usage would seem to have split up these and not a few other psalms. Zenner ("Die Chorgesange im Buche der Psalmen", II, Freiburg im Br., 1896) ingeniously combines into what he deems were the original choral odes: Pss. i, ii, iii, iv; vi + xiii (vi + xii); ix + x (ix); xix, xx, xxi (xx, xxi, xxii); xlvi + xlvii (xlvii + xlviii); lxix + lxx (lxx + lxxi); cxiv + cxv (cxiii); cxlviii, cxlix, cl. A choral ode would seem to have been the original form of Pss. xiv + lxx (xiii + lxix). The two strophes and the epode are Ps. xiv; the two antistrophes are Ps. lxx (cf. Zenner-Wiesmann, "Die Psalmen nach dem Urtext", Munster, 1906, 305). It is noteworthy that, on the breaking up of the original ode, each portion crept twice into the Psalter: Ps. xiv = liii, Ps. lxxx = xl, 14-18. Other such duplicated psalms are Ps. cviii, 2-6 (cvii) = Ps. lvii, 8-12 (lvi); Ps. cviii, 7-14 (cvii) = Ps. lx, 7-14 (lix); Ps. lxxi, 1-3 (lxx) = Ps. xxxi, 2-4 (xxx). This loss of the original form of some of the psalms is allowed by the Biblical Commission (1 May, 1910) to have been due to liturgical uses, neglect of copyists, or other causes. B. DIVISION The Psalter is divided into five books. Each book, save the last, ends with a doxology. These liturgical forms differ slightly. All agree that the doxologies at the end of the first three books have nothing to do with the original songs to which they have been appended. Some consider that the fourth doxology was always a part of Ps. cvi (cv) (cf. Kirkpatrick, "Psalms", IV and V, p. 6343). We prefer, with Zenner-Wiesmann (op. cit., 76) to rate it as a doxology pure and simple. The fifth book has no need of an appended doxology. Ps. cl, whether composed as such or not, serves the purpose of a grand doxology which fittingly brings the whole Psalter to its close. The five books of the Psalter are made up as follows: + Bk. I: Pss. i-xli (i-xl); doxology, Ps. xli, 14. + Bk. II: Pss. xlii-lxxii (xli-lxxi); doxology, Ps. lxxii, 18-20. + Bk. III: Pss. lxxiii-lxxxix (lxxii-lxxxviii); doxology, Ps. lxxxix, 53. + Bk. IV: Pss. xc-cvi (lxxxix-cv); doxology, Ps. cvi, 48. + Bk. V: Pss. cvii-cl (cvi-cl); no doxology. In the Massoretic text, the doxology is immediately followed by an ordinal adjective indicating the number of the succeeding book; not so in the Septuagint and Vulgate. This division of the Psalter into five parts belongs to early Jewish tradition. The Midrash on Ps. i tells us that David gave to the Jews five books of psalms to correspond to the five books of the Law given them by Moses. This tradition was accepted by the early Fathers. Hippolytus, in the doubtful fragment already referred to, calls the Psalter and its five books a second Pentateuch (ed. Lagarde, 193). St. Jerome defends the division in his important "Prologus Galeatus" (P.L., XXVIII, 553) and in Ep. cxl (P.L., XXII, 11, 68). Writing to Marcella (P.L., XXIII, 431), he says: "In quinque siquidem volumina psalterium apud Hebraeos divisum est". He, however, contradicts this statement in his letter to Sophronius (P.L., XXVIII, 1123): "Nos Hebraeorum auctoritatem secute et maxime apostolorum, qui sempter in Novo Testamento psalmorum librum nominant, unum volumen asserimus". C. TITLES In the Hebrew Psalter, all the psalms, save thirty-four, have either simple or rather complex titles. The Septuagint and Vulgate supply titles to most of the thirty-four psalms that lack Hebrew titles. These latter, called "orphan psalms" by Jewish tradition, are thus distributed in the five books of the Psalter: + Bk. I has 4 == Pss. I, iii, x, xxxiii [i, iii, ix (b), xxxii]. Of these, Ps. x is broken from Ps. ix; Ps. xxxiii has a title in the Septuagint and Vulgate. + Bk. II has 2 == Pss. xliii, lxxi (xlii, lxx). Of these, Ps. xliii is broken from Ps. xlii. + Bk. III has none. + Bk. IV has 10 == Pss. xci, xciii-xcvii, xcix, xiv-cvi (xc, xcii-xcvi, xcviii, ciii-cv). Of these, all have titles in the Septuagint and Vulgate. + Bk. V has 18 == Pss. cvii, cxi-cxix, cxxxv-cxxxvii, cxlvi-cl (cvi, cx-cxviii, cxxxiv, cxlv-cl). Of these, Ps. cxii has a title in the Vulgate, Ps. cxxxvii in the Septuagint and Vulgate; the quasi-title hallelu yah precedes nine (cxi-cxiii, cxxxv, cxlvi-cl); the Greek equivalent Allelouia precedes seven others (cvii, cxiv, cxvi-cxix, cxxxvi). Only Ps. cxv [cxiii (b)] has no title either in the Hebrew or the Septuagint. (1) Meaning of Titles These titles tell us one or more of five things about the psalms: (a) the author, or, perhaps, collection; (b) the historical occasion of the song; (c) its poetic characteristics; (d) its musical setting; (e) its liturgical use. (a) Titles indicating the author Bk. I has four anonymous psalms out of the forty-one (Pss. i, ii, x, xxxiii). The other thirty-seven are Davidic. Ps. x is part of ix; Ps. xxxiii is Davidic in the Septuagint; and Pss. I and ii are prefatory to the entire collection. == Bk. II has three anonymous psalms out of the thirty-one (Pss. xliii, lxvi, lxxi). Of these, eight Pss., xlii-xlix (xli-xlviii) are "of the sons of Korah" (libne qorah); Ps. 1 is "of Asaph"; Pss. li-lxxii "of the Director" (lamenaççeah) and Ps. lxxii "of Solomon". Ps. xliii (xlii) is part of xlii (xli); Pss. lxvi and lxvii (lxv and lxvi) and Davidic in the Septuagint and Vulgate. == Bk. III has one Davidic psalm, lxxxvi (lxxxv); eleven "of Asaph", lxxiii-lxxxiii (lxxii-lxxxii); four "of the sons of Korah", lxxxiv, lxxxv, lxxxvii, lxxxviii (lxxxiii, lxxxiv, lxxxvi, lxxxvii); and one "of Ethan", lxxxix (lxxxviii). Ps. lxxxviii is likewise assigned to Heman the Ezrahite. == Bk. IV has two Davidic psalms, ci and ciii (c and cii), and one "of Moses". Moreover, the Septuagint assigns to David eight others, Pss. xci, xciii-xcvii, xciv, civ (xc, xcii-xcvi, xcviii, ciii). The remainder are anonymous. == Bk. V has twenty-seven anonymous psalms out of forty-four. Pss. cviii-cx, cxxii, cxxiv, cxxxi, cxxxiii, cxxxviii-cxlv (cvii-cix, cxxi, cxxiii, cxxx, cxxxii, cxxxvii-cxlv) are Davidic. Ps. cxxvii is "of Solomon". The Septuagint and Vulgate assign Ps. cxxxvii (cxxxvi) David, Pss. cxlvi-cxlviii (cxlv-cxlviii) to Aggeus and Zacharias. Besides these title-names of authors and collections which are clear, there are several such names which are doubtful. == Lamenaççeah ( 12533a07.gif ; Septuagint, eis to telos; Vulg., in finem; Douai, "unto the end"; Aquila, to nikopoio, "for the victor"; St. Jerome, victori; Symmachus, epinikios, "a song of victory"; Theodotion, eis to nikos, "for the victory") now generally interpreted "of the Director". The Pi'el of the root means, in I Par., xv, 22, "to be leader" over the basses in liturgical service of song (cf. Oxford Hebrew Dictionary, 664). The title "of the Director" is probably analogous to "of David", "of Asaph", etc., and indicates a "Director's Collection" of Psalms. This collection would seem to have contained 55 of our canonical psalms, whereof 39 were Davidic, 9 Korahite, 5 Asaphic, and 2 anonymous. Al-Yeduthun, in Pss. lxii and lxxvii (lxi and lxxvi), where the preposition al might lead one to interpret Yeduthun as a musical instrument or a tune. In the title to Ps. xxxix (xxxviii), "of the Director, of Yeduthun, a song of David", Yeduthun is without al and seems to be the Director (Menaççeah) just spoken of. That David had such a director is clear from I Par., xvi, 41. (b) Titles indicating the historical occasion of the song Thirteen Davidic psalms have such titles. Pss. vii, xviii, xxxiv, lii, liv, lvi, lvii, lix, cxlii (vii, xvii, xxxiii, li, liii, lv, lvi, lviii, cxli) are referred to the time of David's persecution by Saul; Ps. lx (lix) to that of the victories in Mesopotamia and Syria; Ps. li(l) to his sin; Pss. iii and lxiii (lxii) to his flight from Absalom. (c) Titles indicating poetic characteristics of the psalm Mizmor ( 12533a08.gif ; Septuagint, psalmos; Vulg., psalmus; a psalm), a technical word not used outside the titles of the Psalter; meaning a song set to stringed accompaniment. There are 57 psalms, most of them Davidic, with the title Mizmor. Shir ( 12533a09.gif ; Septuagint, ode; Vulg., Canticum; a song), a generic term used 30 times in the titles (12 times together with Mizmor), and often in the text of the Psalms and of other books. In the Psalms (xlii, 9; lxix, 31; xxviii, 7) the song is generally sacred; elsewhere it is a lyric lay (Gen., xxxi, 27; Is., xxx, 29), a love poem (Cant., i, 1.1), or a bacchanalian ballad (Is., xxiv, 9; Eccles., vii, 5). Maskil ( 12533a10.gif ; Septuagint, synedeos, or eis synesin; Vulg. intellectus or ad intellectum), an obscure form found in the titles of 13 psalms (xxxii, xlii, xliv, xlv, lii, lv, lxxiv, lxxviii, lxxxviii, lxxxix, cxliv). (a) Gesenius and others explain "a didactic poem", from Hiph'il of 12533a11.gif (cf. Ps. xxxii, 8; I pr., xxviii, 19); but only Pss. xxxii and lxxviii are didactic Maskilim. (b) Ewald, Riehm and others suggest "a skilful artistic song", from other uses of the cognate verb (cf. II Par., xxx, 22; Ps. xlvii, 7); Kirkpatrick things "a cunning psalm" will do. It is difficult to see that the Maskil is either more artistic or more cunning than the Mizmor. (c) Delitzch and others interpret "a contemplative poem"; Briggs, "a meditation". This interpretation is warranted by the usage of the cognate verb (cf. Is., xli, 20; Job, xxxiv, 27), and is the only one that suits all Maskilim. Tephillah ( 12533a12.gif ); Septuagint, proseuche; Vulg., oratio; a prayer), the title to five psalms, xvii, lxxxvi, xc, cii, cxlii (xvi, lxxv, lxxxix, ci, cxli). The same word occurs in the conclusion to Bk. II (cf. Ps. lxxii, 20), "The prayers of David son of Yishai have been ended". Here the Septuagint hymnoi (Vulg., laudes) points to a better reading, 12533a13.gif , "praise". Tehillah ( 12533a14.gif ; Septuagint, ainesis; Vulg., laudatio; "a song of praise"), is the title only of Ps. cxlv (cxliv). Mikhtam ( 12533a15.gif ; Septuagint, stelographia or eis stelographian; Vulg., tituli inscriptio or in tituli inscriptionem), an obscure term in the title of six psalms, xvi, lvi-lx (xv, lv-lix), always to "of David". Briggs ("Psalms", I, lx; New York, 1906) with the Rabbis derives this title from 12533a16.gif , "gold". The Mikhtamim are golden songs, "artistic in form and choice in contents". Shiggayon ( 12533a17.gif ; Septuagint merely psalmos; Vulg., psalmus; Aquila, agnonma; Symmachus and Theodotion, hyper agnoias; St. Jerome, ignoratio or pro ignoratione), occurs only in the title to Ps. vii. The root of the word means "to wander", "to reel", hence, according to Ewald, Delitzch, and others, the title means a wild dithyrambic ode with a reeling, wandering rhythm. (d) Titles indicating the musical setting of a psalm (a specially obscure set) Eight titles may indicate the melody of the psalm by citing the opening words of some well-known song: Nehiloth ( 12533a18.gif ; Septuagint and Theodotion, hyper tes kleronomouses; Aquila, apo klerodosion; Symmachus, hyper klerouchion; St. Jerome, super haereditatibus; Vulg., pro ea quae haereditatem consequitur), occurs only in Ps. v. The ancient versions rightly derive the title from 12533a19.gif , "to inherit"; Baethgen ("Die Psalmen", 3rd ed., 1904, p. xxxv) thinks Nehiloth was the first word of some ancient song; most critics translate "with wind instruments" wrong assuming that Nehiloth means flutes ( 12533a20.gif , cf. Is. xxx, 29). Al-tashheth [ 12533a21.gif ; Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus, peri aphtharsias, except Ps. lxxv, Symmachus, peri aphtharsias; St. Jerome, ut non disperdas (David humilem et simplicem); Vulg., ne disperdas or ne corrumpas], in Pss. lvii-lix, lxxv (lvi-lviii, lxxiv), meaning "destroy not", may be the beginning of a vintage song referred to in Is., lxv, 8. Symmachus gives, in title to Ps. lvii, peri tou me diaphtheires; and in this wise suggests that 12533a22.gif originally preceded 12533a23.gif . Al-Muth-Labben ( 12533a24.gif ; Septuagint, hyper ton kyphion tou yiou; Vulg., pro occultis filii, "concerning the secret sins of the son"; Aquila, hyper akmes tou hiou, "of the youth of the son"; Theodotion, hyper akmes tou hyiou, "concerning the maturity of the son") in Ps. ix, probably means "set to the tune 'Death Whitens'". Al-ayyeleth hasshahar ( 12533a25.gif ; Septuagint, hyper tes antilepseos tes heothines; Vulg., pro susceptione matutina, "for the morning offering"; Aquila, hyper tes elaphou tes orthines; Symmachus, hyper tes boetheias tes orthines, "the help of the morning"; St. Jerome, pro cervo matutino), in Ps. xxii (xxi, very likely means "set to the tune 'The Hind of the Morning'". Al Shoshannim in Pss. xlv and lxix (xliv and lxviii), Shushan-eduth in Ps. lx (lix), Shoshannim-eduth in Ps. lxxx (lxxix) seem to refer to the opening of the same song, "Lilies" or "Lilies of testimony". The preposition is al or el. The Septuagint translates the consonants hyper ton Alloiothesomenon; Vulg., pro iis qui commutabuntur, "for those who shall be changed". Al Yonath elem rehoqim, in Ps. lvi (lv) means "set to 'The dove of the distant terebinth'", or, according to the vowels of Massorah, "set to 'The silent dove of them that are afar'". The Septuagint renders it hyper tou laou tou apo ton hagion memakrymmenou; Vulg., pro populo qui a sanctis longe factus est, "for the folk that are afar from the sanctuary". Baethgen (op. cit., p. xli) explains that the Septuagint understands Israel to be the dove; reads elim for elem, and interprets the word to mean gods or sanctuary. 'Al Mahalath (Ps. liii), Mahalath leannoth (Ps. lxxxviii) is transliterated by the Septuagint Maeleth; by Vulg., pro Maeleth. Aquila renders epi choreia, "for the dance"; the same idea is conveyed by Symmachus, Theodotion, Quinta, and St. Jerome (pro choro). The word 'Al is proof that the following words indicate some well-known song to the melody of which Pss. liii and lxxxviii (lii and lxxxvii) were sung. 'Al-Haggittith, in titles to Pss. viii, lxxxi, lxxxiv (vii, lxxx, lxxxiii). The Septuagint and Symmachus, hyper ton lenon; Vulg., and St. Jerome, pro torcularibus, "for the wine-presses". They read gittoth, pl. of gath. The title may mean that these psalms were to be sung to some vintage-melody. The Massoretic title may mean a Gittite instrument (Targ., "the harp brought by David from Gath"), or a Gittite melody. Aquila and Theodotion follow the reading of Masorah and, in Ps. viii, translate the title hyper tes getthitidos; yet this same reading is said by Bellarmine ("Explanatio in Psalmos", Paris, 1889), I, 43) to be meaningless. One title probably means the kind of musical instrument to be used. Neginoth ( 12533a26.gif ; Septuagint, en psalmois, in Ps. iv, en hymnois elsewhere; Vulg., in carminibus; Symmachus, dia psalterion; St. Jerome, in psalmis) occurs in Pss. iv, vi, liv, lxvii, lxxvi (iv, vi, liii, liv, lxvi, lxxv). The root of the word means "to play on stringed instruments" (I Kings, xvi, 16-18, 23). The title probably means that these psalms were to be accompanied in cantilation exclusively "with stringed instruments". Ps. lxi (lx) has Al Neginath in its title, and was perhaps to be sung with one stringed instrument only. Two titles seem to refer to pitch. Al-Alamoth (Ps., xlvi), "set to maidens", i.e., to be sung with a soprano or falsetto voice. The Septuagint renders hyper ton kryphion; Vulg., pro occultis, "for the hidden"; Symmachus, hyper ton aionion, "for the everlasting"; Aquila, epi neanioteton; St. Jerome, pro juventutibus, "for youth". Al-Hassheminith (Pss. vi and xii), "set to the eighth"; Septuagint, hyper tes ogdoes; Vulg., pro octava. It has been conjectured that "the eighth" means an octave lower, the lower or bass register, in contrast with the upper or soprano register. In I Pr., xv, 20-21, Levites are assigned some "with psalteries set to 'Alamoth'" (the upper register), others "with harps set to Sheminith" (the lower register). (e) Titles indicating the liturgical use of a psalm Hamma'aloth, in title of Pss. cxx-cxxxiv (cxix-cxxxiii); Septuagint, ode ton anabathmon; St. Jerome, canticum graduum, "the song of the steps". The word is used in Ex., xx, 26 to denote the steps leading up from the women's to the men's court of the Temple plot. There were fifteen such steps. Some Jewish commentators and Fathers of the Church have taken it that, on each of the fifteen steps, one of these fifteen Gradual Psalms was chanted. Such a theory does not fit in with the content of these psalms; they are not temple-psalms. Another theory, proposed by Gesenius, Delitzsch, and others, refers "the steps" to the stair-like parallelism of the Gradual Psalms. This stair-like parallelism is not found in all the Gradual Psalms; nor is it distinctive of any of them. A third theory is the most probable. Aquila and Symmachus read eis tas anabaseis, "for the goings up"; Theodotion has asma to nanabaseon. These are a Pilgrim Psalter, a collection of pilgrim-songs of those "going up to Jerusalem for the festivals" (I Kings, i, 3). Issias tells us the pilgrims went up singing (xxx, 29). The psalms in question would be well suited for pilgrim-song. The phrase "to go up" to Jerusalem (anabainein) seems to refer specially to the pilgrim goings-up (Mark, x, 33; Luke, ii, 42, etc.). This theory is now commonly received. A less likely explanation is that the Gradual Psalms were sung by those "going up" from the Babylonian exile (I Esd., vii, 9). Other liturgical titles are: "For the thank-offering", in Ps. c (xcix); "To bring remembrance", in Pss. xxxviii and lxx (xxxvii and lxix); "To teach", in Ps. xl (xxxix); "For the last day or the Feast of Tabernacles", in the Septuagint of Ps. xxix (xxviii), exodiou skenes; Vulg., in consummatione tabernaculi. Psalm xxx (xxix) is entitled "A Song at the Dedication of the House". The psalm may have been used at the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple, the Encaenia (John, x, 22). This feast was instituted by Judas Machabeus (I Mach., iv, 59) to commemorate the rededication of the temple after its desecration by Antiochus. Its title shows us that Ps. xcii (xci) was to be sung on the Sabbath. The Septuagint entitles Ps. xxiv (xxiii) tes mias sabbaton, "for the first day of the week"; Ps. xlviii (xlvii) deutera sabbatou, "for the second day of the week"; Ps. xciv (xciii), tetradi sabbaton, "for the fourth day of the week"; Ps. xciii (xcii) eis ten hemeran, "for the day before the Sabbath". The Old Latin entitles Ps. lxxxi (lxxx) quinta sabbati, "the fifth day of the week". The Mishna (Tamid, VII, 13) assigns the same psalms for the daily Temple service and tells us that Ps. lxxxii (lxxxi) was for the morning sacrifice of the third day (cf. James Wm. Thirtle, "The Titles of the Psalms, Their Nature and Meaning Explained", New York, 1905). (2) Value of the Titles Many of the critics have branded these titles as spurious and rejected them as not pertaining to Holy Writ; such critics are de Wette, Cheyne, Olshausen, and Vogel. More recent critical Protestant scholars, such as Briggs, Baethgen, Kirkpatrick, and Fullerton, have followed up the lines of Ewald, Delitzsch, Gesenius, and Koster, and have made much of the titles, so as thereby to learn more and more about the authors, collections, occasions, musical settings, and liturgical purposes of the Psalms. Catholic scholars, while not insisting that the author of the Psalms superscribed the titles thereof, have always considered these titles as an integral part of Holy Writ. St. Thomas (in Ps. vi) assigns the titles to Esdras: "Sciendum est quod tituli ab Esdra facti sunt partim secundum ea quae tune agebantur, et partim secundum ea quae contigerunt." So comprehensive a statement of the case is scarcely to the point; most modern scholars give to the titles a more varied history. Almost all, however, are at one in considering as canonical these at times obscured directions. In this unanimity Catholics carry out Jewish tradition. Pre-Massoretic tradition preserved the titles as Scripture, but lost much of the liturgical and musical meaning, very likely because of changes in the liturgical cantilation of the Psalms. Massoretic tradition has kept carefully whatsoever of the titles it received. It makes the titles to be part of Sacred Scripture, preserving their consonants, vowel-points, and accents with the very same care which is given to the rest of the Jewish Canon. The Fathers give to the titles that respect and authority which they give to the rest of Scripture. True, the obscurity of the titles often leads the Fathers to mystical and highly fanciful interpretations. St. John Chrysostom ("De Compunctione", II, 4; P.G., XLVII, 415) interprets hyper tes ogdoes, "for the eighth day", "the day of rest", "the day of eternity". St. Ambrose (In Lucam, V, 6) sees in this title the same mystical number which he notes in the Eight Beatitudes of St. Matthew, in the eighth day as a fulfilment of our hope, and in eight as a sum of all virtues: "pro octava enim multi inscribuntur psalmi". In this matter of mystical interpretations of the titles, St. Augustine is in advance of the generally literal and matter-of-fact Sts. Ambrose and John Chrysostom. Yet when treating the worth and the genuiness of the titles, no Father is more decided and pointed than is the great Bishop of Hippo. To him the titles are inspired Scripture. Commenting on the title to Ps. li, "of David, when Nathan the Prophet came to him, what time he had gone into Bethsabee", St. Augustine (P.L., XXXVI, 586) says it is an inspired as is the story of David's fall, told in the Second Book of Kings (xi, 1-6); "Utraque Scriptura canonica est, utrique sine ulla dubitatione a Christianis fides adhibenda est". Some recent Catholic scholars who are of St. Augustine's mind in this matter are: Cornely, "Specialis Introduction in libros V. T.", II, 85; Zschokke, "Hist. Sacr. V. T.", 206; Thalhofer, "Erklärung der Psalmen", 7th ed., 1904, 8; Patrizi, "Cento Salmi", Rome, 1875, 32; Danko, "Historia V. T.", 276; Hoberg, "Die Psalmen der Vulgata", 1892, p. xii. Only a very few Catholic scholars have denied that the titles are an integral art of Holy Writ. Gigot, in "Special Introductions to the Old Testament" (New York, 1906), II, 75, cites with approval this denial by Lesêtre, "Le Livre des Psaumes" (Paris, 1883), p. 1. Barry, in "Tradition of Scripture" (New York, 1906), 102, says: "It is plausible to maintain that inscriptions to which the Massorah, LXX, and Vulgate bear witness cannot be rejected. But to look on them, under all circumstances, as portions of Scripture would be to strain the Tridentine Decrees". Because of the danger that, without grave reason, these time-honoured parts of the Bible may be rated as extra-canonical, the Biblical Commission has recently (1 May, 1910) laid special stress on the value of the titles. From the agreement we have noted between the titles of Massorah and those of the Septuagint, Vulgate, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, St. Jerome, etc., the Commission has decided that the titles are older than the Septuagint and have come down to us, if not from the authors of the Psalms, at least from ancient Jewish tradition, and that, on this account, they may not be called into doubt, unless there be some serious reason against their genuineness. Indeed, the very disagreements which we have noted led us to the same conclusion. By the time the Septuagint was written, the titles must have been exceedingly old; for the tradition of their vocalization was already very much obscured. III. AUTHORS OF THE PSALMS A. WITNESS OF TRADITION (1) Jewish tradition is uncertain as to the authors of the Psalms. Baba Bathra (14 f) mentions ten; Pesachim (10) attributes all the Psalms to David. (2) Christian tradition is alike uncertain. St. Ambrose, "In Ps. xliii and xlvii" (P.L., XIV, 923), makes David to be the sole author. St. Augustine, in "De Civitate Dei", XVII, 14 (P.L., XLI, 547), thinks that all the Psalms are Davidic and that the names of Aggeus and Zacharias were superscribed by the poet in prophetic spirit. St. Philastrius, Haer. 130 (P.L., XII, 1259), brands the opposite opinion as heretical. On the other hand, plurality of authorship was defended by Origen, "In Ps." (P.G., XII, 1066); St. Hilary, "In Ps. Procem. 2) (P.L., IX, 233); Eusebius, "In Ps. Procem. In Pss. 41, 72" (P.G., XXIII, 74, 368); and many others. St. Jerome, "Ad Cyprianum, Epist. 140, 4 (P.L., XXII, 1169), says that "they err who deem all the psalms are David's and not the work of those whose names are superscribed". (3) This disagreement, in matter of authorship of the Psalms, is carried from the Fathers to the theologians. Davidic authorship is defended by St. Thomas, the converted Jew Archbishop Paul of Burgos, Bellarmine, Salmeron, S, Mariana; multiple authorship is defended by Nicholas of Lyra, Cajetan, Sixtus Senensis, Bonfrere, and Menochio. (4) The Church has come to no decision in this matter. The Council of Trent (Sess. IV, 8 April, 1546), in its decrees on Sacred Scripture, includes "Psalterium Davidicum, 150 Psalmorum" among the Canonical Books. This phrase does not define Davidic authorship any more than the number 150, but only designates the book, which is defined to be canonical (cf. Pallavicino, "Istoria del Concilio di Trento", l. VI, 1591. Naples, 1853, I, 376). In the preliminary vota, fifteen Fathers were for the name "Psalmi David"; six for "Psalterium Davidicum"; nine for "Libri Psalmorum"; two for "Libri 150 Psalmorum"; sixteen for the name adopted, "Psalterium Davidicum 150 Psalmorum"; and two had no concern which of these names was chosen (cf. Theiner, "Acta Authentica Councilii Tridentini", I, 72 sq.). From the various vota it is clear that the Council had no intention whatsoever of defining Davidic authorship. (5) The recent Decree of the Biblical Commission (1 May, 1910) decides the following points: + Neither the wording of the decrees of the councils nor the opinions of certain Fathers have such weight as to determine that David is sole author of the whole Psalter. + It cannot be prudently denied that David is the chief author of the songs of the Psalter. + Especially can it not be denied that David is the author of those psalms which, either in the Old or in the New Testament, are clearly cited under the name of David, for instance ii, xvi, xviii, xxxii, lxix, cx (ii, xv, xvii, xxxi, lxviii, cix). B. WITNESS OF OLD TESTAMENT In the above decision the Biblical Commission has followed not only Jewish and Christian tradition, but Jewish and Christian Scripture as well. The Old Testament witness to the authorship of the Psalms is chiefly the titles. These seem to attribute various psalms, especially of Books I-III, to David, Asaph, the sons of Korah, Solomon, Moses, and others. (1) David The titles of seventy-three psalms in the Massoretic Text and of many more in the Septuagint seem to single out David as author: cf. Pss. iii-xli (iii-xl), i.e. all of Bk. I save only x and xxxiii; Pss. li-lxx (l-lxix), except lxvi and lxvii, in Bk. II; Ps. lxxxvi (lxxxv) of Bk. III; Ps. ciii (cii) in Bk. IV; Pss. cviii-cx, cxxii, cxxiv, cxxxi, cxxxiii, cxxxv-cxlv (cvii-cix, cxxi, cxxiii, cxxx, cxxxiv-cxliv) of Bk. V. The Hebrew title is 12533a27.gif . It is now generally held that, in this Hebrew word, the preposition le has the force of a genitive, and that the Septuagint tou David "of David", is a better translation than the Vulgate ipsi David, "unto David himself". Does this preposition mean authorship? No in every title; else both David and the Director are the authors of Ps. xix (xviii), and all the sons of Korah, together with the Director, are joint authors of the psalms attributed to them. In the case of such composite titles as "of the Director, a psalm of David" (Ps. xix), or "of the Director, of the sons of Korah, a psalm" (Ps. xlviii), we probably have indications not of authorship but of various collections of psalms == the collections entitled "David", "the Director", "the sons of Korah". Just as the New Testament, the Council of Trent, and many Fathers of the Church speak of "David", "the Psalter of David", "the Psalms of David", not in truth to infer that all the psalms are David's, but because he was the psalmist par excellence, so the titles of many psalms assign them not so much to their authors as to their collectors or to the chief author of the collection to which they pertain. On the other hand, some of the longer titles go to show that "of David" may means authorship. Take an instance: "Of the Director, to the tune 'Destroy not', of David, a chosen piece (Mikhtam), when he fled from the face of Saul into the cave" (Ps. lvii). The historical occasion of the Davidic composition of the song, the lyric quality of the song, its inclusion in the early collection "of David" and later in the Director's hymnbook, the tune to which the psalm was either written by David or set by the Director == all these things seem to be indicated by the very composite title under consideration. Of a sort with the Davidic titles is the ending subscribed to the first two books of the Psalms: "Amen, Amen; ended are the phrases of David, son of Yishai" (Ps. lxxii, 20). This subscription is more ancient than the Septuagint; it would be altogether out of place were not David the chief author of the psalms of the two books whereto it is appended. Further Old-Testament evidence of Davidic authorship of the Psalms, as suggested by the Biblical Commission's recent Decree, are David's natural poetic talent, shown in his song and dirges of II Kings and I Par., together with the fact that it was he who instituted the solemn levitical cantilation of psalms in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant (I Par., xvi, xxiii-xxv). The songs and dirges attributed to David are significantly alike to the Davidic psalms in spirit and style and wording. Let us examine the opening line of II Kings, xxii: "And David spoke to Jahweh the words of this song in the day that Jahweh saved him from the grasp of his foes and out of the hands of Saul, and he said: 2. Jahweh is my Cliff, my Fortress, my Way of Escape, 3. My God, my Rock to Whom I betake me, My Shield, the Horn of my salvation, my Tower. My Refuge, my Saviour, from wrong dost Thou save me. 4. Shouting praise, I cry to Jahweh, And from my foe I get salvation". The two songs are clearly identical, the slight differences being probably due in the main to different liturgical redactions of the Psalter. In the end the writer of II Kings gives "the last words of David" (xxiii, 1) == to wit, a short psalm in the Davidic style wherein David speaks of himself as "Israel's sweet singer of songs", "egregius psaltes Israel" (II Kings, xxiii, 2). In like manner the Chronicler (I Par., xvi, 8-36) quotes as Davidic a song made up of Ps. cv, 1-13, Ps. xcvi, and a small portion of Ps. cvi. Finally, the Prophet Amos addresses the Samarians: "Ye that sing to the sound of the psaltery; they have thought themselves to have instruments of music like David" (vi, 5). The poetic power of David stands out as a characteristic of the Shepherd King. His elegiac plaints at the death of Saul and Jonathan (II Kings, I, 19-27) reveal some power, but not that of the Davidic psalms. The above reasons for Davidic authorship are impugned by many who insist on the late redaction of II Kings, 21-24 and upon the discrepancies between the passages we have paralleled. The question of late redaction of the Davidic songs in II Kings is not within our scope; nor does such late redaction destroy the force of our appeal to the Old Testament, since that appeal is to the Word of God. In regard to the discrepancies, we have already said that they are explainable by the admission that our Psalter is the result of various liturgical redactions, and does not present all the psalms in the precise form in which they proceeded from their original writers. (2) Asaph Asaph is accredited, by the titles, with twelve psalms, l, lxxiii-lxxxiii (xlix, lxxii-lxxxii). These psalms are all national in character and pertain to widely-separated periods of Jewish history. Ps. lxxxiii (lxxxii), although assigned by Briggs ("Psalms", New York, 1906, p. lxvii) to the early Persian period, seems to have been written at the time of the havoc wrought by the Assyrian invasion of Tiglath-pileser III in 737 B.C. Ps. lxxiv (lxxiii) was probably written, as Briggs surmises, during the Babylonian Exile, after 586 B.C. Asaph was a Levite, the son of Barachias (I Par., vi, 39), and one of the three chiefs of the Levitical choir (I Par., xv, 17). The "sons of Asaph" were set aside "to prophesy with harps and with psalteries and with cymbals" (I Par., xxv, 1). It is probable that members of this family composed the psalms which later were collected into an Asaph psalter. The features of these Asaph psalms are uniform: frequent allusions to the history of Israel with a didactic purpose; sublimity and vehemence of style; vivid description; an exalted conception of the deity. (3) The Sons of Korah The Sons of Korah are named in the titles of eleven psalms == xlii-xlix, lxxxiv, lxxxv, lxxxvii, lxxxviii (xli-xlviii, lxxxiii, lxxxiv, lxxxvi, lxxxvii). The Korahim were a family of temple singers (II Par., xx, 19). It can scarcely be that each psalm of this group was jointly composed by all the sons of Korah; each was rather composed by some member of the guild of Korah; or, perhaps, all were gathered from the various sources into one liturgical hymnal by the guild of the sons of Korah. At all events, there is a oneness of style to these hymns which is indicative of oneness of Levitical spirit. The features of the Korahite psalms are; a great love for the Holy City; a yearning for the public worship of Israel; a supreme trust in Jahweh; and a poetic form which is simple, elegant, artistic, and well-balanced. From their Messianic ideas and historical allusions, these psalms seem to have been composed between the days of Isaias and the return from exile. (4) Moses Moses is in the title of Ps. xc (lxxxix). St. Augustine (P.L., XXXVII, 1141) does not admit Mosaic authorship; St. Jerome (P.L., XXII, 1167) does. The author imitates the songs of Moses in Deut., xxxii and xxxiii; this imitation may be the reason of the title. (5) Solomon Solomon is in the titles to Pss. lxxii and cxxvii (lxxi and cxxvi), probably for a similar reason. (6) Ethan Ethan, in the title of Ps. lxxxix (lxxxviii), should probably be Idithun. The Psalter of Idithun, of Yeduthun, contained also Pss. xxxix, lxii, lxxvii (xxxviii, lxi, lxxvi). C. WITNESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT To Catholics, believing as they do fully in the Divinity of Christ and inerrancy of Holy Writ, New Testament citations render Pss. ii, xvi, xxxii, xxxv, lxix, cix, cx (ii, xv, xxxi, xxxiv, lxviii, cviii, cix) Davidic without the shadow of a doubt. When the Pharisees said that the Christ was the Son of David, Jesus put them the question: "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord" (cf. Matt., xxii, 43-45; Mark, xii, 36-37; Luke, xx, 42-44; Ps. cx, 1). There can be here no question of the name of a collection "of David". Nor is there question of a collection when St. Peter, on the first Pentecost in Jerusalem, says: "For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord etc." (Acts, ii, 34). Davidic authorship is meant by Peter, when he cites Pss. lxix (lxviii), 26, cix (cviii), 8, and ii, 1-2 as "from the mouth of David" (Acts, I, 16; iv, 25). And when the chief Apostle has quoted Ps. xvi (xv), 8-11, as the words of David, he explains how these words were intended by the dead patriarch as a prophecy of centuries to come (Acts, ii, 25-32). St. Paul's testimony is conclusive, when he (Rom., iv, 6; xi, 9) assigns to David parts of Pss. xxxii, xxxv, and lxix (xxxi, xxxiv, lxviii). A non-Catholic might object that St. Paul refers to a collection called "David", especially as such a collection seems clearly meant by "in David", en Daveid of Heb., iv, 7. We answer, that this is an evasion: had St. Paul meant a collection, he would have dictated en Daveid in the letter to the Romans. D. The Critics incline to do away with all question of Davidic authorship. Briggs says: "It is evident from the internal character of these psalms, with a few possible exceptions, that David could not have written them" (Psalms, p. lxi). Ewald allows that this internal evidence shows David to have written Pss. iii, iv, vii, xi, xv, xviii, first part of xix, xxiv, xxix, xxxii, ci (iii, iv, vii, xi, xiv, xvii, xxiii, xxviii, xxxi, c). IV. CANONICITY A. The Christian Canon of the Psalms presents no difficulty; all Christians admit into their canon the 150 psalms of the Canon of Trent; all reject Ps. cli of the Septuagint, probably a Machabean addition to the canon. B. The Jewish Canon presents a vexing problem. How has the Psalter been evolved? The traditional Jewish opinion, generally defended by Catholic scholars, is that not only the Jewish Canon of the Psalms but the entire Palestinian Canon of the Old Testament was practically closed during the time of Esdras (see CANON). This traditional opinion is probable; for the arguments in its favour, cf. Cornely, "Introductio Generalis in N. T. Libros", I (Paris, 1894), 42. (1) The Critical View These arguments are not all admitted by the critics. Says Driver: "For the opinion that the Canon of the Old Testament was closed by Ezra, or his associates, there is no foundation in antiquity whatever" ("Introducton to the Literature of the Old Testament", New York, 1892, p. x). In regard to the Psalms Wellhausen says: "Since the Psalter is the hymn-book of the congregation of the Second Temple, the question is not whether it contains any post-exilic psalms, but whether it contains any pre-exilic psalms" (Bleek's "Introduction", ed. 1876, 507). Hitzig ("Begriff der Kritik", 1831) deems that Books III-V are entirely Machabean (168-135 B.C.). Olshausen ("Die Psalmen", 1853) brings some of these psalms down to the Hasmonaean dynasty, and the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-105 B.C.). Duhm ("Die Psalmen", 1899, p. xxi) allows very few pre-Machabean psalms, and assigns Pss. ii, xx, xxi, lxi, lxiii, lxxii, lxxxiv (b), cxxxii [ii, xix, lx, lxii, lxxi, lxxxiii (b), cxxxi] to the reigns of Aristobulus I (105-104 B.C.) and his brother Alexander Jannaus (104-79 B.C.); so that the Canon of the Psalter was not closed till 70 B.C. (p. xxiii). Such extreme views are not due to arguments of worth. So long as one refuses to accept the force of the traditional argument in favour of the Esdras Canon, one must at all events admit that the Jewish Canon of the Psalms was undoubtedly closed before the date of the Septuagint translation. This date is 285 B.C., if we accept the authority of the Letter of Aristeas (see SEPTUAGINT); or, at the very latest 132 B.C., the period at which Ben Sirach wrote, in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, that "the law itself and the prophets and the rest of the books [i.e. the Hagiograha, of which were the Psalms] had been translated into Greek". This is the opinion of Briggs (p. xii), who sets the final redaction of the Psalter in the middle of the second century B.C. The gradual evolution of the Book of Psalms is now quite generally taken by the critics as a matter of course. Their application of the principles of higher criticism does not result in any uniformity of opinion in regard to the various strata of the Psalter. We shall present these strata as they are indicated by Prof. Briggs, probably the least rash of those who have lately published what are called "critical editions" of the Psalms. His method of criticism is the usual one; by a rather subjective standard of internal evidence, he carves up some psalms, patches up others, throws out portions of others, and "edits" all. He assigns seven psalms to the early Hebrew monarchy; seven to the middle monarchy; thirteen to the late monarchy; thirteen to the time of exile; thirty-three to the early Persian period; sixteen to the middle Persian period (the times of Nehemias); eleven to the late Persian period; "the great royal advent psalm" (Pss. xciii, xcvi-c) together with eight others to the early Greek period (beginning with Alexander's conquest); forty-two to the late Greek period, and to the Machabean period Pss. xxxiii, cii (b), cix (b), cxviii, cxxxix (c), cxxix of the Pilgrim Psalter and cxlvii, cxlix of the Hallels. Of these psalms and portions of psalms, according to Briggs, thirty-one are "psalms apart", that is, never were incorporated into a Psalter before the present canonical redaction was issued. The rest were edited in two or more of the twelve Psalters which mark the evolution of the Book of Psalms. The earliest collection of psalms was made up of seven Mikhtamim, "golden pieces", of the middle Persian period. In the late Persian period thirteen Maskilim were put together as a collection of meditations. At the same time, seventy-two psalms were edited, as a prayer-book for use in the synagogue, under the name of "David"; of these thirteen have in their titles references to David's life, and are thought to have formed a previous collection by themselves. In the early Greek period in Palestine, eleven psalms were gathered into the minor psalter entitled the "Sons of Korah". About the same time in Babylonia, twelve psalms were made into a Psalter entitled "Asaph". Not long thereafter, in the same period, the exilic Ps. lxxxviii, together with two orphan Pss. lxvi and lxvii, were edited along with selections from "David," "Sons of Korah", and "Asaph", for public worship of song in the synagogue; the name of this psalter was "Mizmorim". A major psalter, the Elohist, Pss. xlii-lxxxiii (xli-lxxxii), is supposed to have been made up, in Babylonia, during the middle Greek period, of selections from "David", "Korah", "Asaph" and "Mizmorim"; the name is due to the use of Elohim and avoidance of Jahweh in these psalms. About the same time, in Palestine, a prayer-book was made up of 54 from "Mizmorim, 16 psalms from "David", 4 from "Korah", and 1 from "Asaph"; this major psalter bore the name of the "Director". The Hallels, or Alleluiatic songs of praise, were made up into a psalter for temple service in the Greek period. These psalms have halleluyah (Praise ye Yah) either at the beginning (Pss. cxi, cxii), or at the close (Pss. civ, cv, cxv, cxvii), or at both the beginning and close (Pss. cvi, cxiii, cxxxv, cxlvi-cl). The Septuagint gives Allelouia also the beginning of Pss. cv, cvii, cxiv, cxvi, cxix, cxxxvi. Briggs includes as Hallels all these except cxviii and cxix, "the former being a triumphal Machabean song, the latter the great alphabetic praise of the law". A like minor psalter of the Greek period was the "Pilgrim Psalter" (Pss. cxx-cxxxiv), a collection of "Songs of Pilgrimage", the "Songs of Ascents", or "Gradual Psalms", which the pilgrims chanted while going up to Jerusalem for the three great feasts. (2) The Catholic View So extensive an application of divisive criticism to the Psalter does not meet the approval of Catholic exegetes. Successive redaction of the Psalms they readily admit, provided the doctrine of the inspiration of Holy Writ be not impugned. The doctrine of inspiration has regard to the Psalms as they now stand in the canon, and does not impede a Catholic from admitting various redactions of the Psalter previous to our present redaction; in fact, even uninspired liturgical redaction of the inspired Psalms would not be contrary to what the Church teaches in the matter of inspiration, so long as the redactor had preserved intact and absolutely unaltered the inspired meaning of the Sacred Text. The Biblical Commission (1 May, 1910) will not allow that our present redaction contains many Machabean psalms; nor will Drive, Delitzsch, Perowne, Renan, and many other critical scholars. "Had so many psalms dated from this age, it is difficult not to think that they would have borne more prominent marks of it in their diction and style" (Driver, "Introduction to their Literature of the Old Testament", New York, 1892, 365). Pss. xliv, lxxiv, lxxix, and lxxxiii, which Delitzsch and Perowne on historical grounds admit to be Machabean, occasion to Davison (Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible", IV, 152) "unquestionable difficulties arising from their place in the second and third books". There are no certain proofs that these or any psalms are Machabean. The Biblical Commission does not, on this account, deny any of the psalms are Machabean; it leaves that question still open. In the matter of redaction, it allows that "for liturgical or musical or other unknown reasons, psalms may have been split up or joined together" in course of time; and that "there are other psalms, like the Miserere mei, Deus [Ps. li], which, in order that they might be better fitted to the historical circumstances and the solemnities of the Jewish people, were slightly re-edited and changed by the omission or addition of a verse or two, so long as the inspiration of the entire text remains intact". That is the important thing; the doctrine of the inspiration of Holy Writ must not suffer in the least. How, then, is the doctrine of the inspiration of the entire text kept intact? Were the previous redactors inspired? Nothing has been determined by any authority of the Church in these matters. We incline to the opinion that God inspired the meanings of the Psalms as originally written, and in like manner inspired every redactor who gathered and edited these songs of Israel until the last inspired redactor set them together in their present form. V. TEXT The Psalms were originally written in Hebrew letters, such as we see only on coins and in a few lapidary inscriptions; the text has come down to us in square Aramaic letters. Only the versions give us any idea of the pre-Massoretic text. Thus far no pre-Massoretic MS. of the Psalms has been discovered. The Massoretic text has been preserved in more than 3400 MSS., of which none is earlier than the ninth century and only nine or ten are earlier than the twelfth (see MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE). These Massoretic MSS. represent two slightly variant families of one tradition == the texts of Ben Asher and of Ben Naftali. Their variations are of little moment in the interpretation of the Psalms. The study of the rhythmic structure of the Psalms, together with the variations between Massorah and the versions, have made it clear that our Hebrew text is far from perfect, and that its points are often wrong. The efforts of critics to perfect the text are at times due to no more than a shrewd surmise. The metrical mould is chosen; then the psalm is forcibly adapted to it. It were better to leave the text in its imperfect condition than to render it worse by guess-work. The decree of the Biblical Commission is aimed at those to whom the imperfections in the Massoretic Text are an occasion, though no excuse, for countless conjectural emendations, at times wild and fanciful, which nowadays pass current as critical exegesis of the Psalms. VI. VERSIONS A. GREEK The chief version of the Psalms is the Septuagint. It is preserved to us in Cod. U, Brit. Mus. Pap. 37, seventh century, containing Pss. x-xxxiii; Leipzig Pap., fourth century, containing Pss. xxix-liv; 12533a28.gif , Cod. Sinaiticus, fourth century, complete; B. Cod. Vaticanus, fourth century, complete, except, Pss. cv, 27-cxxxvii, 6; A, Cod. Alexandrinus, fifth century, complete except Pss. xlix, 19-lxxvi, 10; I, Cod. Bodleianus, ninth century, complete; and in many other later MSS. The Septuagint Version is of great value in the exegesis of the Psalms. It provides pre-Massoretic readings which are clearly preferable to those of the Massoretes. It brings us back to a text at least of the second century B.C. In spite of a seeming servility to words and to Hebrew constructions, a servility that probably existed in the Alexandrian Greek of the Jews of the period, the Septuagint translator of psalms shows an excellent knowledge of Hebrew, and fears not to depart from the letter and to give the meaning of his original. The second-century A.D. Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion are extant in only a few fragments; these fragments are witnesses to a text pretty much the same as our Massoretic. B. LATIN About the middle of the second century the Septuagint Psalter was translated into Latin. Of this Old Latin, or Itala, Version we have only a few MSS. and the citations by the early Latin Fathers. At the request of Pope St. Damasus I, A.D. 383, St. Jerome revised the Itala and brought it back closer to the Septuagint. His revision was soon so distorted that he complained, "plus antiquum errorem quam novam emendationem valere" (P.L., XXIX, 117). This is St. Jerome's "Roman Psalter"; it is used in the recitation of the Office in St. Peter's, Rome, and in the Missal. The corruption of his first translation led St. Jerome to undertake an entirely new translation of the Hexapla edition of the Septuagint. He worked with great care, in Bethlehem, some time before A.D. 392. He indicated by asterisks the parts of the Hebrew text which had been omitted by the Septuagint and were borrowed by him from Theodotion; he marked with the obelus ( 12533a29.gif ) the parts of the Septuagint which were not in the Hebrew. These critical marks came in course of time to be utterly neglected. This translation is the "Gallican Psalter"; it is part of the Vulgate. A third Latin translation of the Psalms, made from the Hebrew Text, with Origen's Hexapla and the other ancient versions in view, was completed by St. Jerome about the end of the fourth century at Bethlehem. This version is of great worth in the study of the Psalter. Dr. Briggs says: "Where it differs from H. and G., its evidence is especially valuable as giving the opinion of the best Biblical scholar of ancient times as to the original text, based on the use of a wealth of critical material vastly greater than that in the possession of any other critic, earlier or later" (p. xxxii). OTHER VERSIONS For other translations, see VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE; RHYMED BIBLES. VII. POETIC FORM A. PARALLELISM Parallelism (q. v.) is the principle of balance which is admitted by all to be the most characteristic and essential feature of the poetic form of the Psalms. By synonymous, synthetic, antithetic, emblematic, stair-like, or introverted parallelism, thought is balanced with thought, line with line, couplet with couplet, strophe with antistrophe, in the lyric upbuilding of the poetic picture or imprecation or exhortation. B. METRE Is there metre in the Psalms? The Jews of the first century A.D. thought so. Flavius Josephus speaks of the hexameters of Moses (Antiq., II, xvi, 4; IV, viii, 44) and the trimeters and tetrameters and manifold meters of the odes and hymns of David (Antiq., VII, xii, 3). Philo says that Moses had learned the "theory of rhythm and harmony" (De vita Mosis, I, 5). Early Christian writers voice the same opinion. Origen (d. 254) says the Psalms are in trimeters and tetrameters (In Ps. cxviii; cf. Card. Pitra, "Analecta Sacra", II, 341); and Eusebius (d. 340), in his "De Praeparatione evangelica", XI, 5 (P.G., XXI, 852), speaks of the same metres of David. St. Jerome (420), in "Praef. ad Eusebii chronicon" (P.L., XXVII, 36), finds iambics, Alcaics, and Sapphics in the psalter; and, writing to Paula (P.L., XXII, 442), he explains that the acrostic Pss. cxi and cxii (cx and cxi) are made up of iambic trimeters, whereas the acrostic Pss. cxix and cxlv (cxviii and cxliv) are iambic tetrameters. Modern exegetes do not agree in this matter. For a time many would admit no metre at all in the Psalms. Davison (Hast., "Dict. of the Bible", s. v.) writes: "though metre is not discernible in the Psalms, it does not follow that rhythm is excluded". This rhythm, however, "defies analysis and systematization". Driver ("Introd. to Lit. of O. T.", New York, 1892, 339) admits in Hebrew poetry "no metre in the strict sense of the term". Exegetes who find metre in the Psalms are of four schools, according as they explain Hebrew metre by quantity, by the number of syllables, by accent, or by both quantity and accent. (1) Defenders of the Latin and Greek metrical standard of quantity as applied to Hebrew poetry are Francis Gomarus, in "Davidis lyra", II (Lyons, 1637), 313; Mark Meibom, in "Davidis psalmi X" (Amsterdam, 1690) and in two other works, who claim to have learned his system of Hebrew metre by Divine revelation; William Jones, "Poeseos Asiaticae commentariorum" (Leipzig, 1777), who tried to force Hebrew words into Arabic metres. (2) The number of syllables was taken as the standard of metre by Hare, "Psalmorum liber in versiculos metrice divisus" (London, 1736); he made all feet dissyllabic, the metre trochaic in a line of an even number of syllables, iambic in a line of an odd number of syllables. The Massoretic system was rejected, the Syriac put in its stead. The opinion found chief defence in the writings of the learned Innsbruck Professor Gustav; and in Bickell's "Metrices biblicae" (Innsbruck, 1879), "Suplementum ad Metr. Bibl." (Innsbruck), "Carimina veteris testamenti metrice" (1882), "Dichtungen der Hebraer" (1882-84). Gerard Gietmann, S. J., "De re mentrica Hebraeorum" (Freiburg im Br., 1880); A. Rohling, "Das Solomonische Spruchbuch" (Mainz, 1879); H. Lesetre, "Le livre des psaumes" (Paris, 1883); J. Knabenbauer, S. J., in "Job" (Paris, 1885), p. 18; F. Vigouroux, "Manuel biblique", II, 203, have all followed in Bickell's footsteps more or less closely. Against this system some patent facts. The quantity of a word is made to vary arbitrarily. Hebrew is treated as Syriac, a late dialect of Aramaic == which it is not; in fact, even early Syriac poetry did not measure its lines by the number of syllables. Lastly the Massorah noted metrical structure by accents; at least soph pasuk and athnah indicate comlete lines or two hemistichs. (3) Accent is the determining principle of Hebrew metre according to C. A. Anton, "Conjectura de metro Hebraeorum" (Leipzig, 1770), "Vindiciae disput. de metr. Hebr." (Leipzig, 1771), "Specimen editionis psalmorum" (Vitebsk, 1780); Leutwein, "Versuch einer richtigen Theorie von der biblischen Verkunst" (1775); Ernst Meier, "Die Form der hebraischen Poesie nachgewiesen" (Tubingen, 1853); Julius Ley, "Die Metrischen Formen der hebraischen Poesie" (Leipzig, 1886); "Ueber die Alliteration im Hebraischen" in "Zeitsch. d. Deutsch. Morgenlandisch. Ges.", XX, 180; J. K. Zenner, S. J., "Die Chorgesange im Buche der Psalmen" (Freiburg im Br., 1896), and in many contributions to "Zeitsch. fur kathol. Theol.", 1891, 690; 1895, 373; 1896, 168, 369, 378, 571, 754; Hontheim, S. J., in "Zeitsch. fur kathol. Theol.", 1897, 338, 560, 738; 1898, 172, 404, 749; 1899, 167; Dr. C. A. Briggs, in "The Book of Psalms", in "International Critical Commentary" (New York, 1906), p. xxxix, and in many other publications therein enumerated; Francis Brown, "Measures of Hebrew Poetry: in "Journal of Biblical Literature", IX, 91; C. H. Toy, "Proverbs" in "Internat. Crit. Comm." (1899); W. R. Harper, "Amos and Hosea" in "Internat. Crit. Comm." (1905); Cheyne, "Psalms" (New York), 1892; Duhm, "Die Psalmen" (Freiburg im Br., 1899), p. xxx. This theory is the best working hypothesis together with the all-essential principle of parallelism; it does far less violence to the Massoretic Text than either of the foregoing theories. It does not force the Massoretic syllables into grooves that are Latin, Greek, Arabic, or Aramaic. It is independent of the shifting of accent; and postulates just one thing, a fixed and harmonious number of accents to the line, regardless of the number of syllables therein. This theory of a tonic and not a syllabic metre has this, too, in its favour that accent is the determining principle in ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, and Assyrian poetry. (4) Of recent years the pendulum of Hebrew metrical theories has swung back upon quantity; the syllabic must not be utterly neglected. Hubert Grimme, in "Grundzuge der Hebraischen Akzent und Volkallehre", Freiburg, 1896, and "Psalmenprobleme" (1902), builds up the metre chiefly upon the tonic principle, at the same time taking into account the morae or pauses due to quantity. Schlogl, "De re metrica veterum Hebraeorum" (Vienna, 1899), defends Grimme's theory. Sievers, "Metrische Studien" (1901), also takes in the unaccented syllables for metrical consideration; so does Baethgen, "Die Psalmen" (Gottingen, 1904), p. xxvii. C. OTHER CHARACTERISTICS Alliteration and assonance are frequent. Acrostic or alphabetic psalms are ix-x, xxv, xxxiv, xxxvii, cxi, cxii, cxix, cxlv (ix, xxiv, xxxiii, xxxvi, cx, cxi, cxviii, cxliv). The letters of the alphabet begin successive lines, couplets, or strophes. In Ps. cxix (cxviii) the same letter begins eight successive lines in each of the twenty-two alphabetic strophes. In Pss. xiii, xxix, lxii, cxlviii, and cl (xii, xxviii, lxi, cxlvii, and cxlix) the same word or words are repeated many times. Rhymes, by repetition of the same suffix, are in Pss. ii, xiii, xxvii, xxx, liv, lv, cxlii, etc. (ii, xii, xxvi, xxix, liii, liv, cxli, etc.); these rhymes occur at the ends of lines and in caesural pauses. Lines were grouped into strophes and antistrophes, commonly in pairs and triplets, rarely in greater multiples; at times an independent strophe, like the epode of the Greek chorus, was used between one or more strophes and the corresponding antistrophes. The word Selah ( 12533a30.gif ) almost invariably marks the end of a strophe. The meaning of this word and its purpose is still a moot question. We think it was originally 12533a31.gif (from 12533a32.gif , "to throw"), and meant "a throwing down", "a prostration". During the antiphonal cantilation of the Psalms, the priests blew their trumpets to mark the end of a strophe, and at the signal the two choirs or the people or both choirs and people prostrated themselves (cf. Haupt, "Expository Times", May, 1911). The principle of parallelism determined these stophic arrangements of the lines. Koster, in "die Psalmen nach ihrer strophischen Anordnung" (1837), distinguishes various kinds of parallelism in lines and half-lines, synonymous, antithetical, synthetic, identical, introverted. Zenner, S. J., in his "Chorgesange im Buche der Psalmen" (Freiburg im Br., 1896) has very cleverly arranged many of the psalms as choral odes, chanted by two or three choirs. Hermann Wiesmann, S. J., in "Die Psalmen nach dem Urtext" (Munster, 1906), has applied the metrical principles of Zenner, and revised and published the latter's translations and studies of the Psalms. This work takes too great liberty with the Sacred Text, and has lately (1911) been put on the Index. VIII. POETIC BEAUTY The extravagant words of Lamartine in "Voyage en Orient" are classic: "Lisez de l'Horace ou du Pindare apres un Psaume! Pour moi, je ne le peux plus". One wonders whether Lamartine ever read a psalm in the original. To criticise the Psalms as literature is very difficult. Their text has reached us with many losses in the matter of poetic form. The authors varied much in style. Their literary beauty should not be judged by comparison with the poetry of Horace and Pindar. It is with the hymns of ancient Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria that we should compare the songs of Israel. Those ancient hymns are crude and rude by the side of the Psalms. Even the imprecatory Pss. xviii, xxxv, lii, lix, lxix, cix, cxxxvii (xvii, xxxiv, li, lviii, lxviii, cviii, cxxxvi), those national anthems so full of love of Israel and almost startling in their hatred of the foes of Jahweh and of Israel, if read from the viewpoint of the writers, are sublime, vivid, glowing, enthusiastic, though exaggerated, poetic outbursts, instances of a "higher seriousness and a higher truthfulness", such as Aristotle never would have found ina song of Babylonia or of Sumeria. Whether their tones are those of praise or blame, of sorrow or of joy, of humiliation or of exaltation, of deep meditation or of didactic dogmatism, ever and everywhere the writers of the Psalms are dignified and grand, true to the ideals of Jahweh's chosen folk, spiritual and devotional. The range of thought is immense. It takes in Jahweh, His temple, cult, priests, creation; man, friend and foe; beasts, birds; all nature, animate and inanimate. The range of emotions is complete; every emotion of man that is pure and noble has been set to words in the Psalms. As an instance of poetic beauty, we subjoin the famous Ps. xxiii (xxii), translated from the Hebrew. The poet first speaks in his own person, then in the guise of the sheep. The repetition of the first couplet as an envoi is suggested by Zenner and many commentators, to complete the envelope-form of the poem, or the introverted parallelism of the strophic structure: The Poet: 1. Jahweh is my Shepherd; I have no want, The Sheep: 2. In pastures of tender grass he setteth me; Unto still waters he leadeth me; 3. He turneth me back again; He guideth me along right paths for his Own name's sake. 4. Yea, though I walk through the vale of The shadow of death, I fear no harm; For thou art with me; Thy bludgeon and they staff, they stay me. 5. Thou settest food before me, In the presence of my foes; Thou has anointed my head with oil; My trough runneth over. The Poet: 6. Ah, goodness and mercy have followed me All the days of my life, I will go back to the house of Jahweh Even for the length of my days. Jahweh is my Shepherd; I have no want! IX. THEOLOGICAL VALUE The theological ideas of the Psalms are comprehensive; the existence and attributes of God, the soul's yearning for immortality, the economy of grace and the virtues, death, judgement, heaven, hell, hope of resurrection and of glory, fear of punishment == all the main dogmatic truths of Israel's faith appear again and again in her Psalter. These truths are set down not in dogmatic form, but now in the simple and childlike lyric yearning of the ingenuous soul, again in the loftiest and most vehement outbursts of which man's nature is capable. The Psalms are at once most human and most superhuman; they sink to the lowest depths of the human heart and soar to the topmost heights of Divine contemplation. So very human are the imprecatory psalms as to make some to wonder how they can have been inspired of God. Surely Jahweh cannot have inspired the singer who prayed: "As for them that plan my soul to destroy, Down to the depths of the earth shall they go; To the grasp of the sword shall they be delivered; A prey to the jackals shall they become". == Psalm 83:10-11 (82:10-11) Such an objection is based upon a misunderstanding. The perfection of the counsels of Christ is one thing, the aim of the good Levite is quite another thing. The ideals of the Sermon on the Mount are of higher spirituality than are the ideals of the imprecatory psalm. Yet the ideals of the imprecatory psalm are not bad == nay, are good, are Divine in their origin and authority. The imprecatory psalms are national anthems; they express a nation's wrath, not an individual's. Humility and meekness and forgiveness of foe are virtues in an individual; not necessarily so of a nation; by no means so of the Chosen Nation of Jahweh, the people who knew by revelation that Jahweh willed they should be a great nation and should put out their enemies from the land which he gave them. Their great national love for their own people postulated a great national love for Jahweh. The love for Jahweh postulated a hatred of the foes of Jahweh, and, in the theocratic economy of the Jewish folk, the foes of Jahweh were the foes of Israel. If we bear this national purpose in mind, and forget not that all poetry, and especially Semitic poetry, is highly coloured and exaggerated, we shall not be shocked at the lack of mercy in the writers of the imprecatory psalms. The chief theological ideas of the Psalms are those that have regard to the Incarnation. Are there Messianic psalms? Unaided by the authentic interpreting power of the Church and neglectful of the consensus of the Fathers, Protestants have quite generally come to look upon the Psalms as non-Messianic either in literal or in typical meaning; the older Messianic interpretation is discarded as worn-out and threadbare. Delitzsch admits only Ps. cx (cix) to be Messianic in its literal meaning. Cheyne denies both literal and typical Messianic meaning to the Psalms ("Origin of Ps.", 339). Davison (Hast., loc. cit.) says, "it may well be that the Psalter contains hardly a single instance of direct Messianic prophecy". Catholics have ever held that some of the Psalms are Messianic in meaning, either literal or typical. (Cf. articles INCARNATION; JESUS CHRIST; MESSIAS.) The New Testament clearly refers certain psalms to the Messias. The Fathers are unanimous in interpreting many psalms as prophecies of the coming, kingdom, priesthood, passion, death, and resurrection of the Messias. The coming of the Messias is predicted in Pss. xviii, l, lxviii, xcvi-xcviii (xvii, xlix, lxvii, xcv-xcvii). St. Paul (eph., iv, 8) interprets of Christ's ascent into heaven the words of Ps. lxviii, 18, description of Jahweh's ascent after conquering the world. The kingdom of the Messias is predicted in Pss. ii, xviii, xx, xxi, xlv, lxi, lxxii, lxxxix, cx, cxxxii (ii, xvii, xix, xx, xliv, lx, lxxi, lxxxviii, cix, cxxxi); the priesthood in Ps. cx. The passion and death of the Messias are clear in the sufferings of the Servant of Jahweh of Pss. xxii, xl, lxix (xxi, xxxix, lxviii). Ps. xxii was used in part, perhaps entirely, by Christ on the Cross; the Psalmist describes as his own the emotions and sufferings of the Messias. Hence it is that the Biblical Commission (1 May, 1910) rejects the opinion of those who do away with the Messianic and prophetic character of the Psalms and refer only to the future lot of the Chosen People those words which are prophecies concerning Christ. Cf. Maas, "Christ in Type and Prophecy" (New York, 1893). X. LITURGICAL USE A. == The use of the Psalms in Jewish liturgy has been spoken of. Cf. also articles SYNAGOGUE; TEMPLE. == B. == Christian liturgical use of the Psalter dates from the time of Christ and His Apostles. He recited the Hallels at the last Passover, Pss. cxiii-cxiv before the Last Supper, Pss. cxv-cxviii thereafter; Ps. xxii was His dying words; authoritative citations of other psalms appear in His discourses and those of His Apostles (cf. Luke, xx, 42; xxiv, 44; Acts, i, 20). The Apostles used the Psalms in worship (cf. Acts, xvi, 25; James, v, 14; I Cor., xiv, 26). The earliest liturgical service was taken from the Psalter. St. Paul represents the Ephesian Christians, to all seeming, psalmodizing, one choir answering the other; "Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and psalmodizing [psallontes] in your hearts to the Lord, giving thanks [eucharistountes] always for all things" (Eph., v, 19). Probably the Eucharistic agape is referred to. A like reference is in Col., iii, 16. St. Basil (P.G., XXXII, 764) speaks of this psalmodizing in two choirs == antipsallein allelois. The custom of psalmody, or antiphonal singing, is said to have been introduced into the Church of Antioch by St. Ignatius (Socrates, "Hist. Eccl.", VI, viii). From Syria, this custom of the Synagogue would seem to have passed over to Palestine and Egypt, to Asia Minor, Constantinople, and the West. St. Ambrose was the first to inaugurate in the West the chanting of the Psalms by two choirs (cf. Batiffol, "Histoire du breviaire romain", 1893). In the Proprium de tempore of the Roman Rite, all the Psalms are chanted at least once a week, some twice and oftener. In Matins and Lauds, according to the Vulgate's numeration, are Pss. i-cx, excepting a few that are fixed for Prime and other hours; in Vespers are Pss. cxi-cxlvii, excepting a few fixed for other hours. The great alphabetic praise of the Law, Ps. cxviii, is distributed between Prime, Terce, Sext, and None. The Benedictines, Franciscans, Carmelites, and Dominicans, who have their own rite, all chant the Psalter once a week; the Jesuits follow the Roman ritual. In the Latin Rite, Pss. vi, xxxi, xxxvii, l, ci, cxxix, cxlii (Douai) have long been recited, in the above order, as prayers of sorrow for sin; they are lyric cries of the sorrowing soul and have hence been called the "Penitential Psalms". Their recitation during Lent was ordered by Innocent III (1198-1216). Pius V (1566-72) established the custom, now no longer of general obligation, whereby these psalms became a part of the Friday ferial Office of Lent. The Ambrosian Rite, still used in Milan cathedral, distributes the Psalms over two weeks. The Oriental Rites in union with Rome (Melchite, Maronite, Syriac, Chaldean, Coptic, AEthiopic, etc.), together with the heretical Oriental Churches, all keep up the recitation of the Psalter as their Divine Office. The bibliography of the Psalms is naturally enormous and can be given only in small part. Greek Fathers: ORIGEN, Selecta in Psalmos in P.G., XII. 1043; IDEM, Homiliae in Psalmos in P.G., XII, 1319; IDEM, Originis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, ed. FIELD; EUSEBIUS, Comm. in Psalmos in P.G., XXIII, 65; XXIV, 9; ST. ATHANASIUS, Epist. Ad Marcellinum in P.G., XXVII, 11; IDEM, Exegeses in Psalmos in P.G., XXVII, 55; IDEM, De Titulis Psalmorum in P.G., XXVII, 645; ST. BASIL, Homiliae in Pss. in P.G., XXIX, 209; ST. DIDYMUS OF ALEXANDRIA in P.G., XXIX, 1155; ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA in P.G., XLIV, 431, 608; ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM in P.G., LV, 35, 527; ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA in P.G., LXIX, 699; THEODORETUS in P.G., LXXX, 857. Latin Fathers: ST. AMBROSE, Enarrationes in XII Psalmos in P.L., XIV, 921; ST. JEROME, Liber Psalmorum juxta hebraicam veritatem in P.L., XXVIII, 1123; IDEM, Excerpta de Psalterio (Maredsous, 1895); IDEM, Epistolae in P.L., XXII, 433, 441, 837; IDEM, Breviarium in Psalmos in P.L., XXVI, 821; ST. AUGUSTINE, Enarrationes in Pss. in P.L., XXXVII, 67; IDEM, Expositio in Pss. C-CL in P.L., LI, 277; CASSIODORIUS in P.L., LXX, 9. Commentators of the Middle Ages: BEDE, PETER LOMBARD, ST. THOMAS, ST. BONAVENTURE and others of the Middle Ages depend chiefly upon the Fathers for their interpretations. NICHOLAS OF LYRA, in his Postilla, and the converted Jew, PAUL, ARCHBISHOP OF BURGOS, in his Additions to the Postilla, gives us much of rabbinic interpretation. Moderns: BELLARMINE, Explanatio in Psalmos (1611), was by far the best commentator on the Psalms till recent times, as he used scientific methods in textual criticism; SCHEGG, Die Psalmen (Munich, 1845); ROHLING (1871); THALHOFER (Ratisbon, 1904); WOLTER, Psallite Sapienter (Freiburg im Br., 1904); BICKELL, Der Psalter (1884); VAN STEENKISTE (1870); PATRIZI, Cento Salmi tradotti e commentati (1875); MINOCHI, I Salmi tradotti del Testo Ebreo (1895); LE HIR, Les Psaumes traduits de l'hebreu en latin avec la Vulgate en regard (Paris, 1876); LESETRE (Paris, 1883); FILLION, Les Psaumes commentes selon la Vulgate et l'Hebreu (Paris, 1893); CRAMPTON (1889); PANNIER (1908); ZENNER-WIESMANN, Die Psalmen nach dem Urtext (Munster, 1906); NIGLUTSCH (Trent, 1905); EATON, Sing ye to the Lord (London, 1909); HOBERG, Die Psalmen nach der Vulgata (Freiburg, 1892); M'SWINEY, Psalms and Canticles (St. Louis, 1901). Protestants: the commentaries of DE WETTE (1811-56); HITZIG (1863-65); OLSHAUSEN (1853); HUPFELD (1855-88); EWALD (1839-66); DELITZSCH (1895); DUHM (Freiburg im Br., 1899); BAETHGEN (Gottingen, 1904); CHEYNE (New York, 1892); International Critical Commentary, ed. BRIGGS (New York, 1907), the best of non-Catholic commentators on the Psalms; KIRKPATRICK in Cambridge Bible (1893-95). WALTER DRUM Alphabetic Psalms Alphabetic Psalms Alphabetic psalms are so called because their successive verses, or successive parallel series, begin with the successive letters of the alphabet. Some of these formations are perfectly regular, others are more or less defective. Among the regular Alphabetic Psalms must be reckoned Pss. cx, cxi, cxviii (Heb., Pss. cxi, cxii, cxix). The praise of the strong woman in Prov., xxxi, 10-31, and the first four chapters of Lamentations exhibit a similar regular formation. Pss. cx and cxi consist of twenty-two verses each, and successive verse begins with the corresponding successive letter of the alphabet. Ps. cxviii consists of twenty-two strophes containing each eight distichs; the successive twenty-two strophes are built on the twenty-two letters of the alphabet in such a way that each of the eight distichs of the first strophe begins with the first letter, each of the eight distichs of the second strophe begin with the second letter, etc. Prov., xxxi, 10, consists of twenty-two distichs, each successive distich beginning with the successive corresponding letter of the alphabet. Lam., i, ii, iv, consist each of twenty-two short strophes beginning with the successive letters of the alphabet. In Lam., iii, each successive letter of the alphabet begins three lines, so that the chapter consists of sixty-six lines in which each letter of the alphabet occurs three times as the initial of the line. Defectively Alphabetic Psalms may be found in Pss. ix, xxiv, xxxiv, xxvi, cxliv (Heb., ix, x, xxv, xxxvii, cxlv). But the device is not limited to the Book of Psalms; it is also found in other poetical portions of the Old Testament. VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1895). A.J. MAAS Psalterium Psalterium The Psalterium, or Book of the Psalms, only concerns us here in so far as it was transcribed and used for liturgical purposes. As a manual of private devotions it has already been sufficiently discussed under Prayer-Books. In its liturgical use the Psalterium contained the bulk of the Divine Office. The other books associated with it were the Lectionary, the Antiphonary, and Responsoriale, and the Hymnary. The Psalterium contained primarily all the text of the Psalms, and it may be noted that for some centuries the Western Church used two different Latin versions, both due to St. Jerome. The earlier of these was a mere revision of the pre-existing Latin translation which closely followed the Septuagint. St. Jerome undertook this revision in 383 at the request of Pope Damasus, and the text thus corrected was retained in use at Rome for many centuries afterwards. In 392, however, when at Bethlehem, the saint set about the same task much more seriously with the aid of the Hexapla. He produced what was almost a new version, and this being circulated in Gaul, through a copy sent to Tours in the sixth century, became commonly known as the "Psalterium Gallicanum", and in the end entirely supplanted the Roman. A precious manuscript at the Vatican (Regin. 11), of the sixth or seventh century, contains the "Psalterium Gallicanum" upon the left-hand page, and a version made from the Hebrew upon each page facing it. The Psalter proper is here followed, as nearly always in these liturgical books, by the principal canticles, e.g. the Canticle of the Three Children, the Canticle of Moses etc. and, what is not so general a feature, though sometimes found, by a collection of hymns or Hymnarium. These last were more commonly written in a book apart. The oldest Psalter of the British Museum, which comes from St. Augustine's, Canterbury, and which was long supposed to have been one of the actual books brought by St. Augustine to England, also contained the Canticles with two or three hymns. In other similar books we find the Gloria, Credo, Quicumque vult, and the Litany of the Saints; at the beginning usually stands a calendar. Many of the more ancient psalteria which survive, as for example the "Psalterium Aureum", of St. Gall and the "Utrecht Psalter", both of them probably of the ninth century, are very richly illuminated or illulstrated-a fact which has probably had much to do with their preservation. A certain tradition tended to establish itself at an early date with regard to the subjects and position of these embellishments. In particular the custom spread widely of dividing the whole Psalter into three parts containing fifty psalms each. Hence the first psalm, the fifty-first psalm, and the hundred and first psalm are usually introduced by a full-page miniature or by a richly-illuminated initial letter. Thus also in penitential codes and monastic documents of both England and Ireland during the early Middle Ages, it is common to find allusions to the recitation of "two fifties" or "three fifties", meaning two or three of the divisions of the Psalter. With regard to the Divine Office the recitation of the Psalms was in primitive times so arranged that the whole Psalter was gone through in the course of the Sunday and ferial Office each week. In many psalteria marginal notes indicated which psalms belonged to each day and hour. Less commonly the psalms were not arranged in their numerical order, but, as in a modern Breviary, according to the order of their occurrence in the ferial Office. Both these classes of books were called psalteria feriata. In medieval cathedral chapters it was common to assign two or three psalms to each prebend for daily recitation, the psalms being so distributed that the bishop and canons got through the whole Psalterium between them. The repetition of the entire Psalter was, as many necrologies and monastic custumals show, a favourite form of suffrage for the dead. Brambach, Psalterium, Bibliographischer Versuch über die liturgischen Bücher des christ. Abendlander (Berlin, 1887); Rahn, Das "Psalterium Aureum" von Sanct Gallen (St. Gall, 1878); Wordsworth and Littlehales, The Old Service Books of the English Church (London, 1905); Swanson in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. v. Psalter; Beissel in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (July, 1909), 28-41; Gasquet and Bishop, The Bosworth Psalter (London, 1908); Birch, The Utrecht Psalter (London, 1876); Hardy, Utrecht Psalter Reports (London, 1872-74). HERBERT THURSTON Nicholas Psaume Nicholas Psaume (also PSAULME, PREAUME, Lat. PSALMÆUS) A bishop of Verdun, born at Chaumont-sur-Aire in 1518; died 10 August, 1575. Having studied classics at the Norbertine Abbey of St. Paul at Verdun, of which his uncle François Psaume was commendatory abbot, he completed a higher course of studies at the Universities of Paris, Orleans, and Poitiers; and then entered the Norbertine Abbey of St. Paul at Verdun. Ordained priest in 1540, he was sent to the University of Paris, where, after a brilliant defence of numerous theses, he won his doctorate of theology. But for the intrigues of François, Cardinal of Pisa, Psaume, who had already been made Abbot of St. Paul, Verdun, would have been elected Abbot General of Prémontré, for his nomination had already been confirmed by Francis I, King of France. In 1546 he was chosen to represent the Norbertine Order at the Council of Trent, but the Cardinal of Lorraine retained him and, with the pope's consent, resigned the Bishopric of Verdun in favour of Psaume, who was consecrated bishop 26 August, 1548. In the following year he attended the Provincial Council of Trier, and in the same year he published its canons and decrees in his own diocese. He was also present at the General Council of Trent from May, 1551, until its prorogation on 28 April, 1552, distinguishing himself by his eloquence and learning and by his zeal in defence of the doctrine and the prerogatives of the Church. He was active in condemning certain abuses, especially those of the commenda (see COMMENDATORY ABBOT). On 2 January, 1552, he was charged by the papal legate with the editing of the canons of the council. In 1562 he returned to Trent, where the sessions of the council had been resumed. On both occasions Psaume kept a diary of all that passed at the various sessions; it was printed at Paris (1564-80), at Reims and at Verdun in the same year. Hugo, the annalist of the order, also edited it in two parts, but much was left out in the second part. Hugo's "Collectio" was edited by Le Plat in the fifth volume of his "Monumenta Conc. Tridentin." The parts omitted are supplied by Döllinger, "Ungedruckte Berichte u. Tagebücher z. Geschichte d. Konzils v. Trient", II (Nordlingen, 1876), p. 172. Psaume was also requested by the Archbishops of Reims and Trier to co-ordinate French ecclesiastical legislation and make it agree with the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent. He wrote much in defence of the Catholic doctrine against the Calvinistic and Lutheran heresies. To provide a sound education for youth he gave financial assistance to the Jesuits in founding a college at Verdun. He is buried near the altar of the Blessed Sacrament in the cathedral of Verdun. HUGO, Annales, I, preface, §xvi; II, 523; CALMET, Biblioth. lorraine, II; SPILBEECK, in Précis Historique (Brussels, 1888-89); GOOVAERT, Dic. Bio-bibliog., II, 66 sqq. (Brussels, 1902). F. M. GEUDENS. Michael Psellus Michael Psellus (Michael ho Psellos), Byzantine statesman, scholar, and author, born apparently at Constantinople, 1018; died probably 1078. He attended the schools, afterwards learning jurisprudence from John Xiphilinos, later patriarch (John VIII, 1064-75). Psellus practised law, was appointed judge at Philadelphia, and under the Emperor Michael V (1041-2) became imperial secretary. Under Constantine IX (Monomachos, 1042-54) he became influential in the state. At this time he taught philosophy at the new Academy at Constantinople arousing opposition among ecclesiastical professors by preferring Plato to Aristotle. Psellus gained a great reputation as a philosopher. His pedagogical career was cut short by his appointment as Secretary of State (protosekretis) to Constantine IX. In 1054 he followed Xiphilinos to the monastery of Olympos, in Bithynia, where he took the name Michael. He soon quarrelled with the monks, however, and returned to the capital. He was one of the ambassadors sent to treat with the rebel Isaac Komnenos after the defeat of the imperial army near Nicaea in 1057. When Isaac I (1057-9) entered Constantinople in triumph Psellus had no scruple against transferring allegiance to him. Psellus drew up the indictment against the Patriarch Michael Caerularius in 1059, and preached the enthusiastic panegyric that the government thought advisable after Caerularius's death. Psellus maintained his influence under Constantine X (Dukas, 1059-67); under Michael VII (1071-8) he became chief Minister of State. Famous for oratory as well as for philosophy and statecraft, he preached the panegyric of the Patriarch John Xiphilinos in 1075. A work written in 1096-7 after Psellus's death has a commendatory preface by him. Krumbacher (Byzant. Litteratur., 434) states that the preface may have been written before the work was begun. That Psellus was able maintain his influence under succeeding governments, through revolutions and usurpations, shows his unscrupulous servility to those in power. Krumbacher characterizes him as "grovelling servility, unscrupulousness, insatiable ambition, and unmeasured vanity" (op cit., 435). Nevertheless his many-sided literary work and the elegance of his style give him a chief place among contemporary scholars. Compared with Abertus Magnus and Roger Bacon, he is to Krumbacher "the first man of his time". His important works are: commentary on Aristotle peri hermeneias; treatises on psychology; works on anatomy and medicine, including a poem on medicine and a list of sicknesses; a fragmentary encyclopedia, called "Manifold Teaching" (Didaskalia pantodape); a paraphrase of the Iliad; a poem on Greek dialects; a treatise on the topography of Athens; a poetic compendium of law and an explanation of legal terms. His speeches are famous as examples of style and contain much historical information. His best known panegyrics are on Caerularius, Xiphilinos, and his own mother. About five hundred letters, and a number of rhetorical exercises, poems, epitaphs and occasional writings are extant. His most valuable work is his history (chronographia) from 976 to 1077, forming a continuation to Leo Diaconus. ADRIAN FORTESCUE Psychology Psychology (Gr. psyche, logos; Lat. psychologia; Fr. psychologie; Ger. Seelenkunde) In the most general sense, psychology is the science which treats of the soul and its operations. During the past century, however, the term has come to be frequently employed to denote the latter branch of knowledge -- the science of the phenomena of the mind, of the processes or states of human consciousness. Moreover, the increasing differentiation, characteristic of the advance of all departments of knowledge in recent years, has manifested itself in so marked a manner in psychological investigation that there are already severe distinct fields of psychological work, each putting forward claims to be recognized as a separate science. The term psychologia seems to have first come into use about the end of the sixteenth century (Goclenius, 1590, Casmann's "Psychologia Anthropologica", 1594). But the popularization of the name dates from Ch. Wolff in the eighteenth century. History Aristotle may well be deemed the founder of this as of so many other sciences, though by him it is not distinguished from general biology, which is itself part of physics, or the study of nature. His treatise peri psyches ("De Anima") was during two thousand years virtually the universal textbook of psychology, and it still well repays study. In the investigation of vital phenomena Aristotle employed to some extent all the methods of modern science: observation, internal and external; comparison; experiment; hypothesis; and induction; as well as deduction and speculative reasoning. He defines the soul as the "Entelechy or form of a natural body potentially possessing life". He distinguishes three kinds of souls, or grades of life, the vegetative, the sensitive, and the intellectual or rational. In man the higher virtually includes the lower. He investigates the several functions of nutrition, appetency, locomotion, sensuous perception, and intellect or reason. The last is confined to man. The working of the senses is discussed by him in detail; and diligent anatomical and physiological study, as well as careful introspective observation of our conscious processes, is manifested. Knowledge starts from sensation, but sense only apprehends the concrete and singular thing. It is the function of the intellect to abstract the universal essence. There is a radical distinction between thought and sentiency. The intellect or reason (nous) is separate from sense and immortal, though how precisely we are to conceive this nous and its "separateness" is one of the most puzzling problems in Aristotle's psychology. Indeed, the doctrines of free will and personal immortality are not easily reconciled with parts of Aristotle's teaching. Scholastic period There is little effort at systematic treatment of psychology from Aristotle to the medieval philosophers. For Epicurus, psychology was a branch of physics in subordination to a theory of hedonistic ethics. With the introduction of Christianity certain psychological problems such as the immortality and the origin of the soul, free will and moral habits at once assumed a vastly increased importance and raised the treatise "De Anima", to one of the most important branches of philosophy. Moreover, the angels being assumed to be spirits in many ways resembling the human soul conceived as separate from the human body, a speculative theory of the nature, attributes, and operations of the angelic beings, partly based on Scriptural texts, partly deduced by analogical reasoning from human psychology, gradually grew up and received its final elaboration in the Middle Ages in the metaphysical theology of the Schoolmen. The Christian mystics were naturally led to consider the character of the soul's knowledge of God. But their treatment of psychological questions is generally vague and obscure, whilst their language indulges much in allegory and symbolism. Indeed, the greatest of the mystics were not sympathetic with the employment of Scholastic or scientific methods in the handling of mystic experience. The great controversy between Realism and Nominalism from the early Middle Ages directed much attention to the theory of knowledge and the problem of the origin of ideas. However, although psychological observation was appealed to, the epistemological discussions were largely metaphysical in character during this period. To Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas the popularization of the psychology of Aristotle throughout Europe during the thirteenth century was mainly due. In Questions lxxv to xc of part I of the "Summa Theologica", St. Thomas gives a very fairly complete and systematic account of the leading topics connected with the soul. However, questions of biology, general metaphysics, and theology were constantly interwoven with psychology for many centuries afterwards. Indeed, the liberal use made of physiological evidence in psychological discussions is a marked feature in the treatment of this branch of philosophy throughout the entire history of scholastic philosophy. But although there is plenty of proof of acute observation of mental activities, the usual appeal in discussion is rather to metaphysical analysis and deductive argument than to systematic introspective observation and induction, so characteristic of modern psychology. The treatise "De Anima" of Suarez is a very good example of scholastic psychology at the close of the Middle Ages. The treatise, containing six books, starts in book I with an inquiry into the essence of the soul. Recalling Aristotle's definition of the soul as the form of the body, the author proceeds to examine the relations of the vegetative, sensitive, and rational soul. Next, in book II he treats of the faculties of the soul in general and their relation to the soul as an essence. In book III he investigates the nature and working of the cognitive faculties, and especially of the senses. In book IV he inquires into the character of the activity of the intellect. In book V he deals with faculties of appetency and free will. Book VI is devoted to a speculative consideration of the condition and mode of operation of the soul in a future life. In each question he begins with a summary of previous opinions and then puts forward his own solution. The order of treatment starting from the essence and passing thence to the faculties and their operations is characteristic of the scholastic treatises generally. The method is mainly deductive and the argument metaphysical, though in dealing with the senses there is constant appeal to recognized physiological authorities from Aristotle to Vesalius. In psychology as well as in other branches of philosophy the influence of Descartes was considerable though indirect. His subjective starting-point, cogito, ergo sum, his insistence on methodic doubt, his advocacy of reflection on thought and close scrutiny of our fundamental ideas, all tended to encourage the method of internal observation, whilst the mechanical explanation of the "Traité des Passions" favoured the advent of physiological psychology. It was probably, however, John Locke's "Essay on the Human Understanding" (1690) which did most to foster the method of analytic introspection which constitutes the principal feature of modern psychological method. Notwithstanding the confused and inconsistent metaphysics and the many grave psychological blunders with which that work abounds, yet his frequent appeal to inner experience, his honest efforts to describe mental processes, and the quantity of acute observations scattered throughout the work, coming also at an age when the inductive method was rapidly rising in popularity, achieved a speedy and wide success for his book, and gave a marked empirical bent to all future English psychology. Psychological observation and analysis were still more skilfully used by Bishop Berkeley as a principle of explanation in his "Theory of Vision", and then employed by him to establish his psychological creed of Idealism. Finally, David Hume, the true founder of the Associationist school of psychology, still further increased the importance of the method of introspective analysis by the daring sceptical conclusions he claimed to establish by its means. The subsequent British adherents of the Associationist school Hartley, the two Mills, Bain, and Herbert Spencer, continued this method and tradition along the same lines. There is constant direct appeal to inner experience combined with systematic effort to trace the genesis of the highest, most spiritual, and most complex mental conceptions back to elementary atomic states of sensuous consciousness. Universal ideas, necessary truths, the ideas of self, time, space, causality as well as the conviction of an external material world were all explained as the outcome of sensations and association. The reality of any higher activities or faculties essentially different from the lower sensuous powers was denied, and all the chief data formerly employed in establishing the simplicity, spirituality, and substantiality of the soul were rejected. Rational or metaphysical psychology was thus virtually extinguished and erased from English philosophical literature during the nineteenth century. Even the more orthodox representatives of the Scotch school, Reid and Dugald Stewart, who avoided all metaphysical argument and endeavoured to controvert Hume with his own weapons of appeal exclusively to experience and observation, had only further confirmed the tendency in the direction of a purely empirical psychology. The great need in English psychological literature throughout most of the nineteenth century, on the side of those defending a spiritual doctrine of the human mind, was a systematic and thorough treatment of empirical psychology. Excellent pieces of work on particular questions were done by Martineau, W. G. Ward, and other writers, but nearly all the systematic treatises on psychology were produced by the disciples of the Sensationist or Materialistic schools. Yet, if philosophy is to be based on experience, then assuredly it is on the carefully-scrutinized and well-established results of empirical psychology that any satisfactory rational metaphysical doctrine respecting the nature of the soul, its origin, and its destiny must be built. It was in their faulty though often plausible analysis and interpretation of our states of consciousness that the greatest errors in philosophy and psychology of Bain, the two Mills, Spencer, and their disciples had their source; it is only by more careful introspective observation and a more searching analysis of the same mental facts that these errors can be exposed and solid foundations laid for a true metaphysical psychology of the soul. In France, Condillac, La Mettrie, Holbach, and Bonnet developed the Sensationalism of Locke's psychology into an increasingly crude Materialism. To oppose this school later on, Royer-Collard, Cousin, Jouffroy, and Maine de Biran turned to the work of Reid and the "common sense" Scotch school, appropriating their method and results in empirical psychology. Some of these writers, moreover, sought to carry their reasoning beyond the mere inductions of empirical psychology, in order to construct on this enlarged experience a genuine philosophy of the soul, as "principle" and subject of the states and activities immediately revealed to introspective observation. In Germany the purely empirical tendency which had reduced psychology in England to a mere positivistic science of mental facts did not meet with quite the same success. Metaphysics and philosophy proper never fell there into the degradation which they experienced in England in the beginning of the nineteenth century. And although the old conception of a philosophical science of the nature and attributes of the soul was rejected by Kant, and abandoned in the systems of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, yet mere Phenomenalism was never completely triumphant in Germany. Herbart, whilst denying the reality of faculties, postulates a simple soul as the underlying subject of the presentations or ideas which form our conscious life. Hermann Lotze, laying similar stress on the importance of scientific observation of our mental states, insists even more strongly that our introspective experience correctly interpreted affords abundant metaphysical justification for the doctrine of an immaterial soul. Meanwhile the earlier attempts of Herbart to express mental activities in mathematical formulæ led to a more successful line of experimental research in the hands of Weber, Fechner, Wundt, and others. The aim of this school is to attain the possible quantitative measurement of conscious states. As this is ordinarily not directly possible, much industry and ingenuity have been devoted to measuring quantitatively, by the aid of skilfully devised instruments, the immediate physical antecedents and effects of sundry mental activities, by which it is hoped to secure accurate quantitative descriptions of the mental states themselves. Psychological laboratories devoted to research of this kind have been set up in several countries, especially in Germany and America. One of the most successful so far is that at the Catholic University of Louvain, and another has lately been established at that of Washington. In Great Britain, however, the special home of empirical psychology since Locke, the new movement in favour of experimental psychology has not, at all events down to the present time, met with much success. The advance of physiological science, and especially of that of the brain and nervous system, has also reacted on psychology, stimulating closer inquiry into the relations between mental and bodily processes. It cannot, however, be maintained that the progress of physiological knowledge, considerable though it is, has brought us appreciably nearer to the solution of the great problem, how body and mind act on each other. The study of nervous pathology, of mental disease and of abnormal mental states, such as those of hypnotism and double-consciousness, has also opened up new fields of psychological research, constantly widening with the last thirty years. Scope of Psychology As we have already observed, recent writers commonly confine the term psychology to the science of the phenomena of the mind. Thus William James, probably the psychologist of widest influence during the past twenty years, defines psychology as "The Science of Mental Life, both of its phenomena and their conditions". ("Principles", I, 1). Wundt's definition is: "the science which investigates the whole content of Experience in its relations to the Subject". ("Outlines", 3rd ed., 3). Other writers describe it as, "the science of the facts apprehended by our internal sense", or again, "the science of our states of consciousness, their laws of succession and concomitancy". The common feature of all these definitions is the limitation of the scope of psychology to the phenomena of the mind directly observable by introspection. In this view it is a purely positivist science from which all philosophical problems are to be excluded, as rigorously as from chemistry or geology. It is, in fact; la psychologie sans âme. If such questions as the nature, origin, or destiny of the soul are to be discussed at all, it must be, according to these writers, not in psychology, but in some branch of speculation to be styled the metaphysics or ontology of the human mind, and to be completely isolated from science. In direct contrast with this view is that ordinarily adopted by Catholic writers hitherto. By them, psychology has usually been conceived as one of the most important branches of philosophy. In their view it may be best described as the philosophical science, which investigates the nature, attributes, and activities of the soul or mind of man. By soul, or mind, is understood the ultimate principle within me by which I think, feel, will, and by which my body is animated. Whilst the soul and the mind are conceived as fundamentally one, the latter term is usually employed to designate the animating principle viewed as subject of my conscious or mental operations; the former denotes it as the root of all vital activities. By terming their branch of knowledge a philosophical science, it is implied that psychology ought to include not only a doctrine of the laws of succession and concomitance of our conscious states, but an inquiry into their ultimate cause. Any adequate study of the human mind, it is contended, naturally presents itself in two stages, empirical or phenomenal psychology, and rational or metaphysical psychology. Though conveniently separated for didactic treatment the two are organically connected. Our metaphysical conclusions as to the nature of the soul must rest on the evidence supplied by our experience of the character of its activities. On the other hand, any effort at thorough treatment of our mental operations, and especially any attempt at explanation of the higher forms or products of consciousness, it is urged, is quite impossible without the adoption of some metaphysical theory as to the nature of the underlying subject or agents of these states. Professor Dewey has justly observed: "The philosophic implications embedded in the very heart of psychology are not got rid of when they are kept out of sight. Some opinion regarding the nature of the mind and its relations to reality will show itself on almost every page, and the fact that this opinion is introduced without the conscious intention of the writer, may serve to confuse both the author and his reader" ("Psychology", IV). Ladd, and others also, recognize the evil of "clandestine" metaphysics when smuggled into what claims to be purely "scientific" non-philosophical treatments of psychology. Psychology is not in the same position as the physical sciences here. Whilst investigating a question in geology, chemistry, or mechanics, we may, at least temporarily, prescind from our metaphysical creed, but not so -- judging from the past history -- when giving our psychological accounts and explanations of mental products, such as universal concepts, the notions of moral obligation, responsibility, personal identity, time, or the perception of an external material world, or the simple judgment, two and two must make four. The view, therefore, of those philosophers who maintain that the intrinsic connexions between many of the questions of empirical and rational psychology are so indissoluble that they cannot be divorced, seems to have solid justification. Of course we can call the study of the phenomena of the mind, "Psychology", and that of its inner nature, the "Philosophy of the Mind"; and we may treat each in a separate volume. That is merely a matter of terminology and convenience. But the important point is that in the explanatory treatment of the higher intellectual and rational processes, it will practically be impossible for the psychologist to preserve a philosophically neutral attitude. A truly scientific psychology, therefore, should comprise: + (1) a thorough investigation by introspective observation and analysis of our various mental activities -- cognitive and appetitive, sensuous and rational -- seeking to resolve all products of the mind back to their original elements, determining as far as possible their organic conditions, and tracing the laws of their growth; + (2) based on the results of this study, a rational theory or explanatory account of the nature of the agent or subject of these activities, with its chief properties. Method of Psychology The primary method of investigation in empirical or phenomenal psychology is introspection or reflective observation of our own mental states. This is the ultimate source of all knowledge of mental facts; even the information gathered immediately from other quarters has finally to be interpreted in terms of our own subjective experience. Introspection is, however, liable to error; consequently, it has to be employed with care and helped and corrected by all the supplementary sources of psychological knowledge available. Among the chief of these are: the internal experience of other observers communicated through language; the study of the human mind as exhibited in different periods of life from infancy to old age, and in different races and grades of civilization; as embodied in various languages and literatures; and as revealed in the absence of particular senses, and in abnormal or pathological conditions such as dreams, hypnotism, and forms of insanity. Moreover, the anatomy, physiology, and pathology of the brain and nervous system supply valuable data as to the organic conditions of conscious states. Experimental psychology, psychophysics, and psychometry help towards accuracy and precision in the description of certain forms of mental activity. And the comparative study of the lower animals may also afford useful assistance in regard to some questions of human psychology. By the utilization of these several sources of information the data furnished to the psychologist by the introspective observation of his own individual mind may be enlarged, tested and corrected, and may thus acquire in a certain degree the objective and universal character of the observations on which the physical sciences are built. Introspection is frequently spoken of as the subjective method, these other sources of information as supplementary objective methods of psychological study. Branches of Psychology Indeed some of them have rapidly grown to be such large and important fields of research that they now claim to be recognized as special departments of psychology, or even sciences in their own right. Thus we have comparative psychology including animal psychology, child psychology, and race psychology. Again psychiatry or psychopathology, the science of mental disease, also physiological psychology, which, in a broad sense, includes all systematic study of the organic conditions of mental life, or, as Ladd defines it, "psychology approached and studied from the physiological side". Experimental Psychology A special department of physiological psychology which has recently risen rapidly into favour in some countries is experimental psychology, alluded to above in our historical sketch. It is at times styled the "New Psychology" by its more enthusiastic supporters. It seeks to secure precision and an objective standard in the description of mental states by controlling their conditions by skilful devices and ingenious apparatus. Its chief success so far has been in its efforts to measure the varying intensity of sensations, the delicacy of sense-organs and "reaction-time" or the rapidity of a faculty's response to stimulation. Certain properties of memory have also been made the subject of measuring experiments and more recently considerable industry has been devoted, especially by Külpe and the Würzburg school, to bring some aspects of the higher activities of intellect and will within the range of the laboratory apparatus. Opinions still differ much as to both the present value and future prospects of experimental psychology. Whilst Wundt, the leader of the new movement for the past fifty years, places the only hope of psychological progress in the experimental method, William James's judgment on the entire literature of the subject since Fechner (1840) was that "its proper psychological outcome is just nothing at all" ("Principles", I, 534). Apart, however from the very modest positive results, especially in the higher forms of mental life, which the experimental method has achieved or may achieve in the future, its exercise may nevertheless prove a valuable agency in the training of the psychological specialist, both in increasing his appreciation of the value of the most minute accuracy in descriptions of mental states, and also by fostering in him habits of precision and skill in systematic introspection. Classification The Faculties In empirical psychology, with modern writers, the next step after determining the method of the science is to attempt a classification of the phenomena of mental life. In the scholastic philosophy the equivalent operation was the systematic division of the faculties of the soul. Apart from vegetative and locomotive powers the Schoolmen, following Aristotle, adopted a bipartite division of faculties into those of cognition and appetency. The former they subdivided into sensuous, and intellectual or rational. The sensuous faculties they again subdivided into the five external senses and the internal activities of imagination, sensuous memory, sensus communis, and vis cogitativa. But there was much disagreement as to the number, character, and boundary lines of these internal forms of sensuous cognition. There were also divergences of opinion as to the nature of the faculties in general in themselves and to what extent there was a distinctio realis between faculties and the essence of the soul. But, on the other hand, there was general agreement as to an essential difference between all sensuous and intellectual or spiritual powers of the mind. The possession of the latter constitutes the differentia which separates man from the irrational animals. Content of Empirical Psychology The psychologist naturally begins with the treatment of the phenomena of sentiency. The several senses, their organic structure and functions, the various forms of sentient activity with their cognitive, hedonic and appetitive properties and their special characteristics have to be carefully analyzed, compared, and described. Next, imagination and memory are similarly studied, and the laws of their operation, growth, and development diligently traced. The discussion of the organic appetites springing from sensations, and the investigation of the nature and conditions of the most elementary forms of pleasure and pain may also appropriately come here. Intellect follows. The consideration of this faculty includes the study of the processes of conception, judgment, reasoning, rational attention, and selfconscious reflection. These, however, are all merely different functions of the same spiritual cognitive power -- the intellect. Psychology inquires into their modes of operation, their special features, and the general conditions of their growth and development. From the higher power of cognition it proceeds to the study of spiritual appetency, rational desire, and free volition. The relations of will to knowledge, the qualities of conative activity, and the effects of repeated volitions in the production of habit, constitute the chief subjects of investigation here. In connexion with these higher forms of cognition and desire, there will naturally be undertaken the study of conscience and the phenomena of the emotions. Genetic Treatment a marked characteristic of Modern Empirical Psychology The constant aim of modern psychology is to analyse all complex mental operations into their simplest elements and to trace back to their first beginning all acquired or composite habits and faculties, and to show how they have been generated or could have been generated from the fewest original aptitudes or fundamental activities of the mind. This is sound scientific procedure -- recognized in the Scholastic aphorism, Entia non sunt multiplicanda proeter necessitatem. We may not postulate a special faculty for any mental state which can be accounted for by the co-operation of already recognized activities of the soul. But the labour and skill devoted during the past century and a half to this combined analytic and synthetic procedure has developed one feature of modern psychology by which it is differentiated in a most marked manner from that of the Middle Ages and of Aristotle. The present-day treatment is pronouncedly genetic. Thus, whilst the Schoolmen in their account of mental operations, such as perception, conception, or desire, considered these processes almost solely as elicited by the normal adult human being already in full possession and control of matured mental powers, the chief interest of the modern psychologist is to trace the growth of these powers from their first and simplest manifestations in infancy, and to discriminate what is the product of experience and acquired habits from that which is the immediate outcome of the innate capabilities of the soul. This is particularly noticeable if we compare the treatment of the mental operation of perception as given in most Scholastic textbooks with that to be found in any modern handbook of psychology. The point of view is usually quite different. Since much of the most plausible modern attacks on Scholastic psychological doctrine has been made in this manner, the genetic treatment from the Thomist standpoint of many psychological questions seems to us to be among the most urgent tasks imposed nowadays on the neo-Scholastic psychologist. The value of such work from a philosophical standpoint would seem to be distinctly greater than that of any results likely to be achieved in quantitative experimental psychology. Obviously there is nothing in the Thomistic conception of the soul and its operations incompatible with a diligent investigation into the unfolding of its various aptitudes and powers. Rational Psychology From the study of the character of the activities of the mind in experimental psychology, the student now passes on to inquire into the nature of the principle from which they proceed. This constitutes the more philosophical or metaphysical division of the science. For, as we have indicated, the analysis and explanatory accounts of the higher forms and products of mental activity, which the scientific psychologist is compelled to undertake even in phenomenal psychology, involve metaphysical assumption and conclusions which he cannot escape -- certainly not by merely ignoring them. Still, it is in this second stage that he will formally evolve the logical consequences to which his previous study of the several forms of mental activity lead up. His method here will be both inductive and deductive; both analytic and synthetic. He argues from effect to cause. From the character of the mental activities already scrutinized with so much care, he now concludes as to the nature of the subject to which they belong. From what the mind does, he seeks to learn what it is. In particular, from the simple spiritual nature of the higher activities of intellect and will, he infers that the being, the ultimate principle from which they proceed, must be of a simple and spiritual nature. Consequently, it cannot be the brain or any corporeal substance. Having established the simplicity and spirituality of the soul, he then goes on to deduce further conclusions as to its origin, the nature of its union with the body, and its future destiny. In this way by rational arguments the Scholastic thinkers claim to prove that the human soul can only have arisen by creation, that it is naturally incorruptible, and that the boundless aspirations of the intellect, the insatiable yearnings of the will, and the deepest convictions of the moral reason all combine to establish a future life of the soul after death. Important special questions of psychology are treated under the articles ANIMISM; ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS; CONSCIOUSNESS; ENERGY; FACULTIES OF THE SOUL; FORM; FREE WILL; IDEA; IMAGINATION; IMMORTALITY; INDIVIDUAL, INDIVIDUALITY; INTELLECT; LIFE; PERSONALITY. General Psychology: among the Scholastic Latin manuals there is much uniformity of treatment. URRÁBURA, Psychologia, I, II (Rome and Paris, 1894), is exhaustive. HICKEY, Psychologia (2nd ed., Dublin and New York, 1910) is an easy useful introduction; BOEDDER, Psychologia Rationalis (4th ed., Freiburg and New York, 1903). English: MAHER, Psychology, Empirical and Rational (7th ed., New York and London, 1911). French: MERCIER, Psychologie (4th ed., Louvain, 1903); GARDAIR, Philosophie de St Thomas (Paris, 1892-95); FARGES, Etudes Philosophiques, I-VI (Paris, 1890-95). German: GUTBERLET, Die Psychologie (Münster, 1896). English works of various schools: LADD, Psychology, Descriptive and Explanatory (New York and London, 1895); IDEM, Philosophy of Mind (New York and London, 1895); JAMES, Principles of Psychology (New York and London, 1890); STOUT, Analytical Psychology (London and New York, 1902); SPENCER, Principles of Psychology (New York and London, 1904); BAIN, Senses and Intellect; IDEM, Emotions and Will (London, 1894). Physiological: LADD, Elements of Physiological Psychology (New York and London, 1894); WUNDT, Principles of Physiological Psychology (tr., New York and London, 1904). Experimental: TITCHENER, Experimental Psychology, parts I, II (4 vols., New York and London, 1901-05); KÜLPE, Outlines of Psychology (tr. New York and London, 1894); MEUMAN, Vorlesungen, Experimentelle Pädagogik (Leipzig, 1907). Comparative: WASMANN, Instinct and Intelligence (tr. New York and London, 1903); IDEM, Psychology of Ants and Animals (1905); MIVART, Origin of Human Reason (London, 1889). Child Psychology: TRACY, Psychology of Childhood (Boston, 1907); PREYER, The Mind of the Child, vol. I-II (tr. New York and London, 1901); PEREZ, First Three Years of Childhood (tr. New York and London, 1892); MARENHOLZ-BULON, Child and Child Nature (tr. London, 1904); SULLY, Children's Ways (London, 1898); BURKE, Child Study (Dublin, 1908). History: general histories of philosophy, such as TURNER, History of Philosophy (Boston and London, 1903); DE WULF, History of Philosophy (tr. London and New York, 1909); STÖCKL, History of Philosophy (tr. New York and Dublin, 1887); PERRIER, Revival of Scholastic Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century (New York, 1909), contains also a useful bibliography of neo-Scholastic philosophy; SIEBECK, Gesch. der Psychol. (1904). See also: BALDWIN, Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology; and EISLER, Wörterbuch (Berlin, 1904). MICHAEL MAHER. Psychotherapy Psychotherapy (from the Greek psyche, "mind", and therapeuo, "I cure") Psychotherapy is that branch of therapeutics which uses the mind to influence the body; first, for the prevention of disease by keeping worry from lowering resistive vitality; secondly, for reaction against disease during progress by freeing the mind from solicitude and tapping latent energies; thirdly, after the ailment retrogrades, to help convalescence through the removal of discouragement during weakness by inspiring suggestion. Psychotherapy is sometimes regarded as a comparatively new development consequent upon our recent advance in psychology and especially in physiological psychology; it is, however, as old as the history of humanity, and the priests in ancient Egypt used it effectively. Wherever men have had confidence in other men for their physical good there has always been a large element of psychic influence over disease. The first physician of whom we have any record in history was I-Em-Hetep, "The Bringer of Peace"; we know that it was much more the confidence that men had in him than anything which he did by physical means that brought him this complimentary title and enabled him to do so much good. He was so highly esteemed that the famous step pyramid at Sakkara, near Memphis, is called by his name, and after his death he was worshipped as a god. The Eastern nations always employed mental influences in medicine, and we have abundant evidence of its effectiveness among them. Among the Greeks the influence of the mind on the body was recognized very clearly. Plato says in the "Charmides": "Neither ought you to attempt to cure the body without the soul. . . . You begin by curing the soul [or mind]." These expressions occur in a well-known passage in which Socrates tells of curing a young man of headache by suggestion. He pretended to have a remedy that had been used at the court of an Eastern king to cure headache; though it was really indifferent in its effect, the employment of it produced the desired result. In this story we have the essence of psychotherapy at all times. The patient must trust the suggestor and must be persuaded that the suggestion has already been efficient on others, and then the cure results. There are many passages of Plato in which he discusses the influence of the mind in lessening physical ills and also in increasing them, and even creating them, so that he says in the "Republic" that in his generation men were educating themselves in disease instead of in health, and this was making many very miserable. A special form of psychotherapy is by hypnotism. This consists in suggestion made to the patient while he is in a state of concentration of attention that may be so deep as to resemble sleep. We find traces of this from the early days in Egypt, and especially in the temple hospitals. The Eastern nations paid much attention to it and succeeded in producing many manifestations that we are likely to think of as quite modern. As the result of more careful investigation in modern times we have come to realize that whatever there is in hypnotism is due entirely to the subject and not to the operator. It is not the power of the operator's will, but the influence of the subject on himself that produces the condition. (See HYPNOTISM.) Hypnotism may be useful at the beginning of certain neurotic cases, but it depends for its efficiency on the patient's will. If repeated frequently it always does harm. The recurrence of attention to it in each succeeding generation is one of the most interesting phenomena in the history of the use of the mind to influence the body. UNCONSCIOUS PSYCHOTHERAPY Besides deliberate psychotherapy, there is not a little unconscious psychotherapeutics in the history of medicine. Many remedies have been introduced, have seemed to benefit patients, have then had considerable vogue, and subsequently proved to be, quite without effect. The patients were helped by the confidence aroused by the new remedy. Such therapeutic incidents make it difficult to determine the real value of new remedies. Remedies of comparatively slight efficiency acquire a reputation because of their recommendation by someone who commands confidence; only after this loses its effect can the true value of the remedy be estimated. Nearly every branch of science has furnished medicine with supposed remedies which have been of benefit for a time and have subsequently proved to be of little or no avail. In the later Middle Ages magnets were supposed to draw diseases out of people and actually affected many patients favourably. As electricity developed, each new phase of it found applications in medicine that were very promising at first, but afterwards proved to be of little therapeutic value. The supposed effect of the Leyden jar shortly after its discovery is ludicrous reading. Galvani's work gave new impetus to electrical therapy. A wandering quack from America, Perkins, made a fortune in Europe by means of two metal instruments about the size of lead pencils with which he stroked patients. They were supposed somehow to make an application of Galvani's discovery of animal electricity to the human body. After a time, of course, "Perkins tractors" failed to produce any such results. In spite of disappointments, each new development has had the same results. When the stronger electrical machines, and then the methods of producing high-frequency currents, were invented, these were announced as having wonderful curative powers and actually cured many patients, until the suggestive value of the new discovery failed to act favourably on the mind. When the Röntgen rays attracted attention, they too were used with the most promising results in nearly every disease, though now their range of therapeutic value is known to be very limited. FAITH CURES Faith has always been a strong therapeutic agent. Science, or the supposed application of scientific principles, has probably been the responsible cause of more faith cures than anything else. The reason why astrology maintained its influence in medicine was because of faith in scientific knowledge transferred to the realm of human affairs. When light was studied, it too came into therapeutics. With the discovery of the ultra-violet rays and their actinic value, blueglass therapy became a fad, thousands of tons of blue glass were sold, and people sat beneath it and were cured of all kinds of pains and aches. Each new development of chemistry and of physics led to new applications to therapeutics, though after a time most of them have proved to be nugatory. The faith in the scientific discovery had acted through the mind of the patient so as to bring about an amelioration of symptoms, if not a cure of the disease. The patients who are cured are usually sufferers from chronic diseases, who either have only a persuasion that they are ill or, having some physical ailment, inhibit through solicitude and worry the natural forces that would bring about a cure. This inhibition cannot be lifted until the mind is relieved by confidence in some wonderful remedy or scientific discovery that gives them a conviction of cure. QUACKERY AND MIND CURES The history of quackery is really a chapter of psychotherapy. The quack's best remedy is always his promise to cure. This he does for all diseases. As a consequence he benefits people very much through their minds. Such patients have never before fully trusted that they could be cured, and, without having much the matter with them, they have suffered, or at least complained. When they lift the burden of solicitude from themselves, nature cures them by very simple means, but the cure is attributed to the last remedy employed. We have no remedies in medicine that have come to us from quacks: their wonderful cures have been obtained from simple well-known remedies plus mental influence. The same power over the mind helps nostrums, or special medicines, sold with the promise of cure. At times such remedies have worked so many cures that governments have purchased the special secret from its inventor and published it to the world. The secret has always proved to be some ordinary remedy known before, and just as soon as its secrecy was lost it failed to cure. The spread of popular education, instead of making such faith cures by nostrums less common, has rather served to give them wider diffusion. The ability to read leaves people open to the suggestive influence of print, though it does not necessarily supply the judgment requisite for a proper appreciation of what is thus presented. As a consequence our generation is nostrum-ridden and spends millions of money for remedies which are quite indifferent or, at most, trivially helpful, and sometimes are absolutely noxious. Government analysis of a score of the most popular remedies widely consumed throughout the country five years ago showed that the only active ingredient was alcohol and that a dose of the medicine was about equivalent to a drink of whisky. This lessened the sale of these remedies, however, only for the time being, and most of them have regained their old popularity. The most popular present source of scientific superstition concerns electricity. All sorts of rings, medals, and electrodes are bought at high prices with the confidence that they will produce wonderful results. Rheumatic rings and wristlets, foot electrodes, one of copper and the other of zinc, electric belts, shields worn in the front and back of the chest -- these are modern examples of superstitious practices. SPECIAL PSYCHOTHERAPEUTICS Ordinarily, it is presumed that psychotherapy is only efficient in affections that are due to mental persuasions, so-called imaginary diseases, and that it cannot benefit organic affections. In recent years, however, abundant proof has been forthcoming that favourable influence upon the mind can modify even very serious physical conditions. It is not unusual for a cancer patient who has lost some twenty or thirty pounds in weight to regain this and more after an exploratory incision which has shown the condition to be inoperable. The patient, to save solicitude, is given to understand that now he ought to get better and he proceeds to do so. In one such case a gain of seventy pounds was recorded. The patient eventually died of cancer, but there had been months of strength and efficiency that would not otherwise have been secured. There are affections, too, in which unfavourable mental persuasion produces serious physical changes that may even prove fatal if any other cause intervenes. It is now very well known that a great many cases of so-called dyspepsia are really due to over-solicitude about food and the elimination from the diet of so many articles supposed to be indigestible that the patient's nutrition is seriously interfered with. Occupation of mind with the stomach is particularly likely to interfere with its activity. Certain thoughts bring a sense of nausea. Delicate people may reject a meal if they are reminded of something nauseating, or if a particular smell or some untoward incident disturbs them. Food eaten with relish and in process of satisfactory digestion may be rejected if something deterrent is heard in reference to its origin or mode of preparation, and rejection occurs whether the disgusting statement be true or false. A conviction that certain articles of food will disagree with us is almost sure to make them difficult of digestion: a great many people are quite sure that they cannot digest milk or eggs, but prove thoroughly capable of digesting those articles of diet without difficulty when, as in tuberculosis sanatoria, they are required to take them regularly. HEART AND MENTAL INFLUENCE The heart might be presumed free from the influence of the mind, because of its great importance. It is probably through this organ, however, that most of the favourable and unfavourable influence of the mind on the body is exerted. The heart begins to beat in the embryo long before the nervous system is formed, but it very soon comes to have the most intimate relations with the nervous system. In excitement and joy the heart beats fast; in fright and depression it beats slowly; and any vehement emotion seriously affects its action. This is true in health, but is particularly true in disease of the heart itself. Sufferers from heart-disease die from joy as well as from fright. The state of mind may influence the heart favourably or unfavourably in the course of disease, and the physician must recognize this and use his understanding of it to good purpose. Many of our heart remedies are rather slow to act, taking twelve hours or more for their effect. An hour or two after the visit of a physician, however, most heart patients will be ever so much better than they were before, and their improvement may be attributed to the physician's remedies, though it is only due to confidence aroused by his presence and the feeling of relief afforded by his careful examination and assurance that there is no danger. By the time this feeling would begin to lose its effect, his remedies take hold and the patient continues to improve. Great physicians have at all times recognized the strong influence that the mind has over the heart. Lancisi [De subit. morte, I (Geneva, 1718), xix, § 3] tells of cases in which over-solicitude about the heart was the cause of the symptoms. Morgagni, in "The Seats and Causes of Diseases", I (London, 1769), Letter xxiv, tells of a physician who, from worrying about his heart, caused it to miss beats. Sydenham and Boerhaave both note the unfavourable effect which the mind may have on the heart [Brown, "Academical Lectures", VI (London, 1757)]. In our own times Oppenheim ("Letters to Nervous Patients", tr. Edinburgh, 1907) tells one patient that whenever he feels the pulse, the patient being conscious of it, beats are missed; whenever he feels it without advertence on the part of the patient, it is quite regular in its actions. He insists that the heart resents surveillance, "which not only accelerates, but may even inhibit its action and render it irregular". He adds: "And so it is with all the organs of the body which act spontaneously; they get out of order and become functionally defective, if, as the result of the attention and self-observation directed towards them, impulses flow to them from the centres of consciousness and will in the same way as they flow to the organs [e. g. the muscles] which are normally under the control of the will." Prof. Broadbent, whose experience with heart disease was perhaps the greatest in our generation, frequently dwells, in "The Action of the Heart" ("The Writings of Sir Win. Broadbent", Oxford, 1910), on the necessity for setting the mind at rest. MacKenzie, whose work on the mechanics of the heart was in a contrary direction, has been quite as emphatic in recognizing mental influence ("Diseases of the Heart", Oxford, 1910). Psychotherapy means more in heart disease than anywhere else, and in other diseases its effect upon the circulation through the heart is very important. The absolutely automatic action of the lungs might seem to indicate that these were free from any emotional or mental influence. Most of the asthmatic conditions characterized by difficulty of breathing have large mental elements in them. Neurotic asthma is more dependent on the mental state than anything else. Most of the remedies that affect it have a distinct action on the mind as well as the lungs. Even tuberculosis is very largely influenced by the state of the patient's mind. A patient who gives up the struggle will succumb. "Consumption takes the quitters" is an axiom. Patients who bravely face the danger and the difficulties usually live on much longer and sometimes live their lives out, and in spite of serious invasion of the lungs die from other intercurrent disease. In all the functional nervous diseases -- that is, those nervous affections not dependent on some organic change in the nervous system, yet often accompanied by pains and palsies -- the conditions known as hysterical-treatment through the mind is most essential. Even when other remedies are used it is only if they affect the patient's mind that they do good. The ill-smelling remedies, the bread pills, the stronger cathartics and emetics formerly used in these cases produced their effect through the mind. Even in organic nervous disease, however, there is a distinct place for mental healing. Patients become depressed when they learn that they are sufferers from some incurable nervous disease, the appetite is disturbed, the digestion impaired, constipation sets in, they go out less in the air and take insufficient exercise, and then many adventitious symptoms develop. The patient attributes these to the underlying nervous disease, though they are really due to the mental state and to confinement. The promise of a cure lifts up the despondent mind, tempts the patient to go out; the appetite will be improved, many symptoms will disappear, and the patient thinks that the underlying disease is being helped. Hence the many advertised remedies for even such absolutely incurable diseases as locomotor ataxia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and the like. DREADS Psychotherapy is of course most important in the treatment of such affections as depend on mental influence. We have a whole series of dreads, of anxieties, of exaggerations and sensations, and then of habits and of lack of will power, that can only be properly treated through the mind. The dreads, or phobias, constitute a rather large class of nervous affections; perhaps the most common is mysophobia, or dread of dirt, sometimes under the form of bacteriophobia; acrophobia, the dread of heights, which may become so poignant as to make it impossible for a person to sit in the front row of a gallery or even to say Mass on a high altar; alurophobia, or the dread of cats, which may make life miserable. Then there is dread of the dark, the dread of wide open places, the dread of narrow spaces, the dread of walking beneath anything overhanging, and numbers of others. There is always a certain mental element in these, yet they occur in persons of intellect and character. Only suggestion and training will cure them. Usually they are worse when the patient is run down. TREMORS AND TICS After the dreads come the tremors, the tics or habits, and then the conscious surveillance of actions usually automatic, such as talking, writing, even walking, which interfere with the accomplishment of them. Under emotional stress, as after a panic, men sometimes find themselves unable to sign their names when anyone is watching them. Some men cannot drink a glass of water at a strange table without spilling it. These are psychic rather than nervous conditions, and must be treated as such. There are a number of tremors that occur as a consequence of fright which can only be bettered in the same way. Many of the tics -- as winking, head-nodding, slight convulsive movements of the arms, movements of the lips, and nose -- must be looked on in this same way. Children must be watched and prevented from contracting them. They have a tendency to run in families by imitation. If noted early, they can be removed by the formation of a contrary habit. Some habits of children, especially certain sucking habits and tongue movements, lead to ugly deformities of the mouth when the jaws are in the plastic stage. Thumb-sucking is a habit that must be taken seriously, or the results on the mouth will be very marked. Biting the nails in older people is a corresponding affection. Such habits develop, as a rule, only in those with some psychasthenic condition, but the individuals may be very useful members of society. ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG HABITS The greatest usefulness of psychotherapy is in alcoholism and in the drug habits. There is no remedy that will cure alcoholism. We have had, during the past half century, hundreds of advertised cures: we know now that all of them owed their success to influence on the patient's mind. When a new cure is first announced many are benefited by it. Afterwards it sinks to the ordinary level and comes to be recognized as only a helpful physical treatment with a strong mental factor attached. When the patients are in the midst of the attacks of alcoholism, their physical state makes them crave some stimulation. At this time they must be given other than alcoholic stimulants, and must be under such surveillance as shall help them to keep away from liquor. After a variable time -- from a week to two or three weeks -- they are quite capable of resisting the craving by themselves, if they really want to. The cure of alcoholism is easy, but relapses are easier still, because the patients think that they can take a glass and go no further. When they are tired or chilled, or fear that they are going to catch a cold, or when friends suggest it to them, they indulge in a glass and then in the second and third, and the old habit has to be broken again. We have any number of examples, however, of men who have not drawn a sober breath for ten, twenty, or thirty years who have resolved to drink no more and have kept their resolutions. If a man inclined to alcoholism is put in the way of temptation, he will almost surely fall; he is more susceptible than others; he must be kept from contact with it in every way, and then it is comparatively easy for him not to relapse into the habit. Probably the most helpful factor in the treatment of alcoholism is for the patient to have some friend, physician or clergyman, whom he thoroughly respects, to whom he turns with confidence in moments of trial. There is no reason, except in case of distinct deterioration, why he should not be completely cured; but not drugs, but mental influence and will power is the important remedy. The same is true of drug addictions, now grown so common in the United States. That country uses more than ten times as much opium and cocaine as is required in medicine. The special victims of the habits are those who can easily procure the drugs -- druggists, physicians, and nurses. It is quite easy to cure a drug habit. It is even easier to resume it. Relapses take place because the patients persuade themselves that for this once they need a dose of their favourite remedy. One dose leads to another, and so the habit is resumed. After a time a habit of relapse into the habit develops and is most difficult to break. If the patients themselves want to, however, it is not hard as a rule to correct these habits. Moral factors mean much more than physical. Patients must have someone whom they take into their confidence, they must live normal, regular lives, with long hours in the open air and good hours of sleep, and must not be subjected to emotional strains. It is almost impossible to break up the habit in an actor or a broker, or a gambler, because every now and then he feels the need of the stimulant to enable him to accomplish some sudden call in his work. The same thing is true of a doctor or a nurse with many emergency calls to answer. Often the change of life necessary may be difficult, but as the wages of the drug habit is premature death, it should not be difficult to make patients understand the necessity. Other habits -- dietary, sexual, and the like -- must be met in just the same way. The patient can be helped in the beginning by means of drugs. After that it depends on his will. His will may be helped very much, however, by having a confidant, a confessor, or a physician to whom he goes in relapses, and who advises him so that his surroundings may be made more favourable. FAITH CURES AND MIRACLES It is often said that the cures at shrines and during pilgrimages are mainly due to psychotherapy -- partly to confident trust in Providence, and partly to the strong expectancy of cure that comes over suggestible persons at these times and places. Undoubtedly many of the cures reported at shrines and during pilgrimages are of this character. An analysis of the records of cures carefully kept -- as, for instance, at Lourdes -- shows, however, that the majority of accepted cures have been in patients suffering not from mental persuasions of disease, nor from neurosis, nor from symptoms exaggerated by anxiety, but from such very concrete affections as tuberculosis, diagnosed by one or more physicians of standing, ulcers of various kinds, broken bones that have long failed to heal, and other readily demonstrable organic affections. When cures are worked in such cases, some force beyond that of nature as we know it must be at work. The physicians who have been most closely in touch with the patients at such shrines are those most confident in their expression that they have seen miracles take place. A visit to a shrine like Lourdes is sufficient to convince any physician that there is something more than psychotherapy, though he can see also abundant evidence of psychotherapy at work. CYCLES OF PSYCHOTHERAPY Our time has seen a revival of psychotherapy in many forms. Interest in it runs in cycles. It is always most intense just after a period of such devotion to physical science as produces a general impression that at last the mystery of life has been discovered. In the reaction that follows disillusionment mental healing becomes a centre of attention. Our phase will lose significance as preceding phases have done, and a juster estimation of the place of bodily and mental factors as coordinate influences for health will recur. CUTTEN, Three Thousand Years of Mental Healing (New York, 1911); LAWRENCE, Primitive Psychotherapy and Quackery (Boston, 1910) (both of these lack sympathy for preceding generations); TUKE, Influence of the Mind on the Body (London, 1872) (subsequent editions enlarged); DERCUM, Rest, Hypnotism, Mental Therapeutics (Philadelphia, 1907); DUBOIS, Mental Influence in Nervous Disorders (tr. New York, 1907); MÜNSTERBERG, Psychotherapy (Boston, 1909); Psychotherapeutics, a Symposium (Boston, 1910); WALSH, Psychotherapy (New York, 1911). JAMES J. WALSH. Ptolemais Ptolemais Ptolemais, a titular see in Egypt, metropolis of Thebais Secunda. Ptolemais owes its name to Ptolemy Soter who built it on the site of a village named Si (with the article, Psi, whence the Coptic Psoi, or Psõi; Arabic Absãy; Greek Sois and Syis). The capital of the nome of Thinite, it supplanted Thebes as capital of Thebais; as important as Memphis, its administration was copied from the Greek system. A special cult in honour of the Ptolemys, particularly of its founder, was established. In the sixth century it was the civil metropolis of Thebais Secunda. Le Quien (Oriens christianus, II, 605) mentions three bishops: the Melitian Ammonius; Heraclides, present at the Council of Ephesus (431); Isaac, who signed the letter of the bishops of Thebais to the Emperor Leo (457) and was present at the Council of Constantinople under the Patriarch Gennadius. A Greek "Notitia episcopatuum" refers to the see about 820. It had also some Coptic bishops (Zoëga, "Catalogus codicum copticorum", 329). The Coptic "Notitiæ episcopatuum" do not mention the see, but other Coptic documents cite it frequently, and allusion is made to its medical school. To-day it is known as Menshîyeh or Menshâh, contains 8000 inhabitants, belongs to the district of Girgeh, Province of Sohag, on the western bank of the Nile, and is a railway station between Cairo and Thebes. SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr. (London, 1878), s. v.; MÜLLER, Notes à Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 720; AMÉLINEAU, Géographie de l'Egypte à l'époque copte (Paris, 1893), 381. S. PÉITRIDÈS. Ptolemais, Titular Metropolis Ptolemais (SAINT-JEAN D'ACRE) Ptolemais, a titular metropolis in Phoenicia Prima, or Maritima. The city of Acre, now Saint-Jean d'Acre, was called Ptolemais in 281 or 267 b.c., by Ptolemy II, surnamed Philadelphus, and since then this name has subsisted conjointly with the primitive one, at least as the official name. Quite early it possessed a Christian community visited by St. Paul (Acts, xxi, 7). The first bishops known are: Clarus, present about 190 at a council held concerning the observance of Easter; Æneas, at Nicæa, 325, and at Antioch, 341; Nectabus at Constantinople, 381; Antiochus, friend and later adversary of St. John Chrysostom, and author of some lost works; Helladius at Ephesus, 431; Paul at Antioch, 445, and at Chalcedon, 451; John in 518; George at Constantinople, 553 (Le Quien, "Oriens christianus", II, 813). The see was a suffragan of Tyre, which then depended on the Patriarchate of Antioch. With the Latin conquest the province of Tyre was attached to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Latin bishops resided there, and a list of them from 1133 to 1263 may be found in Eubel (Hier. Cath. med. ævi, I, 66). From this date to the taking of the city by the Arabs in 1291 the bishopric was governed by the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Concerning the titular bishops up to 1592 see Eubel, op. cit., I, also II, 88; III, 105. The official list of the Roman Curia (Rome, 1884) does not mention Ptolemais as a bishopric, but it may have been known as an archbishopric. The Greeks elevated the see to the rank of metropolitan depending on the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. This occurred before 1672, when Joasaph, present at the Council of Jerusalem, was qualified as metropolitan; the same conditions now exist. The Melkite, or Greek, metropolis numbers 10,000 faithful, 36 priests, 30 churches or chapels, 17 schools, 3 orphanages, and a monastery of 23 monks. There is a Latin parish directed by the Franciscans, a hospital, school for boys, the Ladies of Nazareth with a school, and a Protestant school and hospital of the Church Missionary Society. VAILHÉ in Dict. d'hist. et de géog. eccl. (Paris, 1910), s. v. Acre, Saint-Jean d', with an important bibliography. S. PÉTRIDÈS. Ptolemy the Gnostic Ptolemy the Gnostic Ptolemy the Gnostic, a heretic of the second century and personal disciple of Valentinus. He was probably still living about 180. No other certain details are known of his life; Harnack's suggestion that he was identical with the Ptolemy spoken of by St. Justin is as yet unproved (Text. u. Untersuch. New. Ser. XIII, Anal. z. ält. Gesch. d. Chr.). He was, with Heracleon, the principal writer of the Italian or Western school of Valentinian Gnosticism. His works have reached us in an incomplete form as follows: + (1) a fragment of an exegetical writing preserved by Irenæus (Adv. Hær., I, viii, 5); + (2) a letter to Flora, a Christian lady, not otherwise known to us. This letter is found in the works of Epiphanius (Hær. XXXIII, 3-7). It was written in response to Flora's inquiry concerning the origin of the Law of the Old Testament. This law, Ptolemy states, cannot be attributed to the Supreme God, nor to the devil; nor does it proceed from one law-giver. A part of it is the work of an inferior god; the second part is due to Moses, and the third to the elders of the Jewish people. Three different sections are to be distinguished even in the part ascribed to the inferior god: + (1) The absolutely pure legislation of the Decalogue which was not destroyed, but fulfilled by the Saviour; + (2) the laws mixed with evil, like the right of retaliation, which were abolished by the Saviour because they were incompatible with His nature; + (3) the section which is typical and symbolical of the higher world. It includes such precepts as circumcision, fasting, and was raised by the Saviour from a sensible to a spiritual plane. The god who is the author of the law, in so far as it is not the product of human effort, is the demiurge who occupies a middle position between the Supreme God and the devil. He is the creator of the universe, is neither perfect, nor the author of evil, but ought to be called just. In his interpretation of the universe, Ptolemy resorted to a fantastic system of eons. Thirty of these, as he believes, rule the higher world, the pleroma. This system becomes the basis of a wild exegesis which discovers in the prologue of St. John's Gospel the first Ogdoad. (See GNOSTICISM.) IRENÆUS, Adv. Hær., I, cc. i-viii; LIPSIUS in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Ptolemoeus, I. N. A. WEBER. Publican Publican Publican, in the Gospels, is derived from the publicanus of the Vulgate, and signifies a member or employee of the Roman financial companies who farmed the taxes. From the time of the Republic the Roman State relieved itself of the trouble of collecting the taxes in the provinces by putting up the taxes of each in a lump sum to auction. The highest bidder received the authorization to extort the sum from the province in question. Such a system afforded ample opportunity for rapacious exactions on the part of the company and its officials, and the abuses were often intolerable. On account of these, and more, perhaps, because of the natural though impotent Jewish hatred of the Roman supremacy, those of the Jews who found it profitable thus to serve the foreign rulers were objects of execration to their countrymen. In the Gospel narrative we find them as a class habitually coupled with "sinners" and the "heathen". The attitude of Christ towards this, as well as other despised classes, was that of an uplifting sympathy. One great reproach cast upon Him by His enemies, the self-righteous Scribes and Pharisees, was His friendship for, and association with publicans and sinners; and consistently with this conduct it pleased Him to choose as one of the twelve Apostles Levi or Matthew the Publican (Matt., ix, 9). Maas, Comment. of Gospel of St. Matthew (New York, 1898); Dietrich, Die rechtliche Natur der Societas publicanorum (Meissen, 1889); Thibault, Les douanes chez les Romains (Paris, 1888). JAMES F. DRISCOLL. Public Honesty (Decency) Public Honesty (Decency) A diriment matrimonial impediment consisting in a relationship, which arises from a valid betrothal, or from a marriage approved by the Church but not consummated. Marriage between the persons affected by this impediment, as described below, is null; were it possible for them to marry they might be exposed to incontinency, owing particularly to their intimacy and familiar intercourse. Traces of this impediment are found under another name in Roman law, since according to Modestinus (D. XXIII, ii, 42, De ritu nuptiarum) not only what is lawful, but likewise what is eminently fitting, is to be observed in entering into wedlock. Hence in Roman law affinity arising from a valid marriage, whether consummated or not, constituted a diriment impediment between the affined in all degrees throughout the direct line, and to the second degree (civil method of computing) in the indirect or oblique line. Moreover, there was a quasi-affinity, which, for the safeguarding of public morals, rendered matrimony null and void: (1) between a man and his stepdaughter or between a woman and her stepson; (2) between a woman and the son or father of her betrothed, and conversely between a man and the daughter or mother of his affianced (D. XXIII, ii, 12 and 14); (3) lastly, between persons affined through concubinage (bc. cit., 14 and D. XXXVIII, x, 7). The Church, imitating this legislation, admits an impediment, which, in her estimation, is required by public decency or good morals. In canon law carnal intercourse, licit or otherwise, is the principle of affinity; in Roman law, it is valid marriage, whether consummated or not. Public honesty then coincides at times with the affinity of the Romans, at times with their quasi-affinity. The institution of this impediment is sometimes attributed, but wrongly, to Boniface VIII. It doubtless owes its existence not to a positive law, but to custom and probably dates back to the twelfth century (Berardi, III, diss. II, cap. iii). Canons xi, xiv, xv (Caus. II, Q. ii) in Gratian's Decretum, indicating an earlier existence of this impediment, are apocryphal (Gasparri, "Dc Matrimonio", n. 801). According to our present legislation (Trent, Seas. XXIV, cap. iii, De Ref. Matr.) the impediment of public honesty arises from a valid betrothal between the male party to the contract and the blood relatives of the woman in the first degree (mother, daughter, sister), and conversely between the woman and the blood relatives of the man in the same degree (father, son, brother). Once existing, the impediment always remains, even though the betrothal is lawfully broken (see BETROTHAL). It is to be noted that betrothal, to be valid, must now ("Ne temere" of Pius X) be in writing, signed by the contracting parties and by the ordinary, or a parish priest within his own territory, or two witnesses. If one or the other of the contracting parties is unable to write, an additional witness is required. If the betrothal is conditional, the impediment does not arise till the condition is verified. Second, this impediment, for a. stronger reason, is begotten by a marriage contract, not perfected by carnal relations == and this, too, though the marriage be invalid, unless the invalidity be due to lack of lawful consent. By carnal intercourse public decency gives way to affinity, and, though some deny this, all admit that in a petition for a dispensation it is sufficient to express the impediment of affinity, while public decency, if it still exist, is understood. A civil marriage does not give rise to this impediment (S.C.C., 17 March, 1879), nor does public decency beget a second impediment prejudicial to a former betrothal; namely, a betrothal or marriage (unless consummated) with the mother, sister, or daughter of an affianced person does not prohibit the keeping of one's troth to the said person. Since the impediment of public decency is of ecclesiastical origin it follows that the Church may dispense from it, and that it does not affect unbaptized persons, even though later they become Christians. A dispensation from "Disparity of Worship" includes one in public decency, where the baptized party requires such. Finally it is apparent that this impediment may be multiplied in the same person, as, for instance, if one were to enter into betrothal with several women related by blood in the first degree. GASPARRI, De Matrimonio (Paris, 1904); SLATER, A Manual of Moral Theology, II (New York, 1908), 306; and all manuals of canon law. A.B. MEEHAN Pueblo Indians Pueblo Indians NAME From the Spanish word meaning "village" or "town". A term used collectively to designate those Indians of central New Mexico and north-east Arizona, of sedentary and agricultural habits and dwelling in permanent communal stone-built or adobe houses, as distinguished from the surrounding tribes of ruder culture and roving habit. The name is strictly a cultural designation, without linguistic or proper tribal significance, although in former times each group of pueblos speaking the same language or dialect appears to have constituted a loose confederacy, or "province" as termed by the Spaniards. DIVISIONS AND LANGUAGES The ancient area of Pueblo culture, as indicated by numerous the prehistoric ruins, extended from about the Arkansas and Grand rivers, in Colorado and Utah, southwards indefinitely into Mexico, and from central Arizona eastward, almost across the Texas Panhandle. This area seems to have been greatly narrowed down by pressure of the invading wild tribes of the north and east: Apache, Navajo, Ute, and Comanche -- and by the slow drying up of the country, until at the beginning of the historic period in 1540, the Pueblo population centered chiefly on the upper Pecos and Rio Grande, and about the Zuñi in New Mexico, and upon the Hopi mesas in north-east Arizona. The inhabited pueblos at that date probably numbered close to one hundred, with an approximate population not far from 50,000, as against 25 now occupied, with a total population in 1910 of 11,153. This does not include the two small Americanized pueblos of Isleta de Sur (Texas) and Senecú (Mexico), in the immediate neighbourhood of El Paso, which might bring the total up to a few more than 11,200 souls. With the exception of these two, all but the seven Hopi pueblos (including Hano) are in New Mexico. In all, there were represented seven languages of four different linguistic stocks, classified as follows: Tanoan Stock: + 1a. Tewa group ("Teguas province") 1910 A.D. o 1 Hano (with Hopi, Arizona) . . . . . . about 125 o 2 Nambe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . about 95 o 3 Pojoaque (recently extinct) o 4 San Ildefonso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 o 5 San Juan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 o 6 Santa Clara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 o 7 Tesuque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . about 75 + 1b. Tano group ("Tanos province") practically extinct. + 2. Tiqua group ("Tiguex province") o 1 Isleta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . about 980 o 2 Isleta del Sur (Texas, Mexicanized). . about 40 o 3 Picurio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . about 75 o 4 Sandia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 o 5 Taos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 + 3. Piro group ("Piros province", "Tomjiros province") practically extinct; Senecu, Mex, Mexicanized) + 4. Jemez group ("Jemez or Emer province", "Pecos province"). . . . . . . . . 1910 A.D. o 1 Jemez. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . about 430 o 2 Pecos (extinct, 1838) Keresean stock ("Quirix or Quires province"): + 1a. Eastern group: o 1 Cochiti. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . about 280 o 2 San Felipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514 o 3 Santa Ana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 o 4 Santo Domingo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 o 5 Sia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 + 1b. Western group: + o 1 Acoma, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . about 745 o 2 Laguna, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . about 1350 Zunian Stock ("Cibola province"): o 1 Zuñi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . about 1640 Shoshonean stock/Hopi group ("Tusayan province"): o 1 Mishongnovi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . about 175 o 2 Oraibi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . about 780 o 3 Shijanlovi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . about 140 o 4 Shongopovi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . about 250 o 5 Sichomovi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . about 130 o 6 Walpi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . about 200 o 7 Hano (of Tewa group) . . . . . . . . . about 125 HISTORY The history of the Pueblo Indians begins in 1539 with the expedition of the Franciscan monk, Marcos di Niza, who, lured by rumors of great cities in the North, set out from Mexico, accompanied by some Indian guides and by a negro survivor of the ill-fated Nawaez expedition, and after crossing the great deserts that intervened, arrived within sight of Zuñi, planted a cross and dedicated the country to St. Francis, and returned with the news of his discovery. A powerful expedition was organized at once under Francesco Vasquez de Coronado, for the conquest of this new country. In July, 1540, after nearly five months' march, the advance guard reached the principal Zuñi town, which was taken by storm. Exploring parties were sent out in every direction, over to the Hopi, the Colorado, and the Buffalo plains, and the expedition finally went into winter quarters at Puaray, among the Tigua (Tiguex province), about the present Bernalillo, North Mexico, on the Rio Grande. The province was rich and populous, having twelve pueblos with perhaps 8000 souls. The Indians were at first friendly, but the arbitrary conduct of the Spaniards soon provoked hostility and resistance, which was put down with terrible atrocity, one hundred surrendered prisoners being burnt at the stake, or shot as they attempted to escape, and hundreds or thousands of others being butchered in a determined struggle. Coronado penetrated as far as Quivora (the Wichita country), in central Kansas, where Father Juan de Padilla remained to evangelize the natives (see WICHITA). After another winter in Tiguex, which remained hostile, with explorations along the Jemez, Piros, and other tribes, the expedition returned to Mexico in the spring of 1542. Besides Fr. Padilla with the Wichita, Fr. Lius de Escalona remained behind at Pecos ("Cicuye") and Brother Juan de la Cruz at Puaray. The first, and it is believed, all three, were killed by the Indians, being the first missionary martyrs within the United States. Unless otherwise noted, all the Catholic mission workers in the Pueblo region were Franciscans. No other entry of the Pueblo country was made until 1581, when Fr. Augusto Rodriguez asked and received permission for the undertaking. Accompanied by two other priests, Frs. Santa Maria and Lopez, with an escort of about twenty Indians and soldiers under Francisco Chamuscado, he reached Tiguex late in the year. The escort was apparently frightened by the hostile attitudes of the natives, but the priests remained, and all three soon afterwards met the fate of the predecessors, being killed by the Tigua. In an attempt to obtain the details of their death, and possibly recover their remains, a volunteer explorer, Don Antonio Espejo, accompanied by Father Bernadino Beltran, in the next year led a small expedition over the same route up the Rio Grande. Having accomplished this purpose he went on, visiting almost every Pueblo tribe from the Pecos to the Hopi, finally reaching Mexico in the fall of 1583. Late in 1590 a strong expedition under Castano de Sosa ascended the Rio Grande, stormed Pecos, and visited a large number of pueblos, whose inhabitants either fled or made submission. One or two later contraband expeditions seem to have reached the buffalo plains. The real conquest of the country was accomplished in 1598-9 by Juan de Onate of Zacatecas with 400 men, including commissary Father Alonso Martinez and nine other Franciscans, who traversed the whole region to beyond the Hopi, generally established friendly relations with the natives, and organizing regular forms of government, with a priest in each district. A massacre of a Spanish detachment at the almost inaccessible cliff town of Acoma resulted in the storming of the pueblo and the slaughter of most of the inhabitants. 24 January, 1599. In 1605 Santa Fé was founded as the capital of New Mexico. In 1617 eleven Franciscan churches had been built and 14,000 natives baptized. In 1621 Fr. Alanzo de Benavides arrived as first custodian with 27 more Franciscans. In 1627 over 34,000 Indians had been baptized, and 43 churches built, and 46 fathers and a number of laymen were at work. To Fr. Benavides, we owe the "Memorial", the standard authority on early New Mexico and its missions, published at Madrid in 1630. Fr. Geronimo Salmeron, of the same period, is the author of a "Doctrina" in the Jemez language, and of a valuable "Relaciones de Nueva Mexico". In 1630 there were about 50 friars serving over 60,000 Indians in over 90 pueblos grouped into 25 mission jurisdictions, the work including even a part of the wild Apache and the unidentified Jumana in the eastern plains. Shortly afterwards began the difficulties between the administration and the missionaries, which led up to the great disaster of 1680. Revolts at various times by the Jemez, Tewa, Piros, and others were harshly repressed by the governors. Taos planned a general rising and several missionaries were killed. From about 1670 the Apache and Navajo raids became a constant check to Pueblo prosperity. The trouble culminated in August of 1680 in a general rising of all the pueblos, with a few exceptions, under Popé, a Tewan chief of San Juan. Nearly four hundred Spaniards were killed, including twenty-one of the thirty-three missionaries then in the country; every mission was destroyed, with furnishings and records; Governor Otermin was besieged in Santa Fé, and finally compelled to withdraw with every Spaniard in the country into Mexico. Many of the Indians abandoned their pueblos and built new towns in inaccessible regions. For twelve years the Pueblos retained their independence until the re-conquest of the country by Diego de Varzas in 1692-4. In Zuñi alone was found any indication of former Christian teachings. The sacred vessels of the slain priests had been carefully preserved, and candles were still burning on the altar. The reconquest was assured by the retaking of Santa Fé from the hostile Tano, and the slaughter or enslavement of all the defenders, 29 December, 1693, but a spirited resistance was kept up by the various tribes, even at heavy losses, for nearly a year longer. The defeated hostiles were compelled to return to their abandoned towns or gather into new ones, as their conquerors dictated. A part of the Yewa, who had fled from the Rio Grande to the far distant Hopi, remained with their protectors and now constitute the pueblo of Hano, still retaining their distinct customs and language. In June, 1696, half the pueblos rose again, killing five missionaries and a number of other Spaniards, but were finally reduced to submission. The missions were re-established among all but the Hopi, who showed such determined hostility to Christianity as to destroy one of their own towns, Awatobi, and massacre or enslave the entire population for having consented to receive missionaries (1700). Sporadic outbreaks and alarms continued for many years, together with increasingly bold inroads by the wild tribes. In a special junta held in 1714 the missionaries, against the civil and military authorities, defended the right of the Christian Indians to carry arms and paint their bodies. From 1719 to 1745 the Jesuits of Arizona made efforts to obtain official charge of the Hopi, but without success. In 1747 an expedition against the wild Comanches, who had raided Pecos and other eastern pueblos, killed 107, captured 206 and took nearly 1000 horses. In 1750 the hostility of the civilian administration to the missionaries resulted in two counter reports, in one of which the Franciscans were accused of neglecting their duties, and it was recommended that the number of missions be reduced, while in the other the missionaries accused the governors and civil officers of all sorts of crimes against the Indians. In 1748 Villasenor reported 18 principal missions, besides visiting stations representing a total of nearly 9400 Indians. Only a part of these, however, could be considered as actual Christians. Pecos and Zuñi were the most important, the one with 1000 and the other with 2000 Indians, and each with two resident missionaries. In 1776 the Franciscan Fr. Francisco Garces ascended the Colorado to the obdurate Hopi, but was refused even a shelter. In 1780 Governor Anza took advantage of a terrible famine in the tribe to induce a few of them to remove to the mission pueblos (see HOPI). In the same year, 1780-1, besides the famine and pestilence which nearly exterminated the Hopi, the smallpox carried off 5000 Indians of the mission pueblos, in consequence of which in 1782 the governor officially reduced the number of missions by eight, despite the protests of the friars. Says Bancroft: "It should be noted that the New Mexican missions were radically different from the Californian establishments of later years. Practically, except for being subject to their provincial and paid by the king, instead of being under bishops and supported by parochial fees, these friars were mere parish priests in charge of Indian pueblos. There were no mission estates, no temporalities managed by the padres, and except in petty matters of religious observance the latter had no authority over the neophytes. At each pueblo the padre had a church, where he preached and taught and said Mass. With the performance of these routine duties, and those connected with baptism, marriage and burials, he was generally content. The Indians, for the most part willingly, tilled a little piece of land for him, furnishing also a few servants from week to week for his household service and that of the church. He was in most instances a kind-hearted man, a friend of his Indians, spending much of his salary on them or on the church. The Indians were in no sense Christians, but they liked the padre in comparison with the other Spaniards, and were willing to comply with certain harmless church formalities (sic), which they neither understood nor cared to understand." Of the frequent charges brought against them he says,"with all their shortcomings, the padres were better men than their enemies." Official reports of this later period represent the Indians as constantly victimized by the traders and the Spaniards generally. About 1800 the missions still existing were eleven, viz: at Sia (Asuncion), Isleta (San Agustin), Laguna (San José), Picures (San Lorenzo), San Filipe, San Juan, Dandia (Asumpcion or Dolores), Poynaque (Guadalupe), Santa Clara, Santo Domingo, Tores (San Geronimo), Zuñi (Guadalupe). "Visitas" were Acoma, Conchiti (San Buenaventura), Galisteo, Jemes (San Diego), Nambé (San Francisco), Pecos (Los Angeles), San Filipe, San Idlefonso, Santa Ana, Tesuque. With the increase of the Spanish population, and the steady decrease of the Indians in importance as well as number, the missions also declined, and in 1811 there were but five missionaries in the nineteen pueblos of New Mexico. The establishment of the Republic of Mexico in 1821 tended further to weaken the mission support. In 1832 there were still five resident missionaries. There was no "secularization" as in California, because there was nothing to confiscate. In 1837 a part of the Pueblos attempted a revolution, and elected José Gonzales of Taos as governor, but were defeated in the following January and the Indian leader taken and shot. In January, 1847, the same Indians of Taos resisted the newly established American government, killing governor Charles Bent, and about twenty other Americans, but were finally defeated, their pueblo being stormed, about 150 of their men killed, and several others executed. With some unimportant exceptions, the Pueblos have since remained quietly under American rule, the treaty of Cession having theoretically conferred upon them the right of American citizenship, with which, however, they seldom concern themselves, their affairs being administered through the Indian Office, and their pueblo lands being secured under old Spanish grants confirmed by Act of Congress in 1858. Other legislation left them practically disfranchised. "They never cost the government a dollar of warlike expenditure, and they received much less aid from the civil department than any of the hostile tribes." In 1853 they suffered again from smallpox. With the changing conditions, the pueblos lost their mission character, the old Franciscans being replaced by secular priests. Excepting the Hopi of Arizona and about one-half the people of Laguna, most of the pueblo Indians are still under Catholic influence and at least nominally Catholic, although a majority undoubtedly adhere to their ancient rites. Every pueblo is served either by a resident or visiting priest, including several Franciscans, with frequent instruction by sisters from Santa Fé or Bernalillo. Some of the old churches, however, are in ruinous condition and visits from the priest are at long intervals. Besides a number of Government schools, there is a Catholic day-school at Jemes, conducted by Franciscan Sisters, and the two flourishing boarding schools of St. Catherine's at Santa Fé, in charge of the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament, and Loretto at Bernalillo, under the Sisters of Loretto. Of Protestant work, past and present, the most important is that of the Presbyterians, at Laguna, begun about 1876 at by Reverend John Menaul, who is the author of several booklets in the language. Although very few of the adult Pueblos speak any English, a large number speak Spanish fluently. HOME LIFE AND INDUSTRIES The primitive Pueblo culture stood alone. It centered about the house, an immense communal structure, sometimes in part several stories high, of many rectangular rooms and narrow passageways, of varying sizes and directions, with flat roofs which served as working or resting places, or as observation points for ceremonial occasions. The houses of the pueblo were usually built around a central, open space or plaza in the middle of which was the "kiva" (Spanish "estufa") or sunken rock-hewn chamber dedicated to the sacred secret rites of the various priesthoods. For better defence against the wild tribes the outer walls were frequently solid, without door or window opening, entrance being effected by means of ladders -- one on the outside for ascending to the flat roof, and another descending into the interior through a doorway in the roof itself. The material was either cut sandstone of volcanic tufa, faced with adobe, or adobe bricks of sun-baked clay. The roofs were of timbers reinforced with cornstalks laid in clay. The fire-place was in the center or in the corner, and the smoke escaped through the doorway in the roof, At one end of the principal living room was a low stone enclosure fitted with stone slabs of various smoothness and set slanting, on which the corn was ground into meal by means of stone metates. The "cliff dwelling" and "cave dwelling" of the same region were simply variant forms of the same structure, from which the modern pueblo house differs but very little. The prehistoric "cliff-dwellers" were in many cases the ancestors of the Pueblos of to-day. The Hopi, in fact, are still true cliff-dwellers, their villages being set, for defensive purposes, upon the summits of mesas several hundred feet above the surrounding desert. Their main dependence was agriculture assisted by irrigation, corn and beans being the principal crops with "chile", pumpkins, native cotton and tobacco, and later, peaches introduced by the old missionaries. In spite of their arid surroundings they were industrious and successful farmers. They also hunted to some extent, particularly jackrabbits, which were taken by circle "drives" in which the whole community participated. Fish was never eaten. the dog was the only domestic animal, with the exception of the turkey and eagle occasionally kept for feathers. As weavers and potters they excelled all other tribes north of Mexico, their pottery being particularly beautiful in ornamentation, finish, and general workmanship. Their native cotton is now superseded by wool. They also made a great variety of baskets, the basket plaques of the Hopi being particularly artistic. The men were expert carvers in wood. Their ordinary dress was of deerskin, with elaborate fabrics of woven cotton for ceremonial occasions; fabrics of local yucca fibre were also used in ancient times. Blankets of woven strips of rabbit skin were worn in winter. In summer the men were practically naked except for the breechcloth and the children under ten years were seldom clothed. Necklaces, earrings, and other ornaments of shell, turquoise, and more recently of worked coin silver, were worn by both sexes. The hair was cut off above the eye in front, and either bunched up behind by the men, or at the side by the women, the unmarried girls being distinguished by a special hair arrangement. The women alone were the potters and breadmakers, but both sexes shared in farming, house-building, weaving, and basket-making. Weapons were the bow and arrow, lance, club, and knife, with a boomerang club for killing jackrabbits and shields for ceremonial occasions. ORGANIZATION AND RELIGION All Pueblo tribes had the clan system, some having as many as twenty or more clans, with descent generally, but not always, in the mother. Monogamy was the rule, unlike the condition in most tribes in the United States and northward, and the woman was the virtual owner of both the house and the garden, with correspondingly higher status than in other tribes. Each pueblo was an independent and separate community, the only larger bond being similarity of language or custom, the chief being simply the executive of the priesthoods. In some pueblos there is said to have been a summer and a winter chief. Since Spanish times the town government is vested in an elective chief or governor, a vice-chief, and a counsel. Practically all affairs of importance -- war, medicine, hunting, agriculture, etc. -- were controlled by the numerous priesthoods or secret societies, whose public ceremonies made up a large and picturesque part of Pueblo life. Among these ceremonies the Snake Dance of the Hopi is probably most widely known. Their religion was an animism, with special appeal to the powers supposed to control the rain, the growing crops, hunting, and war. Some of their ritual myths were of great length and full of poetic imagery, while some of their ceremonials were of high dramatic character, often interwoven with features of the grossest obscenity. Special regard was paid also to the cardinal points, to which were ascribed both sex and colour. Belief in witchcraft was universal, and witch executions were of frequent occurrence. The dead were buried in the ground. In temperament, the Pueblos were, and still are, peaceable, kindly, industrious, and of rather jovial disposition. Their outward life has been but little changed by the white man's civilization beyond the addition of a few conveniences in housekeeping and working methods, and the majority still hold tenaciously to their old beliefs and ceremonials (see also HOPI INDIANS). The literature upon the Pueblo Indians and region is so voluminous that it is only possible to note a few of the works most readily available. BANCROFT, Native Races (of the Pacific States) -- Wild Tribes (San Francisco, 1886); Idem, Arizona and New Mexico (San Francisco, 1889); BANDELIER, numerous papers in publications of Archæological Institute of America (Cambridge and Boston, 1881-92); BOURKE, Snake Dance of the Moquis (New York, 1889); Bureau of Cath. Ind. Mission, annual Repts. of Director (Washington); COMMISSIONER OF IND AFFAIRS, annual Repts. (Washington); CUSHING, Zuñi Fetisches in second Rept. Bureau Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1883); Idem, Zuñi Creation Myths, 13th do. (Washington, 1896); FEWKES, Tusayan Snake Ceremonies in 16th Rept. Bur. Am. Ethn. (Washington, 1897); Idem, Tusayan Flute and Snake Ceremonies, 19th do., II (Washington, 1900); Idem, Hopi Katcinas, 21st do., (Washington, 1903); Idem, Two Summers' Work in Pueblo Ruins, 22d do. (Washington, 1904), I; Idem, in Journal Am. Ethn. and Arch. I-IV (Boston and new York, 1891-4); HODGE, in Handbook of Am. Inds. etc., I-II, Bur. Am. Ethn. (Washington, 1908-10); HOLMES, Pottery of the Ancient Pueblos in 4th Rept. Bur. Am. Ethn. (Washington, 1886); LUMMIS, The Man Who Married the Moon, Pueblo folk stories (New York, 1894); MINDELEFF, A Study of Pueblo Architecture, in 8th Rept. Bur. Am. Ethn. (Washington, 1891); STEVENSON, The Sia, in 11th do. (Washington, 1893); Idem, The Zuñi Indians, in 23d do. (Washington, 1904); VOTH, various Hopi papers in publications Field Columbian Museum (Chicago, 1901-05); WINSHIP, The Coronado Expedition in 14th Rept. Bur. Am. Ethn., I (Washington, 1896). JAMES MOONEY Puget, Pierre Pierre Puget A painter, sculptor, architect, and naval constructor, born at Marseilles, 31 Oct., 1622; died there 2 Dec., 1694. At fourteen he was apprenticed to a shipbuilder and showed much talent. In 1637 he set out on foot for Italy, and found work with the duke's cabinet-maker in Florence. Later at Rome he studied painting under Pietro da Cortona. In 1643 he returned to France, and was summoned to Toulon to build a man-of-war. In 1646 he was again in Italy as assistant to a religious of the Feuillants, whom Anne of Austria had commissioned to make drawings of all the principal monuments of antiquity. Puget's attention was thus directed to architecture. In 1653 he was back in France, painting altar-pieces for different churches, the "Annunciation and Visitation" (Aix); the "Salvator Mundi", the "Baptism of Constantine and of Clovis" (Marseilles). Some pictures believed to be his are probably the work of his son François. In 1660 Fouquet sent him to Carrara to buy marble for his palace. After the fall of Fouquet, Puget lingered in Genoa long enough to execute many works: "St. Sebastian"; "B. Alexander Sauli"; a "Madonna" for the Balbi; another for the Carrega; "St. Philip Neri"; the "Rape of Helen", Palazzo Spinola; a relief of the "Assumption" for the Duke of Mantua. His sculptures in the Louvre are "Hercules", "Janus and the Earth", "Perseus delivering Andromeda", "Milo of Crotona", "Alexander and Diogenes". At the Consigne, Marseilles, is his "Plague of Milan". Architectural works are the door and balcony of the Hotel de Ville, Toulon; the fish market, Marseilles; he also commenced the Church and Hospice of Charity in that city, but left it unfinished at his death. LAGRANGE, Pierre Puget, peintre, sculpteur, architecte (Paris, 1868); CICOGNARA, Storia della Scultura (Venice, 1813); HENRY, Sur la vie et les oeuvres de P. Puget (Toulon, 1853). M. L. HANDLEY. Pugh, George Ellis George Ellis Pugh A jurist and statesman, born at Cincinnati, Ohio., 28 November, 1822; died there, 19 July, 1876. He was the son of Lot Pugh and Rachel Anthony. Educated at Miami University, Oxford, O., graduating A.M. in 1843, he was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of Ohio in 1844, and won high repute as a lawyer in Cincinnati, where he practised. He served in the Mexican War, 29 April(1847-1 April, 1848, as captain Co. F., 4th Ohio V. I., and as aide-de-camp to General Lane, being commended for bravery at Atlexco, 19 Oct., 1847. He was a member of the Ohio House of Representatives from Hamilton County, 1848-9; city solicitor, Cincinnati, 1850; attorney-general, State of Ohio, 1852-54; and was elected to the United States Senate from Ohio, 3 Dec., 1855-3 March, 1861. He was the first native of Ohio to sit in that body. His principal services were in the committees on public lands and on the Judiciary. Displaying great ability in discussion of the measures arising from the question of slavery and in the organization of the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, he supported Douglass's doctrine of popular sovereignty, and was defeated for re-election to the Senate in 1861 by Chase. He was delegate in 1860 to the Charleston-Baltimore Convention of the Democratic party, acting as chairman of Ohio delegation and supporting the nomination of Douglass. The reply to Yancey on the slavery question was most effective. Yancey blamed the northern delegates for "admitting slavery to be wrong and thus surrendering the very citadel of their argument". Pugh answered: "You mistake us; we will not do so." He defined the position of the northern democrats, setting out that while they were not opposed to the institution of slavery in the states where it existed, they were unalterably opposed to its extension into any free state and any territory without the untrammelled consent of the residents thereof, as ascertained by an appeal to the ballot. During the Civil War he advocated the exercise of every constitutional power by the Government to preserve the Union. Defeated for Lieutenant-Governor of Ohio in 1863, and for representative to the 29th Congress in the 1st Ohio district in 1864, he was elected a delegate to the constitutional convention of Ohio in 1872, but declined to serve. His most noted legal argument was the appeal in habeas corpus proceedings on behalf of Vallandigham in 1863. The question involved was the power and duty of the court to free Vallandigham held in confinement under a military order. Pugh urged release on the ground that the civil courts of Ohio and of the United States were open and unimpeded in Ohio and that only through proceedings in them, and not by the exercise of military authority, could Vallandigham, a civilian, be lawfully imprisoned. Soon after his marriage to Therèse Chalfant, 22 Nov., 1855 both he and his wife were converted to the Church. TAYLOR, Ohio in Congress: Appleton's Cyc. Amer. Biog., s. v. JOHN G. EWING. Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin Architect and archeologist, born in London, 1 March, 1812; died at Ramsgate, 14 September, 1852; only child of Augustus Charles Pugin (originally de Pugin), a French Protestant of good family, who had fled from France and settled in London about 1798, and soon acquired distinction as a draughtsman in the office of John Nash, and as a teacher of architectural drawing. The young Pugin received his elementary education as a day-boy at Christ's Hospital, better known as the Blue-coat School. At an early age he took his place among his father's pupils, and in 1825 he accompanied a party to Normandy for the study of Gothic architecture. From his father he inherited a surprising delicacy and dexterity in drawing and from his mother, Catherine Welby, some of that force of character and piety which so distinguished him in after years. When fourteen he was entrusted with the responsibility of preparing drawings of Rochester Castle, and the year following, on occasion of his second visit to France, we find him suffering from overwork while sketching in the Cathedral of Notre Dame at Paris. In the same year he was engaged to design furniture for Windsor Castle. In his youth a passion for theatrical accessories took possession of him. He fitted up a model stage with mechanical appliances of all kinds on the upper floor of his father's house in Great Russell St.; he executed the scenery for the new ballet opera of "Kenilworth", which owed its success largely to the architectural effects of his scenery; and subsequently he worked at the rearrangement of the stage machinery of Drury Lane. While still a delicate youth he became intensely fond of the sea, had a smack of his own, did some small trading in carrying woodcarvings from Flanders, and was shipwrecked off Leith in 1830. This love of the sea was strong in him to the end of his life. In 1831 he married Ann Garnett, and shortly afterwards was imprisoned for non-payment of rent. He then opened a shop in Hart Street, Covent Gardens, for the supply of architects' drawings and architectural accessories. The venture, however, did not succeed. His wife died in childbirth 27 May, 1832. In 1833 he married Louisa Burton who bore him six children, among whom were the two who successively carried on his business, the eldest, Edward (d. 1875) and the youngest, Peter Paul (d. 1904). Both received from the pope the decoration of the Order of St. Sylvester. After his second marriage he took up his residence at Salisbury, and in 1834 embraced the Catholic Faith, his wife following his example in 1839. Of his conversion he tells us that the study of ancient ecclesiastical architecture was the primary cause of the change in his sentiments, by inducing him to pursue a course of study, terminating in complete conversion. He never swerved in his fidelity to the Church, notwithstanding the bitter trials he experienced. he found that he had exchanged the noble English cathedrals with their service of chant for Moorfield chapel with its maimed rites. In 1835 he bought a small plot of ground at Laverstock, near Salisbury, on which he built for himself a quaint fifteenth-century house, St. Marie's Grange. In 1837 he made the acquaintance of the authorities of St. Mary's College, Oscott, where his fame as a write had preceded him. He found there men in sympathy with his ideas about art and religion. The president, Rev. Henry Weedall, was so impressed by him, that he accepted his services for the completion of the new chapel and for the decorations of the new college, which was opened in 1838. He designed the apse with its effective groinings, the stained glass of the chancel windows, the decorated ceiling, the stone pulpit, and the splendid Gothic vestments. He constructed the reredos of old wood-carvings brought from the Continent, he placed the Limoges enamels on the front of the super-altar, he provided the seventeenth-century confessional, altar rails, and stalls, the carved pulpit (from St. Gertrude's, Louvain), the finest in England, as well as the ambries and chests of the sacristy (see "The Oscotian", July, 1905). He built both lodges and added the turret called "Pugin's night-cap" to the tower. Above all he inspired superiors and students with an ardent enthusiasm for his ideals in Gothic art, liturgy, and the sacred chant. Tradition points out the room in which on Saturday afternoons he used to instruct the workmen from Hardman's, Birmingham, in the spirit and technic of their craft. The president appointed him professor of ecclesiastical antiquities (1838-44). While at the "Old College" he gave his lectures in what is now the orphans' dining-room, and at the new college in a room which still bears in the inscription "Architectura". This association with one of the leading Catholic colleges in England afforded him valuable opportunities for the advancement of his views. During this period he did much of his best work in writing, teaching, and structural design. Although at different times he had visited Frances and the Netherlands either alone, or in the company of his father of the Earl of Shrewsbury, he did not visit the great cities of Italy until 1847. The ecclesiastical buildings of Rome sorely disappointed him; but he had his compensation in the gift from Pius IX of a splendid gold medal as a token of approval, which gratified Pugin more than any event in his life. His second wife having died in 1844, he married in 1848 Jane, daughter of Thomas Knill of Typtree Hall, Herefordshire, by whom he had two children. In the meantime he had removed from Laverstock, and after a temporary residence at Cheyne Walk, Chelsea (1841), he took up his residence at Ramsgate, living first with his aunt, Miss Selina Welby, who made him her heir, and then in the house called St. Augustine's Grange, which, together with a church, he had built for himself. Of these he said that they were the only buildings in which his designs had not been curtailed by financial conditions. Under a presentiment of approaching death, of which he had an unusual fear, he went into retreat in 1851, and prepared himself by prayer and self-dential for the end. At the close of the year his mind became affected and early in 1852 he was placed in the asylum commonly called Bedlam, in St. George's Fields, Lambeth. At the urgent request of his wife and in opposition to the wishes of the rest of his friends, he was removed from the asylum, first to the Grove, Hammersmith, where after six weeks' care his condition had improved to such an extent that it was possible for him to return to Ramsgate; but two days after he reached home he had a fatal stroke. Pugin was somewhat below the middle stature and rather thick-set, with long dark hair and grey eyes that seemed to take in everything. He usually wore a sailor's jacket, loose pilot trousers, a low-crowned hat, a black silk handkerchief thrown negligently round his neck, and shapeless footwear carelessly tied. His form and attire suggested the seaman rather than a man of art. A voluble talker both at work and at table, he possessed a fund of anecdote and a great power of dramatic presentation; and when in good health overflowed with energy and good humour. And if sometimes his language was vigorous or personal, he was generous and never vindictive. Inured to industry from childhood, as a man he would work from sunrise to midnight with extraordinary ease and rapidity. His short thick hands, his stumpy tapering fingers, with the aid of a short pencil, a paid of compasses and a carpenter's rule, performed their delicate work even under such unfavourable circumstances as sailing his lugger off the South Coast. Most of his architectural work he entrusted to an enthusiastic builder whom he had known as a workingman at Beverley. He trained the workmen he employed, and was in turn idolized by them. In his home at Ramsgate he lived with the regularity and abstemiousness of a monk, and the intellectual eagerness of a student. His benevolence made him everywhere the father of the poor. His life was a battle for truth and fitness in architecture. He fought for the Christian inspiration of medievalism as against the cold paganism of the classic style. The victor4y ultimately fell to his side. The Englishman of today can with difficulty realize the condition of bad taste and ignorance which prevailed in matters of art at the commencement of the nineteenth century. "When Welby Pugin began his labours," says Ferrey, "there was not a single building of modern date, either public or private, which was not a reproach and a disgrace to the country." And although not alone, still more than any other man Pugin worked for a restoration. He revealed the principles of the medieval builder and the enlightened skill of their craftsmen. Others have since applied his principles. The occasional exaggeration or narrowness of his views has been corrected or avoided; and it remains true that the restoration of our ancient churches, as well as the varied beauty of many of our new structures, is due to the ability and unconquerable energy of Pugin. He was the man for his time. Gothic art was being studied, and many were turning their thoughts to the Church out of which it had sprung. Still, prejudice had to be broken down and ignorance removed; but the spirit of Pugin triumphed in the end. Buildings The following may be set down as typical and fairly complete: + Cathedrals == Birmingham; Northampton (older portion); Nottingham; Southwark; Killarney; Enniscorthy; Salford (designed only). + Parish Churches == o Diocese of Birmingham Alton - Brewood, Cheadle, Dudley, Kenilworth, Ruby, Solihull, Stoke-upon-Trent, Uttoexeter. o Diocese of Liverpool == in Liverpool, St. Marie's (some years ago removed stone by stone to its present site), St. Oswald's, Bishop-Eton (chapel now forming north aisle), St. Marie's, Southport (now north side). o Diocese of Northampton == Cambridge (former chapel), Great Marlow; Lynn (former church). o Diocese of Nottingham == Derby; Shepshed; Whitwick. o Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle == Newcastle-on-Tyne, Stockton-on-Tees. o Other churches or chapels == Barnstaple, Blairgowrie (Perthshire), Douai, Fulham, Gorey (Wexford), Guernsey; Kensington (London, Camelite Church), Manchester (St. Wilfrid's), Parsonstown, Pontefract (Jesus Chapel), Salisbury, Stratford, Tagoat (Wexford), Waterford, Woolrich, a chapel for Sir William Stuart, and the high altar, Farm Street (London). + Convents == Alton, Bermondsey, Birmingham, Cheadle, Edge Hill, Gorey, Nottingham, Parsonstown, Stoke-upon-Trent, Tagoat. + Monasteries == Downside, Mount St. Bernard's (Leicestershire). + Colleges == Mount St. Mary's, Ratcliffe, Ushaw (additions), St. Edmund's Ware (church), Oscott (chapel completed), Maynooth (additions), Ushaw (church and refectory). + Domestic Buildings == Adare (seat of Lord Dunraven), Alton Castle (rebuilding), Alton Towers (completion), Bilton Grange (near Rugby), Chirk Castle (restoration), Grace-Dieu, Leicestershire (restoration and church), Hornby Castle (near Leeds; plans for rebuilding), Magdalen College, Oxford (gateway), Scarisbrick Castle, Sibthorpe Almshouses, Lincolnshire, Tofts, near Brandon (restoration). Much discussion has arise concerning the claims of Pugin to the credit of having designed the Houses of Parliament at Westminster. The old Palace of Westminster had been destroyed by fire in 1834; plans for the new buildings were invited, and those of Charles Barry (afterwards Sir Charles) received the approval of the Commissioners from among some eighty-four competitors. The first stone of the new erection was laid in 1840 and the queen formally opened the two houses in 1852. At the outset Barry called in Pugin (1836-37) to complete his half-drawn plans, and he further entrusted to him the working plans and the entire decoration (1837-52). Pugin's own statement on the subject is decisive: "Barry's great work", he said, "was immeasurably superior to any that I could at the time have produced, and had it been otherwise, the commissioners would have killed me in a twelve-month" (i.e. by their opposition and interference). Literary Work The influence he wielded must be ascribed as much to his vigorous writings and exquisite designs as to any particular edifice which he erected. His "Contracts (1836) placed him at once ahead of the pioneers of the day. His "Glossary" (1844), so brilliant a revival in form and colour, produced nothing short of a revolution in church decoration. Scarcely less important were his designs for "Furniture" (1835), for "Iron and Brass Work" (1836), and for "Gold and Silver-Smiths" (1836) to which should be added his "Ancient Timber Houses of the XVth and XVIth Centuries" (1836), and his latest architectural work on "Chancel Screens and Rood Lofts" (1851). Besides the above elaborately illustrated productions, many other explanatory and apologetical writings, especially his lectures delivered at Oscott (see "Catholic Magazine", 1838, April and foll.) gave powerful expression to the message he had to deliver. As closely allied with his idea of the restoration of constructive and decorative art, he brought out a pamphlet on the chant: "An Earnest Appeal for the Revival of the Ancient Plain Song" (1850). It is worthy of mention that some of his earliest drawing appears in the volumes published by his father ("Examples of Gothic Architecture", 1821, 226 plates; "Architectural Antiquities of Normandy", 1828, 80 plates; "Gothic Ornaments, England and France", 1831, 91 plates). In knowledge of medieval architecture and in his insight into its spirit and form, he stood above all his contemporaries. As a draughtsman he was without a rival. The success of his career is to be sought not so much in the buildings he erected, which, being mostly for the Catholic body, were nearly always shorn of their chief splendour by the poverty of his patrons. He invented now new forms of design, though he freely used the old; his instinct led him to Art as such, but to the Gothic embodiement of Art, which seemed to him the only true form of Christian architecture. He lacked the patience and breadth of the truly great mind, yet he may justly claim to rank as the architectural genius of the century. His unquestioned merit is the restoration of architecture in England and the revival of the forms of medieval England, which since his day have covered the land. Queen Victoria granted his widow a pension of 100 pounds a year, and a committee of all parties founded the Pugin Travelling Scholarship (controlled by the Royal Institute of British Architects) as the most appropriate memorial of his work and a partial realization of the project which he had brought forward in his "Apology for the Revival of Christian Architecture in England" (1843), HENRY PARKINSON Victor-Alexandre Puiseux Victor-Alexandre Puiseux French mathematician and astronomer, b. 16 April, 1820, at Argenteuil (Seine-et-Oise); d. 9 September, 1883, at Frontenay (Jura). He went to school at Pont-à-Mousson (Lorraine). His brother persuaded the family to send the boy to a boarding-school in Paris (1834). In a year's time he entered the Collège Rollin, where he studied mathematics under Sturm. He took the competitive examinations of the Paris lycées and, having won the prizes in mathematics and physics, he was admitted to the Ecole Normale in 1837. Three years later he was appointed associate professor in science and in 1841 received the degree of doctor in mathematical sciences and the appointment to teach at the College of Rennes. In 1845 he was called to the new University of Besançon, where he taught science until 1849. He then returned to Paris as maître de conférences at the Ecole Normale. He substituted repeatedly both at the Sorbonne and at the Collège de France, lecturing for Sturm, Le Verrier, and Binet. In 1853 and 1854 he had charge of the examinations for admission to the polytechnic school. From 1855 to 1859 he was assistant astronomer at the Paris observatory, placed at the head of the bureau of calculation by Le Verrier. From 1857 until six months before his death Puiseux was the successor of Cauchy in the chair of celestial mechanics at the Sorbonne. He resigned, but was granted the right to keep his title. He also gave up his appointment as member of the Bureau des Longitudes (1868-1872), on account of failing health. Puiseux excelled especially in mathematical analysis. In his account of algebraic functions, first published in the "Journal de Liouville" (1851), he introduced new methods, marking an epoch in this subject. His numerous contributions to celestial mechanics have considerably advanced knowledge in this direction. He supervised the new edition of Laplace's works, published under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences, revising all the formulæ and scrupulously verifying all his calculations in celestial mechanics. He performed a great deal of dry and labourious work himself, such as the reduction of the observations on the moon at Paris during the years 1801-29, and the intricate computations and deductions from the observations on the transit of Venus in 1874 and again in 1882. He had also a decided taste for botany and natural sciences in general. He was fond of philosophy and the classics. While a student at the normal school he took part in the religious discussions of the day, displaying strong convictions and a keen intelligence. He seconded the efforts of his friend and comrade in the school, Pierre Olivant, founding with him a Society of St. Vincent de Paul among the students and devoting a large part of his vacations to works of charity. His kindness, his charity, and above all his simple, unaffected modesty overshadowed even his talents. His election (1871) to the French Academy was unanimous. Bertrand says of it: "The election was due to his merit, but its unanimity, to his character". As a last wish he requested that no discourse should be held over his body. His profound faith helped him to bear with resignation the death of a devoted wife and of four grown children. A great number of his memoranda are to be found in "Journal des Savants", "Journal de Liouville", "Comptes Rendus", "Recueils des savants étrangers", "Annales de l'Observatoire de Paris". He edited "Connaissance des Temps" (Paris) from 1868 to 1872 and from 1864 with Bertrand "Annales scientifiques de l'école normale supérieure". BERTRAND, Eloge de V. Puiseux; TISSERAND, Notice sur la vie de Puiseux in Bulletin des sc. math. et astr. (Paris, 1884), 2nd series, VIII, pt. i, 227-45 WILLIAM FOX Casimir Pulaski Casimir Pulaski Patriot and soldier, b. at Winiary, Poland, 4 March, 1748; d. on the Wasp, in the harbour of Savannah, 11 Oct., 1779; eldest son of Count Joseph Pulaski and Maria Zislinska. His father, a noted jurist, reared him for the bar, and he received his military training, as a youth, in the guard of Charles, Duke of Courland. Pulaski was one of those who, under the leadership of his father, formed, 29 Feb., 1768, the confederation of Bar, to free Poland from Russia. Driven into Moldavia he, returning, seized the monastery of Berdichev and for several weeks withstood with slender forces a siege by the Russians. Again finding refuge in Moldavia in 1769 after the arrest and death of his father, Pulaski in a series of brilliant marches overran and raised in revolt the greater part of Poland and Lithuania. Defeated by Suvaroff at Lomazy, near Wladowa, he fled with only ten men into the Carpathian Mountains. There he spent the winter of 1769-70, making forays into Poland, and in August, 1770, seized the fortified monastery of Czenstochowa. He gallantly defended it against a siege in Jan., 1771, and forced the Russians to withdraw. Though he joined his compatriots in driving the Russians across the Vistula, his failure to co-operate with Dumouriez is considered to have caused the loss of the battle of Landskron, where Suvaroff overwhelmingly defeated the patriots. Beaten at Cartenow near Leopol and failing to take Zamose, he returned to Czenstochowa. Though modern historians hold him guiltless, he was convicted of treason and outlawed for complicity in the plot to seize and carry off King Stanislaus, 3 Nov., 1771. This plot lead to the open intervention of Prussia and Austria, and Pulaski, after a gallant but futile defence of Czenstochowa, fled in 1772 to Turkey, and later to France. On 17 Oct., 1776, he offered his services to Franklin, the American agent, landed at Boston in July, 1777, and joined Washington. He rendered signal service, 4 Sept., 1777, at Brandywine Creek; he was commissioned 15 Sept., 1777, by the Continental Congress commander of the horse with rank of brigadier. He saved the army from surprise at Warren Tavern, and took part, 4 Oct., 1777, in the battle of Germantown. He was prominent in the Jersey campaign during the winter, but resigned his command, 28 March, 1778, to organize an independent corps known as Pulaski's Legion. The banner of the legion was purchased by him from the Moravians at Bethlehem and not presented to him, as represented by Longfellow in his "Hymn of the Moravian Nuns". Ordered to Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey, the legion on 15 Oct., 1778, suffered severe loss through a night attack, which he repulsed. Dissatisfied with his assignments, he was only dissuaded by Washington from resignation. He entered Charleston, 8 May, 1779; he gallantly attacked the investing British on 11 May. Against the inclination of the authorities he held the city until it was relieved on 13 May. He rendered great services during the siege of Savannah, Georgia, and in the assault on the city, 9 Oct., he commanded both the American and French cavalry. He was wounded by a shot in the upper part of the thigh, and was taken on board the brig Wasp. He died as the vessel was leaving the river and was buried at sea off St. Helena's Island, South Carolina. It has been mistakenly held by some that his remains lie under the monument erected to his memory at Savannah. On 11 May, 1910, there was unveiled at Washington a monument to his memory, erected by order of Congress. Sparks, The Library of American Biography, second series (15 vols., Boston, 1844-47), IV, 365-446; de RulhiÈre, Histoire de l'Anarchie de Pologne, et du démembrement de cette République (Paris, 1807); Senate Executive Document, no. 120, 49th Congress, 2nd Session (1887); American Catholic Historical Researches, new series, VI (1910). JOHN G. EWING Pulati Pulati (The Diocese of Pulati: Pulatensis or Polatinensis). The ancient Pulati in Albania no longer exists; its name is borne by a district of European Turkey. The first Bishop of Pulati (877) was a suffragan of Dioclea, after the overthrow of which the bishops of Pulati were suffragans of Salonica (Thessalonica). During the tenth century and even later Pulati is not mentioned. From 1340 to 1520 there were two Dioceses of Pulati, Polata major and Polata minor; the bishops of the latter were known as Episcopi Sosbrienses from the Franciscan hospice in the village of Sosi. Owing to the Turks and the decay of its population, after the death of Vincenzo Giovanelli appointed in 1656, the bishops no longer resided at Pulati. After 1667, its bishops were vicars Apostolic for Pulati. The Franciscan, Peter Karagic, was nominated Bishop of Pulati in 1697 and Apostolic administrator of the Archdiocese of Scopia in Albania. Since 1867 Pulati is suffragan of Scutari. The present (forty-first) Bishop of Pulati is Nicholaus Marconi, O.F.M., b. at Trent, Tyrol, 18 May, 1842, elected bishop 23 December, 1890. He resides at Giovagni. His coadjutor, with right of succession, is Bernardinus Sclaku, O.F.M., b. at Scutari, 23 June, 1873; nominated bishop in January, 1910. The Diocese of Pulati comprises 13 parishes, all, except one, held by Franciscans. There are 14,644 Catholics; 9 secular priests; 14 churches or chapels. ANTHONY LAWRENCE GANCEVIC Saint Pulcheria St. Pulcheria Empress of the Eastern Roman Empire, eldest daughter of the Emperor Arcadius, b. 19 Jan., 399; d. in 453. After the death of Arcadius (408), her younger brother, Theodosius II, then only seven, became emperor under the guardianship of Anthimus. Pulcheria had matured early and had great administrative ability; she soon exerted salutary influence over the young and not very capable emperor. On 4 July, 414, she was proclaimed Augusta (empress) by the Senate, and made regent for her brother. She made a vow of virginity and persuaded her sisters to do the same, the imperial palace thus becoming almost a monastery (Socrates, "Hist. eccl.", VII, xxii). At the same time she fulfilled all her duties as a ruler for about ten years jointly with her brother. After the marriage, brought about by Pulcheria, of Theodosius II with Eudoxia, the new empress sought to weaken Pulcheria's influence over the emperor, and, with the aid of some courtiers, succeeded for a time. Nevertheless, Pulcheria had always a powerful position at Court, which she used in behalf of ecclesiastical orthodoxy, as shown by her opposition to the doctines of Nestorius and Eutyches. Eudoxia supported Nestorius. St. Cyril of Alexandria sent Pulcheria his work, "De fide ad Pulcheriam", and wrote her on behalf of the true Church doctrine, to which she held unwaveringly (letter of Cyril in Mansi, "Concil. coll.", IV, 618 sqq.). He also wrote to Eudoxia (ibid., 679 sq.). Theodosius allowed himself to be influenced by Nestorius to the prejudice of Cyril, whom he blamed for appealing to the two empresses (ibid., 1110). Pulcheria, however, was not deterred from her determination to work against Nestorius and to persuade the emperor to espouse Cyril's party which favoured the definition of the Council of Ephesus. In the further course of the negotiations over the Council of Ephesus, the Patriarch of Alexandria sought to gain Pulcheria's zeal and influence for the union and sent her presents as he did to other influential persons at the Court (Mansi, loc. cit., V, 987 sq.). There is no doubt that the final acknowledgement by the emperor of the condemnation of Nestorius was largely due to Pulcheria. The Nestorians, consequently, spread gross calumnies about her (Suidas, s. v. Pulcheria). Court intrigues obliged her (446) to leave the imperial palace and retire to a suburb of Constantinople, where she led a monastic life. When the Empress Eudoxia went to Jerusalem, Pulcheria returned (about 449) to Court. At the emperor's death (28 July, 450) she was proclaimed empress, and then married the able general, Marcian, but with the condition that her vow of virginity should be respected. At her order Marcian was proclaimed Augustus. Meantime, at Constantinople, Eutyches had announced his heresy of the unity of the natures in Christ, and the Patriarch Flavian had expressed his opposition, as did also Pope Leo I. Once more Pulcheria took up the cause of the Church. On 13 June, 449, the pope had written both to Pulcheria and to Theodosius, requesting them to end the new heresy ("Leonis epist.", xxx, in Migne, LVI, 785 sq.). Nine other letters followed. Theodosius II confirmed the decisions of the Robber Synod of Ephesus (449) and the pope, who had rejected them, sought to bring the emperor back to orthodox opinions. On 13 Oct., 449, he wrote again to the emperor and also to Pulcheria (Epist. xlv), begging the latter for aid. The Roman Archdeacon Hilarius also wrote with the same object (Epist. xlvi in "Leonis Epist."), and at Leo's entreaty Valentinian III of the Western Empire, with Eudoxia and Galla Placidia, wrote to Theodosius and Pulcheria (Epist. lviii). Another letter to Pulcheria was sent by Leo on 16 July, 450 (Epist. lxx). After the death of Theodosius, conditions were at once changed. Marcian and Pulcheria wrote to Leo (Epist. lxxvii). She informed him that the Patriarch Anatolius had expressed his approbation and had signed the papal letter to Flavian concerning the two natures in Christ. She requested the pope to let it be known whether he would attend personally the council that had been summoned. The empress was influential in the Council of Chalcedon (451) and with the emperor attended the sixth session (25 Oct., 451). Leo in his letter of 13 April, 451 (Epist. lxxix), wrote Pulcheria that both the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies had been overcome largely by her efforts. He thanked her for the benefits she had bestowed on the Church, for her support of the papal legates, for the recall of the banished Catholic bishops, and for the honourable burial of the body of the Patriarch Flavius. Pulcheria showed no less zeal in promoting other interests of the Church. She built three churches in Constantinople in honour of Mary the Mother of God; one, erected after the condemnation of the Nestorian heresy, was exceedingly beautiful. In other places also she built churches, hospitals, houses for pilgrims, and gave rich gifts to various churches (Sozomen, 'Hist. eccl.", IX, i). She had the bones of St. John Chrysostom, who had died in exile, brought back to Constantinople and buried in the church of the Apostles on 27 Jan., 438; this led to the reconciliation with the Church of the schismatic party of the Johannines (Socrates, "Hist. eccl.", VII, xlv). Pulcheria had the relics of the forty martyrs of Sebaste, which were found near Constantinople, transferred to a church (Sozomen, "Hist. eccl.", IX, ii). She is venerated as a saint in the Greek and other Oriental Churches as well as in the Latin Church. Her feast is given under 10 Sept. in the Roman Martyrology and in the Greek Menaia; in the other Oriental calendars it is under 7 Aug. Acta SS., September, III, 503-40; Nilles, Kalendarium manuale utriusque ecclesiæ, I (2nd ed.), 238 sq.; Hefele, Konziliengesch., II (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1875); GÜldenpenning, Gesch. d. oströmischen Reiches unter Arkadius u. Theodosius II (Halle, 1885); Nagl, Pulcheria in Frauencharakter aus d. Kirchengesch., (Paderborn, 1910), 13 sqq.; Stokes in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v.; Butler, Lives of the Saints, III (Baltiimore, s. d.), 441-3. J.P. KIRSCH. Pulci, Luigi Luigi Pulci An Italian poet, born at Florence, 15 Aug., 1432; died at Padua in 1484. The Pulci gave many interesting writers to the history of Italian letters in the earlier period of the Renaissance. Luigi's brothers, Luca and Bernardo, as well as the latter's wife, also poetized. Luigi frequented the household of Lorenzo il Magnifico, who was very fond of him, and helped him in a material way, a debt which he repaid by imitating certain verses of his patron and fellow-poet. Some attempt has been made to convict him of heterodoxy, because of rather free passages in his most famous work. Those who have engaged in this attempt have failed to realize that Pulci was an inveterate joker and that the passages in question figure among the least serious of the poem. He had all the burlesquing and parodying instincts of his time, and spared no man or institution when the whim was on him. His chief title to fame is the chivalrous romantic poem, "Morgante", which on the basis of two antecedent Italian documents gives the history of Roland's peripatetic adventures, and marks a first serious attempt at an artistic treatment of the Carlovingian epic matter imported from France. Dealing ostensibly with the adventures of a giant, Morgante, the author is far more concerned with the wandering career of Orlando, Rinaldo, and other legendary heroes of Charlemagne's court. The lesser compositions of Pulci are greatly inferior to "Morgante". They include the "Beca da Dicomano", which is a burlesque treatment of the idyll in verse, and follows the example set by Lorenzo's "Nencia da Barberino"; the octaves on the "Giostra" of Lorenzo; a number of briefer lyrics (strambotti, rispetti, sonetti); a prose tale; and a "Confessione" in terza-rima, which has too much the air of a parody of parts of Scripture. Opere (Lucca, 1769); Morgante, ed. VOLPI (Florence, 1900), a truly scholarly ed. le still needed; RAJNA in Propugnatore (1869 and 1871); articles in Giornale storico, XVI, XVII; ROSSI, Il Quattrocento. J. D. M. FORD. Robert Pullen Robert Pullen (POLENIUS, PULLAN, PULLEIN, PULLENUS, PULLY, LA POULE) Died 1147 (?). Nothing is known of his early life except that he was of English parentage. The conjecture of a recent biographer (Williams, op. cit. infra) that he was born at Poole in Dorsetshire is not supported by any evidence. Other accounts state that he came from Devonshire. John of Hexham, in his continuation of the history of Symeon of Durham, written within half a century of Pullen's death, asserts that Henry I offered him a bishopric which he refused, being devoted to the study of philosophy. His early education was received in England, but during the troubles which began with the accession of King Stephen in 1135 he seems to have gone to Paris to continue his life of study in peace there. According to other accounts, he completed his education at Paris, where he subsequently lectured before returning to Oxford to teach. At Oxford he was one of the first masters whose names have been recorded. He opened schools there and taught without exacting fees; he is said to have supported many scholars at his own expense and to have been largely instrumental in fostering the growth of the Oxford schools. If these traditions are true, and it must be confessed that they rest on the statements of later writers, it would seem more probable that they happened during the reign of Henry I, when he refused to accept the bishopric offered. He was certainly Archdeacon of Rochester in 1134, and it is equally certain that he was absent from England for a notable time within the next few years, for at some date prior to 1143 he seems to have been in trouble with his bishop for being absent so long from his duties. This appears from an undated letter of St. Bernard addressed to the Bishop of Rochester, in which the saint makes his excuses for detaining Pullen in Paris "on account of the sound doctrine which is recognized in him." In the same letter he blames the bishop for seizing the archdeacon's goods, and he begs that Pullen may stay longer in Paris where he is necessary. Though Bishop Stubbs (op. cit.) has thrown doubt on the identity of this Archdeacon Robert Pullen with the cardinal of the same name, the statements of St. Bernard's biographer, William Abbot of Theodoric, and the Oseney Chronicle justify the identification. While in Paris, Pullen taught logic and theology with great success. Among his pupils was John of Salisbury, who describes him as a man commended both by his life and his learning. That was in 1141 or 1142. In 1143 he is still described as Archdeacon of Rochester and in or about that year he probably went to Rome on the invitation of Innocent II, who died in September of that year, but Pullen found favour with the new pope, Celestine II, who created him a cardinal (Ciaconius). The Oseney chronicler, however, states that he was called to Rome by Lucius II who succeeded Celestine in 1144. Certainly it was Pope Lucius who appointed him Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church, an office which he was discharging through 1145 and 1146. When St. Bernard's disciple, Eugenius III, became pope in 1145 the saint wrote a letter to Cardinal Pullen begging him to console and counsel the new pontiff. As a theologian Cardinal Pullen used all his influence against the heretical teaching of Abelard, and embodied his doctrine in his work "Sententiarum Logicarum Libri VIII" reprinted in P.L., with the commentary prefixed to it by the Maurist, Dom Hugo Mathoud, originally written for his edition, published at Paris in 1655. In this treatise he was breaking new ground, being one of the first teachers to compile a book of "Sentences," but his work was soon supplanted by that of Peter Lombard. He covers a wide range of subjects, but his treatment lacks orderly arrangement, and he relies for his proofs on Scripture and reason in preference to the testimony of tradition. Taking his stand on the authority of the Bible and of papal decisions, he proceeds to enter on speculative discussion. The first book treats of God and His attributes; the second, of the creation, of angels, of the soul, of the fall of man and of original sin; the third, of the ancient and the new law, and of the Incarnation; the fourth, of God's power, of Christ's Passion, and of hell and purgatory; the fifth, of the Resurrection, the descent of the Holy Ghost, the preaching of the Gospel, of baptism, confirmation, confession, and some virtues and vices. The sixth book deals with a variety of subjects, including ignorance, negligence, and frailty, good and bad spirits, the choirs of angels, merits, and the administration of the Sacrament of Penance; the seventh discusses the forgiveness of sins, penance and fasting, prayer, tithes, the civil power, the priesthood, its privileges and obligations, continency, the contemplative and active life, and matrimony. The eighth book deals with the Blessed Sacrament, the Second Advent, Antichrist, the Last Judgment and the ultimate state of the saved and the lost. The titles of some other works which remain unpublished are given by Pitts: "In Apocalypsim Sancti Johannis"; "Super aliquot psalmos"; "De contemptu mundi"; "Super doctorum dictis"; "Praelectiones"; "Sermones." A MS. copy of the sermons is preserved at Lambeth Palace, and Rashdall (Dict. of Nat. Biog.) observes of them that "the sermons, which breathe a very ascetic spirit, were evidently delivered to scholars." Chevalier is certainly in error in identifying him with the Cardinal Robert who was cardinal priest of St. Eusebius in December, 1134. This Robert, who also held the office of Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church, was created cardinal by Innocent II in 1130, a date inconsistent with the known facts of Pullen's life. Annals of Oseney; Annales Monastici, IV (Rolls Series, London, 1869); JOHN OF HEXHAM, Continuation of Symeon of Durham (Rolls Series, London, 1885); PITTS, De Anglioe illustribus scriptoribus (Paris, 1619); JAFFE, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (Berlin, 1851); WILLIAMS, Lives of the English Cardinals (London, 1868); CEILLIER, Hist. Gen. des Auteurs Sacres et Eccles., XIV (Paris, 1869); STUBBS, Lectures on Medioeval and Modern History (Oxford, 1886). EDWIN BURTON Pulpit Pulpit (Lat. pulpitum, a stage or scaffold) An elevated stand to preach on. To elucidate the meaning of the word Durandus refers (Ration. div. offic., I) to Solomon (II Par., vi, 13), who prayed from "a brazen scaffold," and to Esdras (II Esd., viii, 4) who "stood upon a step of wood" and read the law of God. Their elevated position and public action suggest to Durandus the symbolical meaning of the pulpit: the position of the perfect. He also calls it analogium (analogeion-anagnostyrion), from the preaching of the word of God; and ambo ab ambiendo, quia intrantem ambit et cingit. The ambo (q.v.) was the immediate predecessor of the present pulpit. In the first Christian era the bishop preached from his cathedra; a survival of this is retained in the French and German words for pulpit, chaire and predigtstuhl. The other German word kanzel recalls the position of the ambo at the choir-screen (cancelli). Durandus clearly distinguishes the pulpit from the cancelli and stalli of the choir. The pulpit characterized as part of the church furniture by its independent position and use, is found separated from the choir and pushed forward in the central part of the nave beyond the choir for singers, as indicated by a large circle in the building plan of St. Gall (820). The analogia, or reading desks for the Epistle and Gospel, remained at the sides of the choir, and were used for the same purpose as the ambo, which, as belonging to the choir, was considered a part of the cancelli and was chiefly used for reading or singing parts of the liturgy. Just when it became customary to use the ambo mainly for the sermon, which gave it a new importance and affected its position, is not known. The pulpit is often connected with the appearance of the mendicant friars, but this can refer only to some innovations in its use and some external changes, as the Fathers of the Church had long before this constantly used the ambo for preaching. Although Paul of Samosata (Euseb., VII, xxx) spoke to the people from a high canopied seat in the apse, Socrates (Hist. eccl., VI, v) says of St. Chrysostom that he preached "sitting on the ambo." Sozomen (Hist. eccl., IX, ii) states the same, still characterizing the ambo as bema ton anagnoston. Chrysostom was the first to speak from the ambo "in order to be better understood"; Isidore of Seville first employed the word pulpit (Etym., XVI, iv), then "'tribunal," because from this the priest gave the "precepts for the conduct of life," proclaiming law and justice. Isidore also derives "analogium" from logos, as "the addresses were given" from it. Thus the ambo became the regular place for the preacher, and its situation was dependent on local conditions. In the Church of St. Sophia it stood under the dome (Paul the Silentiary, P.G., LXXXVI, 2259, sqq.), but was united with the choir "like an island with the mainland." Similarly at Ravenna the ambo of Bishop Agnellus (sixth century) stood in the central aisle of the nave, on the inner side of the old chancel screen. In large churches, therefore, the bishops, e.g. Ambrose, Augustine, and Paulinus of Nola, preached from the ambo at a very early date. The desire to be more plainly understood was the reason why the preacher's platform was pushed towards the centre of the nave; which change led to its assuming the present form. It was not until modern times that the two terms attained clearly distinct meanings. At present the pulpit no longer serves for the reading of the Epistles and Gospels, nor as the tribune for singing, hence the eagle or dove formerly used as support of the book now has little meaning. A position in which the preacher could be heard throughout the church became necessary, and the pulpit was then adapted to receive a greater amount of adornment, having reference to the preaching of the Gospel. The number of ambos still in existence which may be included among pulpits is undetermined. The ambo of Salonica, traditionally called "Paul's pulpit," appears to be the oldest remaining monument of this kind (fourth to sixth century). It is circular in form, about four metres in circumference, with two stairways, for ascending and descending, and is ornamented with carvings of the three Magi set in niches representing a shell; two ornamental bands are carried around above the niches ("Archives des missions scientifiques," III, 1876). Bishop Agnellus, builder of the ambo of the cathedral at Ravenna (sixth century), called it pyrgus, or tower-like structure. The exterior surface of the round middle part and the steps which come far forward on the sides have panels arranged like a chess-board in six parallel bands filled with symbolic animals: fish, ducks, doves, deer, peacocks, and lambs in regular succession. Owing to the aversion of Byzantine art of that period to delineating the human figure, animals are here presented in symbolical dependence on the words: "Preach the Gospel to every creature." The ambo of St. Sophia was adorned with flowers and trees. The beautiful pulpit in the cathedral at Aachen was, according to the inscription, a present from Emperor Henry II (d. 1024). The ground-plan consists of three unequal segments of a circle. The wooden core is covered with sheets of copper overlaid with gold. Of the fifteen flat surfaces formed by slightly sunken panels, six contain ivory carvings belonging to an earlier period, and the others, precious stones, cups of rock-crystal, and enamels. There is no explanation as to what this was intended to represent: with large generosity the emperor had given whatever he had that was costly for the house of God. St. Bernard preached from this pulpit, and also from the pulpit preserved in the cathedral of Reims. In that era there were many wooden pulpits which were movable wherever occasion required. In many places the pulpit was made a part of the rood-loft, which was a gallery or loft of wood or stone, existing as early as the eleventh century and used, instead of the cancelli, to separate the choir from the nave; it was called the lectorium, or odeum, as the loft where the singers were, and doxale from the singing of the doxologies. Statues of the Saviour and His Apostles, representing the Last Judgment and the Passion, frequently ornamented the rood-loft on the side towards the nave. At Wechselburg in Saxony a Romanesque pulpit from the beginning of the thirteenth century is still in existence; it probably belonged, together with the celebrated altar cross, to the partially preserved rood-loft, which, with a few others of that period, is still to be found. It is ornamented with well-executed reliefs, and rests on arcades and columns. In the central oval panel, or mandorla, there is a relief of Christ as teacher, surrounded by the symbols of the Evangelists; on either side are Mary and John trampling upon allegorical symbols of error. The other reliefs, viz., the sacrifices of Abel and Abraham and the Brazen Serpent, were chosen with reference to the cross and altar in the rood-loft, redemption by Christ's sacrificial death being a main topic of preaching. From the thirteenth century, rood-lofts were customary in France where they were called jubé, from the formula, Jube Domine benedicere. Those still in existence belong to the Renaissance period. Pulpits like those of the present time were built in Italy as early as the thirteenth century. The pulpit at Pisa, completed by Niccola Pisano in 1260, is an unattached structure resting on seven columns, which opened the way to a new development for Italian sculpture. In addition to what is palpably borrowed from antiquity, e.g. the Virgin as Juno, there are figures taken entirely from the life of the time. Instead of the mosaic, six bas-reliefs surround the breastwork: the Annunciation, Nativity, Adoration of the Magi, Presentation in the Temple, Crucifixion, and the Last Judgment; they present the main contents of the doctrine of Salvation. Between the trefoiled arches of the columns over the capitals, in the spandrels, are symbolical representations of the virtues and figures of the prophets. An allegorical meaning should also be attributed to the ]ion, griffin, and dog, which, together with three figures of men, ornament the seventh or middle column, and to the lions that carry three of the supports, or stand guard on the steps. The ornamentation of the cathedral pulpit of Siena was executed by the same master in a similar manner. It forms, however, an octagon, thus permitting two more reliefs which represent the slaughter of the children at Bethlehem and further details of the Last Judgment. A third work of the same character, containing figures that express feeling and motion, is the pulpit of the Church of San Andrea at Pistoia, which was completed by Niccola's son Giovanni in 1301. The first examples of Renaissance pulpits are those of Donatello (fifteenth century). For funeral orations in the churchyard, for the preaching of pilgrimages, or for the exhibition of relics, pulpits were often built outside of the churches, as that of the cathedral at Prato. Donatello inserted here into the original round form of the pulpit seven white marble panels, on which in his customary manner he represented in bas-relief little cherubs in an animated dance; the ornamentation of the bronze capital below the pulpit, which rests on a single support, is also purely decorative in character. At an earlier era the platform of the pulpit was supported by an understructure or by a number of columns, and during the Renaissance pulpits projected from a pillar or wall, like balconies. Both bronze pulpits in San Lorenzo at Florence rest on four Ionic columns, and are decorated with representations of the Passion, over which there is a frieze of cherubs borrowed from the art of antiquity. In the beautiful marble pulpit of Santa Croce at Florence, the panels of the breastwork are decorated with scenes from the life of St. Francis. The details of the work are executed with fine artistic feeling and proportion; the decorative statuettes and other accessories are dignified and graceful. The magnificent pulpit made by Master Pilgram for the Cathedral of St. Stephen at Vienna (sixteenth century) is decorated with busts of the Fathers of the Church and figures of other saints. The ornate decoration of the pulpit of the collegiate church at Aschaffenburg depicts the Church Fathers around the supporting pillar, busts of the same in the upper frieze, scenes from the Bible separated by spirited figures of the Evangelists, and angels in the place of consoles. In the Cathedral at Trier the ascent to the pulpit is covered by a magnificently ornamented archway with a high decoration at the top. On the string-piece of the steps are carved the Sermon on the Mount and the Last Judgment, and on the panels of the parapet the works of mercy are depicted. The pulpit of Freiberg in Saxony is fantastically developed from the root of a plant and on it in a naturalistic manner the figures of men and animals are formed. The most striking pulpits of the Baroque period are those of Belgium. The base, stairway, and sounding-board were artistically or fantastically covered according to the taste of the time with luxurious and ornate carving. In Ste Gudule's at Brussels the banishment of Adam and Eve from Paradise is carved underneath the pulpit, while, in contrast, the Mother of God is represented above the sounding-board as a mighty female warrior and slayer of the dragon. Underneath the pulpit of the cathedral at Mechlin there is a representation of the Crucifixion on Calvary with the people at Christ's feet, while below the rock Saul falls from his horse, overcome by the truth; above at the side are carvings of Adam and Eve with the Serpent. All these are rich in suggestions for the sermon. At the base of the pulpit of the Church of St. Andrew at Antwerp there is a splendid carving of Christ, and the Apostles Peter and John in a little boat. Over the sounding-board angels hold on high the St. Andrew's cross, and beneath the dove, representing the Holy Spirit, sends rays in all directions. The whole structure of a pulpit in Cracow represents a ship, with sails, mast, and rigging, poised over sea monsters. The ornamentation of the pulpit should never be excessive, but subordinate to that of the high altar, whose view it should not obstruct. The latter difficulty is often removed by setting the pulpit slightly towards the side aisle, whereby a troublesome echo from the transept is avoided. Near which pillar of the nave the pulpit should be placed depends upon the acoustics of the church. The sounding-board should, above all, make the voice of the preacher perfectly distinct; by giving it, the form of a shell the waves of sound are often sent in a definite direction. In order that the speaker may be readily understood, the pulpit should not stand too high. Its ornamentation should be appropriate: representations of the Evangelists or Church Fathers, scenes from the Bible, as the Sermon on the Mount, the dove as a symbol of the Holy Ghost on the underside of the sounding-board, and perhaps an angel over it. A simple pillar skillfully developed into the platform of the pulpit, is satisfactory, when its decoration and that of the stairway and string-piece is subordinate to that of the central main part. The lack of a vertical support makes an unpleasant impression; a reading-desk or crucifix is apt to produce an overloaded effect. A well-arranged pulpit-cloth varied in colour to suit the various feasts and periods of the year would be proper. OTTE, Kunstarchaeologie (Leipzig, 1883-4); LUEBKE, Plastik (Leipzig 1871); MARTIGNY, Dictionnaire des antiquites chretiennes (Paris, 1877), 159-62, s.v. Chaire; ALLARD, Rome souterraine (Paris, 1874), 536-50; see also bibliography under AMBO. The pulpits for several hundred years past are described in the larger histories of art. G. GIETMANN Capital Punishment (Death Penalty) Capital Punishment The infliction by due legal process of the penalty of death as a punishment for crime. The Latins use the word capitalis (from caput, head) to describe that which related to life, that by which life is endangered. They used the neuter form of this adjective, i.e., capitale, substantively to denominate death, actual or civil, and banishment imposed by public authority in consequence of crime. The idea of capital punishment is of great antiquity and formed a part of the primal concepts of the human race. When Cain committed fratricide (Genesis 4), and was rebuked therefor by God, he uttered the lament that his life would be in danger by reason of the hostility of others. A mark was set upon him by the Lord which was a guarantee of his personal safety. The first Divine pronouncement which seems to sanction the death penalty is found in Genesis 9:6: "Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God." When the ancient Israelites had departed from Egypt and were sojourning in the Sinaitic Peninsula, they received from the Lord a code of legislation wherein the death penalty was prescribed for many offences. Thus, in Exodus 21, that penalty is prescribed for murder, for a wilful assault upon the father or mother of an offender, for cursing a man's father or mother, and for man-stealing. Down to their latest days the Kingdoms of Israel and Juda preserved capital punishment as a feature of their criminal code. No more cruel form of punishment for offences deemed capital existed in ancient times than that which prevailed among the Jews, i.e., stoning to death. This form of capital punishment is repeatedly mentioned in the Old and New Testaments. It would appear from the Book of Esther that hanging was the punishment which prevailed among the Assyrians. Two of the king's slaves who plotted against his life were thus punished (Esther, ii), and by that method the king's prime minister, Aman, was executed, the gibbet used for that purpose being said in Esther, vii, to be the same one which Aman had prepared, "fifty cubits high" (ibid., v), with the design of hanging thereon Mardochai, the Jew, who had incurred his displeasure, but who was "precious in the sight of the Lord". The ancient Greeks punished homicide (phonos), committed by design, and many other offences with death. The court which prescribed this penalty was the Court of the Areopagus. The court was not invested with discretionary power in awarding punishment, since Demosthenes says that the law determined this according to the nature of the crime. Wilful murder was punished with death, and other degrees of homicide and malicious wounding were punished with banishment and confiscation of goods. Those who were convicted upon a charge of unintentional homicide, not perfectly excusable, were condemned to leave the country for a year. Treason (prodosia) was punished with death. The goods of traitors who suffered death were confiscated, and their houses razed to the ground. It was not permitted to bury their bodies in the country, but they were cast out into some desolate place. Hence, the bones of Themistocles, who had been condemned for treason, were brought over and buried secretly by his friends, as related by Thucydides. The posterity of a traitor received the treatment of outlaws. The Areopagus was the tribunal for the trial of cases wherein the charge against an individual was wilful murder and wounding, or a charge of arson or poisoning. The Attic legend tells us that the first notable trial before the Areopagus was that of Orestes upon a charge of having murdered his mother. Aeschylus represents this trial as the origin of the court itself. Some authorities claim that the Ephetai acted as a Court for the trial of murder in conjunction with that of Areopagus. The Ephetai certainly had jurisdiction over cases involving the lesser degrees of homicide. The punishment of death at Athens was generally by poison in the case of freemen. After sentence, the condemned murderer was directed to take a cup of hemlock or other poison and drink it. In the case of the imposition of any penalty upon a criminal in the courts of Athens, the prosecutor proposed the penalty in the first instance and then the person condemned had the privilege of suggesting a different punishment. Thus it was that Socrates, when his death was proposed, after trial and conviction, suggested that instead of being punished by death he ought to be entertained at public expense for the rest of his life in the Prytaneum, the palatial quarters used by the Athenians for extending and providing municipal hospitality. Criminals of low social grade, such as slaves, were beaten to death with cudgels. The Roman law was notably severe in regard to public offences. A law of the Twelve Tables contained some provision as to homicide (Plin., "H.N.", xviii, 3), but this is all that we know. It is generally assumed that the law of Numa Pompilius, quoted by Festus (s.v. Parrici Questores), "Si quis hominem liberum dolo sciens morti duit paricida esto" [If any one with guile, and knowingly, inflicts death upon a freeman, let him be (considered as) a parricide], was incorporated into the Twelve Tables, and is the law of homicide to which Pliny refers; but this cannot be proved. It is generally supposed that the laws of the Twelve Tables contained provisions against incantations (malum carmen) and poisoning, both of which offences were also included under parricidum (parricide). The murderer of a parent was sewed up in a sack (culeus or culleus) and thrown into a river. It was under the provisions of some old law that the Senate by a consultum (decree) ordered the consuls P. Scipio and D. Brutus (138 B.C.) to inquire into the murder in the Silva Scantin. The Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (concerning assassins and sorcerers) was passed in the time of Sulla (82 B.C.) and derives its distinctive name from his middle name, Cornelius. This law contained provisions as to death or fire caused by dolus malus (evil fraud) and against persons going about armed with the intention of killing or thieving. The law not only provided for cases of poisoning, but contained provisons against those who made, sold, bought, possessed, or gave poison for the purpose of poisoning; also against a magistrate or senator who conspired in order that a person might be condemned in a judicium publicum (public judgment), etc. To the provisions of this law was subsequently added a senatus consultum (decree of the senate) against mala sacrificia (evil sacrifices) otherwise called impia sacrificia (impious sacrifices), the agents in which were brought within the provision of this lex. The punishment inflicted by the law was the interdictio aquae et ignis (prohibition of the use of water and fire), according to some modern writers. Marcianus (Dig. 49, tit. 8, s. 8) says that the punishment was deportalio in insulam et bonorum ademtio, that is, banishment to an island and deprivation of personal property. These statements are reconcilable when we consider that deportation under the emperors took the place of interdictio, and the expression in the "Digest" was suited to the times of the writers or the compilers. Besides, it appears that the lex was modified by various senatorial decrees and imperial rescripts. The Lex Pompeia de parricidiis, passed in the time of Cn. Pompeius, extended the crime of parricide to the killing (dolo malo, i.e., by evil fraud) of a brother, sister, uncle, aunt, and many other relations enumerated by Marcianus (Dig. 49, tit. 9, s. 1); this enumeration also comprises step-father (vitricus), step-mother (noverca), step-son (privignus), step-daughter (privigna), a male or female patron (patronus, patrona), an avus (grandfather) who killed a nepos (grandson), and a mother who killed a filius (son) or filia (daughter); but it did not extend to a father. All privies to the crime were also punished by the law, and attempts at the crime also came within its provisions., The punishment was the same as that affixed by the lex Cornelia de sicariis (Dig., 1 c.), by which must be meant the same punishment that the lex Cornelia affixed to crimes of the same kind. He who killed a father or mother, grandfather or grandmother, was punished, more majorum (according to the custom of the fathers) by being whipped till he bled, sewn up in a sack with a dog, cock, viper, and ape, and thrown into the sea, if the sea was at hand, and if not, by a constitution of Hadrian, he was exposed to wild beasts, or, in the time of Paulus, to be burnt. The ape would appear to be a late addition. Only the murderer of a father, mother, grandfather, grandmother was punished in this manner (Modest. Dig. 49, tit. 9, s. 9); other parricides were simply put to death. From this it is clear that the lex Cornelia contained a provision against parricide, !f we are rightly informed as to the provisions thereof, unless there was a separate lex Cornelia relating to the specific crime of parricide. As already observed,. the provisions of these two laws were modified in varxous ways under the emperors. It appears from the law of Numa, quoted by Festus (s.v. Parrici Quaestores), that a parricida was any one who killed another dolo malo. Cicero (pro Rose. Am., c. xxv) appears to use the word in its limited sense, as he speaks of the punishment of the culleus. In this limited sense there seems no impropriety in Catiline being called parricida, with reference to his country; and the dictator Ceasar's death might be called a parricidium (the crime of parricide), considering the circumstances under which the name was given (Suet., Caes., c. lxxxviii). If the original meaning of parricida be what Festus says, it may be doubted whether the etymology of the word (pater and caedo) is correct; for it appears that paricida or parricida meant murderer generally, and afterwards the murderer of certain persons in a near relationship. If the word was originally patricida, the law intended to make all malicious killing as great an offonce as parricide, though it would appear that parricide, properly so called, was, from the time of the Twelve Tables at least, specially punished with the culleus, and other murders were not. Carnifex (fleshmaker) was the appellation given to the public executioner at Rome, who put slaves and foreigners to death (Plant., "Bacch", iv, 4, 37; "Capt.", v, 4, 22), but not citizens, who were punished in a manner different from slaves. It was also his business to administer the torture. This office was considered so disgraceful that he was not allowed to reside within the city (Cic., "Pro. Rabir.", 5), but lived without the Porta Metia, or Esquilina (Plaut., "Pseud.", i, 3, 98), near the place destined for the punishment of slaves (Plant., "Gas.", ii, 6, 2; Tacit., "Ann.", xv, 60; Hor., "Epod.", v, 99) called Sestertium under the emperors (Plant. "Galb.", 20). It is thought by some writers, from a passage in Plautus (Rud., iii, 6, 19), that the carnifex was anciently keeper of the prison under the triumviri capitalos; but there does not appear sufficient authority for this opinion (Lipsins, "Excurs. ad Tacit. Ann.", ii, 32). Crucifixion was a method of inflicting capital punishment by nailing or tying malefactors to pieces of wood transversely placed the one upon the other. The crosses used by the ancients were of several forms; one shaped like the letter X has often been called crux Andreana (Andrew's cross) because, according to tradition, St. Andrew suffered death upon a.cross of that form; another was formed like the letter T, and a Roman writer, Lucian, uses that fact in disparagement of the letter itself. The third kind of cross, and that most commonly used, was made of two pieces of wood crossed so as to make four right angles. It was on this kind of a cross that Christ suffered, according to the unanimous testimony of the Fathers. Crucifixion, under the Roman law, was usually reserved for slaves and the worst kind of evildoers. The incidents of crucifixion were that the criminal, after the pronouncement of sentence, carried his cross to the place of execution, a custom mentioned by Plutarch and other writers as well as in the Gospels. Scourging was inflicted upon the persons executed as in the case of other capital punishments among the Romans. Grotius and other writers have called attention to the fact that the scourging of Christ was not in accordance with the Roman usage, because it was inflicted before the sentence of death was pronounced. The criminal was next stripped of his clothes, and nailed or bound to the cross. The latter was the more painful method, as the sufferer was left to die of hunger. Instances are recorded of persons who survived nine days. The Romans usually left the body on the cross after death. During the Middle Ages, in spite of the zealous humanitarian efforts of the Church, cruel punishments were commonly employed, and the death penalty was very frequently inflicted. This severity was, in general, an inheritance from the Roman Empire, the jurisprudence of which, civil and criminal, pervaded Europe. One of the most horrible forms of punishment, derived from ancient Roman usages, was burning at the stake. The nations of modern Europe, as they gradually developed, seemed to have agreed upon the necessity of extirpating all influences and agencies which tended to pervert the faith of the people, or which seemed to them to betray the potency of evil spirits. Therefore, the laws of all these nations provided for the destruction of contumacious unbelievers, teachers of heresy, witches, and sorcerers, by fire. The words of Exodus (xxii, 18), "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live", sank deep into the consciousness of the medieval people, were literally interpreted, and rigidly observed. Witches were burned in England as late as the time of Sir Matthew Hale (1609-76). The Statute of Elizabeth in 1562 made witchcraft a crime of the first magnitude, whether directed to the injury of others or not. The Act of James the Sixth in 1603 defines the crime more minutely and provides the penalty of death. In Scotland, during the reign of the same monarch and even later, the prosecution and punishment of alleged witchcraft became a popular frenzy, to which the courts lent their zealous aid. The number of victims in Scotland from first to last has been estimated as more than four thousand. The last regular execution for witchcraft is said to have taken place at Doruoch in 1722, when an old woman was condemned by David Ross, Sheriff of Caithness. The same belief in witchcraft and the same overmastering dread of it pervaded New England. Many persons were convicted of witchcraft and were tortured, imprisoned, and burned. One of the leaders in ferreting out and punishing witches was the Reverend Cotton Mather who, although a man of prodigious learning and deep piety, betrayed in the prosecution of witches absolute fanaticism and merciless cruelty. The laws against witchcraft were formally repealed in England in 1736. They were not repealed in Austria until 1766. Canon law has always forbidden clerics to shed human blood and therefore capital punishment has always been the work of the officials of the State and not of the Church. Even in the case of heresy, of which so much is made by non-Catholic controversialists, the functions of ecclesiastics were restricted invariably to ascertaining the fact of heresy. The punishment, whether capital or other, was both prescribed and inflicted by civil government. The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations. Much less severity prevails in England at present than during the reign of George III, when Sir William Blackstone felt impelled to say in his "Commentaries": Yet, though . . . we may glory in the wisdom of the English law, we shall find it more difficult to justify the frequency of Capital Punishment to be found therein, inflicted (perhaps inattentively) by a multitude of successive independent statutes upon crimes very different in their natures. It is a melancholy truth, that among the variety of actions which men are daily liable to commit, no less than one hundred and sixty have been declared by Act of Parliament to be felonious without benefit of clergy; or, in other words, to be worthy of instant death" (bk. IV, c. 1). The traditional method of capital punishment in England has been by hanging the criminal by the neck until dead, although during the Middle Ages beheading was customary. The English law in the time of Blackstone provided that a person convicted of treason of any kind should be drawn or dragged to the place of execution; that in case of high treason affecting the king's person or government, the person convicted should be disembowelled while still alive, beheaded, and his body divided into four quarters. Murderers were not only hanged by the neck until they were dead, but their bodies were publicly dissected. A writ of execution upon a judgment of murder before the king in Parliament, delivered in May, 1760, recited the judgment: That the said Lawrence Earl Ferrers, Viscount Tamworth, shall be hanged by the neck until he is dead and that his body be dissected and anatomized. This barbarous sentence was literally carried into effect. After death, the body was conveyed from Tyburu in his lordship's landau, drawn by six horses, to Surgeon's Hall in the City of London; and there, after being disembowelled and cut open in the neck and breast, was exposed to public view in a room on the first floor. The dissection of the bodies of criminals led to great abuse, and was abolished in 1832. In England during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the people seemed to have a passion for witnessing public executions. Many hired windows at a considerable expense for such occasions. Georg Selwyn was very fond of executions. His friend, G. Williams, writing to him of the condemnation of a man named John Wesket (9 Jan., 1765) for robbery in the house of his master, the Earl of Harrington, says: "Harrington's porter was condemned yesterday. Cadogan and I have already bespoke places at the Brazier's. I presume that we shall have your Honour's company, if your stomach is not too squeamish for a single swim" (Selwyn's Correspondence, I, 323). The Earl of Carlisle, writing to Selwyn, speaks of having attended the execution of Hackman, a murderer, on 19 April, 1779 (ibid., IV, 25). Boswell, the biographer of Johnson, had a keen desire for witnessing executions, and often accompanied criminals to the gallows. He had a seat in the mourning coach conveying Hackman to Tyburn, and in the same carriage rode the ordinary of Newgate and the sheriff's officer. Visiting Johnson on 23 June, 1794, Boswell mentions that he "has just seen fifteen men hanged at Newgate" (Boswell, "Life of Johnson, Croker's edition, VIII, 331). During the French Revolution, executions in Paris were witnessed by vast throngs including many female Jacobins. These bloodthirsty women employed themselves with their knitting while attending daily at the scaffold, hence the famliar name les tricoteuses (the knitters). Those were the palmy days of the guillotine, the instrument which was introduced by the National Convention during the progress of the French Revolution and was named after its supposed inventor, Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, a physician. He was not the inventor, but was only the person who first proposed its adoption. It consists of two upright posts grooved on the inside and connected at the top by cross beams. In these grooves a knife, having a sharp blade placed obliquely, is allowed to fall with tremendous force upon the neck of the victim who is bound upon a board placed at the foot of the upright posts. It is said by some authorities that this machine was invented by the Persians. It was well known in Italy, and from the thirteenth century onward it was the privilege of the nobility to be put to death by a machine of this kind, which was called mannaia. Conradin of Swabia was executed by such a machine at Naples in 1268. An instrument closely resembling the guillotine was employed for public executions during the Middle Ages. In Scotland, a machine called the "Maiden", very similar to the guillotine, was used. A like machine was also used by the Dutch in the eighteenth century for executing slaves in their colonies. In England and the United States, the ordinary mode of capital punishment was hanging, rather than the guillotine. This was first established in England in 1241, when Maurice, a nobleman's son, was hanged for piracy. In the military service capital punishment is inflicted by shooting, except in the case of spies and traitors, who are killed by hanging; such punishment being considered very disgraceful and therefore suited to the offence. American civil and criminal procedure having been derived from the common law of England, legislation has generally been in close accord with that of the English in regard to the punishment of crime. The punishment of death, universal in his day, was declared by the famous Marquess Beccaria to be absolutely without justification. In his famous work, "Crime and Punishment", he says (chapter 28): The punishment of death is not authorized by any right; for I have demonstrated that no such right exists. It is, therefore, a war of a whole nation against a citizen, whose destruction they consider as necessary or useful to the general good. But, if I can further demonstrate that it is neither necessary nor useful, I shall have gained the cause of humanity. The death of a citizen can be necessary in one case only: when, though deprived of his liberty, he has such power and connections as may endanger the security of the nation; when his existence may produce a dangerous revolution in the established form of government. But even in this case, it can only be necessary when a nation is on the verge of recovering or losing its liberty; or in times of absolute anarchy, when the disorders themselves hold the place of laws. But in a reign of tranquillity; in a form of government approved by the united wishes of the nation; in a state fortified from enemies without, and supported by strength within; . . . where all power is lodged in the hands of the true sovereign; where riches can purchase pleasure and not authority, there can be no necessity for taking away the life of a subject. The learned marquess makes a most impressive argument in favour of penal servitude for life as a substitute for the judicial killing of criminals. Voltaire, in his commentaries on the treatise of Beccaria, emphasizes his opposition to capital punishment by saying, It hath long since been observed that a man after he is hanged is good for nothing, and that punishments invented for the good of society ought to be useful to society. It is evident that a score of stout robbers, condemned for life to some public work, would serve the state in their punishment, and that hanging them is a benefit to nobody but the executioner. These two authorities, as well as Sir William Blackstone, refer to the favourable results which followed the abolition of capital punishment in Russia by the Empress Elizabeth and the continuance of the same policy by her successor, Catherine III. Beecuria makes a telling argument against the execution of criminals in saying: The punishment of death is pernicious to society, from the example of barbarity it affords. If the passions, or necessity of war, have taught men to shed the blood of their fellow creatures, the laws which are intended to moderate the ferocity of mankind should not increase it by examples of barbarity, the more horrible as this punishment is usually artended with formal pageantry. Is it not absurd that the laws, which detect and punish homicide, should, in order to prevent murder, publicly commit murder themselves? What are the true and most useful laws? Those compacts and conditions which all would propose and observe, in those moments when private interest is silent, or combined with that of the public. What are the natural sentiments of every person concerning the punishment of death? We may read them in the contempt and indignation. with which everyone looks on the executioner, who is nevertheless an innocent executor of the public will; a good citizen, who contributes to the advantage of society; the instrument of the general security within, as good soldiers are without. What then is the origin of this contradiction? Why is this sentiment of mankind indelible to the scandal of reason? It is, that in a secret corner of the mind, in which the original impressions of nature are still preserved, men discover a sentiment which tells them that their lives are not lawfully in the power of anyone, but that of necessity only, which with its iron sceptre rules the universe. The opposite view was taken by Jeremy Bentham. In his work, "Rationale of Punishment" (1830) he says that death is regarded by most men as the greatest of all evils; and that especially among those who are attached to life by the ties of reputation, affection, enjoyment, hope, or fear, it appears to be more efficacious punishment than any other. Sir Samuel Romilly in his "Memoirs" (1840) takes issue with Beecuria. "Beecuria," he says, "and his disciples confess that it is not the greatest of evils, and recommend other punishments as being more severe and effectual, forgetting, undoubtedly, that if human tribunals have a right to inflict severer punishment than death, they must have a right to inflict death itself" (III, 278). It may be said in this connection that Sir Samuel Romilly was one of the most strenuous and efficacious agents in reforming and humanizing the criminal code of England. The battle is still raging between the advocates and the opponents of capital punishment. It has been well observed by Montesquieu that the excessive severity of law hinders its execution, for when the punishment surpasses all measure the public will frequently, out of humanity, prefer impunity to such punishment. The same benevolent and philosophical idea was also expressed in the first statute enacted by the English Parliament in the reign of Queen Mary; and that statute recites in its preamble: "That the state of every King consists more assuredly in the love of the subjects towards their prince than in the dread of laws made with rigorous pains; and that laws made for the preservation of the Commonwealth without great penalties are more often obeyed and kept than laws made with extreme punishments." The policy around the world varies at present. By the early twentieth century, capital punishment had been abolished in Italy, Holland, most of the cantons of Switzerland, Belgium, Portugal, and Rumania, and in the States of Michigan, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Maine. It had fallen into practical disuse in Finland and Prussia. It was retained in Russia only for treason and military insubordination. The State of Colorado abolished it in 1897, but as the result of a lynching outbreak in 1900 it was restored in 1901. The death penalty was publicly inflicted by the guillotine in France, Belgium, Denmark, Hanover, and two cantons of Switzerland. Criminals were executed privately by the guillotine in Bavaria, Saxony, and in two cantons of Switzerland. Execution upon the gallows was in vogue in Austria and Portugal. Hanging was conducted privately in Great Britain and in most of the states of the Federal Union. In America, the states of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia were among the first to execute criminals by electricity. In fifteen cantons of Switzerland criminals condemned to death were publicly beheaded; in Prussia they were privately beheaded. In Ecuador, and in the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg, they were shot. In Spain they were publicly executed by means of an instrument called the garrotte. In China they were strangled in public with a cord. In Brunswick they were beheaded. JOHN WILLEY WILLIS Puno Puno DIOCESE OF PUNO (PUNIENSIS) Suffragan of the Archdiocese of Lima in Peru. Its jurisdiction extends over the whole territory of the Department of Puno, with a Catholic population (1900) of 260,810 souls; 85 priests; 62 parishes; 320 churches and chapels. The residence of the bishop is at the City of Puno. The bishopric was created by law of the republic, 26 November, 1832, and by a Bull of Pius IX of 6 Nov., 1861, approved by executive resolution, 6 Sept., 1865. Dr. Marriano Chaco y Becerra was nominated the first Bishop of Puno on 17 June, 1861, and consecrated 7 April, 1862, but resigned before assuming his duties. His successor, Dr. Juan Ambrosio Huerta was nominated 17 June, 1865, and in 1875 transferred to the see of Arequipa. He was succeeded by Mgr. Pedro José Chavez, whose consecration took place on 25 July, 1875. The next Bishop of Puno was Mgr. Juan Estebánes y Seminario, a Discalced Recollect, who was consecrated on 26 Feb., 1881, and died in the same year. The diocese was then left vacant until 1909, its last Apostolic administrator being Mgr. Ismael Puirredon, until Sept., 1909, when the present bishop, Mgr. Laisson, was consecrated. The Diocese of Puno is divided into 9 ecclesiastical provinces, viz.: Cereado; Baja de Chucuito; Alta de Chucuito; Lampa; Baja de Lampa; Huancani; Azangaro; Carabaya, and Sandia. There is in the City of Puno a seminaro conciliar for the education of the priesthood. The diocese is well-supplied with public and private schools, some of the latter connected with the parishes. (See PERU.) JULIAN MARINO-LACALLE John Baptist Purcell John Baptist Purcell Archbishop of Cincinnati, born at Mallow, Ireland, 26 Feb., 1800; died at the convent of the Ursulines, Brown County, Ohio, 4 July, 1883. Of his early education but few particulars can be found. His parents, Edward and Johanna Purcell, being industrious and pious, gave their children all the advantages of the education attainable at a time when the penal laws were less rigorously enforced. John displayed remarkable talent and mastered all the branches of the school curriculum before his eighteenth year. Entrance into the colleges of Ireland was an impossibility. He therefore decided to seek in the United States the higher education denied him in his native country. Landing at Baltimore be applied for and obtained a teacher's certificate in the Asbury College. He spent about one year in giving lessons as private tutor in some of the prominent families of Baltimore. His ambition was to become a priest, and this he never lost sight of while teaching others as a means of obtaining a livelihood. On 20 June, 1820, he entered Mount St.Mary's Seminary, Emmitsburg. His previous knowledge of the classics made it an easy task for him to take charge of important classes in the college, and at the same time prepare himself for the priesthood by the study of philosophy, theology, and other branches of ecclesiastical science, After three years' study in the seminary he received tonsure and minor orders from Archbishop Mareschal, of Baltimore, at the close of 1823. On 1 March, 1824, in the company of Rev. Simon Gabriel Bruté, one of the professors of the seminary, afterwards first Bishop of Vincennes, he sailed for Europe to complete his studies in the Sulpician Seminaries of Issy and Paris. On 26 May, 1826, he was one of the three hundred priests ordained in the cathedral of Paris by Archbishop de Quelen. After his ordination he continued his studies until the autumn of 1827, when he returned to the United States to enter Mount St. Mary's Seminary as professor, He afterwards became president, until his appointment as Bishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, to succeed the saintly Fenwick. He received notice of his appointment in Aug., 1833, and was consecrated bishop in the cathedral of Baltimore, 13 Oct., 1833, by Archbishop Whitfield. He attended the sessions of the Third Provincial Council of Baltimore, which opened on the day of his consecration and continued for one week. After winding up his affairs in connexion with the seminary, be set out for the scene of his life's work. Going from Baltimore by stage to Wheeling, and from Wheeling to Cincinnati by steamboat, he reached his destination 14 Nov., 1833. Bishops Flaget, David of Bardstown, Rese of Detroit, and a few priests met him and conducted him to his cathedral, which was on Sycamore Street. He was canonically installed by Bishop Flaget, who made the address of welcome. After the installation Bishop Rese, who had been administrator of the diocese during the vacancy, made the legal transfer of the property in his charge. The site of the first cathedral and at that time the only church in the city, a humble structure, is now occupied by the imposing St. Xavier's Church, accommodating over one thousand families, under the care of the Jesuit Fathers. On his arrival in 1833 Bishop Purcell found himself in a city of about 30,000 inhabitants and only one church. The diocese embraced the whole State of Ohio. The prospect presented to the young bishop, then in his thirty-third year, was enough to fill his mind with misgiving and dread. The difficulties increased, for soon the tide of immigration turned towards Ohio, Immigrants from Germany and Ireland came in thousands, and as they were all Catholics it became his duty to provide for their spiritual wants, and that had to be done quickly. A seminary had been founded by Bishop Fenwick in the Athenæum, which stood near the cathedral. The number of students was of course very small, but Bishop Purcell had to rely on this little band to help him in his work. He began his work as a bishop with an energy and earnestness that never flagged during his whole life. He was untiring in his labour, preaching and giving lectures, writing articles for the "Telegraph", a Catholic paper founded by Father Young, a nephew of Bishop Fenwick, the first Catholic paper published in the West. He taught classes in the seminary. At his first ordination he raised to the priesthood Juncker, afterwards first Bishop of Alton, Illinois. He lost no time in providing for the wants of the growing Church in Cincinnati. Holy Trinity on Fifth Street, the first church built for the German-speaking Catholics, was soon followed by another, St. Mary's, at Clay and Thirteenth Streets. Finding it impossible to provide professors or give his own time to the seminary, he called to his aid the Jesuit Fathers, to whom be gave over the church property on Sycamore Street, and purchased a site for his new cathedral on Plum and Eighth Streets, and Western Row, then the western boundary of Cincinnati. Western Row is now Central Avenue. The new cathedral, a magnificent structure 200 feet long and 80 feet wide, built of Dayton limestone, with its beautiful spire of solid stone rising to the height of 225 feet, is one of the finest in the West. This grand temple was completed and consecrated by Archbishop Eccleston of Baltimore, 26 Oct., 1846, thirteen years after Bishop Purcell's arrival at Cincinnati. After trying several locations for his diocesan seminary, he finally located it on Price Hill, west of the city limits. The main building was completed and opened for the theologians in 1851. He called it Mount St. Mary's of the West, after his own Alma Mater at Emmitsburg. Two orphan asylums were established, St. Aloysius's for the children of German-speaking parents, and St. Peter's, now St. Joseph's, for children of English-speaking people, and provision was made for their maintenance. He made a complete visitation of his extensive diocese the first year of his administration, providing for the spiritual care of his scattered flock, either placing resident pastors in parishes or having priests to visit regularly the smaller communities that were unable to support a resident pastor. In 1940 the canal and railway systems that were to revolutionize the existing conditions of commerce were begun and continued without interruption until 1854. Little Miami Railroad from Xenia to Cincinnati, a distance of 65 miles, was opened for traffic in 1841. It is now a link in the great Pennsylvania system. These public works brought immense numbers of emigrants to the state. What were villages soon grew into cities; Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus, Dayton, and Hamilton became the cities of the state. New parishes were formed, and churches and schools were built. Cleveland became a bishopric in 1847, and Columbus in 1868. He was obliged to call on Europe for help to meet the fast-growing wants of his diocese. Bishop Purcell made several trips to Europe, visiting the various seminaries there, and soliciting students having the missionary spirit to share his labours in Ohio. On his return from one of these trips to Europe he was accompanied by a band of zealous young priests, Fathers Machebeuf, Lamy, Gacon, Cheymol, and Navaron. Father Machebeuf afterwards became first Bishop of Denver; Father Lamy, first Archbishop of Santa Fé. The others lived to a ripe old age, doing missionary work in the diocese till God called them to their reward. While the state was growing in population, the city of Cincinnati did not lag behind. Cist's "Cincinnati" (1851), in its church statistics, gives the Catholics 13 parishes and 11 parish schools, with an enrollment of 4494 pupils. Bishop Purcell from the beginning was an earnest advocate of the establishment of parish schools. The rapid growth of Ohio and the West was recognized in Rome, and in 1850 Cincinnati was made an archbishopric. The pallium was conferred on Archbishop Purcell by Pope Pius IX, who at the same time made him assistant at the pontifical throne, in appreciation of his personal worth. The new ecclesiastical province of Cincinnati had for suffragans the Diocese of Cleveland, Detroit, Indianapolis, and Louisville. In 1861 the archbishop did not hesitate in making known his views on the Civil War. He decided to fly the flag from the cathedral spire. This action of the archbishop called forth a great deal of adverse criticism, as there was at the time an influential party in the North opposed to the war. Many Catholics were in sympathy with this party. The archbishop boldly took his stand and ignored the adverse criticism. The event showed the wisdom of his course. The last vestige of insane Knownothingism and its hatred of the Church disappeared. This wave of bigotry which spread over the whole country in the early fifties had showed itself decidedly hostile to Catholics in Cincinnati in 1854, when Archbishop Bedini was the guest of Archbishop Purcell. The firm stand taken by the German and Irish Catholics under the direction of the archbishop overawed the mob that threatened to destroy the cathedral and thus prevented bloodshed. Archbishop Purcell attended the Council of the Vatican, and in the discussion of Papal Infallibility he took the side of the minority which opposed the opportuneness of the decision, but on his return from Rome, which he left before the question was decided, he gave in his adhesion to the doctrine as soon as he learned of the signing of the decree by Pope Pius IX. This he did in a sermon he preached in the cathedral saying, "I am here to proclaim my belief in the infallibility of the pope in the words of the Holy Father defining the doctrine", He celebrated his golden jubilee of priesthood 26 May, 1876. He was joined in this celebration not only by his diocese but by the whole country. Bishops and archbishops came personally or sent representatives. He had reason to rejoice when he saw the result of his work. When he came to Cincinnati he found a small city with but one church, and a diocese with a few Catholics scattered through the state. After forty-three years of toil he found the city grown to a population of nearly 300,000, with forty well-organized parishes having schools giving Catholic education to 20,000 children, a well-equipped seminary, colleges, and charitable institutions to take care of the poor and sick. Throughout the diocese were well-organized parishes, churches, and parish schools. Forty years before he had only a few priests; in 1876 he could count on the help of 150 diocesan and 50 regular priests, and a Catholic population of 150,000. In reply to the addresses of congratulation on the occasion, he modestly referred the success to the cordial assistance of the priests and the generous aid of the laity. The serious financial disaster that clouded his last years was the result of circumstances for which he could hardly be responsible. Giving all his time to the spiritual management of the diocese, he left the material part altogether in the hands of his brother, Father Edward Purcell. He received deposits from people who were mistrustful of the banks, which were unstable institutions until the general government adopted the national banking system during the War of Rebellion. The large amount involved represented the accumulation of compound interest. This financial disaster crushed out the lives of the archbishop and his brother. The crash came in the autumn of 1878, and the archbishop died five years later. His brother had passed away in the spring of the preceding year. After fourteen years of litigation and the mismanagement of the assignees, the affair came to an end, when the court found the amount due on the cathedral and diocesan institutions to be $140,000. Archbishop Elder accepted the findings of the court and made arrangement by a system of assessments on the parishes to meet the loans made to pay the amount required by the final decision. This decision was made in 1892. Under the wise administration of Archbishop Elder, who succeeded Archbishop Purcell, all the loans have been paid off. In 1837 Bishop Purcell, wishing to come in touch with the learned men of Ohio, became a member of the Ohio College of Teachers. At one of the meetings the discussion turned on religion, and some remarks were made reflecting on the Church. Bishop Purcell asked leave to reply to them at length. This permission could not be granted under the rules limiting speeches to ten minutes. In a spirit of fairness, Dr. Wilson offered the bishop the use of his church on Fourth and Main Streets to reply. This offer was gladly accepted, and the bishop delivered a masterly discourse. The position and teaching of the Catholic Church were put before the people of Cincinnati so clearly and forcibly as to cause many who heard the bishop at least to reconsider the ideas they had formed of Catholic teaching and practice. The Catholic Church was unfavourably known by non-Catholics at the time, owing to the false charges made by preachers and the spread of anti-Catholic literature giving false views of her teaching and practice. The lecture was a surprise to many who had up to that time looked upon Catholics as a danger to the country. It stirred up a great deal of discussion in the community, so much so that Alexander Campbelle, founder of the Campbellite wing of the Presbyterian Church, felt called to take upon himself the defence of Protestantism. He sent a letter to Bishop Purcell challenging him to a publie debate. The bishop with a great deal of reluctance accepted the challenge, and invited Mr. Campbelle to call at his residence in the Athenæum on Sycamore Street to arrange for the debate. The meeting took place at 2 p. m. on 11 Jan., 1837. It was agreed to hold a debate in the Baptist Church, now St. Thomas's Catholic Church, on Sycamore Street. The debate was to begin 13 Feb. and to continue seven days, exclusive of Sunday. Two sessions were to be held each day, the morning session from 9 to 12.30, the afternoon from 3 to 5. The debate was to be held under the direction of five moderators, two to be chosen by each of the disputants, these four to choose a fifth. Mr. Campbelle was to open the discussion, Bishop Purcell to reply. The discussion was to be taken down by shorthand writers, printed after revision by the disputants, and sold, the net proceeds to be distributed equally among Catholic and Protestant charities. The moderators selected were Messrs. Samuel Lewis, Thomas J. Briggs, William Disney, John Rogers, and J. W. Piatt. Mr. Campbelle's charges were: + (1) The Catholic Church is not now nor was she ever Catholic, Apostolic, or Holy, but is a sect in the fair import of the word, older than the sects now existing, not the Mother and Mistress of Churches, but an apostasy from the Church of Christ. + (2) The notion of Apostolic succession is without foundation in the Bible and reason. + (3) She is not uniform in faith, but fallible and changeable as other sects in religion and philosophy. + (4) She is the Babylon of St. John. + (5) Purgatory, indulgences, confession, and transubstantiation are immoral in their tendencies, injurious to the well-being of society, political and religious. + (6) The world is not indebted to the Church for the Bible. + (7) If the Church is infallible and unchangeable, she is opposed to the spirit of the institutions of the United States, which means progress. At the close of the debate one of the city papers said "Catholicity lost nothing and Protestantism gained nothing by the discussion." It made a profound impression on the community at large. Catholic doctrine was brought before the people in a way they had never understood it before. Thinking men were led to lay aside the prejudice caused by their ignorance of the Church. Bishop Purcell's ability as a public teacher was recognized and his learning respected. The reputation and standing he acquired by this discussion he maintained during his entire administration. The members of his own flock were encouraged when they found their bishop so competent to teach them their faith and defend it against the attacks of non-Catholics. The discussion brought him into prominence throughout the whole country. He was called upon to deliver lectures and preach sermons in nearly every diocese. He was looked upon as the representative bishop of the West, as Archbishop Hughes was of the East. In 1867 Mr. Vickers preached a sermon at the laying of the corner-stone of St. John's Evangelical Church, in which he made charges against the Church. Archbishop Purcell felt called upon to take notice of Mr. Vickers's sermon. This he did in a sermon preached at the laying of the corner-stone of St. Rose's Church. This brought on a discussion in the columns of the "Catholic Telegraph" and the "Cincinnati Gazette". The discussion attracted little attention, as the archbishop had to patiently follow his opponent, refuting the oft-repeated false charges against the Church. The observatory corner-stone was laid on Mount Adams 9 Nov., 1842, by John Quincy Adams, ex-president of the United States. He is reported to have said in the course of his speech, "this observatory is to be a beacon of true science, that should never be obscured by the dark shadows of superstition and intolerance symbolized by the Popish Cross". The position is now the site of the Holy Cross Monastery of the Passionist Fathers. The monastery was solemnly dedicated 22 June, 1873, when the archbishop preached a most eloquent sermon on the "Triumph of the Cross". This was his reply to the remarks of John Quincy Adams and his slur on the Cross of Christ. He had before that placed the cross above the observatory when he built his votive church called the "Immaculata" on Mount Adams. The following religious orders came to the archdiocese during the incumbency of Archbishop Purcell: -- the Sisters of Charity, founded at Emmitsburg, came to Cincinnati in 1829, in union with the Sisters of Charity of France. In the changes, the Sisters formed an independent community, taking the name of the Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati. Archbishop Purcell received their vows in 1852. The Jesuit Fathers took charge of the college in 1840, and the congregation in 1847. The Sisters of Notre Dame of Namur, Belgium, came to Cincinnati in 1840. The Precious Blood Fathers came to Ohio in 1840. The Franciscan Fathers came to the diocese in 1844; the Good Shepherd Sisters in 1857; the Sisters of Mercy in 1858; Little Sisters of the Poor in 1868; Sisters of the Poor of St. Francis in 1858; Ladies of the Sacred Heart in 1869; and the Passionist Fathers in 1870. Catholic Telegraph (Cincinnati); SHEA, History of the Catholic Church in the United States; CIST, Cincinnati (1851). JOHN B. MURRAY. Purgatorial Societies Purgatorial Societies Pious associations or confraternities in the Catholic Church, which have as their purpose to assist in every possible way the poor souls in purgatory. The Catholic doctrine concerning purgatory, the condition of the poor souls after death, the communion of saints, and the satisfactory value of our good works form the basis of these associations, although they were called into life by pure Christian charity for one's neighbour which reaches beyond the grave. This brotherly love was the distinguishing mark of Christ's Church from the very beginning; the first Christian communities and the whole Church of the early centuries down to the time of the catacombs was one grand purgatorial society. The clearest evidence for this is supplied by the prayers for the dead in the oldest liturgies and breviary prayers, and by the earliest Christian inscriptions. In the centuries that followed, wherever the Church and ecclesiastical spirit manifested itself in the form of associations, zeal and love for the poor souls were revealed in the same degree (cf., Kraus, "Christl. Alterümer", s. v. Fraternitas). The old religious orders, e.g. the Benedictine Order with all its branches, especially the Order of Cluny which inaugurated All Soul's Day, furnish the most convincing proof of this. Religious confraternities are likewise distinguished in their early beginnings by a special devotion to the sick and deceased, e.g. the brotherhood of Constantinople which flourished in 336 [Barionius, "Annales", ad an. 336, IV (Lucca, 1739), 295; cf. VII (Lucas, 1741), 869 "Parabolani"], and in the West the Confratriæ or Confraternitates of the Middle Ages. Even the medieval geldoniæ or guilds, established primarily for secular purposes, never forgot in their constitutions or practical corporate life special works of charity for deceased members [Michael, "Gesch. des deutschen Volkes", I (1897), 146, 150, sq.; Janssen, Gesch. d. deutsch. Volkes", I (1st ed.), 319 sqq.]. Although affording one of the best proofs of the existence of lively faith, especially among the Anglo-Saxons, Franks,, and the Germanic peoples in general, the medieval associations of brotherhoods of prayer called "fraternitates", "societates", "consortium", "societates fraternæ", and "consortium fraternitatis" (cf. Adalbert Ebner, "Die klösterl. Gebets-Verbrüderungen", Ratisbon, 1890; Georg Zappert, "Ueber Verbrüderungsbücher u. Nekrologian im Mittelalter", Vienna, 1853) are little known. They were founded chiefly, though not solely, to assist deceased members with prayers, Mass, and all works of Christian charity. Critical investigators, therefore, simply designate these institutions "Totenbünde" (associations for the dead). Ducange-Favre defines a Confraternitas "as . . . a society formed between various churches and monasteries, abbeys, bishops and noblemen; later kings, princes, bishops, priests, and the laity, especially ecclesiastical benefactors, were admitted. In the certificate of admission or the document instituting the brotherhood it was usually stated in detail how many Masses, what prayers, and good works would be offered on their death for the repose of the souls of deceased members, in the monasteries and churches or by individuals. The names of all members were enrolled in a registry of the brotherhood (Liber vitæ), a development of the ancient diptychs. A messenger was immediately dispatched with a circular (rotulus) to announce the death of a member to all the affiliated monasteries, where the name was inserted in the dead list (see NECROLOGIES) for constant commemoration; these lists were, like the earlier diptychs (q. v.), read aloud so that special prayers might be said for the deceased mentioned, and a special commemoration made by the priest during the Holy Sacrifice (Kraus, "Christl. Altertümer", II, 486 sq.). The revival of the regular life in the West, emanating from England in the sixth century, marks the rise of these confraternities, which attained their greatest prosperity during the period of the Carlovingians, maintained their position throughout the Middle Ages, and declined with its close. From England also issued the first public opposition to these associations, proclaimed by Wycliff about 1400 in his "Triologus" (IV, xxx sq.), and followed by all religious innovators of these times. These brotherhoods may be divided into those formed of several monasteries, churches, or individual bishops, priests, abbots, and monks. However, kings, princes, and other laymen, especially benefactors, were admitted into to these three classes, and even the frequently very numerous subordinates of a monastery. Especially during their most flourishing period, confraternities were formed among monasteries. In the ninth century Richenua was affiliated with more than a hundred other monasteries and chapters in Germany, Switzerland, France, and Italy; this was chiefly due to the reform of the monastery by St. Benedict of Aniane (d. 821), and is the largest brotherhood known to us. Alcuin worked in the west of the Frankish empire, and before him St. Boniface had sought with eager zeal to establish and foster in Germany such unions and brotherhoods with England and Italy (cf. Monumenta Germaniæ historica, "Libri confraternitatum"; "Necrologia"). In this connexion it is interesting to note the "Act of Spiritual Association" between the Abbeys of St. Denis of France and St. Remy of Reims (Bibl. Nat., MS. lat. 13000, fol. 70), in which it is arranged that, within thirty days after the death of a member, the entire office be recited by each of the surviving members, that the priests say Masses corresponding to the various offices, and that vigils be held in common on the first, seven, and thirteenth days. At the provincial and national synods of the Middle Ages the bishops and abbots present frequently formed themselves into such brotherhoods, often extending to the cathedral chapters and monasteries whose superiors were members, and to the kings and princes who were present at the councils. In the eight and ninth centuries, there was a whole series of such synods, e.g.: Attigny (762); Dingolfing (769); Frankfort (794); Salzburg (799); Freising (805); Clechty (815: Synodus Calchuthensis anno X, i, 816); Savionières near Toul (850); brotherhoods were also formed at other English and Italian synods [cf. Mansi, XII sqq. ad annos cit.; Wilkins, "Concilia Brittaniæ", I (London, 1737, 171)]. At diocesan synods all the clergy of a diocese with their bishop formed themselves into brotherhoods, and frequently priests of still smaller districts (rural chapters) formed lesser associations of prayer to which the laity were also admitted [cf. P.L., CVI, 866, 878; Baluze, "Miscell.", I (Lucca, 1761), 112, lviii; Harduin, "Conc.", VI, 420, xx]. Individuals of every station, rank, and sex eagerly joined these associations, while numerous rich persons founded monasteries, or made large benefactions to insure a special share in their suffrage after death. English kings, bishops, abbots, and especially Carlovingian kings gave them an excellent example, as did Sts. Boniface and Alcuin. Even the laity of the lower classes joined the brotherhoods of St. Gall and Richenau ["Mon. Germ. Hist", "Libri Confraternitatum" and "Necrologia"; Mansi, "Concil.", XIX, 283 sq., "Council. Tremoniense" (i.e., of Dortmund), 1005]. The communion of spiritual goods and indulgences, granted by monasteries in the last centuries to another monastery, to benefactors and friends outside the cloister, or to other confraternities, is more than a memorial of the old brotherhoods, since in these grants, or communicationes, the promise of spiritual help for the deceased is one of the chief features. With these brotherhoods of prayer there appeared at an early period Confraternitates more closely resembling the associations which are to-day known under that name. Their chief object was care for the poor souls. Among these might be included the above-mentioned associations from the earliest times, which devoted themselves especially to the spiritual welfare of the dying and the burial of the dead. Of the confraternities of the dead, of which we have information, only examples can be cited from the earlier centuries, but these show sufficiently clearly how widespread these must then have been. According to an inscription in the Church of Sts. Cosmos and Damian in Rome [Baronius, "Annal.", XVI (Lucca, 1774), 272] a number of priests and bishops in Rome formed themselves into an association of sodales (c. 985), each promising that on the death of a member he would immediately sing forty Masses for the repose of his soul. At the beginning of the eleventh century Orc, the friend of Knut the Great, erected in honour of God and St. Peter a confraternity at Abbotesbury, according to the statutes of which each member should on the death of another contribute one penny for the repose of his soul [Dugdale, "Monasticon Anglicanum", III (London, 1821), 55]. In 1220 Bishop Peter of Sens ratified a confraternity formed by thirteen clergy who bound themselves to celebrate annually four anniversaries for the benefactors and members of the confraternity ["Gallia Christiana", XII (Paris, 1770), Appendix 363]. In 1262 twenty-four secular priests united to practice works of mercy for the dead, read Masses for the repose of their souls, etc. (Quix, "Beschreibung der Münsterkirche zu Aachen", 58, 157, 161 sq.). In 1355 there existed at Glocknitz a lay confraternity for the dead, which accepted memberships from other parishes (Monum Boica, IV, 168, sqq.) and cared especially for the burial of the poor. Ducange-Favre (s. v. Purgatorium) speaks of a pious association, founded in 1413, expressly under the name of purgatory, in the old church of Maria Deaurata (Daurade) at Toulouse. These confraternities concerned themselves almost exclusively with the souls of deceased members and benefactors, while the distinguishing work of the later associations is their foundation for all poor souls. Provision for burial was first made by "La Compagnia della Pietà", founded in Rome, 1448 (cf. A. Berignani in "Archivio storico R. di Stor. Patr.", XXXIII, 5, sqq.) and nearly related to confraternities here described. In the newly-erected church of the German cemetery (Campo Santo), a confraternity "in honour of the bitter Passion of Christ and of the Sorrowful Mother, to comfort and assist all the faithful souls", was erected (1448) by the penitentiary, Johannes Goldener of Nüremberg, later titular Bishop of Accon and auxiliary bishop of Bamberg (cf. de Waal, "Der Campo Santo der Deutschen zu Rom", Freiberg, 1896, pp. 46 sqq.), and in 1579 raised by Gregory XIII to an archconfraternity, enriched with new indulgences, and empowered to aggregate other confraternities throughout the world (loc cit, 107, sqq.). Although it has undergone many changes, this confraternity still exists, combined towards the end of the nineteenth century with a special Requiem Mass Association for assisting souls of deceased members (loc cit, 307; cf. Beringer, "Die Ablässe", 13th German edition, 1906, pp. 685 sqq.), and it is the first purgatorial society according to the present meaning of the name. The "Black Penitents", who marched in procession through Rome under the banner of mercy, were founded in 1488 to assist before execution those condemned to death, and afterwards to provide for their burial, exequies, and Requiem Mass [cf. Raynald, "Annales", XI (Lucca, 1754), 178 sq. ad an 1490]. The Confraternity of Our Lady of Suffrage (S. Maria del Suffragio) existed in Rome from 1592, expressly for the relief of the poor souls. It has numerous members, and since 1615 has aggregated other confraternities with the same object (Decr. auth. S. C. Indulg., n. 83, p. 67; Moroni. II, 309; LI, 328). The Archconfraternity of Death and Prayer (mortis et orationis), founded in Rome, 1538, to provide for the burial of the poor and abandoned, still exists (cf. Berignani, loc. cit); at the beginning of the seventeenth century it was granted new indulgences by Paul V (Rescr. auth. S. C. Indulg., n. 26, pp. 448 sqq.; Moroni, II, 303). About 1687 the rules for a special confraternity "for the relief of the Most Needy Souls in Purgatory" under the sacred names of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were approved in Rome (Moroni, XV, 130). The confraternity for the relief of the departed under the title of "Jesus Christ on Mount Calvary and the Sorrowful Mother" enjoyed special popularity and inaugurated, 8 Sept., 1760, the processions of the Way of the Cross in the Roman Coliseum; among its illustrious members was St. Leonard of Port Maurice (Recr. auth. Summ. pp. 497 sqq.; Moroni. loc. cit.). The Ingolstadt Mass Association, formed by the Franciscans of Ingolstadt in 1726 to procure for all members the grace of a happy death and for those already deceased speedy assistance and liberation form the pains of purgatory was erected into a formal and legal confraternity under the title of the Immaculate Conception in 1874. An ancient, highly venerated picture of the Mother of God was adopted as the titular picture of the association, which has received all the indulgences of the confraternity of the same name in the Ara Coeli at Rome, i.e., the indulgences of the Blue Scapular (Recr. auth. n. 393; Summ. 58 pp. 580 sqq.). It numbers its members by tens and hundreds of thousands; almost 2000 Masses are daily celebrated for the intentions of the Marian Mass Association, which includes the intention of particularly assisting the most recently deceased members. At the close of the Middle Ages, the old confraternities, generally confined to a town or small district, gradually disappeared, as also did many of the later ones in the confusion at the end of the eighteenth century, while others preserved only a semblance of life. Since the beginning of the nineteenth century they have been replaced by vigorous new associations, which, richly endowed with indulgences by ecclesiastical authorities, have rapidly extended to the entire Church. By brief of 5 October, 1818, Pius VII endowed the Archconfraternity of Our Mother of Sorrows and the Poor Souls in Purgatory (Archiconfraternitas B. V. M. Dolorosæ sub invocatione Animarum purgatorii), which was erected in the basilica of S. Maria in Trastevere, with rich indulgences (Rescr. auth. Summ. 28, pp. 445 sqq.). First among the later confraternities which have extended throughout Christendom is the "Archconfraternity for the Relief of the Poor Souls in Purgatory under the title of the Assumption of Mary in the Redemptorist church of S. Maria in Monterone at Rome", founded in 1841. It rapidly developed, especially in England and North America, and was endowed with indulgences in 1841-63. Priests empowered to receive the faithful into the confraternity enjoy various other faculties. This confraternity is especially adapted for rapid expansion, because in 1860 it was expressly authorized to aggregate every confraternity of whatever name and object and to communicate to them its graces and privileges, provide they added to their original titles "and for the relief of the Poor Souls in Purgatory"; they must not, however, be already aggregated to another archconfraternity, nor have been endowed with indulgences on their own account (Rescr. auth. Summ., n. 48, pp. 543 sqq.). The Redemptorist Fathers conduct this archconfraternity (cf. Seeberger, "Key to the Spiritual Treasures", 2nd ed., pp. 296 sqq.). At Nîmes in France a confraternity similar to that of Our Lady of Suffrage was established in 1857, received the faculty of aggregating other confraternities in the Diocese of Nîmes in 1858, and in 1873 received the same right for the whole world. In addition to the indulgences of the Roman confraternity, that of Nîmes has received others: the recital of the Rosary of the Dead was approved especially for its members by Pius IX in 1873 (Beringer, "Die Ablässe", II, 3rd ed., pp. 470 sqq.). In accordance with its ancient traditions, the Benedictine order formed a twofold Confraternity of the Poor Souls at Lambach, Diocese of Linz, Austria. In 1877 the Archconfraternity of the Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament under the protection of St. Benedict for the Poor Souls in Purgatory was erected with the right to aggregate other confraternities of the same name and object in Austria-Hungary. In 1893, with the same name and objects, this confraternity was erected in the abbey church of St. John the Baptist in Collegeville, Minnesota; it shares in all the indulgences of the Lambach confraternity, and possesses, as the archconfraternity of North America, the faculty of aggregating all confraternities of the same name and communicating to them its indulgences. Finally, by brief of 2 March, 1910, Pius X granted to Lambach Confraternity the right to aggregation for the whole world (Acta Ap. Sed., III, 93 sqq.). There was also founded, in 1878, in the same abbey church of Lambach a Priest's Association under the Protection of St. Benedict for the Relief of the Poor Souls in Purgatory. This was approved and recommended by the diocesan bishop, Franz Joseph Rudigier. Many other bishops, especially in North America, recommended it to their clergy. The direction of the association is in the hands of the general director of the Archconfraternity of Lambach, who enters the members in a special register. The official organ for both is the "Benediktusstimmen" published by the Abbey of Emaus in Prague (cf. Seelberger, op. cit., 301, sqq.). A work of atonement to obtain liberation for the most needy and abandoned souls in purgatory by the celebration of many Masses was founded in 1884 in the parish of La Chapelle-Montligeon, Diocese of Séez, France. Until 1893 this association was aggregated to the archconfraternity of S. Maria in Monterone, but it was declared by Brief of 2 October, 1893, an honorary archconfraternity and prima-primaria. Only associations united with that of Montligeon may adopt the same title and statutes. This association of many million members is blessed by the pope, and recommended by numerous bishops. To become a member, one must have one's name enrolled, and contribute five centimes annually for the objects of the association; persons who make a single contribution of five francs have a permanent share in all the Masses celebrated for the deceased. Seven Masses are said weekly for the souls in purgatory, three monthly for deceased priests, and in addition many thousand Masses are offered annually. A monthly organ of the association is issued in various languages (cf. Seeberger, lo. cit., 304 sqq.; Beringer, op. cit., II, 478 sqq.). The Order of Cluny have always been conspicuous for their devotion to the poor souls. Since 998, St. Odilio, Abbott of Cluny, had All Soul's Day celebrated by his monks on 2 November, which day was gradually devoted by the entire church to the relief of the poor souls. In memory of this fact, a new archconfraternity was erected at Cluny in the parish of Our Lady. By Brief of 25 May, 1898, Leo XIII granted this "Archconfraternity of Prayer for the Poor Souls in Purgatory" the indulgences of the old Roman Confraternity of Prayer and Death (see above), and authorized it to aggregate similar confraternities throughout France and its colonies ("Analecta eccles.", 1898, p. 328; Beringer, "Die Ablässe", II, 475 sqq.). The "Associazione del Scaro Cuore di Gesû in suffrago della Anime del Pugatorio" was canonically established in Rome (Lungotevere, Prati), in a church of the Sacred Heart, and granted indulgences and privileges by Leo XIII (1903-5). The director of this association, which includes non-residents of Rome in its membership, is Victor Jouet, who edits "Rivista mensile dell' Associazione". Having named the best-known and widespread confraternities for the poor souls, we must not forget that, among the numerous other confraternities and pious associations, there is scarcely one -- if indeed any -- which does not seek to promote with special devotion the intercession for, and help of, the poor souls. Indulgences of the confraternities are ever applicable to the souls in purgatory, and the privileges of the altar for churches and for priests, who are members, may be used in favour of dead members or for all poor souls. The formation of the "Catholic League for Constant Intercession for the Poor Souls in Purgatory" was proposed by certain pious citizens of Rome, approved by Leo XIII in the last years of his reign, and enriched with indulgences. The only requisite for membership is to recite thrice daily the prayer, "Requiem æternam dona eis Domine et lux perpetua luceat eis. Requiescant in pace. Amen", thereby gaining once daily an indulgence of 200 days (cf. Raccolta, 1898, pp. 53339 sq.). In conclusion we must mention the thousands and perhaps millions of the faithful who have made the heroic act of charity, thus assisting in the most perfect manner the souls in purgatory, and finally the crown of all these associations, in this work, is the Order of the Helpers of the Holy Souls. Mon. Germ. Hist. Libri confraternitatum, ed. PIPER (Berlin, 1884); Necrologia Germaniæ I-III (Berlin, 1888-1905); Reccuil des historiens de la France. Obituaires I-II (Paris, 1902-6); ZAPPERT, op. cit.; EBNER, op. cit.; MOLINIER, Les obituaires françoisais (Paris, 1890); Beringer, "Die Ablässe ihr Wesen u. Gebrauch (Paderhorn, 1906; French tr. Paris, 1905); MIGNE, Dict. des confréries in Encyclopédie Théologique, L. JOSEPH HILGERS Purgatory Purgatory The subject is treated under these heads: I. Catholic Doctrine II. Errors III. Proofs IV. Duration and Nature V. Succouring the Dead VI. Indulgences VII. Invocation of Souls VIII. Utility of Prayer for the Departed I. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions. The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined: "Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful" (Denzinger, "Enchiridon", 983). Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go, but the tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen must be consulted to explain the teachings of the councils, and to make clear the belief and the practices of the faithful. Temporal Punishment That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture. God indeed brought man out of his first disobedience and gave him power to govern all things (Wis. x, 2), but still condemned him "to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow" until he returned unto dust. God forgave the incredulity of Moses and Aaron, but in punishment kept them from the "land of promise" (Num., xx, 12). The Lord took away the sin of David, but the life of the child was forfeited because David had made God's enemies blaspheme His Holy Name (II Kings, xii, 13, 14). In the New Testament as well as in the Old, almsgiving and fasting, and in general penitential acts are the real fruits of repentance (Matt., iii, 8; Luke, xvii, 3; iii, 3). The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God. Venial Sins All sins are not equal before God, nor dare anyone assert that the daily faults of human frailty will be punished with the same severity that is meted out to serious violation of God's law. On the other hand whosoever comes into God's presence must be perfectly perfectly pure for in the strictest sense His "eyes are too pure, to behold evil" (Hab., i, 13). For unrepented venial faults for the payment of temporal punishment due to sin at time of death, the Church has always taught the doctrine of purgatory. So deep was this belief ingrained in our common humanity that it was accepted by the Jews, and in at least a shadowy way by the pagans, long before the coming of Christianity. ("Aeneid," VI, 735 sq.; Sophocles, "Antigone," 450 sq.). II. ERRORS Epiphanius (haer., lxxv, P.G., XLII, col. 513) complains that Acrius (fourth cent.) taught that prayers for the dead were of no avail. In the Middle Ages, the doctrine of purgatory was rejected by the Albigenses, Waldenses, and Hussites. St. Bernard (Serm. lxvi in Cantic., P. L. CLXXXIII, col. 1098) states that the so-called "Apostolici" denied purgatory and the utility of prayers for the departed. Much discussion has arisen over the position the Greeks on the question of purgatory. It would seem that the great difference of opinion not concerning the existence of purgatory but concerning the nature of purgatorial fire; still St. Thomas proves the existence of purgatory in his dissertation against the errors of the Greeks, and the Council of Florence also thought necessary to affirm the belief of the Church on the subject (Bellarmine, "De Purgatorio," lib. I, cap. i). The modern Orthodox Church denies purgatory, but is rather inconsistent in its way of putting forth its belief. At the beginning of the Reformation there was some hesitation especially on Luther's part (Leipzig Disputation) as to whether the doctrine should be retained, but as the breach widened, the denial of purgatory by the Reformers became universal, and Calvin termed the Catholic position "exitiale commentum quod crucem Christi evacuat . . . quod fidem nostram labefacit et evertit" (Institutiones, lib. III, cap. v, 6). Modern Protestants, while they avoid the name purgatory, frequently teach the doctrine of "the middle state," and Martensen ("Christian Dogmatics," Edinburgh, 1890, p. 457) writes: "As no soul leaves this present existence in a fully complete and prepared state, we must suppose that there is an intermediate state, a realm of progressive development, (?) in which souls are prepared for the final judgment" (Farrar, "Mercy and Judgment," London, 1881, cap. iii). III. PROOFS The Catholic doctrine of purgatory supposes the fact that some die with smaller faults for which there was no true repentance, and also the fact that the temporal penalty due to sin is it times not wholly paid in this life. The proofs for the Catholic position, both in Scripture and in Tradition, are bound up also with the practice of praying for the dead. For why pray for the dead, if there be no belief in the power of prayer to afford solace to those who as yet are excluded from the sight of God? So true is this position that prayers for the dead and the existence of a place of purgation are mentioned in conjunction in the oldest passages of the Fathers, who allege reasons for succouring departed souls. Those who have opposed the doctrine of purgatory have confessed that prayers for the dead would be an unanswerable argument if the modern doctrine of a "particular judgment" had been received in the early ages. But one has only to read the testimonies hereinafter alleged to feel sure that the Fathers speak, in the same breath, of oblations for the dead and a place of purgation; and one has only to consult the evidence found in the catacombs to feel equally sure that the Christian faith there expressed embraced clearly a belief in judgment immediately after death. Wilpert ("Roma Sotteranea," I, 441) thus concludes chapt. xxi, "Che tale esaudimento", etc., Intercession has been made for the soul of the dear one departed and God has heard the prayer, and the soul has passed into a place of light and refreshment." "Surely," Wilpert adds, "such intercession would have no place were there question not of the particular, but of the final judgment. Some stress too has been laid upon the objection that the ancient Christians had no clear conception of purgatory, and that they thought that the souls departed remained in uncertainity of salvation to the last day; and consequently they prayed that thoese who had gone before might in the final judgment escape even the everlasting torments of hell. The earliest Christian traditions are clear as to the particular judgment, and clearer still concerning a sharp distinction between purgatory and hell. The passages alledged as referring to relief from hell cannot offset the evidence given below (Bellarmine, "De Purgatorio," lib. II, cap. v). Concerning the famous case of Trajan, which vexed the Doctors of the Middle Ages, see Bellarmine, loc. Cit., cap. Viii. Old Testament The tradition of the Jews is put forth with precision and clearness in II Maccabees. Judas, the commander of the forces of Israel, "making a gathering . . . sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins" (II Mach., xii, 43-46). At the time of the Maccabees the leaders of the people of God had no hesitation in asserting the efficacy of prayers offered for the dead, in order that those who had departed this life might find pardon for their sins and the hope of eternal resurrection. New Testament There are several passages in the New Testament that point to a process of purification after death. Thus, Jesus Christ declares (Matthew 12:32): "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." According to St. Isidore of Seville (Deord. creatur., c. xiv, n. 6) these words prove that in the next life "some sins wil be forgiven and purged away by a certain purifying fire." St. Augustine also argues "that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come" (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xxiv). The same interpretation is given by Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, xxxix); St. Bede (commentary on this text); St. Bernard (Sermo lxvi in Cantic., n. 11) and other eminent theological writers. A further argument is supplied by St. Paul in I Cor., iii, 11-1,5: "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." While this passage presents considerable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter transgressions will be burnt away, and the soul thus purified will be saved. This, according to Bellarmine (De Purg., I, 5), is the interpretation commonly given by the Fathers and theologians; and he cites to this eftect: + St. Ambrose (commentary on the text, and Sermo xx in Ps. cxvii), + St. Jerome, (Comm. in Amos, c. iv), + St. Augustine (Comm. in Ps. xxxvii), + St. Gregory (Dial., IV, xxxix), and + Origen (Hom. vi in Exod.). See also St. Thomas, "Contra Gentes,", IV, 91. For a discussion of the exegetical problem, see Atzberger, "Die christliche Eschatologie", p. 275. Tradition This doctrine that many who have died are still in a place of purification and that prayers avail to help the dead is part of the very earliest Christian tradition. Tertullian "De corona militis" mentions prayers for the dead as an Apostolic ordinance, and in "De Monogamia" (cap. x, P. L., II, col. 912) he advises a widow "to pray for the soul of her husband, begging repose for him and participation in the first resurrection"; he commands her also "to make oblations for him on the anniversary of his demise," and charges her with infidelity if she neglect to succour his soul. This settled custom of the Church is clear from St. Cyprian, who (P. L. IV, col. 399) forbade the customary prayers for one who had violated the ecclesiastical law. "Our predecessors prudently advised that no brother, departing this life, should nominate any churchman as his executor; and should he do it, that no oblation should be made for him, nor sacrifice offered for his repose." Long before Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria had puzzled over the question of the state or condition of the man who, reconciled to God on his death-bed, had no time for the fulfilment of penance due his transgression. His answer is: "the believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God's righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, "yet" etc. (P. G. IX, col. 332). In Origen the doctrine of purgatory is very clear. If a man depart this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter. "For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (I Cor., 3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works." (P. G., XIII, col. 445, 448). The Apostolic practice of praying for the dead which passed into the liturgy of the Church, is as clear in the fourth century as it is in the twentieth. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechet. Mystog., V, 9, P.G., XXXIII, col. 1116) describing the liturgy, writes: "Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops that are dead; and in short for all those who have departed this life in our communion; believing that the souls of those for whom prayers are offered receive very great relief, while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar." St. Gregory of Nyssa (P. G., XLVI, col. 524, 525) states that man's weaknesses are purged in this life by prayer and wisdom, or are expiated in the next by a cleansing fire. "When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil." About the same time the Apostolic Constitution gives us the formularies used in succouring the dead. "Let us pray for our brethren who sleep in Christ, that God who in his love for men has received the soul of the depart one, may forgive him every fault, and in mercy and clemency receive him into the bosom of Abraham, with those who in this life have pleased God" (P. G. I, col. 1144). Nor can we pass over the use of the diptychs where the names of the dead were inscribed; and this remembrance by name in the Sacred Mysteries==(a practice that was from the Apostles) was considered by Chrysostom as the best way of relieving the dead (In I Ad Cor., Hom. xli, n. 4, G., LXI, col. 361, 362). The teaching of the Fathers, and the formularies used in the Liturgy of the Church, found expression in the early Christian monuments, particularly those contained in the catacombs. On the tombs of the faithful were inscribed words of hope, words of petition for peace and for rest; and as the anniversaries came round the faithful gathered at the graves of the departed to make intercession for those who had gone before. At the bottom this is nothing else than the faith expressed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio"), and to this faith the inscriptions in the catacombs are surely witnesses. In the fourth century in the West, Ambrose insists in his commentary on St. Paul (I Cor., iii) on the existence of purgatory, and in his masterly funeral oration (De obitu Theodosii), thus prays for the soul of the departed emperor: "Give, O Lord, rest to Thy servant Theodosius, that rest Thou hast prepared for Thy saints. . . . I loved him, therefore will I follow him to the land of the living; I will not leave him till by my prayers and lamentations he shall be admitted unto the holy mount of the Lord, to which his deserts call him" (P. L., XVI, col. 1397). St. Augustine is clearer even than his master. He describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness" etc., and in the resurrection he says there will be some who "have gone through these pains, to which the spirits of the dead are liable" (De Civ. Dei, XXI, 24). Thus at the close of the fourth century not only (1) were prayers for the dead found in all the Liturgies, but the Fathers asserted that such practice was from the Apostles themselves; (2) those who were helped by the prayers of the faithful and by the celebration of the Holy Mysteries were in a place of purgation; (3) from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". So clear is this patristic Tradition that those who do not believe in purgatory have been unable to bring any serious difficulties from the writings of the Fathers. The passages cited to the contrary either do not touch the question at all, or are so lacking in clearness that they cannot offset the perfectly open expression of the doctrine as found in the very Fathers who are quoted as holding contrary opinions (Bellarmine "De Purg.", lib. I, cap. xiii). IV. DURATION AND NATURE Duration The very reasons assigned for the existence of purgatory make for its passing character. We pray, we offer sacrifice for souls therein detained that "God in mercy may forgive every fault and receive them into the bosom of Abraham" (Const. Apost., P. G., I col. 1144); and Augustine (De Civ. Dei, lib. XXI, cap.xiii and xvi) declares that the punishment of purgatory is temporary and will cease, at least with the Last Judgment. "But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both noow and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment." Nature of Punishment It is clear from the Liturgies and the Fathers above cited that the souls for whose peace sacrifice was offered were shut out for the time being from the sight of God. They were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness". Still, for them "death is the termination not of nature but of sin" (Ambrose, "De obitu Theodos."); and this inability to sin makes them secure of final happiness. This is the Catholic position proclaimed by Leo X in the Bull "Exurge Domine" which condemned the errors of Luther. Are the souls detained in purgatory conscious that their happiness is but deferred for a time, or may they still be in doubt concerning their ultimate salvation? The ancient Liturgies and the inscriptions of the catacombs speak of a "sleep of peace", which would be impossible if there was any doubt of ultimate salvation. Some of the Doctors of the Middle Ages thought uncertainity of salvation one of the severe punishments of purgatory. (Bellarmine, "De Purgat." lib. II, cap. iv); but this opinion finds no general credit among the theologians of the medieval period, nor is it possible in the light of the belief in the particular judgment. St. Bonaventure gives as the reason for this elimination of fear and of uncertainty the intimate conviction that they can no longer sin (lib. IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1 q. iv): "Est evacuatio timoris propter confirniationem liberi arbitrii, qua deinceps scit se peccare non posse" (Fear is cast out because of the strengthening of the will by which the soul knows it can no longer sin), and St. Thomas (dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) says: "nisi scirent se esse liberandas suffragia non peterent" (unless they knew that they are to be delivered, they would not ask for prayers). Merit In the Bull "Exurge Domine" Leo X condemns the proposition (n. 38) "Nec probatum est ullis aut rationibus aut scripturis ipsas esse extra statum merendi aut augendae caritatis" (There is no proof from reason or Scripture that they [the souls in purgatory] cannot merit or increase in charity). For them "the night has come in which no man can labour", and Christian tradition has always considered that only in this life can man work unto the profit of his own soul. The Doctors of the Middle Ages while agreeing that this life is the time for merit and increase of grace, still some with St. Thomas seemed to question whether or not there might be some non-essential reward which the souls in purgatory might merit (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a. 3). Bellarmine believes that in this matter St. Thomas changed his opinion and refers to a statement of St. Thomas ("De Malo", q. vii, a. 11). Whatever may be the mind of the Angelic Doctor, theologians agree that no merit is possible in purgatory, and if objection be urged that the souls there merit by their prayers, Bellarmine says that such prayers avail with God because of merit already acquired "Solum impetrant ex meritis praeteritis quomodo nunc sancti orando) pro nobis impetrant licet non merendo" (They avail only in virtue of past merits as those who are now saints intercede for us not by merit but by prayer). (loc. cit. II, cap. iii). Purgatorial Fire At the Council of Florence, Bessarion argued against the existence of real purgatorial fire, and the Greeks were assured that the Roman Church had never issued any dogmatic decree on tlils subject. In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine in Ps. 37 n. 3, speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, "gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita" (P. L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and he adds "'that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life" (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. "Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur", and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; "Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta". How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops "to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification', and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion" (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio"). V. SUCCOURING THE DEAD Scripture and the Fathers command prayers and oblations for the departed, and the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio") in virtue of this tradition not only asserts the existence of purgatory, but adds "that the souls therein detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar." That those on earth are still in communion with the souls in purgatory is the earliest Christian teaching, and that the living aid the dead by their prayers and works of satisfaction is clear from the tradition above alleged. That the Holy Sacrifice was offered for the departed was received Catholic Tradition even in the days of Tertullian and Cyprian, and that the souls of the dead, were aided particularly "while the sacred victim lay upon the altar" is the expression of Cyril of Jerusalem quoted above. Augustine (Serm.. clxii, n. 2) says that the "prayers and alms of the faithful, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar aid the faithful departed and move the Lord to deal with them in mercy and kindness, and," he adds, "this is the practice of the universal Church handed down by the Fathers." Whether our works of satisfaction performed on behalf of the dead avail purely out of God's benevolence and mercy, or whether God obliges himself in justice to accept our vicarious atonement, is not a settled question. Suarez thinks that the acceptance is one of justice, and alleges the common practice of the Church which joins together the living and the dead without any discrimination (De poenit., disp. xlviii, 6, n. 4). VI. INDULGENCES The Council of Trent (Sess. XXV) defined that indulgences are "most salutary for Christian people" and that their "use is to be retained in the Church". It is the common teaching of Catholic theologians that + indulgences may be applied to the souls detained in purgatory; and + that indulgences are available for them "by way of suffrage" (per modum suffragii). (1) Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XX, ix) declares that the souls of the faithful departed are not separated from the Church, which is the kingdom of Christ, and for this reason the prayers and works of the living are helpful to the dead. "If therefore", argues Bellarmine (De indulgentiis, xiv) "we can offer our prayers and our satisfactions in behalf of those detained in purgatory, because we are members of the great body of Christ, why may not the Vicar of Christ apply to the same souls the superabundant satisfaction of Christ and his saints==of which he is the dispenser?" This is the doctrine of St. Thomas (IV, Sent., dist. xlv, q. ii, a. 3, q. 2) who asserts that indulgences avail principally for the person who performs the work for which the indulgence is given, if they but secondarily may avail even for the dead, if the form in which the indulgence is granted be so worded as to be capable of such interpretation, and he adds "nor is there any reason why the Church may not dispose of its treasure of merits in favour of the dead, as it surely dispenses it in favour of the living". (2) St. Bonaventure (IV, Sent., dist. xx, p. 2, q. v) agrees with St. Thomas, but adds that such "relaxation cannot be after the manner of absolution as in the case of the living but only as suffrage (Haec non tenet modum judicii, sed potius suffragii). This opinion of St. Bonaventure, that the Church through its Supreme Pastor does not absolve juridically the souls in purgatory from the punishment due their sins, is the teaching of the Doctors. They point out (Gratian, 24 q. ii, 2, can.1) that in case of those who have departed this life judgment is reserved to God; they allege the authority of Gelasius (Ep. ad Fausturn; Ep. ad. Episcopos Dardaniae) in support of their contention (Gratian ibid.), and they also insist that the Roman Pontiffs, when they grant indulgences that are applicable to the dead, add the restriction "per modum suffragii et deprecationis". This phrase is found in the Bull of Sixtus IV "Romani Pontificis provida diligentia", 27 Nov. 1447. The phrase "per modum suffragi et deprecationis" has been variously interpreted by theologians (Bellarmine, "De indulgentiis", p.137). Bellarmine himself says: "The true opinion is that indulgences avail as suffrage, because they avail not after the fashion of a juridical absolution 'quia non prosunt per modum juridicae absolutionis'." But according to the same author the suffrages of the faithful avail at times "per modum meriti congrui" (by way of merit), at times "per modum impetrationis" (by way of supplication) at times "per modum satisfactionis" (by way of satisfaction); but when there is question of applying an indulgence to one in purgatory it is only "per modum suffragii satisfactorii" and for this reason "the pope does not absolve the soul in purgatory from the punishment due his sin, but offers to God from the treasure of the Church whatever may be necessary for the cancelling of this punishment". If the question be further asked whether such satisfaction is accepted by God out of mercy and benevolence, or "ex justitia", theologians are not in accord==some holding one opinion, others the other. Bellarmine after canvassing both sides (pp. 137, 138) does not dare to set aside "either opinion, but is inclined to think that the former is more reasonable while he pronounces the latter in harmony with piety ("admodum pia"). Condition That an indulgence may avail for those in purgatory several conditions are required: + The indulgence must be granted by the pope. + There must be a sufficient reason for granting, the indulgence, and this reason must be something pertaining to the glory of God and the utility of the Church, not merely the utility accruing to the souls in purgatory. + The pious work enjoined must be as in the case of indulgences for the living. If the state of grace be not among the required works, in all probability the person performing the work may gain the indulgence for the dead, even though he himself be not in friendship with God (Bellarmine, loc. cit., p. 139). Suarez (De Poenit., disp. Iiii, s. 4, n. 5 and 6) puts this categorically when he says: "Status gratiae solum requiritur ad tollendum obicem indulgentiae" (the state of grace is required only to remove some hindrance to the indulgence), and in the case of the holy souls there can be no hindrance. This teaching is bound up with the doctrine of the Communion of Saints, and the monuments of the catacombs represent the saints and martyrs as interceding with God for the dead. The prayers too of the early liturgies speak of Mary and of the saints interceding for those who have passed from this life. Augustine believes that burial in a basilica dedicated to a holy martyr is of value to the dead, for those who recall the memory of him who has suffered will recommend to the martyr's prayers the soul of him who has departed this life (Bellarmine, lib. II, xv). In the same place Bellarmine accuses Dominicus A Soto of rashness, because he denied this doctrine. VII. INVOCATION OF SOULS Do the souls in purgatory pray for us? May we call upon them in our needs? There is no decision of the Church on this subject, nor have the theologians pronounced with definiteness concerning the invocation of the souls in purgatory and their intercession for the living. In the ancient liturgies there are no prayers of the Church directed to those who are still in purgatory. On the tombs of the early Christians nothing is more common than a prayer or a supplication asking the departed to intercede with God for surviving friends, but these inscriptions seem always to suppose that the departed one is already with God. St. Thomas (II-II:83:11) denies that the souls in purgatory pray for the living, and states they are not in a position to pray for us, rather we must make intercession for them. Despite the authority of St. Thomas, many renowned theologians hold that the souls in purgatory really pray for us, and that we may invoke their aid. Bellarmine (De Purgatorio, lib. II, xv,) says the reason alleged by St. Thomas is not at all convincing, and holds that in virtue of their greater love of God and their union with Him their prayers may have great intercessory power, for they are really superior to us in love of God, and in intimacy of union with Him. Suarez (De poenit., disp. xlvii, s. 2, n. 9) goes farther and asserts "that the souls in purgatory are holy, are dear to God, love us with a true love and are mindful of our wants; that they know in a general way our necessities and our dangers, and how great is our need of Divine help and divine grace". When there is question of invoking the prayers of those in purgatory, Bellarmine (loc. cit.) says it is superfluous, ordinarily speaking, for they are ignorant of our circumstances and condition. This is at variance with the opinion of Suarez, who admits knowledge at least in a general way, also with the opinions of many modern theologians who point to the practice now common with almost all the faithful of addressing their prayers and petitions for help to those who are still in a place of purgation. Scavini (Theol. Moral., XI, n. l74) sees no reason why the souls detained in purgatory may not pray for us, even as we pray for one another. He asserts that this practice has become common at Rome, and that it has the great name of St. Alphonsus in its favour. St. Alphonsus in his work the "Great Means of Salvation", chap. I, III, 2, after quoting Sylvius, Gotti, Lessius, and Medina as favourable to his opinion, concludes: "so the souls in purgatory, being beloved by God and confirmed in grace, have absolutely no impediment to prevent them from praying for us. Still the Church does not invoke them or implore their intercession, because ordinarily they have no cognizance of our prayers. But we may piously believe that God makes our prayers known to them". He alleges also the authority of St. Catharine of Bologna who "whenever she desired any favour had recourse to the souls in purgatory, and was immediately heard". VIII. UTILITY OF PRAYER FOR THE DEPARTED It is the traditional faith of Catholics that the souls in purgatory are not separated from the Church, and that the love which is the bond of union between the Church's members should embrace those who have departed this life in God's grace. Hence, since our prayers and our sacrifices can help those who are still waiting in purgatory, the saints have not hesistated to warn us that we have a real duty toward those who are still in purgatorial expiation. Holy Church through the Congregation of Indulgences, 18 December 1885, has bestowed a special blessing on the so-called "heroic act" in virtue of which "a member of the Church militant ofters to God for the souls in purgatory all the satisfactory works which he will perform during his lifetime, and also all the suffrages which may accrue to him after his death" (Heroic Act, vol. VII, 292). The practice of devotion to the dead is also consoling to humanity and eminently worthy of a religion which seconds all the purest feelings of the human heart. "Sweet", says Cardinal Wiseman (lecture XI), "is the consolation of the dying man, who, conscious of imperfection, believes that there are others to make intercession for him, when his own time for merit has expired; soothing to the afflicted survivors the thought that they possess powerful means of relieving their friend. In the first moments of grief, this sentiment will often overpower religious prejudice, cast down the unbeliever on his knees beside the remains of his friend and snatch from him an unconscious prayer for rest; it is an impulse of nature which for the moment, aided by the analogies of revealed truth, seizes at once upon this consoling belief. But it is only a flitting and melancholy light, while the Catholic feeling, cheering though with solemn dimness, resembles the unfailing lamp, which the piety of the ancients is said to have hung before the sepulchres of their dead." EDWARD J. HANNA St. Patrick's Purgatory St. Patrick's Purgatory Lough Derg, Ireland. This celebrated sanctuary in Donegal, in the Diocese of Clogher, dates from the days of St. Patrick, but it is also known as the Lough Derg pilgrimage, so named from Lough Derg, a sheet of water covering 2200 acres, about thirteen miles in circumference 450 feet above sea level, on which are eleven islands, the principal of which are Saints Island and Station Island. The sanctuary lands on Saint Island were known in the Middle Ages as Termon Dabheoc (from the sixth-century St. Dabheoc who presided over the retreat), and were subsequently called Termon Magrath from the family of Magrath, who were coarbs or stewards of the place from 1290. St. Patrick's connection with the purgatory which bears his name is not only a constant tradition, but is supported by historical evidence, and admitted by the Bollandists. In 1130 or 1134, the Canons Regular of St. Augustine were given charge of Lough Derg==it being constituted a dependent priory on the Abbey of Sts. Peter and Paul, Armagh. Its fame became European after the knight Owen's visit in 1150, although it had been previously described in 1120 by David, the Irish rector of Wurzburg. Numerous accounts of foreign pilgrimages to St. Patrick's Purgatory are chronicled during the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, including the vision related in the "Legenda Aurea", printed in 1482. In 1470, Thomas, Abbot of Armagh, got the priory in commendam, and in 1479 the community had almost died out, the revenues being farmed by Neill Magrath. Pope Alexander VI ordered the cave to be closed on Saints Island, the papal decree was executed on St. Patrick's Day, 1497. A few years later, in 1502, the station was transferred to Station Island, where the Purgatory had originally existed. The cave was visited by a French knight in 1516, and by the papal nuncio, Chiericati, in 1517. Chiericati gives an interesting account of his visit, and relates that there were three Austin Canons in the priory. Though formally suppressed by the English Government in 1632, the lay owner permitted the Austin Canons to resume their old priory, and in 1660 we find Rev. Dr. O'Clery as prior, whose successor was Father Art Maccullen (1672-1710). The Franciscan Friars were given charge of the Purgatory in 1710, but did not acquire a permanent residence on the Island till 1763, at which date they built a friary and an oratory dedicated to St. Mary of the Angels. In 1780 St. Patrick's Church was built, and was subsequently remodeled. From 1785 the priory has been governed by secular priests appointed by the Bishop of Clogher. In 1813 St. Mary's Church was rebuilt, but it was replaced by the present Gothic edifice in 1870, and a substantial hospice was opened in 1882. The number of pilgrims from 1871 to 1911 has been about 3000 annually, and the station season lasts from June to 15 August. The station or pilgrimage lasts three days, and the penitential exercises, though not so severe as in the days of faith, are austere in a high degree, and are productive of lasting spiritual blessings. Messingham, Florilegium Insuix Sanctorum (Paris, 1624); Ware, Antiquities of Ireland (London, 1654); O'Brullaghan, The Pilgrimage of Lough Derg (Belfast, 1726); O'Connor, St. Patrick's Purgatory (new ed., Dublin, 1895); Healy, Life and Writings of St. Patrick (Dublin, 1905). W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD Purim Purim (Phurim). The origin of the name is disputed: some derive it from the Persian pure (part lot), or pur (full); others from the Aramaic purah (root parar, to break into pieces). The feast was instituted to commemorate the deliverance of the Jews from the machinations of Xerxes's minister, Haman, who had obtained from the king an edict for their extermination, date of the massacre, 13 Adar, being appointed by lot (Esth., ix, 26). Through the intercession of Esther, Jewess and queen of the realm, the edict was recalled, and on 13 Adar the Jews, certain of royal protection, defended themselves and killed a large number of their enemies (ix, 16). In Susa (then the Persian capital) Jewish vengeance reigned for two days, in other parts of the realm for one day (ix, 17, 18). Hence the Purim was celebrated on 15 Adar in Susa, and in other parts on 14 Adar. Reuss (Gesch. des Alten Test., § 473) identifies it with "Nicanor Day", and holds the Book of Esther responsible for the name Purim, but this theory is refuted by the "Mêgillah Ta'anith" (second century, a.d.), where 13 Adar is still called "Nicanor Day". Fürst (Kanon des A. T.) and Meier (Heb. Wörterb.) identify the feast with the Persian spring festival, which the Jews are supposed to have adopted in Susa; the Book of Esther is then a mere allegory, intended to cast a national halo about the feast. Von Hammer (Wien. Jahrb. Lit., 1827) calls the Purim a transformation of the Zoroastrian feast Farwadigân (Festival of the Dead), observed during the last ten days of the year. Lagarde (Beitrag zur Gesch. der Religion, 1887) elaborated this theory and brought to its support linguistic considerations of little value. Grätz (Monatschr. Gesch. u. Wiss. der Jud., xxxv, 10-12) derives Purim from purah (winepress), and accordingly identifies the feast with the observance of the Greek and Roman Bacchanalia, forgetting that the wine season is passed when the Purim is celebrated. Others, like Zimmern (Zeitschrift für d. alttest. Wiss., 1891), Jensen (Wiener Zeitschr. für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, VI, 47-209), and Wildeboer ("Comment on Esther" in Marti's "Kurzer Handcomm.", p. 173) wish to make the Book of Esther a mere metamorphosis of mythological legends. These hypotheses, however, have a very weak and doubtful historical basis. Originally the Purim was celebrated without liturgical services. Later the Book of Esther, the Megillah par excellence, was read on the evening of the vigil and on the morning of the feast. When the name of Haman occurs in the reading, the congregation hisses, stamps, and gesticulates, shouting: "Let his name be blotted out! Let the name of the wicked perish!" The reader names ten sons of Haman in one breath to indicate that they died at the same moment. The vigil is observed by a strict fast called the "fast of Esther". The feast is celebrated with great solemnity, gifts being exchanged. Sometimes, however, the feast degenerated into an occasion for debauchery and licence, gruesome details (e.g. the burning on a gibbet of an effigy of Haman) being added to the diversions. At times a cross was burned to manifest hatred for the Christians (Cod. Theodos., XVI, viii, 18). When the feast occurred in an intercalary year it was celebrated twice: on 15 Adar (Little Purim) and on 15 Ve-adar (Great Purim). This feast was generally observed as early as the time of the Machabees (II Mach., xv, 37) and Josephus (Antiq., XI, vi, 13). The Purim frequently contributed to the preservation of the Jewish faith, when in imminent danger. To this fact the Cairene Purim and the Purim Vincent bear witness. The first commemorates the deliverance of the Jews in Cairo (1524); the latter in Frankfort (1616). Green, Hebrew Feasts (1886); Meyer, De temp. et fest. hebræorum; Iken, Antiquitates hebraicæ (Bremen, 1741); Reland, Antiq. sacr. (Utrecht, 1741); LesÉtre in Vigouroux, Dict de la bible, s. v. Phurim; Oppert, Commentaire du livre d'Esther in Annales de philos. chrét. (Jan., 1864); Vigouroux, Les livres saints de la critique rationaliste, IV (6th ed., Paris, 1896), 579-93; SchÜrer, Gesch. des jüd. Volkes im Zeitalter J. C. (4th ed., Leipzig, 1901-7). CHARLES L. SOUVAY Puritans Puritans One of the chief difficulties in studying the various movements loosely spoken of as Puritanism is to frame an exact definition capable of including the varied and sometimes mutually inconsistent forms of belief usually classified under that name. In its original meaning it signified "those who strove for a worship purified from all taint of popery" (Maitland, op. cit. inf., 590). A more recent writer adopting and expanding this definition adds: "The many various sects and persons who fall under this definition, were usually characterized both by an aversion from gaiety and by a passionate love of civic freedom" (Trevelyan, op. cit. inf., 60). We may see the first beginnings of English Puritanism in the attitude of those who in 1563 entered into the "Vestiarian Controversy" by opposing the use, by the clergy, of the cap and gown in daily life and of the surplice in church. English exiles from Geneva were active in the cause, and by 1565 their resistance to the queen's wishes subjected some of them to loss of benefices. This controversy of rights and vestments developed into a controversy of polity, until Presbyterianism emerged in antagonism to Episcopalianism. Yet in the process the movement developed on such divergent lines that Puritanism soon included three different theories of Church government. First there were the moderates who were willing to retain government by bishops, though they preferred the title "superintendent", but who wished the usages of the Establishment to conform more nearly to Genevan practices. Those who held this system were in agreement with the Scottish Presbyterianism which had been established by John Knox. Secondly there were the strict Presbyterians who wished for the Calvinistic form of government as well as the theology and order of worship. In England the movement was led by Thomas Cartwright of Cambridge, whose doctrine that there should be equality of authority and that bishop and presbyter were all one was soon adopted in Scotland. Thirdly there were the Free Churchmen or Independents who repudiated all coercive power in the Church and wished all men to be free in forming congregations. Their leader was Robert Brown, whose followers were at first persecuted by Anglicans and Presbyterians alike, but whose descendants grew in power and influence until under Oliver Cromwell they became the predominant party. The three bodies differed from one another in doctrine, in ecclesiastical polity, and in their view of toleration. The strength of Puritanism as common to these three bodies lay in the results effected by the general study of the Bible, in which the Puritans learned the relations of man with God as exemplified in the histories and parables of Holy Writ. This private study of the Scriptures was carried on by the aid of private interpretation which inevitably resulted in the multiplication of minor sects such as Fifth Monarchy men, Levellers, Diggers, and others. Thus Puritanism could never attain a recognized dogmatic system. At first it shared many Calvinistic views with the theologians of the Established Church, but these were abandoned by some and Calvin's doctrines were rejected first by the Baptists and afterwards by the Quakers and the Unitarians. However, the lack of a consistent theology was the less felt because of the great stress which the Puritans laid upon "serving God in spirit and in truth" -- by feeling and conduct rather than by doctrine. This spirit is most pronounced in the Puritan works which achieved the highest popularity: Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress", George Fox's "Journal", Thomas Ellwood's "History of My Own Life" and Baxter's "Saint's Everlasting Rest". In matters of Church government some kind of system became necessary and the Scottish Presbyterians evolved a plan, embodied in the First Book of Discipline which had been drawn up in the Edinburgh Assembly of 1560, and which was concerned chiefly with the congregation itself. This was supplemented by the Second Book of Discipline of 1578 which regulated the dependence of the congregation on the higher courts. By it Presbyterianism was fully established; for the superintendents were abolished and all authority was transferred from individual ministers to four bodies, the Kirk Session, the Presbytery, the Provincial Synod, and the General Assembly. The English Puritans regarded this system from two diametrically opposed points of view. It was approved by the Presbyterians and condemned by the Independents. But for a time they were kept united by the common necessity of opposing the alliance between the High Church party and the Crown which took place under James I. The struggle became political, and the Arminianism, Episcopalianism, and divine right of the sovereign maintained by the one party were opposed by the Calvinism, Presbyterianism, and Republicanism of the other. When the enactments of the Long Parliament had resulted in victory for the Puritans, their own internal differences clamoured for settlement and the Westminster Assembly of 1643 was an unsuccessful attempt at composing them. The four parties, Moderate Presbyterians, Scottish Presbyterians, Erastians, and Independents having quarrelled fiercely, agreed on a compromise favouring the Moderates. The Presbyterians, however, gradually lost ground, owing to the growing power of the Independents who had the strong support of Cromwell and his army. They in their turn were destroyed as a political power by the Restoration, since when Puritanism ceased to be a force in England under that name, and survived only in the various Nonconformist sects which have increased and multiplied in number down to the present day, without, however, any augmentation of collective strength. Many of these bodies have long ceased to represent Puritanism in any respect save that of dissent from the Established Church. One of the most picturesque incidents in the history of Puritanism and one of far reaching influence on subsequent American history was the departure of the "Pilgrim Fathers" -- seventy-four English Puritans and twenty-eight women -- who sailed from England in the May Flower and landed on Plymouth Rock, 25 December, 1620. There they founded a colony, representing both types, the Plymouth colony being Congregationalists, the Massachusetts Bay settlers, Presbyterians. CAMPBELL, "Puritanism in Holland, England, and America" (London, 1892); DEXTER, "England and Holland" (London, 1906); GREGORY, "Puritanism" (London, 1895); WAKEMAN, "The Church and the Puritans: 1570-1660" (London, 1887); BYINGTON, "The Puritan in England and New England" (London, 1896), giving a useful bibliography; NEAL, "History of the Puritans, 1517-1688" (London, 1822); STOWELL AND WILSON, "History of the Puritans in England" (London, 1849); HOPKINS, "The Puritans: Church, Court and Parliament during the reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth" (Boston, 1859-61); MARSDEN, "History of the early Puritans, to 1642" (London, 1850); IDEM, "History of the later Puritans, 1642-62" (London, 1852); TULLOCH, "English Puritanism and its leaders" (Edinburgh, 1861); MAITLAND, "The Anglican Settlement and the Scottish Reformation" in "Cambridge Modern History", II (Cambridge, 1903); TREVELYAN, "England under the Stuarts" (London, 1904). See also "Reprints of the Clarendon Historical Society" (Edinburgh, 1882-6). EDWIN BURTON Pusey and Puseyism Pusey and Puseyism Edward Bouverie Pusey, born at Pusey House, Berkshire, 22 Aug., 1800; died at Ascot Priory, Berkshire, 16 Sept 1882; divine of the Established Church of England, patristic scholar, voluminous writer, preacher and controversialist, after whom the "Catholic" revival among Anglicans was termed Puseyite. His father, Philip Bouverie, was the youngest son of the first Viscount Folkestone; his mother was Lady Lucy Sherard, daughter of the fourth Earl of Harborough. The family was of Huguenot descent. In 1807 he went to school at Mitcham in Surrey and began the course of education which made him afterwards a deeply learned man, according to the older, uncritical, but massive scholarship of the seventeenth century. From Mitcham he passed to Eton in 1812. Always delicate, shy, and serious, he made few friends and took little part in boys' games. In January, 1819, he proceeded to Christ Church, Oxford, where he was destined to spend his life, except for an interval of study abroad. He formed an attachment, while a mere youth, to Maria Barker whom he married in 1828 after vicissitudes which almost shook his reason, and which revealed the intensely emotional character of Pusey's temperament. His affections counted for much in the part that he played as a champion of orthodoxy; but his principles were sternly held, and to them he sacrificed more than one friendship. He became an enormous reader, cultivated acute verbal accuracy, showed no turn for metaphysics, and was always religious-minded. At Easter, 1822, he took a First Class with distinction, one of the examiners being John Keble. He was elected Fellow of Oriel in 1823; won the Latin Essay in 1824; and at Bishop Lloyd's instance went off next year to Germany, intending to combine the study of languages with a theological training. He attended lectures by Eichhorn, made acquaintance with Hengstenberg and Tholuck, learned something from Schleiermacher, and brought home a tinge of Liberalism in theology which did not go deep. His affinities were with devout mystics; he admired the teaching of Spener and was himself a pietist, feeling kindly at all times towards the English "Evangelicals". In 1826-27 he paid a second visit to Berlin etc. and became an excellent Arabic scholar under Freitag. His long and almost unbroken career of controversy was opened by the volumes (1828, 1830), afterwards withdrawn, in which he defended German religion against H. J. Rose. Both writers had the same object in view; they became friends; and Pusey's covert intention was to warn Englishmen against the dangers of Rationalism. The Tractarian movement found him in sympathy with Newman, but he did not join it formally until 1835. His tracts on Holy Baptism (67-8-9) were, like all Pusey's writings, too long, but impressive from their weight of erudition and pleading earnestness. He neglected style, was often obscure, and could not throw himself into the mind of his opponents. "Imperturbably sanguine", he took the movement to be simply Anglican; hence, when it betrayed tendencies towards Rome he was shocked, but not alarmed. The friendship between himself, Keble, and Newman, romantically devoted to one another, made them triumvirs in an agitation of which the double issue became only by degrees apparent. In 1840 the world talked of "Puseyism", and with a sure instinct, for Newman had gone upon the solitary path where the High Church host would not follow him. But, although with hesitations, it followed Pusey. During the Hampden troubles (1836) he had fought for Catholic dogma and denounced the Nominalism which made short work of creeds. His position never wavered. It was founded, he said, on the teaching of the Fathers "anterior to the separation of East and West". When Tract 90 appeared he upheld it on principle as giving a Catholic interpretation, i. e. the sanction of antiquity, to the Thirty-Nine Articles. He acted on Newman's behalf in the negotiations with the Bishop of Oxford. But when the Bench of Bishops charged against the Tract, their condemnations, which Newman reckoned to be the voice of the Church, left Pusey undismayed. He was himself suspended from preaching by the authorities of the university, in consequence of his sermon on the Holy Eucharist in 1843. The proceedings were flagrantly unjust as well as grotesque, and they helped to destroy the old Oxford constitution. Pusey, like other great scholars, was very simple-minded; he let himself be circumvented by the astute Provost Hawkins and put in the wrong. However, in 1846 he repeated from the same pulpit his former doctrine, which was in its drift Anglican, while much of the language had been taken from St. Cyril of Alexandria. Newman's submission to the Catholic Church in October, 1845, though a stunning blow, did not break their friendship, even when their correspondence was interrupted for years. But it threw upon Keble and Pusey the task of maintaining under assaults from Catholics, Evangelicals, and Broad Churchmen, what they conceived to be the "pure and Apostolic" doctrines of the Prayer Book, for this was in effect their rule of faith. Neither admitted the principle of development; both allowed the Roman primacy, but insisted on the independence of local Churches; and they saw in the papal claims, as in modern "Marian" devotions, a departure from antiquity. There was never any likelihood that they, as individuals would enter the Catholic fold. Pusey's unbounded activities, under domestic trials and continual bad health, were directed, from 1843 onwards, to the restoration of piety on these lines. He took a leading part in the fierce battles which raged round Hampden's appointment to Hereford (1846), the Gorham Case (1850), the Denison Trial (1854), Essays and Reviews (1861), the Purchas Judgment (1871), the Athanasiam Creed (1873-74), the public Worship Bill (1874), the Bonn Conference of Old Catholics (1876), the Ridsdale Case (1877), the Lambeth Conference and habitual Confession (1878), Dr. Farrar on Everlasting Punishment (1879), and many other topics of dissension between members of his own Church. The argument was invariably an appeal to the Fathers, to English divines of the Laudian school, and to the verdict of ecclesiastical as distinct from lay tribunals. Again, it was Pusey who, by his preaching and extensive practice, made private confession the feature which it has now become of Anglican religious life. With help from the remarkable Miss Sellon he founded sisterhoods, largely increased since his time. As a work of penance he built and endowed St. Saviour's, Leeds; but most of the clergy attached to it came over to Rome, and he suffered grievous things on that account from the impetuous Dr. Hook. With so-called "Ritualism" he had little fellow-feeling; it was a younger and less learned movement which thrust his friends aside. But he influenced many through Canon Liddon; and during his last twenty years exercised a sway over his own party which made of him a gentle dictator to the English Church Union. After Keble's death in 1866 he was the patriarch of High Churchmen, holding no preferment but his canonry, revered as a saint, and in secret leading the most austere of lives. His penances, charities, and studies were alike distinguished for their unsparing self-sacrifice. Though a convinced Anglican, he prayed and wrought on behalf of "Reunion", as he understood it, which was a different idea from that of submission, simply and without making terms, to the Holy See. In pursuance of this object he put forth his "Eirenicon" in 1865. Newman in a gracious answer happily described it as an "olive branch from a catapult". It offended Catholics by its handling of the cultus of Our Lady; it provoked the average Protestant, and even men like Dean Church, to utter the cry of "scandal" over various unfortunate quotations; but Pusey had never been able to calculate the effect of his arguments on any who differed from him. A second and third pamphlet, addressed not very pertinently to Newman, exhausted the subject. In 1869, on the eve of the Vatican Council, Pusey and Bishop Forbes of Brechin joined in a fresh effort towards conciliation; but their communications with Archbishop Darboy, Bishop Dupanloup, and Father de Buck, S.J., bore no fruit. There was a divergence on first principles which the council made so clear that after 1870 Pusey gave up all thought of reunion. He would not countenance the Old Catholics, who, as the event proved, were forsaking the standard of dogma. Pusey remained faithful, as Keble did, to the conception of the Via Media, while others have drawn nearer to Rome and seem willing, if they might keep their orders, to accept the whole of the papal teaching without demur. Pusey's works have never been collected; there is a complete bibliography in Vol. IV of his Life by Liddon (pp. 394-446). That copious work also includes a large selection from his correspondence. Of purely scientific or professional undertakings may be noted his "Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts in the Bodleian" (1835), "The Minor Prophets" (1860), "Daniel the Prophet" (1864). This latter treatise was held on its appearance to contain the best defence of the traditional views regarding the Book of Daniel. Life, in 4 vols., begun by LIDDON, finished and published by JOHNSTONE, WILSON, NEWBOLT (London, 1893-97). See also bibliographies under NEWMAN; OXFORD MOVEMENT. WILLIAM BARRY. Pustet Pustet The name of a family of well-known Catholic publishers. The original home of the Pustets was the Republic of Venice, where the name Bustetto is common even to-day. Probably in the seventeenth century, the founder of the Ratisbon line emigrated to South Germany, where one of his descendants, Anton Pustet, lived as a poor bookbinder in the Lower Bavarian borough of Hals (near Passau) at the close of the eighteenth century. To him and his wife Anna (née Scheuerocker) was born on 25 March, 1798, a son, Friedrich. Having learned bookbinding under his father, Friedrich started a small book-store in Passau in 1819, and in 1822 founded a separate printing establishment. This business developed so favourably, thanks to Pustet's energy and skill, that, in 1826, he was able to transfer his publishing business to Ratisbon. Establishing business relations with prominent Catholic authors, he extended the range of his publications to all branches of literature, while paying special attention to theology. In 1830 he married Theresa von Schmid; ten children were the fruit of this marriage. To extend his business undertakings, in 1833 Pustet set up one of the first printing-machines, and in 1836 erected near Ratisbon a paper factory, for which he procured the first paper machine in Bavaria. In 1845 he began printing liturgical works; with this he associated a department for church music, with the co-operation of Dr. Proske, for the purpose of carrying out the latter's ideas for the reform of ecclesiastical music. Men like Dr. Witt, Dr. Haberl, Haller, later rendered valuable services in this department. In 1860 he handed over the business to his sons Friedrich (b. 1831), Karl (b. 1839), and Klemens (b. 1833), and two years later acquired in Munich the Royal Bavarian Central Schoolbook-Publishing Company, which he conducted until 1874. He died on 5 March, 1882. Inheriting their father's ability, the sons continued the extension of the business. Friedrich chose for his department liturgical publications, Karl German works, and Klemens the paper factory. The success of Friedrich earned for him in 1870 the title "Typographus S. R. Congregationis"; among various other distinctions, the firm was entrusted by the Vatican with the world-famous editio typica of all the liturgical works. After a most successful business activity, which extended also to politico-religious life, Friedrich died on 4 August, 1902. Klemens had died before him (1898), and Karl's death followed on 17 January 1910. The last, who was a Privy Counsellor of Commerce, had raised the German publications of the firm to the highest repute; among its publications may be mentioned the "Regensburger Marienkalender" and the illustrated family magazine, the "Deutscher Hausschatz". The present heads of the Pustet firm are Friedrich Pustet, son of Friedrich, and Ludwig, son of Karl. Among the model productions of the firm may also be mentioned the illustrated monthly, "Der Aar", appearing since October, 1910. It remains to add that branch firms have been established in New York (1865), Cincinnati, Ohio (1867), and Rome (1898). DENK, Friedrich Pustet, Vater u. Sohn. Zwei Lebensbilder, sugleich eine Gesch. Des Hauses Pustet (Ratisbon, 1904). FRIEDRICH PUSTET Putative Marriage Putative Marriage Putative (Latin, putativus supposed) signifies that which is commonly thought, reputed, or believed. A putative marriage, consequently, in canon law is a matrimonial alliance which is commonly reputed to be valid, and is sincerely believed by one at least of the contracting parties to be so in the eyes of the Church, because entered into in good faith; but which in reality is null and void, owing to the existence of a diriment impediment. The Church too in her external forum recognizes such a marriage, until its invalidity be proved; and concedes to the children born thereof the rights of legitimacy. GASPARRI, De Matrimonio, I, nn. 47, 1375 (3rd ed., Paris, 1904); ROSSET, De Sacr. Matr., n. 17. ANDREW B. MEEHAN Erycius Puteanus Erycius Puteanus (ERRIJCK DE PUT) Born at Venloo, in Dutch Limbourg, 4 Nov., 1574; died at Louvain, 17 Sept., 1646. A Belgian humanist and philologist, he studied at the schools of Dordrecht and Cologne (Collège des Trois-Couronnes), where he took the degree of Master of Arts, 28 Feb., 1595. He then followed, at Louvain, the lectures on ancient history given by Justus Lipsius. In 1597 he repaired to Italy, and lived in intimacy with the learned men of that country, especially the famous Cardinal Federigo Borromeo, through whom he was appointed professor of Latin at the Palatine School of Milan from 1600 to 1606, when the States of Brabant offered him the chair left vacant by Lipsius at Louvain. He taught with éclat at the Collège des Trois-Langues for forty years, and was loaded with favours by reigning princes: the Archduke Albert appointed him his honorary counsellor (1612), and increased his annual pension by 200 ducats (1614), and added the reversion of Château-César. At the same time he filled, after 1603, the post of historiographer to King Philip IV, on behalf of the Milanese, with other appointments, often ill-paid in consequence of a treasury depleted by continual wars. His rash language provoked political animosities, and he was almost driven into exile by request of King James I of England, who wrongly believed him to be the author of an injurious lampoon. His family numbered seventeen children, of whom four died in infancy. The services he rendered to his native Guelders, the Low Countries, and individuals were considerable. Puteanus was an encyclopedist; his ideal, which saw in numerous and varied acquirements the fullest measure of wisdom and the surest means of arriving at virtue the end of all knowledge, had been suggested to him by his master Justus Lipsius. During a certain period of his literary activity (1603-19), he detached himself from Lipsius by aiming at personal leadership of a school. He dreamed of re-establishing in Belgium the splendid classical period and the cult of eloquence which he had derived from Italy. When he saw the uselessness of his efforts, the indifference of a too utilitarian age inclined towards positive sciences, he again threw himself into encyclopedic authorship and produced his best chronological works. His merit as a philologist is somewhat limited; but his dissertations, reproduced in the Thesauri of Grævius and Gronovius, are of real value and may still be consulted. As a whole, his influence on Belgian philology has been unfortunate. For the history of the numerous writings and editions of Erycius Puteanus see ROERSCH and VANDERHAEGHEN in Bibliotheca Belgica (1904-5), nos. 166, 167, 168, 171; also ROERSCH in Biographie Nationale de Belgique, XVIII (1904); SIMAR, Etude sur Erycius Puteanus (Louvain, 1909). TH. SIMAR Joseph Putzer Joseph Putzer Theologian and canonist, b. at Rodaneck, Tyrol, 4 March, 1836; d. at Ilchester, Md., 15 May, 1904. He entered the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer and made his religious profession, 14 Aug., 1856. Having finished his theological studies at Mautern, Austria, he was ordained 7 Aug., 1859. He arrived in New York, 7 Aug., 1876, was assigned to St. Alphonsus', Baltimore, until 1880, and was occupied in parish work at St. Michael's church until 1884, when he was chosen Superior of St. Mary's, Buffalo, and in 1887 was called to Ilchester, Md., to occupy the chair of moral theology and canon law. With great learning, he possessed a fund of genuine, solid piety, of which humility and simplicity were characteristic traits. His opinion was constantly sought on questions of theology and canon law; he wrote frequently for periodicals and journals, generally signing his articles: "J.P." He is best known by his "Commentarium in Facultates Apostolicas", five editions, first undertaken by Father Konings. Father Putzer revised and enlarged it into practically a new work. On its appearance the "Civiltà Cattolica" (7 Oct., 1893) and "Il Monitore" (31 Aug., 1897) among others praised its clearness, depth, precision, and learning. Father Putzer also published an "Instructio de confessariis religiosorum exemptorum" (two editions) and "Jubilæum anni 1901 -- Commentarium". He left an abundance of unpublished manuscripts. The "American Ecclesiastical Review" says of him that he is entitled "to the gratitude of all who believe themselves debtors to Holy Church. His memory, his judgment, his keen power of analysis were rarely at fault in difficult questions of moral theology." Provincial and Domestic Chronicles; American Ecclesiastical Review (Philadelphia, 1904), XXX, 614; The Catholic Church in the U.S., (New York, 1908) I, 239; MADER, Die Redemptoristen in Oesterreich (Vienna, 1887); Nord Amerika (Philadelphia, 26 May, 1904). C.J. WARREN Pierre Puvis de Chavannes Pierre Puvis de Chavannes French painter, b. at Lyons, 14 Dec., 1824; d. at Paris, 24 Oct., 1898. Through his father Puvis was Burgundian -- "Burgundian salt", says the proverb, that is the strongest French race, which produced such men as Bossuet, Buffon, and Lamartine. His Lyonnaise idealism, which he inherited through his mother, never allowed him to lose the sense of the real, his dreams were always possible and probable. His vocation was slow in manifesting itself. His parents intended him for the Ecole Polytechnique, and he was twenty-three years old when after his return from a first journey to Italy he showed the inclination to paint. Determining to adopt art as a profession, he studied for a year without much profit in the studio of Henry Scheffer, the brother of Ary, and afterwards entered those of Delacroix and Couture. Another sojourn in Italy, where he remained a year, fixed his ideas and determined his creed. He returned convinced of the artistic dignity and great eminence of decorative painting. The art of the great Italian masters, their manner of expressing in large compositions stamped with simplicity, the marvellous thoughts and the beliefs common to a period or a people, was thenceforth the object which he set about realizing for his contemporaries. Without being positively Christian his inspiration preserves a clearly spiritual character. In the midst of the materialistic invasion of the second half of the nineteenth century Puvis (with Eugène Carrière) was the noblest champion of religious art in France. As a painter his originality freed him from early influences and tendencies. In a sense he was really self-taught. While admiring Delacroix, he detested the Romantic anarchy, with its disordered passions, and despised academic conventions, the timid taste and feeble ideas of the so-styled classicals. If he was in sympathy with any section of the school, it was doubtless with the small group of landscape painters. In view of the importance with which he endowed landscape, the atmosphere which he instils into his frescoes, his liking for familiar horizons and lowly countrysides, together with his way of depicting and ennobling them, it seems evident that Puvis studied Corot. Finally in the paintings of Théodore Chassériau the young artist found an ideal similar to his own, a kindred spirit and a model for his Amiens pictures. Puvis's first "Salon" was a "Pietà" exhibited in 1852, but he was constantly rejected for some years afterwards. His already remarkable pictures, such as his "Salome" or his "Julia", shocked the public by a determined absence of shadows (as in mosaics) and by an hieratic and Byzantine strangeness. At the Salon of 1859 he showed a "Return from the Hunt" (Museum of Marseilles), which is a striking work of youthful, heroic, barbarous movement. A great decorative talent became more and more evident in these stray works. Then came the opportunity to paint a hall for a private citizen: "At last", said the artist, "I have water to swim in." Henceforth he forced himself to that regimen of work which he observed all his life, the regimen of a Carthusian or cenobite in art; one meal a day at about seven in the evening, two rapid walks lasting an hour before and after work between his dwelling at Montmartre and his studio at Neuilly, sessions of nine or ten hours of incessant work, in the evening, reading, drawing, music, and conversation with his friends. Several journeys interrupted this regular life. It is not known to whom the merit belongs of having singled out the young painter and appointed him to the work which was his true vocation, nor who commissioned him to paint the frescoes of the staircase in the museum of Amiens, but it was through this chance that Puvis undertook the work which became his true sphere, that of monumental painting. In 1861 appeared "War" and "Peace"; in 1863 "Work" and "Rest", in 1865 these were completed by a new work "Ave Picardia Nutrix". There is nothing simpler or nobler than these paintings. They are considered by more than one authority his best work, and in any case are the manifestation of a singularly new art. He showed an admirable faculty for generalization, a power of expressing life in universal features without cold allegories or romantic disturbances, while retaining a rustic realism and accent. But because of its very novelty, its mural simplicity, this new and vigorous work created astonishment and scandal, with which the artist had to contend for many years. Still sharper criticisms were aroused by his "Autumn", "Sleep", "Harvest" (1870), and especially by the "Poor Sinner" (Salon of 1875), in which the touching archaism had the effect of a challenge. Puvis was accused of not knowing how to paint or draw. His ideas and projects seemed incomprehensible and like a defiance of public taste. There was no attempt to understand the methods of synthesis and simplification due to the particular circumstances of fresco, these pieces being persistently regarded from the same standpoint as the other Salon pictures. The result was a prolonged misunderstanding lasting fifteen years, during which much ink was wasted. Finally the intelligent initiative of the Marquis de Cheunevidères, the best director of the fine arts France has ever had, afforded the unjustly criticised painter the opportunity for a decisive triumph. This was in connexion with the paintings of the "Childhood of St. Genevieve" (1876-8), in the ancient church of that name, now the Pantheon. All that had been misunderstood at the Salon became clear here, all that, seen at close range amid factitious surroundings, had seemed a defect vanished and acquired a meaning in the perfect accord of the work with the monument. For the first time it was perceived that decoration had its own laws and that in this light each of the artist's apparent weaknesses became a charm and a necessity. Thenceforth the master held a unique position in the French school. Without the title he was a sort of painter laureate. During his last twenty years each of his successive works increased his henceforth undisputed reputation; they were "Ludus pro patria" (1880-2), for the Museum of Amiens; "Doux pays" (1882), for M. Leon Bonnat; for the Lyons Museum, the "Sacred Wood Dear to the Arts and Muses" (1884) with the "Antique Vision", "Christian Inspiration", the "Saône" and the "Rhône" (1886); "Inter artes et naturam" (Rouen Museum); "Summer", "Winter", "Victor Hugo Presenting his Lyre to Paris", for the Paris Hôtel de Ville (1893-5), and his last pictures, two new scenes from the legend of St. Genevieve: "St. Genevieve Revictualling the Parisians" (1897) and "St. Genevieve Watching over Paris" (1898). After an interval of twenty years this last picture met with the same popularity as that which had welcomed the first scene of the "Childhood". It is a sublime picture, showing a single figure, in a monastic costume, standing erect and motionless in the night, watching over the blue roofs of the sleeping city. During this last portion of his life the master exercised a wholly new jurisdiction over art; without being the leader of a school, or even strictly speaking having disciples, his word was law. To him the Government had recourse on solemn occasions, for instance the decoration of the vast and grandiose hemicycle of the new Sorbonne (1887-9). Large cities, such as Paris, Lyons, Rouen, Bordeaux, Marseilles, followed the example of Amiens, and when Boston (U.S.A.) wished to decorate the monumental staircase of its library it was Puvis de Chavannes who was chosen to execute that great work (1896). All these works breathe the same love of noble ideas, the same confidence in the higher destinies and ideals of the human race; it may even be said that what the theological painters of the Middle Ages wrought in the Spanish Chapel and what Raphael did for the Renaissance in the Camera della Segnatura, Puvis did in our era. He wrought his "Parnassus" and his "School of Athens", different it is true from those of old, but equally beautiful and sacred. He never lacked clear, ingenious and definite symbols for the plastic expression of general ideas. He upheld the rights of the ideal in the modern world, making it known and detaching it from dreams, art, and poetry. He always had an unshakable faith in the holiness of the spiritual side of humanity and in the supreme importance of continuous search, aspiration, and unrest which form the moral capital of our race. As an artist he did much to maintain religion among men. After the death of Meissonier (1894), Puvis was elected by acclamation to the presidency of the National Society of French Artists. He was commander of the Legion of Honour. The moral dignity and the rectitude of his character and his life increased the respect paid to the artist and thinker. He married the Princess Marie Cantacuzene whom he had met in Chassériau's studio. He survived her by only a few months. His last work, the lovely "Watch of St. Genevieve", reproduces her features and consecrates the memory of that charming companion. It is perhaps this sorrow mingled with an immortal hope which imparts to this supreme work a haunting poetry and unforgettable beauty. (See PARIS, coloured plate.) CHESNEAU, Les nations rivales dans l'art (Paris, 1868); CASTAGNARY, Salons (Paris, 1878); GAUTIER, Abécédaire du Salon (Paris, 1863); HUYSMANS, Certains (Paris, 1889); ARY RENAN, Puvis de Chavannes, Gazette des Beaux Arts (1896); MICHEL, Notes sur l'art moderne (Paris, 1896); BUISSON, Puvis de Chavannes, souvenirs intimes, Gazette des Beaux Arts (1899); VACHON, Puvis de Chavannes (1896); MUTHER, Ein Jahrhundert französischer Malerei (Berlin, 1901); BÉNÉDITTE, Les dessins de P. de Chavannes au Luxembourg (Paris, 1900); BRUNETIÈRE, La Renaissance de l'idéalisme (Paris, 1895), reproduced in Discours de Combat, I. LOUIS GILLET Puyallup Indians Puyallup Indians An important tribe of Salishan linguistic stock, formerly holding the territory along the river of the same name entering near the head of Puget Sound, Washington, and now occupying an allotted reservation, together with several kindred tribes, in the neighbourhood of Tacoma, Pierce County. Their near neighbours, the Nisqually, speak a dialect of the same language. The name is said to mean "shadow", referring to the dense forest shades, and to have been applied originally to the country abut the mouth of the stream. The tribes of Puget Sound region made acquaintance with Catholic priests and laymen as far back as the advent of the Spanish explorers in 1774-95, and from the accompanying Franciscans obtained rosaries and crucifixes which they still treasured sixty years later. This Catholic memory was kept up through the French Canadians in the service of Mackenzie, Fraser, and the Hudson Bay Company. In 1838, the secular missionaries, Norbert Blanchet and Modeste Demers, arrived on the Columbia from Canada, making headquarters at Fort Vancouver, from which point Father Demers, in 1839-41 visited the tribes northward along Puget Sound, instructing and baptizing many. In 1843 another secular, Father Jean-Baptiste Bolduc, made another successful tour of Puget Sound and lower Vancouver Island. In 1847 arrived the first party of Oblates destined for the same mission, chief among which were the famous Father Casimir Chirouse, the Apostle of Tulalip (d. 1891). In 1854 they joined with other tribes of that region in the Treaty of Medicine Creek, by which they gave up their free range and agreed to come upon the reservation assigned them. In the next year they joined the Nisqually and others in the general outbreak of the Washington tribes, known as the Yakima War, which was not finally brought to an end until 1858, when the work of civilization and Christianization was again taken up; but it had been sadly checked by the demoralization consequent upon the removal of reservation restrictions under the recent individual Allotment Act. Upon this point both official and mission authorities agree. With whiskey and pauperization by white swindlers the end seems not far off. More than half the tribe are classified as Catholic, and besides the Government reservation school, the St. George mission school, established in 1888, and in charge of a secular priest assisted by six Franciscan sisters and a lay teacher, has an attendance of sixty pupils of the several confederated tribes. From perhaps 800 souls sixty years ago the Puyallup Indians have decreased to 556 in 1900 and 466 in 1910. In aboriginal customs and beliefs they resembled the Tulalip tribes. BANCROFT, Hist. Washington, Idaho, and Montana (San Francisco, 1890); GIBBS, Tribes of Western Washington in Contr. to N. Am. Ethnology, I (Washington, 1877); MORICE, Catholic Church in Western Canada (2 vols., Toronto, 1910); COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, annual reports (Washington); BUREAU OF CATHOLIC INDIAN MISSIONS, annual reports of director (Washington). JAMES MOONEY Pryker, Johann Ladislaus von Oberwart Johann Ladislaus von Oberwart Pyrker (FELSÖ-EÖR) He was born at Langh near Stuhlweissenburg, Hungary, 2 Nov., 1772; died at Vienna, 2 Dec., 1847. He was descended from an old Hungarian noble family. His father was one of the eighteen brave hussars who distinguished themselves in the battle of Kunersdorf. Graduated from Stuhlweissenburg and Fuenfkirchen, he applied for a civil service position in Ofen but was unsuccessful. In 1792 he entered the Cistercian chapter house at Lilienfeld, where he was ordained priest (1796). In quick succession he was steward, chancellor, prior, abbot, for a time, parish priest at Türnitz, and brought the monastery to the greatest material and spiritual prosperity. He was appointed Bishop of Zips (1818), Patriarch of Aquileia and Primate of Dalmatia with his see in Venice (1820), and finally Archbishop of Erlau, earning the love and veneration of his diocesans. He founded health resorts in Karlsbad and Gastein for sick soldiers, a seminary for country school teachers at Erlau, and donated 10,000 florins toward the adornment of the cathedral at Erlau. His great collection of paintings forms the basis of the Hungarian National Museum. For these charitable gifts he was knighted by the emperor with the title of Felsö-Eör. Pyrker wrote dramatic, epic, and lyric poetry. His first dramatic work, "Historische Schauspiele", appeared in 1810, and contained three five-act tragedies: "Die Corvinen", "Karl der Kleine, König von Ungarn", and "Zrinis Tod". It was not even considered worthy of discussion or criticism, and the various editions of his collected works do not contain the dramas. The "Tunisias", an epic in twelve cantos, describing the conquest of Tunis by Charles V, appeared in 1820, and there have been frequent later editions. A sketch of a "Tunisias" with striking resemblances was found in the textbooks of the Jesuit Jacob Masen. It is possible that the Jesuit's textbook (Palæstra eloquentiæ) was used at the time of Pyrker's youth. Another epic, "Rudolphias", glorifies Rudolph of Hapsburg, and was printed in Vienna in 1824. Grillparzer dramatized the same material in his "Ottokars Glück und Ende", which has many similarities with the well-known "Ode to Hapsburg" written by the Latin poet Avancini, S.J., probably read in the schools at the end of the eighteenth century. Pyrker also wrote several short stories: "Die Perlen der heiligen Vorzeit" (1821); "Bilder aus dem Leben Jesu und der Apostel" and "Legenden der Heiligen auf alle Sonntage und Festtage des Jahres" (1842). As a lyric poet Pyrker published only a few monographs, e. g. "Lilienfelds Freude", and "Lieder der Sehnsucht nach den Alpen" (1845). GÖDEKE, Grundriss der deutschen Dichtung; BRÜHL, Gesch. der Literatur Deutschlands vom 17. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart (1861), 340 sqq.; WURSBACH, Biographisches Lexikon des Kaisertums Qesterreich, XXIV, 115 sq.; SAUER, Allgemeine deutsche Biographie; HEROLD, Friedrich August Klemens Werthes u. die deutschen Zrinydramen (1898); SCHEID, Der Jesuit Masen u. P. N. Avancini, S.J. (Cologne, 1898-9). N. SCHEID. Pyrrhonism Pyrrhonism Pyrrhonism is a system of scepticism, the founder of which was Pyrrho, a Greek philosopher, about whom very little is known except that he died in 270 b.c. The best known of Pyrrho's disciples was Timon of Philius, known as the sillographer. Pyrrho's scepticism was so complete and comprehensive that the word Pyrrhonism is sometimes used as a synonym for scepticism, The scepticism of Pyrrho's school covered three points. (1) All the dogmatists, that is to say, all the philosophers who believed that truth and certitude can be attained, were mere sophists; they were self-deceived and deceivers of others. (2) Certitude is impossible of attainment, not only because of the possibility that our faculties deceive us, but also because, in themselves, things are neither one thing nor the other, neither good nor evil, beautiful nor ugly, large nor small. Or, rather, things are both good and evil, beautiful and ugly, large and small, so that there is no reason why we should affirm that they are one thing rather than the other. This conviction was expressed in the famous saying, ouden mallon, nothing is more one thing than another; the paper is not more white than black, the piece of sugar is not more sweet than bitter, and so forth. (3) The reality of things being inaccessible to the human mind, and certitude being impossible of attainment, the wise man doubts about everything; that is, he recognizes the futility of inquiry into reality and abstains from judging. This abstention is called epoche. It is the foundation of happiness. Because he alone can attain happiness who cultivates imperturbability, ataraxia; and then only is the mind proof against disquietude when we realize that every attempt to attain the truth is doomed to failure. From this account of the principles of Pyrrhonism, it is evident that Pyrrho's aim was ethical. Like all the philosophers of the period in which he lived, he concerned himself principally with the problem of happiness. The Stoics sought to found happiness on the realization of the reign of law in human nature as well as in nature. The Epicureans grounded happiness on the conviction that transitory feeling is the one important phenomenon in human life. The Eclectics placed the intellectual basis of happiness in the conviction that all systems of philosophy are equally true. The Pyrrhonist, as well as the other sceptics of that period, believed that there is no possibility of attaining happiness unless one first realizes that all systems of philosophy are equally false and that the real truth of things cannot be attained. Pyrrhonism is, therefore, an abdication of all the supposed rights of the mind, and cannot be dealt with by the ordinary rules of logic or by the customary canons of philosophical criticism. BRODERSEN, De Philos. Pyrrhonis (Kiel, 1819); LANGHEINRICH, Diss. Tres de Timone Sillographo (Leipzig, 1720); ZELLER, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, tr. REICHEL (London, 1892); TURNER, History of Philosophy (Boston, 1903), 184 sqq. WILLIAM TURNER. Pythagoras and Pythagoreanism Pythagoras and Pythagoreanism Pythagoras, the Greek philosopher and mathematician and founder of the Pythagorean school, flourished about 530 b.c. Very little is known about the life and personality of Pythagoras. There is an abundance of biographical material dating from the first centuries of the Christian era, from the age of neo-Pythagoreanism, but, when we go back to the centuries nearer to Pythagoras's time, our material becomes very scanty. It seems to be certain that Pythagoras was born at Samos about the year 550 or 560 b.c., that he travelled to Magna Græcia in Southern Italy about the year 530, that he founded there a school of philosophy and that he died at Metapontum in Sicily. The detailed accounts of how he invented the musical scale, performed miracles, pronounced prophecies, and did many other wonderful things, belong to legend, and seem to have no historical foundation. Similarly the story of his journey into Egypt, Asia Minor, and even to Babylon is not attested by reliable historians. To the region of fable belongs also the description of the learned works which he wrote and which were long kept secret in his school. It is certain, however, that he founded a school, or, rather, a religious philosophical society, for which he drew up a rule of life. In this rule are said to have been regulations imposing secrecy, a protracted period of silence, celibacy, and various kinds of abstinence. The time-honoured tradition that Pythagoras forbade his disciples to eat beans, for which various reasons, more or less ingenious, were assigned by ancient and medieval writers, has been upset by some recent writers, who understand the phrase, "Abstain from beans" (kyamon apechete), to refer to a measure of practical prudence, and not to a gastronomic principle. Beans, black and white, were, according to this interpretation, the means of voting in Magna Græcia, and "Abstain from beans" would, therefore, mean merely "Avoid politics"-- warning which, we know, was warranted by the troubles in which the school was involved on account of the active share which it took during the founder's lifetime in the struggles of the popular with the aristocratic party in Southern Italy. The school was instructed by its founder to devote itself to the cultivation of philosophy, mathematics, music, and gymnastics, the aim of the organization being primarily ethical. The theoretical doctrines taught by the master were strictly adhered to, so much so that the Pythagoreans were known for their frequent citation of the ipse dixit of the founder. Naturally, as soon as the legends began to grow up around the name of Pythagoras, many tenets were ascribed him which were in fact introduced by later Pythagoreans, such as Philolaus and Archytas of Tarentum. It seems to be certain that, besides prescribing the rules that were to govern the society, Pythagoras taught: a doctrine of transmigration of souls which he probably borrowed from the Bacchic and Orphic mysteries, the whole spirit of the doctrine being religious and ethical, intended to show, by successive incarnations of the soul in the bodies of different animals a system by which certain vices and virtues were to be punished and rewarded after death; in a general way, the doctrine that mathematics contains the key to all philosophical knowledge, a germ, so to speak, which was afterwards developed into an elaborate number-theory by his followers; and the notion that virtue is a harmony, and may be cultivated not only by contemplation and meditation but also by the practice of gymnastics and music. The subsequent elaboration of these three central doctrines into a complicated system is the work of the followers of Pythagoras. The Pythagorean philosophy in its later elaboration is dominated by the number-theory. Being the first, apparently, to observe that natural phenomena, especially the phenomena of the astronomical world, may be expressed in mathematical formulas, the Pythagoreans were carried on by the enthusiasm characteristic of discoverers to maintain that numbers are not only the symbols of reality, but the very substance of real things. They held, for example, that one is the point, two the line, three the surface, and four the solid. Seven they considered to be the fate that dominates human life, because infancy ceases at seven, maturity begins at fourteen, marriage takes place in the twenty-first year, and seventy years is the span of life usually allotted to man. Ten is the perfect number, because it is the sum of one, two, three, and four-the point, the line, the surface, and the solid. Having, naturally, observed that all numbers may be ranged in parallel columns under "odd" and "even", they were led to attempt a similar arrangement of the qualities of things. Under odd they placed light, straight, good, right, masculine; under even, dark, crooked, evil, left, feminine. These opposites, they contended, are found everywhere In nature, and the union of them constitutes the harmony of the real world. The account given by the Pythagoreans of the "harmony of the spheres" is the best illustration of their method. There are, they said, ten heavenly bodies, namely, the heaven of the fixed stars, the five planets, the sun, the moon, the earth, and the counter-earth. The counter-earth is added because it is necessary to make up the number ten, the perfect number. It is a body under the earth, moving parallel with it, and, since it moves at the same rate of speed, it is invisible to us. The five planets, the sun, the moon, and the earth with its counter-earth, moving from west to east at rates of speed proportionate to the distance of each from the central fire, produce eight tones which give an octave, and, therefore, a harmony. We are not conscious of the harmony, either because it is too great to be perceptible by human ears, or because, like the blacksmith who has grown accustomed to the noise of his hammer on the anvil, we have lived since our first conscious moments in the sound of the heavenly music and can no longer perceive it. In their psychology and their ethics the Pythagoreans used the idea of harmony and the notion of number as the explanation of the mind and its states, and also of virtue and its various kinds. It was not these particular doctrines of the school so much as the general notion which prevailed among the Pythagoreans of the scope and aim of philosophy, that influenced the subsequent course of speculation among the Greeks. Unlike the Ionians, who were scientists and related philosophy to knowledge merely, the Pythagoreans were religiously and ethically inclined, and strove to bring philosophy into relation with life as well as with knowledge. Aristotelianism, which reduced philosophy to knowledge, never could compete, in the estimation of its advocates, with Christianity, as neo-Pythagoreanism did, by setting up the claim that in the teachings of its founder it had a "way of life" preferable to that taught by the Founder of Christianity. IAMBLICHUS, Legendary Life of Pythagoras, in Latin (Leipzig, 1815), tr. TAYLOR (London, 1818); GROTE, Hist. of Greece, IV (London, 1885), 525 sqq.; ZELLER, Pre-Socratic Philos., tr. ALLEYNE, I (London, 1881), 306 sqq.; UEBERWEG, Hist. of Philos., tr. MORRIS, I (New York, 1892), 42 sqq.; TANNERY, Pour l'hist. de la science hellène (Paris, 1887), 201 Sqq.; TURNER, Hist. of Phil. (Boston, 1903), 38 Sqq. WILLIAM TURNER. Pyx Pyx The word pyx (Lat., pyxis, which transliterates the Greek, pyxis, box-wood receptacle, from pyxos, box-tree) was formerly applied in a wide and general sense to all vessels used to contain the Blessed Eucharist. In particular it was perhaps the commonest term applied to the cup in which the Blessed Sacrament actually rested when in the Middle Ages it was suspended above the altar. Thus the Custumal of Cluny in thc eleventh century speaks of the "deacon taking the golden pyx (auream pyxidem) out of the dove (columba) which hangs permanently above the altar". In later times however it has come about that the term pyx is limited in ordinary usage to that smaller vessel of gold, or silver-gilt, in which the Eucharist is commonly carried to the sick. Such vessels are sometimes made flat like a watch, sometimes mounted upon a little stand like a miniature ciborium. From the resemblance in size and shape the word pyx is also used to denote the small silver vessel or custode in which the Sacred Host is commonly kept in the Tabernacle, that it may be transferred thence to the monstrance when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed for the service of Benediction. In the Middle Ages pyxes for carrying the Eucharist to the sick were not unfrequently made of ivory. In spite of synodal decrees it is to be feared that there were many churches both in medieval and later times which preserved no proper pyx for taking Viaticum to the sick. In these cases the custom seems to have prevailed, even if it was not officially tolerated, of carrying the Host wrapped in a corporal in a burse which was suspended round the priest's neck or even of placing it between the leaves of a breviary. The "pyx-cover", or "pyx-cloth", of which we sometimes read in medieval inventories, was a veil which hung over the pyx as it was suspended above the altar, and it was consequently a cloth of considerable size. At the present day the pyx when carried secretly to the sick, as is the case in most Protestant and many Catholic countries, is generally carried in a burse or pyx-bag, i.e. a silken bag suspended round the priest's neck within which the pyx is wrapped in a diminutive corporal used for that purpose. CORBLET, Histoire du Sacrement de l'Eucharistie (Paris, 1885), I, 379-90; OTTE, Handbuch der kirchlichen Kunst-Arch ologie (Leipzig, 1883), I, 236-40; ROHAULT DE FLEURY, La Messe, V (Paris, 1R87), 57-94, with plates; BUMPUS, Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Terms (London, 1910), pp. 251-252. HERBERT THURSTON __________________________________________________________________ Quadragesima Quadragesima (Lat., the fortieth). Quadragesima denotes a season of preparation by fasting and prayer, to imitate the example of Christ (Matt., iv). Several such were observed by the early Christians, viz. before Christmas, Easter, and the feast of St. John the Baptist; the Greeks had four, the Maronites six, and the Armenians eight (Du Cange, "Gloss."). The major, before Easter, is commonly known. It is mentioned in the fifth canon of the Council of Nicæa, in the sixty-ninth of the Apostolic Canons, and in the Pilgrimage of Ætheria (Duchesne, 499). In the Anglo-Saxon Church Mass was said on the weekdays of Quadragesima late in the afternoon and food was taken only near sunset (Rock, IV, 76). According to the Roman Rite, the feriæ of this time, beginning with Ash Wednesday, are major (see FERIA). The season has a proper preface. In ferial masses a special oration is added after the ordinary postcommunion, with the invitation: "Humiliate capita vestra Deo". Octaves are forbidden, and if, by special concession, they are allowed they must be interrupted on Sundays. The first Sunday of Lent, known as Invocabit from the first word of the Introit, is for the Greeks a commemoration of the veneration of images (19 Feb., 842). For Gaul it was the jour de bures or fête deu brandons and for Germany Funkentag or Hallfeuer, because on that day the young people ran about the streets with burning torches (Nilles, II, 102). The second Sunday, Reminiscere, was marked by the Greeks as vacat (Nilles, II, 122). The third Sunday, Oculi, was for the Greeks Adoratio Crucis with a ceremony similar to that of the Latins on Good Friday. For the Bohemians it was the Ned. Kychávná in memory of the sneezing plague at the end of the sixth century and of Litania septiformis of Gregory the Great. The remaining Sundays Lætare, Passion and Palm Sunday (q.v.). (See also LENT; SEPTUAGESIMA.) ROCK, Church of Our Fathers (London, 1904); DUCHESNE, Christian Worship (London. 1904), KELLNER, Heortologie (Freiburg, 1906, tr. London and St. Louis, 1908); BENGER, Pastoraltheologie, III (Ratisbon, 1863), 201; BINTERIM, Denkwürdigkeiten, V, 1, 169), NILLES, Kalendarium manuale (Innsbruck, 1897). FRANCIS MERSHMAN Quadratus Quadratus The first of the Christian apologists. He is said by Eusebius (Chron. ad ann. Abrah. 2041, 124 A.D.) to have been a disciple of the Apostles (auditor apostolorum). He addressed a discourse to the Emperor Hadrian containing an apology for the Christian religion, during a visit which the latter made to Athens in 124 or 125. With the exception of a short passage quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., IV, iii), this apology has entirely disappeared. Eusebius states (Chron.) incorrectly, however, that the appeal of Quadratus moved the emperor to issue a favourable edict. Because of the similarity of name some scholars have concluded (e.g. Bardenhewer, "Patrology", p. 40) that Quadratus the apologist is the same person as Quadratus, a phrophet mentioned elsewhere by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxxvii). The evidence, however, is too slight to be convincing. The later references to Quadratus in Jerome and the martyrologies are all based on Eusebius or are arbitrary enlargements of his account. ROUTH, Reliquiæ Sacræ, I (Oxford, 1846), 69-79; HARNACK, Ueberlieferung der griech. Apologetem, 103; Gesch. d. altchrist. Liter., I, 95; II, 269-71; BARDENHEWER, Patrology, tr. SHAHAN (St. Louis, 1908). PATRICK J. HEALY Quality Quality (Gr. poistes == Plato, Aristotle == poion; Lat. qualitas, quale.) Quality is used, first, in an extended sense, as whatever can be attributed to the subject of discourse; and second, in its exact signification, as that category which is distinguished from the nine others enumerated by Aristotle. In the present article the word is treated in its stricter sense. The eighth chapter of the "Categories" treats of quality, as distinct from substance and the other predicaments. It is described, however, in the opening words of the sixth chapter of the same book as that on account of which we say that anything is such or such == poioteta de lego, kath en poioi tines [einai] legontai. It is thus the accidental form which determines the subject to a special mode of being. It is the reply to the question Qualis sit res?, as St. Thomas Aquinas remarks; and is the correlative to Talis (as Quantus to Tantus), as is pointed out by James Mill in his "Analysis". As the notion is a simple one, it is not possible strictly to define it; for, to do this, it would be necessary to split it up into genus and differentia == an impossibility where the simplest concepts are concerned. It is itself not a real genus, since many particular things, not generically identical can be subjects of the same predicate, analogically employed. Quality is the category according to which objects are said to be like or unlike; and, in view of the tendency introduced into modern science by the mechanist theories of Descartes, and fostered by the postulate of the transformation of energy, it is of importance that the qualitative should be distinguished from the quantitative differences of objects (cf. QUANTITY). Aristotle's classification of the heads of discourse in the "Categories" is a logical one, in which the attributes are considered as possible predicates of a subject. But they are further understood metaphysically; and, in this sense, quality is one or other of the four modes in which substance is determined to being talis or talis, i. e. such or such. Considered thus, it is an accidental determination (cf. FORM). The four divisions of quality are: 1. Habit, or condition (habitus); a permanent and comparatively stable quality by which man, considered as to his nature or operation, is well or ill-adapted towards his natural end. Strictly speaking, only man can be the subject of habit. It is thus distinguished from disposition; which is used of other than human beings. Less stable conditions, as hot, cold, sick, well, are also mentioned here. 2. Natural powers or incapacities (potentia activa et impotentia). These are distinguished, as accidents, from the substance; and are further distinguished among themselves as are the distinct acts from which they are inferred. The important Scholastic thesis of the real distinction of nature from its faculties arises in this connexion. 3. Power of causing sensations and results of the modification of sense; the one belonging, as quality, to the objects of sense; the other to the senses that are modified. 4. Figure, or circumscribing form of extended bodies. St. Thomas Aquinas insists upon the fact that this mode of quality (morphology) is the most certain index of the identity or diversity of species, especially in plants and animals. Quality admits in the concrete, though not in the abstract, of more and less; and in some cases, though not in all, of contrariety. A figure cannot be more or less triangular than another, though one man may be more wise than another; and there is no contrary to red; though just is contrary to unjust. The category, in its predicamental sense, involves that of relation, as is noted by Aristotle. The answer to Qualis? asked of the concrete man, is talis == such as so-and-so. Metaphysically considered, no relation of this kind need be involved. The substance, or nature, is talis because of the accidental form that determines it absolutely, without reference to any standard of comparison. ARISTOTLE, Opera omnia (Paris, 1619); GROTE, Aristotle (London, 1872); LORENZELLI, Philosophi Theoretic Institutiones (Rome, 1896); MERCIER, Ontologie (Louvain, 1902); NYS, Cosmologie (Louvain, 1906); ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Opera (Parma, 1852), (cf. especially, De natura generis, De natura accidentis). FRANCIS AVELING Quamichan Indians Quamichan Indians The largest of the numerous small bands attached to Cowichan agency, at the southeast end of Vancouver, British Columbia. They are of Salishan stock and speak the Cowichan language, which is spoke also by several of the associated as well as upon the opposite mainland. Their chief settlement is in Cowichan valley, about forty miles north of Victoria. In their primitive condition they subsisted by fishing, hunting, and the gathering of wild berries and roots. Their customs, beliefs, and ceremonials were practically the same as those of their neighbours, the Songish and Sechelt. Frs. J.B. Bolduc and Modeste Demers visited them as early as 1847, but they were chiefly converted by the Oblate Fathers, who arrived at Victoria in 1857. They are now civilized, industrious, and moral, in fairly good houses, living by farming, fishing, hunting, and by working on the railway, in canneries, etc. From probably 1000 souls sixty years ago, they have been reduced by smallpox and other diseases to 300 in 1901, and 260 in 1909, of whom all but about 60 are reported to be Catholics, the rest Methodists (see also SONGISH INDIANS). JAMES MOONEY Quam Singulari Quam singulari A decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 8 August, 1910, on the age at which children are to be admitted to first Communion, officially promulgated 15 August, 1910 (Acta Apost. Sedis, 15 August, 1910). The historical facts narrated in the "Quam singulari" prove that: + it is not a decree inaugurating a new discipline, but one restoring the ancient and universal law of the Church, wherever it has not been observed (Pius X to Card. Abp. of Cologne, 31 December, 1910); + the custom of giving Holy Communion to infants immediately after baptism, and frequently before the beginning of their rational life, has been modified but never condemned; it is even approved to-day among the Greeks and Orientals; + the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215, can. xxi) has never been revoked or modified, and in virtue of it all are obliged, as soon as they arrive at the years of discretion, to receive both the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion at Easter time; + the "testimony of the greatest authority, St. Thomas Aquinas", interpreting the Council, states that the Lateran decree obliges "children when they begin to have some use of reason" (also Ledesma, Vasquez, St. Antoninus); + the Council of Trent confirmed the Lateran decree pronouncing anathema against all who deny "that the faithful of both sexes who have attained the use of reason are obliged to receive Holy Communion every year, at least at Easter time" (Sess. XIII, de Euch., c. viii, can. ix). Errors condemned by the "Quam singulari" + A greater discretion is required for first Communion than for first Confession. + To receive Holy Communion a more, complete knowledge of the articles of Faith is required. This erroneous opinion, demanding with Jansenism (1) extraordinary preparation, thereby deferring Communion "for the riper age" of twelve, fourteen, or even older ("absolutely forbidden"), makes (2) "the Holy Eucharist a reward and not a remedy for human frailty", which is contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent that Holy Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily faults and preserved from mortal sins". The error assumes (3) what may be false == that riper years and more complete instruction give better dispositions than the innocence and candour of more tender years. As first Communion is not essentially different from any other Communion the extraordinary preparation heretofore demanded is (4) contrary to the "Sacra Tridentina", which for daily communicants, including children, requires only the state of grace and a good intention. Abuses following from errors + Depriving the child from the beginning of its rational life of the right of living in Christ through Holy Communion, a right given by baptism; + Causing the loss of angelic first innocence in many by those years of deprivation of Christ and of graces, years for many the seed-time for snares and vices, all of which might have been avoided; + causing, by the custom of some places, children to live in the state of sin by not allowing them to go to confession until the age determined for first Communion, or of denying them absolution when they confessed ("absolutely condemned" and "to be done away with by ordinaries as the law permits"); + denying the Viaticum to dying children who had not received their first Communion, and burying these as infants, thereby depriving them of the suffrages of the Church, to which they were entitled ("utterly detestable", "ordinaries to proceed severely against these"). Conditions for first Confession and first Communion + The age of discretion, which applies equally to both sacraments. This may be judged (1) by the first indication of the child using its reasoning powers; (2) by the child knowing what is right from wrong. No determined age is placed as a condition; the age of seven is mentioned because the majority of children arrive at the years of discretion, that is, begin to reason, about this period, some sooner, some later. + A knowledge such as a child just beginning to reason can have about one God, Who rewards the good and punishes the wicked, and about the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is not necessary that the child should commit to memory accurate theological definitions, which may convey no idea to the little mind just beginning to unfold. + A child must be able to distinguish the Eucharistic from the common bread; that is, to know that what looks like bread is not bread, but contains the real, living Body and Blood of Christ. + Children should be taught to receive Holy Communion devoutly. + Children should be instructed on the necessity of being in the state of grace and of having a good intention, also + of fasting from midnight before Communion. Obligation of admitting children to first Communion When children begin to reason, the obligation of receiving Holy Communion is Divine as well as ecclesiastical. The subject-matter of the decree: + is therefore a grave one obliging under serious sin, (1) children themselves if they know of and maliciously neglect their obligation; (2) those responsible for the children: father, mother, instructors, rectors of colleges, principals of schools, superiors of communities and children's asylums, all who have parental responsibility, confessors, and pastors. + A grave obligation devolving on all above mentioned is to encourage children after first Communion to approach the altar frequently, even daily, if possible. + Those responsible for children should regard as "their most important duty" that the incomplete instruction given before first Communion be continued afterwards by sending the children to the public catechetical instructions, or by supplying their religious instruction in some other way. The formal admission of the child to first Communion rests with the father, or the one taking his place, and with the confessor. The decree supposes these to act together, and when they agree on the admission no one may interfere. Where the parents are negligent or indifferent or opposed to their children's first Communion, the confessor can assume the entire responsibility. Should the confessors oppose the admission of children whose parents know they have begun to reason, the prudent course in practice is to present the children to another confessor, for every confessor has a right to admit a child to private first Communion. General Communion A public ceremony devolving not on the confessor but on the parish priest, who is required to have yearly one or several of these general Communions, which may be simple or solemn. The simple: + will admit the (1) little children making their first Communion, also (2) those who have previously approached the Holy Table. The decree requires some days of instruction and preparation for both classes of children when they receive in a body. This can be given as conditions and circumstances permit, attention being paid to the spirit and substance of this provision. + Every pastor can arrange a solemn ceremony in which those would participate who had completed a course in Christian Doctrine. Every year during the time the faithful can satisfy their Easter duty, the "Quam singulari" must be read to the people in the vernacular. Every five years in their ad limina, ordinaries will be obliged to report the observance of the decree to the Holy See. GENNARI in Il Mon. Ecc. (Aug., Sept., 1910); VERMEERSCH, De Prima Puerorum Communione; BESSON in Nouvelle Revue Th ologique (Nov., Dec., 1910); FERRERES in Raz n y Fe (Dec., 1910); CANB in The Sentinel (March, 1911-); Ecclesiastical Review (Oct., 1910); ZULUETA, Early First Communion; The Child Prepared for First Communion (New York, 1911); LUCAS, The Decree "Quam singulari" and the Age for First Communion; MALONEY in The Catholic World (Feb., 1911); NERI, La Prima Cumunione dei fancuilli; LINTELO, Il Decreto sull' Eta della Prima Comunione; MACCONO, La Prima Comunione; P dagogische Bedeutung des Dekrets ber Erst-Kommunion (Hildesheim, 1911); Die Kommunion der Kinder (Mainz, 1911); See also current Catholic, especially foreign, reviews, Sept, to Dec., 1910; also many pastoral letters of bishops of United States and Europe. JOHN T. MCNICHOLAS Quantity Quantity (Gr. poson; Lat. quantitas, quantum, correlate to tantum) Aristotle, in his "Categories" places quantity (with which he deals at length from the logical standpoint in the sixth chapter) first in his enumeration of the nine accidents. His list of the possible heads of classification of predicates has reference to a concrete, material subject, and, as shown by the last two predicaments (jacere and habere), principally to man. Quantity does not, therefore, as philosophy is at present divided, fall properly under the treatment of ontology, but of cosmology. It presupposes the material. In "Metaphysics", IV, the concrete quantum is described as "that which is divisible into the parts included in it, of which any and each is potentially one and hoc quid". By this description the inexistent parts of the quantum are discriminated from the elements in the compound, the matter and the form, which are not each potentially "one and hoc quid". Quantity is distinguished into (1) continuous, and (2) discrete. Continuous (geometrical) quantity is that which consists of parts having position in reference to each other, so that the limit of the one is the limit of the next. These parts, each potentially "one and hoc quid", do not form a multitude, an aggregate of units, but one divisible quantum, or measurable size. They are not actual entities. (This doctrine is not unanimously held in the School.) Continuous quantity is further subdivided into; (1) successive, and (2) permanent. Time and movement are examples of successive, the line, surface or tridimensional body of permanent continuous quantity. It is to be noted that time and movement have no reality apart from quantified things which move, and of which the movement is measurable; and that the line and superficies are no more than abstractions practised upon the real quantum == tridimensional body. Discrete (arithmetical) quantity is made up of discontinuous parts. The resultant whole is a unity per accidens, in which the elements coexist as a plurality. Number and speech are given as examples. Quantity has no contrary, nor does it admit degrees. There is no contrary to a given length or superficies; nor is any one quantity, as such, more a quantity than another is. Large, small, etc., as used in reference to extended things, fall more properly under the category of relation. Equal and unequal are affirmed of objects in virtue of their quantity alone. Not only is material substance affected by the accidental form of quantity, but all the other accidents are measurable, at least per accidens, as when we say "much and little white". St. Thomas ("Summa", III, Q. lxxvii, a. 2) makes all the accidents "related to their subject by the medium of dimensive quantity, as the first subject of colour is said to be the superficies". An important question is raised as to the nature of the distinction to be drawn between substance and quantity. The School generally, following Aristotle, holds that, as quantity is that reality which makes the indivisible substance potentially divisible (Physics, 1. 2), the distinction to be admitted is a real one. There is considerable diversity of opinion as to whether this can be demonstrated by arguments of natural reason. Aristotle's own argument lies in the consideration that length, breadth, and depth are quantities, but are not substances. But against this it has been urged that these things do not exist as such at all. They are abstractions formed by the dissociation produced by varying concomitants. Suarez, Pesch, De San, Nys, and others hold that the distinction is demonstrable; but most of the arguments advanced are negative ones. For Descartes and his school, quantity, or extension, is the essence of corporeal substance. The distinction to which allusion has just been made has no place in the system (cf. DESCARTES). The definition of the Council of Trent, however, teaches that quantity is really distinct from substance. It is of faith that the substances of bread and wine in the Eucharist are changed at the consecration (Sess. XIII, cap. iv); but the quantity remains sensibly unaltered. To escape this difficulty, the Cartesians had recourse to several explanations, none of which seems to be in any way satisfactory. Continuous quantity is seen to be, in the philosophy of the School, an attribute and accident of body. Corporeal substance, as such, is not quantitatively divisible. When actuated by quantity it becomes so; but is not yet spatially displayed. The accident is thus distinguished by Scholastics from the further accident of formal extension which is complementary to it, and by which the parts, already rendered distinct by quantity, are localized in space. Through the aptitude to being determined by this accidental form, matter is held to be individuated; the principle of individuation of corporeal beings is materia quantitate signata. GROTE, Aristotle (London, 1872); HAAN, Philosophia naturalis (Freiburg, 1898); LORENZELLI, Philosophi Theoretic Institutiones (Rome, 1896); MERCIER, Ontologie (Louvain, 1902); NYS, Cosmologie (Louvain, 1906); ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Opera (Parma, 1852). (Cf. especially De principio individuationis, De natura materia et dimensionibus interminatis, De natura generis, De natura accidentis.) FRANCIS AVELING. Quapaw Indians Quapaw Indians A tribe now nearly extinct, but formerly one of the most important of the lower Mississippi region, occupying several villages about the mouth of the Arkansas, chiefly on the west (Arkansas) side, with one or two at various periods on the east (Mississippi) side of the Mississippi, and claiming the whole of the Arkansas River region up to the border of the territory held by the Osage in the north-western part of the state. They are of Siouan linguistic stock, speaking the same language, spoken also with dialectic variants, by the Osage and Kansa (Kaw) in the south and by the Omaha and Ponca in Nebraska. Their name properly Ugakhpa, signifies "down-stream people", as distinguished from Umahan or Omaha "up-stream people". To the Illinois and other Algonquian tribes they were known as Akansea, whence their French name of Akensas and Akansas. According to concurrent tradition of the cognate tribes the Quapaw and their kinsmen originally lived far east, possibly beyond the Alleghenies, and, pushing gradually westward, descended the Ohio River == hence called by the Illinois the "river of the Akansea" == to its junction with the Mississippi, whence the Quapaw, then including the Osage and Kansa, descended to the mouth of the Arkansas, while the Omaha, with the Ponca, went up the Missouri. The Quapaw, under the name of Capaha or Pacaha, were first encountered in 1541 by de Soto, who found their chief town, strongly palisaded and nearly surrounded by a ditch, between the Mississippi and a lake on the Arkansas (west) side, apparently in the present Phillips County, where archæologic remains and local conditions bear out the description. The first encounter, as usual, was hostile, but peace was finally arranged. The town is described as having a population of several thousand, by which we may perhaps understand the whole tribe. They seem to have remained unvisited by white men for more than 130 years thereafter, until in 1673, when the Jesuit Father Jacques Marquette, accompanying the French commander Louis Jolliet, made his famous voyage down the Mississippi, to the villages of the "Akansea" who gave him warm welcome and listened with attention to his exhortations, during the few days that he remained until his return. In 1682 La Salle passed by their villages, then five in number, of which one was on the east bank of the Mississippi. The Recollect, Zenobius Membré, accompanying La Salle, planted a cross and attempted to give them some idea of the Christian's God, while the commander negotiated a peace with the tribe and took formal possession of the territory for France. Then, as always, the Quapaw were uniformly kind and friendly toward the French. In spite of frequent shiftings the Quapaw villages in this early period were generally four in number, corresponding in name and population to four sub-tribes still existing, viz. Ugahpahti, Uzutiuhi, Tiwadimañ, and Tañwañzhita, or, under their French forms, kappa, Ossoteoue, Touriman, and Tonginga. In 1683 the French commander, Tonti, built a post on the Arkansas, near its mouth at the later Arkansas Post, and thus began the regular occupation of the Quapaw country. He arranged also for a resident Jesuit missionary, but apparently without result. About 1697 a smallpox visitation greatly reduced the tribe, killing the greater part of the women and children of two villages. In 1727 the Jesuits, from their house in New Orleans, again took up the work, and Father Du Poisson was sent to the Quapaw, with whom he remained two years. On the morning of 27 November, 1729, while on his way to New Orleans on behalf of his mission, he was preparing to say Mass at the Natchez post on request of the garrison, when the signal for slaughter was given and he was struck down in front of the altar, the first victim in the great Natchez massacre. In the ensuing war, which ended in the practical extermination of the Natchez, the Quapaw rendered efficient service to the French against the hostile tribes. A successor (Father Cavette) was appointed to the Arkansas mission, but details are unknown. It was vacant in 1750, but was again served in 1764 by Father S. L. Meurin, the last of the Jesuits up to the time of the expulsion of the order. Fathers Pierre Gibault (1792-94), Paul de St. Pierre (c. 1795-98), and Maxwell undoubtedly attended the Indians. Shortly after the transfer of the territory to the United States in 1803 the Quapaw were officially reported as living in three villages on the south side of Arkansas River about twelve miles above Arkansas Post. In 1818 they made their first treaty with the government, ceding all claims from Red River to beyond the Arkansas and east of the Mississippi, with the exception of a considerable tract between the Arkansas and the Saline, in the south-eastern part of the state. In 1824 they ceded this also, excepting eighty acres occupied by the chief Saracen (Sarrasin) below Pine Bluff, expecting to incorporate with the Caddo of Louisiana, but in this they were disappointed, and after being reduced to the point of starvation by successive floods in the Caddo country about Red River, most of them wandered back to their old homes. In 1834, under another treaty, they were removed to their present location in the north-east corner of Oklahoma. Sarrasin, their last chief before the removal, was a Catholic and friend of the Lazarist missionaries (Congregation of the Missions) who arrived in 1818 and ministered alike to white and Indians. He died about 1830 and is buried adjoining St. Joseph's Church, Pine Bluff, where a memorial window preserves his name. The pioneer Lazarist missionary among the Quapaw was Rev. John M. Odin, afterward Archbishop of New Orleans. In 1824 the Jesuits of Maryland, under Father Charles Van Quickenborne, took up work among the native and immigrant tribes of the present Kansas and Oklahoma. In 1846 the Mission of St. Francis was established among the Osage, on Neosho River, by Fathers John Shoenmakers and John Bax, who extended their ministration also to the Quapaw for some years. The Quapaw together with the associated remnant tribes, the Miami, Seneca, Wyandot and Ottawa, are now served from the Mission of "Saint Mary of the Quapaws", at Quapaw, Okla., in charge of a secular priest and several Sisters of Divine Providence, about two-thirds of the surviving Quapaw being reported as Catholic. From perhaps 5000 souls when first known they have dwindled by epidemics, wars, removals, and consequent demoralization to approximately 3200 in 1687, 1600 in 1750, 476 in 1843, and 307 in 1910, including all mixed bloods. Besides the four established divisions already noted, the Quapaw have the clan system, with a number of gentes. Polygamy was practised, but was not common. Like the kindred Osage they were of ceremonial temperament, with a rich mythology and elaborate rituals. They were agricultural, and their architecture and general culture when first known were far in advance of that of the northern tribes. Their towns were palisaded and their "town houses", or public structures, sometimes of timbers dovetailed together, and roofed with bark, were frequently erected upon large artificial mounds to guard against the frequent inundations. Their ordinary houses were rectangular, and long enough to accommodate several families each. They dug large ditches, constructed fish weirs, an d excelled in the pottery art and in the painting of skins for bed covers and other purposes. The dead were buried in the ground, sometimes in mounds or in the clay floors of their houses, being frequently strapped to a stake in a sitting position and then carefully covered with earth. They were uniformly friendly to the whites, while at constant war with the Chickasaw and other southern tribes, and are described by the earlier explorers as differing from the northern Indians in being better built, polite, liberal, and of cheerful humour. Their modern descendants are now fairly prosperous farmers, retaining little of their former habit or belief. Of the Quapaw dialect proper, little has been recorded beyond some brief vocabularies and word lists, but of the so-called Dhegiha language, including the dialects of the Omaha, Ponca, Osage, Kansa, and Quapaw, extended study and publication have been made, particularly by Rev. J.O. Dorsey under the auspices of the Bureau of American Ethnology (see Pilling, "Siouan Bibliography"). Arkansas Hist. Asn. Pubs., II (Lucey, Vaughan), (Fayetteville, 1908); American State Papers, II, Indian Affairs (Washington, 1832); Bureau of Cath. Ind. Missions, annual repts. of director (Washington); CHARLEVOIX, Journal (London, 1761); Annual Reports of Commissioner of Indian Affairs (Washington); DORSEY, numerous papers (see Pilling), particularly, The Dhegiha Language, Contribns. to N. Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1890), and Siouan Sociology in 15th Rept. Bureau Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1897); FRENCH, Historical Colls. of La. (including Biedma and Elvas narratives of De Soto Expedition, in pt. II (1850), pts. I-V (New York, 1846-53, new series, New York, 1869; 2nd series, New York, 1875); Jesuit Relations, ed. THWAITE, Louisiana volumes (Cleveland, 1896-1901); LAPPLER, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties (Washington, 1904); LE PAGE DU PRATZ, Hist. de la Louisiane (Paris, 1758; tr. London, 1763-74); Lettres édifiantes et curieuses (Du Poisson letters), IV (Lyons, 1819); MARGRY, Découvertes et établissements des Français etc. (Paris, 1879-86); PILLING, Bibliography of the Siouan Languages in Bull. Bur. Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1887); SHEA, Catholic Missions (New York, 1854); IDEM, Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi Valley (New York, 1852; 2nd ed., Albany, 1903). JAMES MOONEY. Quarantines Quarantines "Quarantines" is an expression frequently used in the grants of indulgences, and signifies a strict ecclesiastical penance of forty days, performed according to the practice of the early Church. Hence an indulgence of seven quarantines, for instance, implies the remission of as much temporal punishment as would be blotted out by the corresponding amount of ecclesiastical penance. A.J. MAAS Franciscus Quaresmius Franciscus Quaresmius A writer and Orientalist of the seventeenth century, born at Lodi (Lombardy), 4 April, 1583; died at Milan, 25 Oct., 1650. His father was the noble Alberto Quaresmi and his mother Laura Papa. At an early age he was enrolled among the Franciscan Observantines at Mantua. For many years he held the chairs of philosophy, theology, and canon law, and became successively guardian, custos, and minister of his province. Later (1645-8) he occupied the two highest posts in the order, that of definitor and procurator general. The memoirs of the order extol his consummate virtue, particularly his piety, prudence, and extraordinary meekness. His long apostolate in the East and the magnificent works he has left us have secured for Quaresmius world-wide fame, especially among earlier historians, Biblical scholars, and Orientalists. On 3 March, 1616, he went to Jerusalem, where he became Guardian and Vice-Commissary Apostolic of Aleppo in Syria (1616-8), and Superior and Commissary Apostolic of the East (1618-9). During this period he was twice imprisoned by the Turks. In 1620 he returned to Europe, but in 1625 was back in Jerusalem, whence the following year he addressed from the Holy Sepulchre an appeal to Philip IV of Spain, inviting him to reconquer the Holy Land, and at the same time dedicating to him his work, "Hierosolymæ afflictæ". Between 1616 and 1626 he wrote his classical work, "Elucidatio terræ Sanctæ", adjudged by the learned a monumental contribution to history, geography, archæology, Biblical and moral science. During 1627-9 he was at Aleppo as papal commissary and as vicar-patriarch for the Chaldeans and Maronites of Syria and Mesopotamia. In 1629 he went to Italy to render an account to the Holy See of the state of the Eastern Churches; he then returned to the East, but how long he remained is not known. Meanwhile he journeyed through Egypt and Sinai, the Holy Land, Syria, Mesopotamia, Cyprus, Rodi, Constantinople, and a large part of Asia Minor; he also visited Germany, France, Belgium, and Holland. In 1637 he was guardian of S. Angelo (Milan), where in 1643 he completed his other great work on the Passion of Christ. No bibliographer has yet given us a complete list of his works. His published works are: + "Historica, theologica et moralis terræ sanctæ elucidatio: in qua pleraque ad veterem et præsentem ejusdem terræ statum spectantia accurate explicantur" (2 fol. vols., pp. xxx-924-98 and 1014-120, Antwerp, 1639); second edition edited by P. Cypriano da Treviso (4 pts. in 2 fol. vols., Venice, 1880-1); + "De sacratissimis D. N. J. Christi quinque vulneribus, varia, pia et luculenta tractatlo . . . " [5, not 3, fol. vols.; I, 202; II, 258; III, 368; IV, 400; V, 271, besides an index of pp. 200 (Venice, 1652)], approved by the examining theologians in 1643, but unknown to bibliographers; only three copies are extant == one in the library of Brera, the Ambrosiana of Milan, and the National Library (Florence); + "Jerosolymæ afflictæ et humiliatæ deprecatio ad suum Philippum IV Hispaniarum et Novi Orbis potentissimum ac Catholicum Regem" (1 quarto vol., pp. 74, Milan, 1631), very rare; there is a copy in the Ambrosiana of Milan; + "Ad SS. DD. N. Alexandrum VII Pont. Opt. Max. Fr. Francisci Quaresmii Laud. Ord. Min. Pia Vota pro anniversaria Passionis Christi solemnitate" (1 quarto vol., pp. xx-58, Milan, 1656), of which there is one copy in the Ambrosiana; + "Pro confraternitate SS. Stellarii B. Virginis Mariæ tractatus" (1 quarto vol., Palermo, 1648); + "Itinerario di Caldea del Rev. P. Francesco Quaresmio e di Fr. Tomaso da Milano suo compagno. Min. Oss. e Giov. Batt. Eliano. Maronita, ed Elia Patriarca e con li Nestoriani etc. l'anno 1629", edited by Marcellino da Civezza in "Storia delle Missioni Francescane", XI, 595-608. Still in manuscript are: 1. "Apparatus pro reductione Chaldæorum ad catholicam fidem" ("six manuscript volumes", says Fr. Cyprian), which Quaresmius wrote when among the Chaldeans, and to which he refers in "Elucidatio terræ sanctæ", I, li; 2. "Adversus errores Armenorum" ("three volumes in folio", says Sbaralea), preserved in the Convent of Lodi; 3. "Deipara in Sanguine Agni dealbata", left incomplete by the author; 4. "Epistolæ ex oriente", in the archives of the Propaganda Fide. These and other manuscript works are said to be preserved, some in the municipal library of Pavia and Lodi and some at Jerusalem. CYPRIANUS DE TARVISIO, Vito P. Franc. Quaresmii in the preface to the second edition of Elucidatio Terr Sanct; GOLUBOVICH, Serie cronologica de' Superiori di Terra Santa (Jerusalem, 1898), 68-9; DA CIVEZZA, Storia universale delle Missioni Francescane, XI (Florence, 1895), 595-608; IDEM in Saggio di bibliografia (Prato, 1879), 479; CALAHORRA, Chronica de Syria y Terra Santa (Madrid, 1684), V. xxxvi; WADDING-SBARALEA, Script. O. M. (Rome, 1806), 1, 90; II, 280. GIROLOMO GOLUBOVICH. Archdiocese of Quebec Archdiocese of Quebec (QUEBECENSIS) The Archdiocese of Quebec, in Canada, comprises the counties of Beauce, Bellechasse, Dorchester, Kamouraska, Levis, L'Islet, Lotbiniere, Megantic, Montmagny, part of Temiscouata, Montmorency, Portneuf, and Quebec. The early missionaries, the Récollets (1615-29) and the Jesuits (1625), depended directly on the Holy See. The Jesuits having returned alone in 1632, the Archbishop of Rouen extended his jurisdiction over the country. According to the Bull of erection (1674), the See of Quebec comprehended all the possessions of France in North America: Newfoundland, Cape Breton, Acadia, Ile St. Jean, all New France from the Atlantic to the plains of the far West, the valley of the Mississippi and Louisiana, a territory much larger than Europe. After the treaty of Paris (1783), the Bishop of Quebec kept Newfoundland and what now forms the Dominion of Canada. That immense diocese was successively diminished by the erection of new sees until by the formation of Chicoutimi (1878) it was reduced to its present boundaries (see CATHOLICITY IN CANADA). Bishops (l) François de Montmorency Laval (q.v.), consecrated (1658) Bishop of Petræa and Vicar Apostolic of New France, landed at Quebec (1659) and, having happily overcome the pretensions of the Archbishop of Rouen, set about the organization of his diocese. His first report to the Holy See (1660) states that there were only twenty-six priests, of whom sixteen were Jesuits; eight churches or chapels in Quebec and the neighbourhood, with three others in Montreal, Three Rivers, and Tadoussac; about 2000 inhabitants. No house, no revenue for the bishop, no cathedral, and no income for churches. Two orders of nuns applied themselves to the instruction of girls: the Ursulines (founded in 1639 by Venerable Marie de l'Incarnation, and the Congregation of Notre Dame founded by Ven. Marguerite Bourgeoys (1659) and granted approbation by Bishop Laval in 1669 and 1676. The Sisters of St. Joseph of La Flêche kept the hospital established in Montreal (1642) by Jeanne Mance, and the Quebec Hôtel-Dieu (1639) was entrusted to the order of St. Augustine, the Sisters of the Mercy of Jesus. Bishop Laval founded the seminary of Quebec (1663), which became a lower seminary in 1668, but had no classes before the Conquest. The pupils attended the lectures of the Jesuit college opened in 1635, and where, on the bishop's request, classes in theology were soon added to philosophy. For its maintenance the institution was granted the tithes established in 1663; parish priests and parishes were to be served by its members; what remained of tithes was devoted to the building of churches and priests' houses. The first parish erected was that of Quebec (1664) which, suppressed by the Bull of erection of the diocese, was reestablished by the bishop in 1684 and united to the seminary; he also instituted a chapter. The parish church of Quebec, begun in 1647, consecrated in 1666 by the prelate, became and remains the cathedral. Eleven other parishes were erected in 1678. In 1683 eighteen priests of the seminary did parish work along the St. Lawrence. The Montreal parish, with Our Lady of Bon-Secours, was united to the seminary of the Sulpicians (1678). In Acadia, Port-Royal was served by the Abbé Petit, sent in 1676, and the Abbé Thury founded the Pentagoet mission in 1684. There were numerous Indian missions, some residential, some among wandering tribes, almost all in the hands of the Jesuits. Bishop Laval, in spite of material obstacles, faithfully visited his diocese and confirmed nearly 5000. The population (1683) was 10,278 in Canada, 600 Acadians, and 1512 converted Indians. The census of 1686 states that there were 44 priests, 12 students in theology, 43 Jesuits, 12 Récollets (returned in 1670), 28 Ursulines, 26 Hospitallers of the Mercy of Jesus, 16 Hospitallers of St. Joseph, and 13 Sisters of the Congregation of Notre Dame. (2) Jean-Baptiste de la Croix Chevrière de St. Vallier, b. 1653; d. 1727, visited Canada as vicar-general of Bishop Laval (1685-6) and became his successor in 1688. A yearly grant of eight thousand francs from the king enabled him to increase the number of parish priests from twenty to thirty-six. The Jesuits were entrusted with the mission of the Illinois (1690) and other Indians of that region; the Récollets, with the Royal Island (Cape Breton), and the Seminary of Quebec with Acadia and the mission of the Tamarois on the left shore of the Mississippi, which it kept until after the Conquest. Two of its members, the Abbés St. Cosme and Foucault, fell victims there to their zeal. Parishes were rendered independent of the seminary (1692). For the improvement of science in the clergy and of church discipline, ecclesiastical conferences were organized (1700), four synods held, and a ritual with a catechism published. The General Hospital of Quebec was founded (1693), also the Ursuline convent at Three Rivers (1697) which was in the meantime a hospital and a school. He approved (1688) the Charron Brothers, founders of the General Hospital of Montreal (1694). They were Hospitallers and schoolmasters and, until their extinction, half a century later, kept schools in Montreal, Three Rivers, and a few other places. Instruction was more common at that epoch than is generally admitted by historians. The Jesuits and the Sulpicians early established primary schools, teachers went about from place to place, and mostly all parish priests were school-masters. Though a most charitable man, he was not amiable. He had hurt the feelings of many, chiefly in the separation of parishes from the seminary (1692), and complaints had reached France. His resignation was called for by the king and, upon his refusal, he was retained in Paris several years (1694-7), and again from 1709 to 1713, after having been five years a prisoner in England (1704-9). During that voyage he had gone to Rome and obtained the canonical union to the See of Quebec, chapter, and seminary, of the abbeys of Maubec, Lestrées, and Benevent, granted by the king to Bishop Laval. (3) Louis-François Duplessis de Mornay, b. 1663; d. 1741, coadjutor of Bishop St. Vallier (1713), and his successor (1727-33). He never went to Canada, sending, to administer in his stead, his coadjutor, Bishop Dosquet. (4) Pierre-Herman Dosquet (q.v.), consecrated (1725) Bishop of Samos, bishop from 1733 to 1739. His chief acts were the establishment of the sisters of the congregation of Notre Dame at Louisburg (1735) and the resignation to the king of the abbey of Benevent, more a burden than a source of revenue for the Quebec bishops. A yearly allowance of nine thousand francs was granted in return. He resigned his see in 1739, and received the abbey of Breine with an income of six thousand francs. (5) François-Louis Pourroy de L'Auberivière, b. 1711; d. 1740, consecrated in Paris (1739) by Bishop Mornay, unfortunately died a few days after landing at Quebec. (6) Henri-Marie de Pontbriand, b. 1708; d. 1760, was consecrated in Paris (1741). A man of great science and zeal, most devoted to his pastoral duties, he visited several times his diocese, even the distant missions of the Presentation (Ogdensburg) and Detroit, occasionally taught theology in the seminary, and established yearly retreats for priests. The new order of Grey Nuns, recently founded in Montreal by Madame D'Youville and entrusted with the General Hospital, received his encouragement and approval (1755). He aided the victims of the plague in 1746, 1757, and 1758, enabled the Ursulines to rebuild their convent at Three Rivers, destroyed by fire (1752), and retrieved a similar disaster fallen upon the Quebec Hôtel-Dieu (1755). In his pastoral letters, he exhorted the clergy to grant to the king for his wars a part of their tithes and encouraged Canadians to do their duty to their country, recalling the fate of the Acadians in 1755. During the siege of Quebec, broken in health by work and cares, he retired to a nearby parish and could see after the surrender, his palace and the seminary, the churches of the Jesuits and the Recollects greatly damaged by bullets and shells, half of the city houses, the church of the Lower-Town and the cathedral, which he had recently (1744-9) rebuilt on a larger scale, entirely destroyed. (7) Jean-Olivier Briand (q. V;), bishop from 1766 to 1784. One of the vicars-general charged with the administration of the diocese during the vacancy, he ruled the district of Quebec. The Canadians, by two delegates, and the chapter, by an address, had entreated the King of England to maintain the Catholic hierarchy. More successful than the Abbé Montgolfier, rejected by England, the Abbé Briand, elected by the chapter in his place, was indirectly notified that the Government would not oppose his consecration, which took place in Paris (1766); He had to thwart the intentions of England of anglicizing her new subjects in faith and language. Circumstances besides seemed most unfavourable. The population, 42,000 in 1739, was in 1760, 60,000; of 181 priests only 138 remained. The Recollects and Jesuits were forbidden to receive novices; The chapter, prevented from filling its vacancies, soon died. Canonically notified == or not (it may be doubted) == of the suppression of their order, the Jesuits were left, until the death of the last, Father Casot (1800), in peaceful possession of their estates, which were afterwards forfeited to the Crown. In Louisiana they had been all banished after 1763, with the exception of Father Meurin, and their several chapels among the Illinois destroyed, while the properties of the mission of the Tamarois were sold for a farthing by the Abbé Forget-Duverger, the last priest sent by the seminary. The Recollects disappeared one by one, Father Berey, the superior, who received an annuity of 500, dying in 1800, and the last priest of the order, in 1813. The college of the Jesuits having been changed into military stores and barracks, the hope of education rested upon the seminary of Quebec, where classes opened in 1765. The loyalty of the bishop during the American War of Independence greatly contributed to obtain religious liberty for Canada. He could write in 1775: "Religion is perfectly free. I can exercise my ministry without any restriction." As a proof that he united firmness with the respect of civil authority, it may be remembered that he refused to take the Test Oath, until the formula was made acceptable to a Catholic, and once said to General Murray: "My head shall be cut off before allowing you to appoint priests to any parish." The Government granted him an annuity of 250 besides 150 for the episcopal palace that he had rebuilt and rented for public use. With three thousand francs voted by the clergy of France in 1765, it formed nearly all his revenue. Nevertheless, he found means for frequent and abundant charities. The number of parishes was about one hundred, more than twenty-five having been erected since the Conquest. A pastoral letter of 1777 contains interesting statistics: 46,323 births and 24,731 burials from 1759 to 1769, and 43,995 births with 26,127 burials from 1769 to 1777, giving a net increase of 39,460 for the whole period between 1759 and 1777. From 1767 Bishop Briand regularly visited his diocese. He ordained ninety priests. Having been allowed by Rome, for fear of a vacancy, to choose and consecrate a coadjutor with future succession, he consecrated in 1772 the Bishop of Doryln and gave him authority in 1784. (8) Louis-Philippe Mariauchau D'Esglis (q.v.) was the first Quebec bishop born in Canada. He was pastor of Saint-Pierre-d'Orléans and kept until his death his small parish. According to the Ursuline annals, in 1782 priests were very scarce and several parishes without pastors. Vacancies were quickly filled, whereas, in 1788-90, the number of parishes being 121, the census of 1790 numbers 146 priests, of whom 142 were in office. Returning Acadians settled in several of the maritime provinces and were served by Vicar-General Bourg and the Fathers Girouard, Le Roux, and Donat, of the congregation of the Holy Ghost, while the Irish and Scotch Catholics of the same region were attended by the Abbés Phelan and Jones, who resided at Halifax. (9) Jean-François Hubert (q.v.), consecrated Bishop of Almire and coadjutor of Quebec (1786), filled the see from 1788 to 1797. Every year he spent three months visiting the religious communities and a part of his diocese. In 1795 he visited Baie-des-Chaleurs. He ordained 53 priests and confirmed 45,148 people. The number of priests, in 1794, was 160 for a population of 160,000 Catholics. During the French Revolution, 34 came from France. Nine were sent to Acadia and four to Upper Canada. The seminary of Montreal, on the verge of ruin, obtained recruits, and kept possession of its estates, which, thanks to the firmness of Bishops Plessis and Panet, were declared, under Queen Victoria, its lawful property. Bishop Hubert, to please Lord Dorchester, appointed coadjutor the Abbé Bailly de Messein, parish priest of Pointe-aux-Trembles (Portneuf co.), consecrated Bishop of Capsa in 1789. A distinguished man in some regards, successful missionary in Acadia (1767- 71), professor of the seminary (1772-7), and afterwards (1778-82) private teacher of the governor's children, he favoured the establishment of the mixed university contemplated by some New England loyalists settled in Canada, and which Bishop Hubert considered and firmly opposed as an anti-Catholic agency. The coadjutor died in 1794, apologizing for his errors. Another and different coadjutor was chosen, Pierre Denault, to whom Bishop Hubert resigned his authority in 1797. (10) Pierre Denault (q.v.) was pastor of Longueuil and kept his parish even after his consecration as Bishop of Canathe (1795). The parishes of Lower Canada numbered then about one hundred and forty, some of which he visited every year. He also visited Upper Canada in 1801 and 1802, and created, for English-speaking Catholics, the parishes of St. Andrew and St. Raphael, which he entrusted to Rev. Alex. McDonell. On his visit to the maritime provinces in 1803, he confirmed 8800 people. The primary school founded by Abbé Brassard at Nicolet he made a classical school (1803), now the seminary of Nicolet. His generous contributions to the new college of the Suplicians (1804-5) also show his devotion to education. (11) Joseph-Octave Plessis (q.v.), consecrated Bishop of Canathe in 1801, Bishop of Quebec from 1806 to 1825. His great achievement was the organization of the Church in Canada in which he was providentially aided by the American invasion of 1812-13. After the treaty of Ghent (1814) he was for the first time officially acknowledged as Catholic Bishop of Quebec, and granted by the king an annuity of 1000. He obtained from Rome, besides the erection of the Vicariate Apostolic of Nova Scotia (1817), the appointment of bishops for Upper Canada, Montreal, New Brunswick, including Prince Edward's and the Magdalen Islands, and for the North-West, where the Abbés Provencher and Dumoulin had begun (1818) the mission of the Red River. England assented, but on the express condition that these bishops would be only auxiliaries and vicars-general of Quebec. He also obtained from the pope not to use, while the Government objected, the title of archbishop granted to him in 1819. All the new prelates were consecrated by him on his return: McDonell (1820), McEachern and Lartigue (1821), Provencher (1822). He ordained 114 priests, preserved the college of Nicolet, and encouraged St. Hyacinth College, begun by Abbé Girouard (1811). Like his predecessors, he firmly opposed the royal institution which placed education in Protestant hands, and endeavoured to obtain Catholic primary schools. A more favourable law was voted in 1824. As a member of the Legislative Council from 1817, he had great influence. In 1822 he contributed to prevent the union of the Canadas intended by the English House of Commons. (12) Bernard-Claude Panet, b. 1753; d. 1833, parish priest of Rivière-Ouelle, consecrated Bishop of Saldes and coadjutor of Quebec (1807), was bishop from 1825 to 1833. The chief events of his administration were: the building of Nicolet College (1827), to which he contributed the sum, large for the time, of $32,000; the foundation of the College of Ste-Anne-de-la-Pocatière (1827) by the Abbé Painchaud; the educational law of 1829 which granted allowances for the creation of parish schools and the maintenance of colleges, convents, and academies already in existence; the erection in Quebec, with his help, of St. Patrick's church for the Irish; the sale to the Government of the episcopal palace built by Mgr Briand. An annual rent of 1000 was paid, which, although irredeemable, was redeemed in 1888 by the sum of $74,074, given to Cardinal Taschereau. (13) Joseph Signay, b. 1778; d. 1850, Bishop of Fussala and coadjutor of Quebec (1827), administrator (1832), bishop (1833), archbishop from 1844 to 1850. There were epidemics of cholera in 1832, 1834, and 1849. Quebec was almost entirely destroyed by fire in 1845. In 1847 typhus visited the Irish exiles at Grosse-Ile. Among many priests deserving grateful memory must be mentioned the Abbé Félix Cazeau, then secretary to the bishop and afterwards vicar-general, who found homes for nearly five hundred Irish orphans. Important events were: the law on education (1841) which allowed the election of school commissioners having power to build new schools, to choose teachers and raise funds therefor; the erection of Quebec (1844) into a metropolis with three suffragan sees, Kingston, Montreal, and Toronto; the Oblates (1844) and the Jesuits (1849) admitted into the diocese and charged respectively with the Saguenay mission and the Sodality of the Blessed Virgin of the Upper-Town; societies for the Propagation of the Faith (1837), colonization (1838), and temperance (1843). The report of Bishop Signay to the Holy See in 1843 states that the diocese contained 200,000 Catholics, 145 churches and chapels, 4 orders of nuns, and 3 colleges or seminaries. ln the Red River mission, under Bishop Provencher, out of 5140 souls, more than 2700 were Catholics. Vicar-General Norbert Blanchet and Modeste Demers had opened (1838) the mission of British Columbia, while other missionaries worked among the Indians of Lake Abbittibi. Bishop Signay was the last to receive the annuity of 1000 granted to Mgr Plessis. In 1847 he entered the present episcopal palace. (14) Pierre-Flavien Turgeon, b. 1787; d. 1867, elected in 1831 and consecrated in 1834 Bishop of Sydime and coadjutor of Quebec, became administrator in 1849, and bishop in 1850. That same year a meeting of the bishops at Montreal prepared the first Council of Quebec, held in 1851 under his presidency. After directions on liturgy and discipline, against social and moral dangers, its most important decree is that on Catholic universities and normal schools, which gave birth (1852) to Laval University and to Laval Normal School in 1857. Pius IX was also petitioned to form new sees. St. Hyacinth and Three Rivers were erected in 1852, while Halifax became a metropolis. A second council took place at Quebec in 1854. The foundation of the Quebec Sisters of Charity (1849) and of the Good Shepherd (1850), the reorganization of ecclesiastical conferences the publication of a new catechism and the approval of Butler's for English-speaking Catholics are the chief acts of Bishop Turgeon's administration. In 1855, owing to ill-health, he left the administration of the diocese to his coadjutor. (15) Charles-François Baillargeon, as parish priest of Quebec (1831-50), procured for his parish the Brothers of the Christian Schools, and established the conferences of St. Vincent de Paul. As bishop, the great events of his administration were the third (1863) and fourth (1868) Councils of Quebec, attended by the suffragan Bishops of Montreal, Ottawa, St. Boniface, Three Rivers, St. Hyacinth, Hamilton, Sandwich (now London), Kingston, Toronto, and (in 1868) Rimouski. Besides several disciplinary decrees, the erection of the ecclesiastical provinces of Toronto and St. Boniface was decided and a petition was added for the canonization of Sister Marie de l'Incarnation, foundress of the Quebec Ursulines. Bishop Baillargeon attended the Vatican Council (1869), but was forced by ill-health to return before voting for papal infallibility, which he favoured. He died soon after. He had consecrated five bishops and ordained one hundred and ninety priests. (16) Elzear-Alexandre Taschereau, b. 1820; d. 1898, for several years teacher of philosophy in the seminary, and was one of the founders of Laval University; he was rector (1800-6), and again, in 1869, vicar-general (1862), theologian of Archbishop Baillargeon at the Vatican Council, administrator (1870), archbishop (1871), cardinal of the title of Santa Maria della Vittoria (1886). Among the many facts of his administration may be quoted: the foundation of the Hospital of the Sacred Heart, which he entrusted to the Sisters of the General Hospital (1873); the erection of the Chicoutimi college and see (1878); the inauguration of a classical course of studies in the Commercial College of Levis (1879); the creation of more than fifty parishes with the funds of colonization and of the Propagation of the Faith, kept since 1876 for local wants; the foundation (1892) of the now prosperous order of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, by the Abbé Brousseau; the fifth (1873), sixth (1878), and seventh (1886) Councils of Quebec. Among the decrees must be mentioned that on the improvement of theological and philosophical studies after St. Thomas's principles, according to Leo XIII's direction. Archbishop Taschereau had to deal with some perplexing cases: he was papal delegate for the division of Notre Dame parish in Montreal (1871), and the conclusion of his report was adopted by Cardinal Barnabo. In the exciting question of Catholic Liberalism, his pastoral letters of 1875 and 1877 procured for the country a lasting peace. Another cause of discord was the university question, finally settled by establishing at Montreal (1876) a branch of Laval, which, by the Decree "Jamdudum" (1896), has become nearly independent. In 1888 the long pending debate on the Jesuits' estates ended by an agreement between Prime Minister Mercier and Father Turgeon, S.J., authorized by Rome. The Government paid an indemnity of $400,000 to be divided among the Jesuits, Laval University, and the bishops for educational purposes. A share of $60,000 was granted to the Protestant Board of Education. When Cardinal Taschereau handed over the administration to his coadjutor (1894), the archdiocese contained 320,000 Catholics, 392 secular priests, 33 regulars, 3 colleges or seminaries, 65 convents, 195 churches and chapels, 192 parishes and missions, although more than 50 had been cut off for the new sees of Rimouski and Chicoutimi. (17) Louis Nazaire Begin, b. 1840, after several years of studies in Rome, where he was ordained in 1865, filled in the seminary of Quebec the successive positions of professor of theology, director of students, and prefect of studies. Principal of the Laval Normal School (1884), Bishop of Chicoutimi (1888), coadjutor of Quebec (1891) with the title of Archbishop of Cyrene, granted future succession (1892), he took possession of the see in 1898. He has written books on infallibility, the rule of faith, and the veneration of the saints. During his administration the archdiocese has greatly developed by the admission of several orders of men and women, and by the creation of many new parishes. He played a leading part in the struggle of the Canadian bishops (1896) against the unjust law of 1890, by which the Catholics of Manitoba had been deprived of their schools. After the delegation of Mgr. Merry del Val, now Secretary of State to Pius X, he received (1898) the Encyclical letter "Affari vos" (1897), in which Leo XIII, while he praised the bishops for their vindication of Catholic principles of education, advised union and charity when claiming justice. On the tercentenary of the foundation of Quebec (1908) a monument was erected to Bishop Laval. Important events are: the organization of the "Action sociale catholique", a branch of which is the paper "L'Action Sociale", edited at Quebec since 1907; the first Plenary Council of Canada (1909), attended, under the presidency of Archbishop Sbaretti, delegate Apostolic, by 7 archbishops, 26 bishops, 1 prefect Apostolic, 1 mitred abbot, and 5 episcopal proxies. At this date (April, 1911), the decrees have not yet been published. Mgr Paul-Eugene Roy, b. 1859, was consecrated auxiliary bishop in 1908. His classical course was made in Quebec; after taking in France the degree of licentiate in letters, he was professor of rhetoric and prefect of studies in the Quebec seminary, became pastor of the Canadians at Hartford, Conn., and in 1901 was first parish priest of Jacques-Cartier in Quebec. He is the chief force in the "Action Sociale". Organization The Archdiocese of Quebec is incorporated under the title "La Corporation Episcopale Catholique Romaine de Québec" by XII Victoria, ch. 36, which also grants (§ 7) incorporation to all dioceses then existing or to be afterwards erected in Canada. "L'Evêque catholique de Québec" was personally, and remains, incorporated by letters patent of Queen Victoria in 1845. Parishes receive civil incorporation after canonical erection, but possess their legal rights even without it. Church property, administered under the pastor's presidency by church-wardens elected by parishioners, cannot be legally alienated without the bishop's assent. In the ecclesiastical province of Quebec, a mutual insurance, with its seat in Quebec, covers risks on church buildings and parsonages to the amount of $7,500,000. A similar insurance exists for Catholic educational or charitable institutions. The parish church of Quebec is the cathedral. Begun in 1647, consecrated by Bishop Laval in 1666, rebuilt on a larger scale by Bishop Pontbriand (1744-9) and again, after the siege by Bishop Briand (1767-71), it was honoured in 1874 by the title of basilica. With the exception of a few students, sent every year to Europe to receive a training as professors, most of the clergy are educated in the higher seminary of Quebec. None is admitted until after satisfactory classical studies and two years of philosophy. The course of theology lasts four years. Four times a year all priests in office have to meet by groups of ten and twelve to treat of questions of theology or church history determined by the bishop, to whom report must be sent. Two retreats every year are preached in the seminary, so that all the clergy may attend one or the other. An ecclesiastical association ("La Caisse St. Joseph") grants a pension to its members out of office through sickness or old age. Charities Two hospitals (Hôtel-Dieu) for the sick; 12 for old persons of both sexes; 7 orphanages; 3 patronages for foundlings; 1 refuge for repentant girls == all entrusted to religious orders; several prosperous societies or conferences of St. Vincent de Paul; a Tabernacle Society and an Association for the Protection of Maid Servants. Religious Orders Male (The asterisk shows which have in the diocese a novitiate or at least a preparatory house or postulate.) Jesuits, Franciscans*, Capuchins *, Dominicans, White Fathers, Oblates, Fathers of the Sacred Heart*, Brothers of the Christian Schools, of Christian Instruction, of St. Viateur, of the Sacred Heart, Marists*, Fathers and Brothers of St. Vincent de Paul. The Fathers of Ste Croix have a house and 9 students following the course of theology at Laval. The Franciscans have their own classes of theology with 30 students. Female Ursulines*, Sisters of the Good Shepherd*, Congregation of Notre Dame, Servants of the Holy Heart of Mary*, Dominican Sisters of the Infant Jesus*, Franciscan Missionaries of Mary*, Sisters of the Mercy of Jesus*, of Charity*, of Jésus-Marie*, of the Holy Family, of Charity of St. Louis*, of St. Francis of Assisi, of the African Missions (White Sisters)*, of St. Joseph of St. Vallier*, of the Perpetual Help*, of the Holy Redeemer (Redemptoristines)*, of the Precious Blood*, of Hope, and Cistercian Sisters (Trappistines)*. Statistics (1910): 359,000 Catholics; 510 secular and 100 regular priests; 218 parishes and 25 missions; 266 churches and chapels (only two parishes are exclusively composed of Irish or English Catholics; about fifteen are mixed, but mostly all with a much larger proportion of French-Canadians); 1 university (Laval) with 405 students, of whom 116 for theology; 3 colleges or seminaries with 1601 students; Laval Normal School, with 95 young ladies and 61 young men trained for teaching, and 174 other pupils; 49 academies and 143 high schools (écoles modèles), with 27,579 children educated by 196 brothers, 745 sisters of different orders, 21 lay schoolmasters and 136 schoolmistresses; 1279 primary schools (écoles élémentaires), in which 14 brothers, 108 sisters, 4 schoolmasters and 1293 schoolmistresses give instruction to 43,933 children. TÉTU, Les Evéques de Québec (Quebec, 1899); Mandements des évéques de Québec (Quebec, 1887-1910); Le palais épiscopal (Quebec, 1896); Journal d'un voyage en Europe par Mgr Plessis (Quebec, 1903); Journal des visites pastorales de 1815-16, par Mgr Plessis (Quebec, 1903); Conciles de Québec (Quebec, 1870-1888); Documents historiques sur la Nouvelle France (Quebec, 1883-5); Jesuit Relations, ed. THWAITES (Cleveland, 1896-1901); GARNEAU, Hist. du Canada (4th ed., Montreal, 1882); FERLAND, Cours d'histoire (2nd ed., Quebec, 1882); AUGUSTE GOSSELIN Vie de Mgr de Laval (Quebec, 1890); DE PONTBRIAND, Mgr de Pontbriand (Paris, Champion, 1910); Les Ursulines de Québec (Quebec, 1863-6); CASGRAIN, Hist. de l'Hôtel-Dieu; AMÉDÉE GOSSELIN, L'Instruction au Canada sous le régime français (Quebec, 1911); MORICE, Dictionnaire des Canadiens et des Métis français de l'Ouest (Quebec, 1908); IDEM, History of the Catholic Church in Western Canada (Toronto, 1910); Rapports sur les missions du diocèse de Québec (Quebec, 1839-74); Le 200e anniversaire de la fondation du Séminaire de Québec (Quebec, 1863); Le premier concile plénier de Québec, préparation, séances solennelles et allocutions (Quebec, 1910); Le 2e centenaire de l'érection du diocèse de Québec (Quebec, 1874); Souvenir des fêtes du 21, 22 et 23 juin 1908 (Quebec, 1908); MIGNAULT, Droit paroissial (Montreal, 1893); Rapport du surintendant de l'instruction publique pour 1909-1910; Le Canada ecclésiastique (Montreal, 1911). H. A. SCOTT. Province of Quebec The Province of Quebec GEOGRAPHY The province of Quebec occupies mainly the two slopes of the vast basin formed by the St. Lawrence River whose course runs chiefly between the Laurentian and Alleghany ranges. Its boundaries are: to the north, the district of Ungava; to the northeast, Labrador; to the east, the Gulf of St. Lawrence; to the southeast, New Brunswick, and the States of Maine and New Hampshire; to the south, the States of Vermont and New York, and the Counties of Glengarry and Prescott in Ontario; to the west, the province of Ontario. Quebec is comprised between the 45th and 54th degrees of latitude north, and the 57th and 79th degrees of longitude west of Greenwich. Its area measures 354,873 square miles; about equal to that of the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, and Holland united. No country in the world of the same extent possesses so many and so abundant waterways, chief of which are the St. Lawrence, discharging the Great Lakes, and navigable to its very source, and its principal tributaries: the Ottawa, the St. Maurice and the Saguenay, each of which surpasses in navigableness the largest rivers of Europe. Innumerable cascades falling from the Laurentian heights represent boundless mechanical forces; the forest resources of Quebec are still immense, and its asbestos mines the richest in the world. The principal cities are: Quebec, the capital, founded in 1608, population, according to the last census (1901), 68,840; Montreal founded 1642, population, exclusive of lately annexed municipalities, 267,730; Three Rivers, founded 1634, population, 9981; Sherbrooke, 11,765; Hull, 13,993; Valleyfield, 11,055. Quebec, the capital, long enjoyed a political, military, and commercial superiority over all Canada. Although since surpassed in material prosperity, it still appeals to the scholar and student, teeming as it is with historical interest, while to the tourist it offers a view of magnificence and picturesqueness perhaps unique in the world. Here landed the discoverers of the country and the founders of the nation; hither came the bare-footed Recollect, the black-robed Jesuit, the Ursuline and the hospital Sisters; here the noble and saintly Laval ruled the infant Church of New France; from hence the Faith radiated throughout North America. Here was born Joliet, the discoverer of the Mississippi; here the viceroys held court; here flourished, from the very outset, many of the dearest devotions of the Church. Laval's first cathedral was dedicated in 1666 to the Immaculate Conception; the cult of the Holy Family was approved in 1665, a fact lauded by Leo XIII in his Letter "Neminem fugit" (14 June, 1892); the first celebration of the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the New World took place in the Ursuline chapel (1700); Traditions of courtesy as well as of piety were created that have left their impress on the people's character. Almost the entire population of the province of Quebec, i. e. about five-sixths, consists of French-Canadians; the remainder comprises chiefly the descendants of English, Scotch, and Irish immigrants. About 12,000 Indians and half-breeds of the Iroquois, Huron, Micmac, Abenaki, and Montagnais tribes occupy reservations in different sections of the province. With one or two exceptions, these aborigines are instructed by missionaries in their respective tongues, which they have faithfully preserved in spite of their environment. PRESENT CONDITIONS Although there is no state religion, and freedom of worship is sanctioned by law, the immense majority of the population being Catholic in faith and practice, the relations between Church and State are, as a rule, harmonious. The hierarchy and clergy are habitually treated with due consideration and respect, in recognition not only of their sacred character, but also of the efficient part they have ever taken in the moral as well as the social well-being of the country. Public order, education in every degree, agriculture, colonization, and even industry, all owe a debt to the influence of the Church, which the political authorities are prone to recognize. In all public religious demonstrations, such as the procession of Corpus Christi, the dignitaries of the State occupy a prominent rank. The province of Quebec comprises three metropolitan sees: Quebec, Montreal, and Ottawa. That of Quebec counts four suffragan dioceses: Three Rivers, Rimouski, Chicoutimi, Nicolet, and one vicariate apostolic, the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The suffragan sees of Montreal are: St. Hyacinth, Sherbrooke, Valleyfield, and Joliette. The ecclesiastical province of Ottawa, partly situated in Ontario, comprises the Diocese of Pembroke and the Vicariate Apostolic of Temiscamingue. The Catholic population of the province, according to the last government census (1901), was 1,449,716, out of a total of 1,648,898. Later statistics (ecclesiastical), including 1910, show an increase for the two ecclesiastical provinces of Quebec and Montreal, and exclusive of that portion of the civil province depending on the metropolitan See of Ottawa, of 163,611, giving a total Catholic population for 1910 of 1,613,327, Quebec and suffragan sees having a total of 731,609, and Montreal, with its suffragans, of 789,502. This increase in a province where race-suicide is unknown and families proverbially numerous, in spite of a notable infantile death-rate, should be far greater, were it not for the continuous flow of emigration to the United States and to the western provinces of Canada, with a comparatively small immigration from Europe. This emigration of French Canadians, according to authentic statistics, amounted to 10,000 for the single year of 1909. (For history, see CANADA.) CORRECTION AND EDUCATION All penitentiaries and prisons are provided with Catholic chaplains subsidized by the State, and feast-days of obligation, as well as Sunday, are observed. Reformatories for youth are managed at the public expense by the Brothers of Charity for older boys, by the Sisters of the Good Shepherd for girls, and by the Sisters of Charity for younger children of both sexes, the Government contributing in the last two cases a per capita sum for a limited number of juveniles. The two largest sanitaria in the province are managed, by government contract, by the Sisters of Providence and of Charity, in Montreal and Quebec, respectively. Homes for idiots, enjoying government subsidies, are likewise in the care of religious. According to the latest criminal statistics (1908), the province of Quebec, with a ratio of 13.91 per 10,000 of population, comes fourth in order of excellence, after the three maritime provinces, where there has been no immigration within the last decade; and third for number of convictions according to population, being one for each 96 inhabitants, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick alone surpassing Quebec. Schools The public-school system in the province of Quebec, without being ideal, is, in a notable measure, respectful of the rights of the family and of the Church. This desirable condition results mainly from the constitution of the Council of Public Instruction, composed, ex officio, of the hierarchy of the province representing the Church, and of an equal number of laymen. The latter are nominated exclusively by the lieutenant governor in council. The council is presided over by a superintendent of public instruction who represents the State; there is no minister of education, and politics are thereby partly excluded from the administration. Several principals of normal schools and lay professors have lately been added to the council. The council has the power to distribute a limited portion of the public moneys for primary and classical schools, to propose certain nominees to normal schools and to the board of examiners for teaching licences, to approve or reject all text-books. But its powers are more advisory than legislative, nearly all its deliberations being subject to government sanction. A committee similarly organized attends to the educational interests of the Protestant minority. The most striking feature of the Quebec school law is the absolute liberty enjoyed by each of the two chief religious denominations of controlling its own schools agreeably to the wishes of parents. In municipalities where they form the majority, Catholics cannot interfere with the rights of Protestants, and vice versa. In this respect, of all the school laws of the dominion, that of Quebec may justly be considered as the fairest and most conducive to religious harmony; never was a majority so liberal towards a minority. The school grants are even proportionally larger to the latter (the Protestant minority) than to the former. It has been rightly proclaimed that nowhere has the separate school law been more generously and conscientiously applied, and that, to the honour of French Catholic Quebec, there has never been any occasion to invoke government interference for the protection of the minority. This fair treatment extends likewise to the language. The French-speaking province of Quebec amply provides for the requirements of the English-speaking minorities, as regards education in their mother tongue. Moreover, a course of English, in many cases quite efficient, is given in every French school of the intermediate and higher grades. It must be noted that there is only one school law for the province, under which all schools, Catholic and Protestant, are organized. To interest the people more deeply in the schools and give greater unity and strength to the system, the legislature has grafted it on the parish organization. Each parish is thus incorporated three times: + for church affairs; + for municipal affairs; + for school affairs. The parish priest is eligible as school commissioner, and has the right to visit the schools with the exclusive choice of textbooks relating to religion. In parishes where there is a Protestant minority, the minority has a right to a dissentient separate school, controlled by special trustees. Lay inspectors, nominated by the governor in council, visit all schools under control of the school commissioners; diocesan clerical inspectors, chosen by the respective bishops, are authorized to visit even schools receiving a partial grant from the Government. Normal or training schools, based on the principle of denominationalism, were definitively created in 1857, two for the Catholics, one in Quebec for both sexes, the Laval, and one in Montreal, the Jacques-Cartier, for male teachers, and one for Protestants, in Montreal, the McGill. Recently, normal schools for women teachers only have been established in Montreal, Three Rivers, Rimouski, Chicoutimi, St. Hyacinth, Hull, Sherbrooke, Valleyfield, Nicolet, and Joliette, under the management of religious communities, and grafted on pre-existing educational institutions. In each of the ten Catholic normal schools of the province, the principal is a priest nominated by the Catholic committee. Another late improvement is the establishment of special schools of domestic economy under the management of sisters. (For legislation relating to the Church, see CANADA.) The latest report of the superintendent of public education for the school year 1909-10 gives the following general statistics for the province of Quebec: schools, 6760; teachers, 14,000; pupils, 394,945; average attendance, 308,982; average per cent, 78.23. The same report shows an increase above the figures of the year previous of 7552 in the number of pupils. There has also been a considerable increase in the expenditure, due to grants for technical schools, and to the newly organized normal schools. The total government outlay for 1909-10 was $6,210,530, showing an increase above that of 1907-08 of $1,744,993. The contrast between the amount spent and the number of schools, teachers, and pupils, instead of signifying an inferior quality of education, testifies to the economy wrought by the employment of teaching religious orders, 5805 of whose members (out of a total of 14,000 teachers) are employed in the public schools. (For statistics regarding universities, classical colleges, and the several teaching orders, see CANADA.) The accompanying table of comparative school statistics for the entire dominion was published officially by the Department of the Interior in 1908. (Those marked with an asterisk are estimated.) + Canada: 22,971 schools; 44,896 teachers; 1,214,457 pupils; 776,968 average attendance; $19,370,538 expenditures + Alberta: 1,070 schools; 1,171 teachers; 39,109 pupils; *17,311 average attendance; 282,205 expenditures + British Columbia: 422 schools; 816 teachers; 33,314 pupils; 23,558 average attendance; 1,220,509 expenditures + Manitoba (1907): 1,943 schools; 2,480 teachers; 67,144 pupils; 37,279 average attendance; 324,836 expenditures + New Brunswick: 1,828 schools; 1,903 teachers; 66,383 pupils; 38,584 average attendance; 776,320 expenditures + Nova Scotia: 2,516 schools; 2,664 teachers; 101,725 pupils; 58,343 average attendance; 1,215,500 expenditures + Ontario: *6,413 schools; *10,643 teachers; *478,549 pupils; *284,988 average attendance; *8,769,876 expenditures + Prince Edward Island: 476 schools; 580 teachers; 18,012 pupils; 11,646 average attendance; 176,092 expenditures + Quebec: 6,549 schools; 13,139 teachers; 372,599 pupils; 285,418 average attendance; 4,465,537 expenditures + Saskatchewan: 1,754 schools; 1,500 teachers; *37,622 pupils; *19,841 average attendance; *2,139,663 expenditures Of the two oldest provinces of the dominion, Ontario and Quebec, the latter stands first as regards the number of schools, of teachers, and of average attendance, being inferior only in the number of pupils (irrespective of the ratio to each population), and in expenditure. About one-eleventh of the number of pupils in the province of Quebec are non-Catholics. The following table, based on the preceding statistics, shows the relative standing of each province of the dominion, according to the percentage of average attendance for 1908: + Alberta: 17,311 average attendance (44.26%) + British Columbia: 23,558 average attendance (70.71%) + Manitoba: 37,279 average attendance (55.52%) + New Brunswick: 38,584 average attendance (56.42%) + Nova Scotia: 58,343 average attendance (57.35%) + Ontario: 284,988 average attendance (59.55%) + Prince Edward Island: 11,646 average attendance (64.65%) + Quebec: 285,418 average attendance (76.36%) + Saskatchewan: 19,841 average attendance (52.73%) Resource map. Department of the Interior, Dominion of Canada (Ottawa, 1908); Rapport du surintendant de l'instruction publique (Quebec, 1909); PAQUET, L'Eglise et l'éducation au Canada (Quebec, 1909); ANGLIN, Catholic Education in Canada in Catholic Educational Association Bulletin (Columbus, O., Aug., 1910); HOPKINS, Canada. An encyclopedia of the country (Toronto, 1898); Le Canada ecclésiastique (Montréal, 1911); Criminal Statistics (Ottawa, 1909). LIONEL LINDSAY Hyacinthe-Louis de Quelen Hyacinthe-Louis De Quelen Archbishop of Paris, born at Paris, 8 Oct., 1778; died there 31 Dec., 1839. He was educated at the Collège de Navarre, and under the private tuition of M. Emery and other ecclesiastics. Ordained in 1807, he served a year as Vicar-General of St. Brieuc and then became secretary to Cardinal Fesch. When the latter was sent back to his diocese, de Quelen exercised the sacred ministry at St. Sulpice and in the military hospitals. Under the Restoration of 1814 he became successively spiritual director of the schools in the archdiocese, Vicar-General of Paris, and coadjutor archbishop to Cardinal de Talleyrand-Périgord, succeeding the latter in 1821. The favours of Louis XVIII and Charles X did not make him subservient. As a peer of the realm he opposed, on behalf of the middle classes, the conversion of the national debt. At his reception into the French Academy he publicly lauded Chateaubriand, then in disgrace. While blessing the corner-stone of the Chapelle Expiatoire he demanded, though in vain, an amnesty for the exiled members of the Convention; and the ordinance of 1828, disbanding the Jesuits and limiting the recruiting of the clergy, was issued against his advice. Although de Quelen had not approved the royal ordinance of July, 1830, which aimed at restoring absolute monarchy, he was nevertheless held in suspicion by the House of Orléans. On one occasion Louis-Philippe said to him: "Archbishop, remember that more than one mitre has been torn asunder". "Sire", replied the archbishop, "God protect the crown of the king, for many royal crowns too have been shattered". Apart from some official functions such as the christening of the Comte de Paris, the obsequies of the Duke of Orléans and the Te Deum sung in honour of the French victory in Africa, he confined himself to his episcopal duties, visiting the parishes of his jurisdiction, looking after the religious instruction of military recruits, and organizing the metropolitan clergy. In the outbreaks which followed the Revolution of 1830 the archbishop, twice driven from his palace, had to seek refuge in humble quarters and to bear in silence the worst calumnies against his person. However, when the epidemic of 1832 broke out, he nobly transformed his seminaries into hospitals, personally ministered to the sick at the Hôtel-Dieu, and founded at his own expense the " uvre des orphelins du choléra". He died shortly after, having the joy of witnessing the conversion of the apostate Bishop of Autun, the Prince de Talleyrand. Ravignan eulogized him at Notre-Dame, and de Molé at the French Academy. From de Quelen's episcopate date the "Société de St. Vincent de Paul", the "Conferences apologétiques de Notre-Dame" and several religious institutes, among which are the nursing Sisters of Bon-Secours. Besides the eulogies on Louis XVI (Paris, 1816), on Madame Elizabeth (Paris, 1817), on the Duke de Berry (Paris, 1830), his "Discours de réception à l'académie française" (Paris, 1824), and some 120 pastoral letters, we have from his pen "Manuels pour l'administration des Sacrements de l'Eucharistie et de l'Extrême-Onction: du Baptême des Enfants: du Mariage" (3 vols., Paris, 1837-38) collected in the "Rituel de Paris". Biographies by D'EXAUVILLEZ (Paris, 1840), and HENRION (Paris, 1840); PISANI in L'Episcopat français (Paris, 1907), s.v.; D'AVENEL, Les évéques et archevéques de Paris (Tournai, 1878); See also Mémoires de Jauffret, III (Paris, 1824); Ami de la Religion (Paris, 1840), CIV; Revue Ecclésiastique, II (Paris, 1840). J.F. SOLLIER Quem Terra, Pontus, Sidera Quem terra, pontus, sidera An ancient hymn in honour of the Blessed Virgin, ascribed to Fortunatus by Thomasius and Mone without question but also without assigning any reason. Kayser (Beiträge etc., I, 393) remarks that it is not found in the manuscripts of Fortunatus's works, to whom, however, Dreves ("Analecta Hymnica", L, Leipzig, 1907, 86-8) and Blume (see HYMNODY) refer it. The Roman Breviary divides it into two parts: the first, beginning with "Quem terra, pontus, sidera", assigned to Matins in the Common Office, and also the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin; the second, beginning with "O gloriosa virginum", similarly assigned to Lauds. Both parts conclude with the doxology of Marian hymns, "Jesu tibi sit gloria etc." As found thus, the hymns are revisions, in the interest of classical prosody, of the older hymn, "Quem terra, pontus, æthera", found in many old breviaries, and in manuscripts dating from the eighth century. In the Cistercian office it was sung at Compline during Advent. Sometimes it was divided into two parts, as now in the Roman Breviary, the second part beginning with "O gloriosa Domina" (or "femina"). Including both the older and the revised form, there are eighteen translations into English of the first part and fourteen of the second part, nearly all of which are by Catholics. In the Marquess of Bute's "The Roman Breviary" (1879), however, the versions selected are those of the Anglican translators, J.M. Neale and R.F. Littledale. The beautiful versions of Father Caswall, appearing originally in his "Lyra Catholica" (1849), are easily accessible in the reprinted work (London, 1884). For first lines of the various translations, sources, authors, see Julian, "Dict. of Hymnology" (2nd ed., London, 1907, 944). To his list should be added the translations of Archbishop Bagshawe ("Breviary Hymns and Missal Sequences", London, 1900, 106-7), and Judge Donahoe ("Early Christian Hymns", New York, 1908, 80-1). The revised form of the Latin text as well as the older forms, with variant readings and some interesting notes, may be found in Daniel ("Thesaurus Hymnologicus", I, 172; 11, 382; IV, 135), and in Mone (Lateinische Hymnen des Mittelalters, II, 128-31). For Latin text and English tr., ancient plain song harmonized, and alternative musical setting, see "Hymns, Ancient and Modern" (London, 1909, Hymn 222). The official or "typical" melody will be found in the "Antiphonary". H.T. HENRY Jacopo Della Quercia Jacopo Della Quercia Sculptor, born (it is said) at Quercia Grossa, near Siena, 1374; died 20 October, 1438. His father, a goldsmith, taught him design. When about sixteen he made an equestrian wooden statue for the funeral of Azzo Ubaldini; he is believed to have left Siena soon after this, owing to party strife and disturbances. In 1401 he reappeared in Florence, a competitor for the gates of S. Giovanni (assigned to Ghiberti); in 1408 he executed in Ferrara various sculptures, notably the Madonna of the Pomegranate. One of his most exquisite work, the tomb of Ilaria del Carretto, second wife of Paolo Guinigi, in the Cathedral of Lucca dates about 1413. The Gothic altar-piece at S Frediano, Lucca, with figures of Our Lady and saints (c. 1416) is by him. He spent ten years on his Fonte Gaia, in the Piazza del Campo, Siena; it has figures of Our Lady and of the theological and cardinal virtues, reliefs of the creation of man and expulsion from paradise, and various water-spouting animal forms. The fountain was restored by Tito Sarocchi in 1868. Also in Siena (Baptistery of S. Giovanni) is the font made from Jacopo's designs (1417-30). The surmounting statuette, the Baptist, the marble reliefs of the Prophets, and one of the six bronze-gilt panels (Zacharias led out of the Temple) are from his hand. A very important work is the great doorway of S. Petronio, Bologna, with fifteen bas-reliefs from Genesis (1425-38). Raphael and Michelangelo are both indebted to these sculptures. In the ambulatory of S. Giacomo, Bologna, is the monument of Antonio Bentivoglio (d. 1435). The mandorla of the Assumption, Sta Maria del Fiore, Florence, has been claimed for Jacopo, but modern authorities give it to Nanni del Banco. The forms of Jacopa are highly tactile, graceful, and animated. M.L. HANDLEY Queretaro Diocese of Querétaro (DE QUERETARO) Located in Mexico; suffragan of Michoacan. Its area is that of the state of the same name, 4492 sq. miles, population, 243,515 (census of 1910). The principal city, residence of the bishop and the governor, is Querétaro, population (1910), 35,011, founded by the Otomis Indians in 1446, and occupied by the Spaniards since 1531. The Carmelites established themselves there in 1601, the Dieguinos in 1613, the Fathers of Mercy in 1636, the Dominicans in 1692; the Augustinians and the Fathers of the Oratory of St. Philip also had houses in Querétaro. The Jesuit college of Saint Francis Xavier was suppressed in 1767 by Charles III on the occasion of the expulsion of all Jesuits from the Spanish possessions. One of the most notable institutions of Querétaro was the college of Apostolic missionaries, which Innocent XI called the greatest influence for the propagation of the Faith in the Indies. Missionaries went forth from it to evangelize Sonora, California, Texas, and Tamaulipas. In 1848 the Government of the Republic asked for some of its members to take charge of the missions of Sierra Gorda. Almost all of the present diocese of Querétaro formed part of the Archdiocese of Mexico until 26 January, 1862, when by the Bull "Optimum Maximum" of Pius IX, the See of Querétaro was created. The diocese has two seminaries with 128 students; it numbers 101 parochial schools and nine Catholic colleges, which together contain 5195 students. There are one Protestant college with 65 students and two Protestant churches. Adjoining the residence of the bishop in the capital near the church of La Cruz, is the Convent of La Cruz, occupied as headquarters by Maximilian during the siege of the city by General Escobedo in May, 1867. The Capuchin Convent was used as a prison for the Emperor Maximilian and his two generals, Miramon and Mejia. It was on the hill of Las Campanas on the outskirts of the town that these generals were shot, 19 June, 1867. An elaborate mortuary chapel has replaced the former modest monument erected on the site. At Querétaro was ratified in 1848 the treaty by which Mexico ceded to the United States, at the close of the war, the territory covered by Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Upper California. VERA, Catecismo geográfico-histórico-estadístico de la iglesia mexicana (Amecameca, 1881); NORIEGA, Geografía de la república mexicana (Mexico, 1898); DOMENECH, Guia general descriptiva de la república mexicana (Mexico, 1899). CAMILLUS CRIVELLI Pasquier Quesnel Pasquier Quesnel (PASCHASE) Pasquier Quesnel, born in Paris, 14 July, 1634; died at Amsterdam, 2 December, 1719. Descended from an ancient noble family he completed at the Sorbonne a brilliant course in philosophy and theology. At the age of twenty-three he entered the congregation of the Oratory where his talents were profitably employed in the direction of the young. He composed for the use of the students under his charge, and published in 1671 an "Epitome of the Morals of the Evangelists, or Christian Thoughts on the Texts of the Four Evangelists". By important successive developments, this work became "The New Testament in French with Moral Reflections on each verse" (Paris, 1687-92) and gave rise to lively polemics until at last, in 1708, his doctrines were condemned by Clement XI (see JANSENIUS). But the edition of 1671 already contained five of the 101 propositions (12, 13, 30, 60, and 65) later censured in the Bull "Unigenitus". Quesnel was profoundly imbued with the errors of Baius and the Jansenists, and he had skilfully spread these views in his "Moral Reflections" on the New Testament. Furthermore, he had adopted, in relation to the papacy, the teachings of Marco Antonio de Dominis (q.v.) and of Richer. He published (Paris, 1675; Lyons, 1700) a complete edition of the works of Leo the Great. The notes and dissertations which he added, though very learned, are spoiled by his attacks upon infallibility, and even Roman primacy. In consequence, this work was placed under the ban of the Index, and Quesnel's only reply to the condemnation was disrespectful recrimination. On account of his Jansenist opinions, which he emphasized more and more he was relegated to Orléans. In 1684, having refused to subscribe to the formula which the General Assembly of the Oratory felt obliged to draw up against the current errors, he was compelled to quit the congregation. He then went to Belgium to join Antoine Arnauld, at whose death (1694) he was present, and whose place he took at the head of the party. The difficulties of a sojourn in a foreign land failed to dampen his ardour for proselytizing or abate his literary activity. The dictionary of Moreri attributes to him some sixty discourses, ascetic or polemical, several of which were published under assumed names or anonymously at Brussels, where for some time he remained in hiding. But in 1703 Philip V, acting in concert with the Archbishop of Mechlin, Humbert of Precipiano, had him arrested and imprisoned in the archiepiscopal palace. Nevertheless, he succeeded in escaping and reaching Holland, finding an asylum at Amsterdam, where he continued, despite all bans and censures, to write in support of his ideas. Obstinate in the pursuit of his aims, he was not always delicate in his choice of means. When the royal commissioners discovered him disguised in secular dress and crouching behind a cask, and wished to assure themselves of his identity, he declared that his name was Rebecq, one of his numerous pseudonyms. On the part of a man who like all those of his party scorned mental restrictions and equivocations, the expedient, to say the least, was singular. Still more disloyal was his attempt to cloak his doctrines with the authority of Bossuet. The latter had been requested to examine the text of the "Réflexions morales" and had consented to do so. He had even drawn up an advertisement as a preface to a new edition, insisting, however, on the correction of one hundred and twenty propositions which he had found reprehensible. As this condition was not accepted, he refused his co-operation and held back his proposed "Avertissement". But later on Quesnel obtained from the heirs of Bossuet the materials which the latter had prepared, and which he published as an authentic work under the title "Justification of the Moral Reflections, by the late M. Bossuet". Up to the time of his death the ardent Jansenist was inconsistent and insincere. He requested and received the last sacraments, and in presence of two Apostolic prothonotaries and other witnesses, he made a profession of faith over his own signature, in which he declared "that he wished to die, as he had always lived, in the bosom of the Catholic Church, that he believed all the truths taught by her, condemned all the errors condemned by her, that he recognized the Sovereign Pontiff as the chief Vicar of Jesus Christ, and the Apostolic See as the centre of unity". That these formulas concealed some inadmissible restrictions is proved by their very tenor. On this point we are left in no doubt in view of Article 7 which completes them, and in which it is said the writer "persists in his appeal to a future General Council, regarding the constitution 'Unigenitus', and regarding the grievances à propos of which he sought the judgment of the Church" . Among the numerous works of Quesnel besides those already mentioned we may cite especially: "Lettres contre les nudités addressées aux religieuses qui ont soin de l'éducation des filles"; "L'Idée du Sacerdoce et du Sacrifice de Jésus Christ"; "Les trois consécrations: la consécration baptismale, la sacerdotale et la eonsécration religieuse"; "Elévation à N. S. J. C. sur sa Passion et sa Mort"; "Jésus pénitent"; "Du bonheur de la mort chrétienne"; "Prières chrétiennes avec des pratiques de piété"; "Office de Jésus avec des réflexions"; "Recueil de lettres spirituelles sur divers sujets de la morale et de la piété"; under the pseudonym of Géry, "Apologie historique de deux censures (contre Lessius) de l'Université de Douai"; under the pseudonym of Germain, "Tradition de l'Eglise Romaine sur la prédestination des saints et sur la grâce efficace"; "La discipline de l'Eglise tirée du Nouveau Testament et de quelques anciens conciles"; "Causa Arnaldina", a work produced under another form as "La justification de M. Arnauld"; "Entretiens sur le Décret de Rome contre le Nouveau Testament de Châlons accompagnées de reflexions morales"; finally seven "Mémoires" serving as a history of the constitution "Unigenitus". This list, however incomplete, comprises in its first part only the most generally useful and edifying works; as an offset the seven last numbers are either impregnated with the Jansenist principles or consecrated principally to their defence. QUESNELLISM The theological errors of Quesnel found their most complete expression in his "Réflexions morales". Although they appear there only on occasions, disjointedly, in a fragmentary way, and are moreover hidden in the expression of pious considerations, they really form a systematic whole; they show their author to have adopted a radically false but coherent system, which is fundamentally only a synthesis of the systems of Baius and Jansenius. To make this clear, one has only to compare the hundred and one propositions condemned in the Bull "Unigenitus", and faithfully extracted from the "Réflexions morales" with the theories previously defended by the Bishop of Ypres and his predecessor in the University of Louvain. For Quesnel, like Baius, conceived human nature in its three successive states: innocence, fall, and restoration. All his essential theses are based on a confusion between the natural and the supernatural order, which necessarily entailed the assertion of an intrinsic difference in regard to gratuity as well as to efficacy, between the grace of the Creator and the grace of the Redeemer. "The grace of Adam produced only human merits" (prop. 34); but "being a consequence of the creation, it was due to nature when whole and unimpaired" (prop. 35). Its loss through the original fall mutilated our nature, and man having become "a sinner is, without the grace of the Liberator, free only to do evil" (prop. 38). Moreover, this grace "is never given except by faith" (prop. 26). Faith which "is the first grace and the source of all the others" (prop. 27), is to be understood as "operative faith, and it works only by charity" (prop. 51). Consequently "outside of the Church no grace is given" (prop. 29), and "the first grace given to the sinner being the remission of sins" (prop. 28), all his acts, as long as he remains a sinner, are sins (prop. 44-8), so that "the prayer of the wicked is a new sin, and what God grants to them is a fresh condemnation" (prop. 59). This is all resumed in the thesis of the double contrary love: "There are only two loves, from which all our volitions and all our actions spring: the love of God (charity properly so called) which refers everything to God and which God rewards; and love of self and of the world, which is evil as it does not refer to God what should be referred to Him" (prop. 44). From this follow not only the uselessness, but the malice and the evil effects of attrition, that is, of all repentance which does not arise from pure charity; for, "fear restrains only the hands; the heart remains attached to sin, as long as it is not led by the love of justice" (prop. 61); and "he who refrains from evil only through fear of punishment has already sinned in his heart" (prop. 62). Thus, the erroneous conception of the really gratuitous and supernatural character of the original grace bore its legitimate fruits, rigorism and despair; it resulted, as far as concerns attrition, in a conclusion already condemned by the Council of Trent. In Quesnel we find likewise the doctrine of the "Augustinus" (see JANSENIUS). Like that famous book, the "Réflexions Morales" did not admit either purely sufficient grace or real liberty of indifference; on the contrary, it denied them in many formulas "Grace is the operation of the omnipotent hand of God, which nothing can hinder or retard" (prop. 10), "it is nothing but the omnipotent will of God who commands and who executes his commands" (prop. 11). "When God, no matter when or where, wishes to save a soul, the will of God is infallibly carried into effect" (prop. 12). "When God wills to save a soul and touches it with the interior hand of his grace, no human will can resist it" (prop. 13); "there is no attraction but yields to the attraction of grace, because nothing resists the Omnipotent" (prop. 16). In a word, the action of grace can and must be likened to that by which God created the world, realized the Incarnation, raised Jesus Christ from the dead, and by which He worked every other miracle (prop. 20-5). Having admitted all this, it is not astonishing that the Divine precepts cannot be observed by men of good will who make the effort. For, on the one hand, "the grace of Jesus Christ, the efficacious principle of all good, is necessary for any good work whatsoever; without it not only is nothing done but nothing can be done" (prop. 2); "the will without prevenient grace has no light save to go wrong, no zeal but to hasten to destruction, no strength but to wound itself: it is capable of all evil, and incapable of any good" (prop. 39). On the other hand, when grace is present and acting one never resists it. If therefore anyone fail in his duty, it can only be because he has not received the indispensable grace. For "grace is that voice of the Father teaching men interiorly and leading them to Jesus Christ; whoever, having heard the exterior voice of the Son, does not come to him, has not been taught by the Father" (prop. 17). And yet, according to Quesnel, man will be held guilty and condemned for those transgressions which he cannot possibly avoid (prop. 40). But, since the observing of commandments and therefore of the conditions necessary for salvation is not within the reach of all, it is evident that neither the intention of God to save nor the efficacy of the sufferings of the Saviour extend to all mankind. So "all those whom God wishes to save through Christ are infallibly saved" (prop. 30), and if "Christ Himself delivered Himself up to death", it was solely "to snatch the first-born, that is the elect, from the hand of the exterminating angel" (prop. 32). All these extraordinary ideas of Quesnel's concerning grace, and his obstinate defence of them against legitimate authority had, as a practical and logical result, a second group of errors no less serious about the Church, its membership, discipline, and government in general. According to Quesnel, the Church is invisible; for it comprises "as members only the saints" or "the elect and the just" (prop. 72-7), and "a person is separated from it by not living according to the Gospel as much as by not believing in the Gospel" (prop. 78). It is an abuse in the Church "to forbid Christians to read the Holy Scriptures and especially the Gospel" (prop. 85), for this reading "is necessary to all, in every place and at all times" (prop. 79-84). "It is the Church that has the power of excommunicating, to be used by the chief pastors with the consent, at least presumed, of the whole body" (prop. 90). This, as the author states explicitly in his seventh "Mémoire", supposes that the multitude of the faithful, without distinction of rank, is properly speaking the sole depository of all ecclesiastical power; but, as it cannot exercise this power by itself, the community entrusts it to the bishops and the pope, who are its agents and its mandatories; and, in this sense, the pope is only "the ministerial head" of the episcopal body. Moreover, "the fear of an unjust excommunication must never keep us from doing our duty" (prop. 91), "to suffer in peace an undeserved excommunication and anathema rather than betray the truth is to imitate St. Paul" (prop. 92). The directly personal character and object of these last declarations are apparent. The same may be said of the articles that protest against the abuse of multiplying oaths among Christians (prop. 101), or speak of the contempt, intolerance, and persecution to which truth is subjected (prop. 93-100), and which, crowning this sad arraignment with an assertion more offensive than the others, see in the abuses pretended to have been discovered "one of the most striking proofs of the senile decay of the Church" (prop. 95). LAFITEAU, Histoire de la Constitution Unigenitus (Liége, 1738); SCHILL, Die Constitution Unigenitus (Freiburg, 1876). J. FORGET Juan de Quevedo Juan de Quevedo Franciscan, native of Bejori, Old Castile, Spain; died a Barcelona, 24 December, 1519. His antecedents are unknown. At the request of King Ferdinand, husband of Queen Isabella, Pope Leo X, on 28 August, 1513, appointed Quevedo bishop of Santa Maria de la Antigua, or Darien, on the Isthmus, and he thus became the first bishop on the mainland of America. Accompanied by several Franciscans, Bishop Quevedo on 12 April, 1514, embarked at San Lucar with Pedrarias (Pedro Arias de Avila, or Davila), who had been named governor of Darien. The expedition reached its destination 30 June. The governor and his officers, despite royal warnings to heed to the advice of Quevedo, committed the most the most frightful cruelties, not only against the Indians, but also against rivals, of which the beheading of Vasco Nuñez de Balboa, the discoverer of the Pacific Ocean, is not the least. Las Casas accused Quevedo of having violated a trust, accumulated wealth, and neglected the Indians; but Las Casas was frequently unjust in his condemnations. It is impossible to determine how much truth or untruth his charges contain. Quevedo returned to Spain (1518) and presented two memorials to King Charles. One was against Pedrarias, and the other advocated restricting the powers of all governors in the New World for the better protection of the natives. When these documents were shown to Las Casas, he offered to countersign them. Quevedo declared that all the aborigines of America, as far as he had observed them, appeared to be a race of men whom it would be impossible to instruct or improve unless they were collected in villages or missions and kept under continual supervision. In this he was right, as all subsequent experience has shown. Bishop Quevedo soon fell sick and died at Barcelona. ZEPHYRIN ENGELHARDT Quiche Quiche (UTLATECA) The principal aboriginal tribe or nation of Guatemala. They belong to the great Mayan linguistic stock (see MAYA INDIANS), as do also their neighbours in the same state, the Cakchiquel, Pokonchi, and Tzutnhil, the four dialects constituting but one language. The Quiche occupied north-central Guatemala, including the present districts of Quiche, Totonicapan, and a part of Quezaltenango. Like those of the other Mayan tribes, their traditions pointed to a northern or north-eastern origin, and their fairly authentic history went back to about A. D. 700. (Maya history seems fairly authentic as far back as the second century.) They were subjugated by Pedro de Alvarado about 1525, with even more than the customary atrocities, and rapidly declined under the system of slavery and heavy tribute imposed, notwithstanding the warnings of the pope and the humane laws promulgated by the Spanish monarch, at the instance of Las Casas. Even before the conquest was complete the Dominican Fathers Pontaz and de Torres had taken up their residence among the Quiche and begun the work of Christianization. In 1530 Father Francisco Marroquín (d. 1563) arrived from Spain to organize the Church in Guatemala, and in 1533 was confirmed as bishop. He gave special attention to the Indians and their languages, becoming particularly proficient in the Quiche, into which language he translated the catechism. On his appeal Father Las Casas (1536) established at Santiago a convent of Dominicans for the conversion of the natives. They were reinforced two years later by Fathers Zambrano and Dardon, of the Order of Mercy (Merced), who established a convent of that order in the same city. Under these two orders, working in harmony together with the Franciscans, who entered the field in 1541, the conversion of the Indians was gradually effected, the new converts being gathered into towns for their better government and instruction. The entire tribe is long since Christian, although many of the ancient rites and beliefs persist in daily life. Their present number is near 150,000. In agricultural habit, architecture, literary method and productiveness, religious ceremonial, and general culture, the ancient Quiche resembled the Maya, with only minor differences. In their genesis myth (as recorded in the "Popol Vuh"), the earth was brought into form by Gugumatz, the Plumed Serpent (equivalent to the Quetzalevatt of the Aztec), who finally created four men and four women, who became the ancestors of the race, assigning to each pair at the same time a special tutelary god, whose first duty it was to produce fire and light, to clear the world of evil monsters and to institute Ceremonies and sacrifices. The "Popol Vuh", or "National Book", the great literary monument of the Quiche, is a compendium of their ancient traditions handed down from before the conquest. The present version, evidently a copy from an older record, was written in the Quiche language by one of the tribe, apparently shortly after the conquest. it was first brought to attention through a Spanish translation by the Dominican Father Francisco Ximénez (c. 1725). In 1861 a more correct French translation, with the original text, was published in Paris by the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg. Of the work Brinton says: "This may well be considered one of the most valuable monuments of ancient American literature and its substantial authenticity cannot be doubted." BANCROFT, Native Races [of the Pacific States], vol. II: Civilized Nations (San Francisco, 1882); III: Myths and Languages (San Francisco, 1886); IDEM, Hist. Central America (3 vols., San Francisco, 1886-87); BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG, Nations civilisées du Mezique et de l'Amérique centrale (4 vols., Paris, 1857); IDEM, Coll. de documents dans les langues indigènes, including Popol Vuh (4 vols., Paris, 1861-68); SAHAGÚN, Historia general de Nueva España (Mexico, 1829); SQUlER, Central America (New York, 1853); XIMÉNEZ, Origen de Los Indios de Guatemala in Popol Vuh, ed. SCHERZER (Vienna, 1857). JAMES MOONEY Quichua Indians Quichua Indians Quichua Indians, formerly the dominant people of the Empire of Peru, and still the largest homogeneous body of Indians in existence, constituting the bulk of the rural population of Peru and Ecuador. The name == written also Qquichua, Quechua, Kechua == most probably signifies those who "speak correctly", as distinguished from tribes from alien stock. The numerous tribes or small nations comprising the Quichuan linguistic stock occupied a territory nearly conterminous with that of the empire at its greatest extent, but reaching out somewhat beyond its borders on the north, and extending on the south, with interruptions, to about Coquimbo, Chile, at 30 S. lat. The Inca seem to have had their original territory somewhere between Paucartambo and Cuzco. The Quichua proper, living south from Cuzco, were among their earliest conquests. Of the cognate tribes the principal were the Huancavilca, Manta, Cara, Cañari, and Quitu (Ecuador); the Lamano, Rucana, and Quichua proper (Peru), the latter about Cuzco and the upper Apurimac in central Peru, all of a high stage of civilization; the cognate Malaba and other small tribes above Esmeraldas, on the Ecuador-Colombia frontier, remained unconquered and uncivilized. Of the nations or tribes conquered and incorporated by the empire, but of alien stock, the principal were the Aymará tribes, on the Peru-Bolivia border; the Yunca tribes, on the coast from the Gulf of Guayaquil to below Truxillo; and the Calchaqui, in north-west Argentina. The Aymará were probably the direct originators and inspirers of the Quichua civilization, and still preserve their separate identity and language to the number of over half a million souls of pure or mixed blood. At the period of its greatest expansion, about the year 1500, the Empire of Peru probably contained at least ten million souls. Under the Spaniards the natives rapidly decreased. In 1580 an official census gave them as 8,280,000 souls. In 1839 d'Orbigny estimated the Quichua and Aymará groups respectively at approximately 1,393,000 and 561,000 souls, about one third of each being of mixed blood. The present total probably approximates 2,500,000, but separate Indian figures are not available. The foundations of Quichua history are laid in the mythic period, but the sequence of events may be traced with fair degree of probability back to about the year 1000. According to tradition their culture hero appeared first at Tiahuanuco (Lake Titicaca); he brought about order upon earth and apportioned its sovereignty among four rulers, one of whom was Ayra-Manco. Ayra-Manco was one of three wonder-working brothers, who, with their three sisters, had their residence at Pavec-tambo, "House of Veneration", south of the site of Cuzco, or according to another version, at Paucar-tambo, "House of Beauty", some two hundred miles to the north-west. Owing to a dispute over the possession of a magic golden sling the brothers separated, two of them being finally transformed into stone statues, while the third by supernatural command journeyed to Cuzco (i. e. navel, or centre), where he built a temple to the sun and established his capital as the first Inca king of Peru, under the title of Manco Capac, "Manco the Ruler". Eliminating the mythic features, Manco Capac's period is fixed by Bollaert at about the middle of the eleventh century. Without conceding the extravagant claims of Montesinos, who gives a list of 101 Inca rulers up to the Spanish conquest, we may assume that his work fairly summarizes the historical traditions of the Quichua. The earlier rulers seem to have devoted their attention largely to the elaboration of a calendar, the regulation of religion, and the building up of their kingdom by concessions of land to refugees from various quarters. Almost from the beginning there were established cloistered orders of priests and virgins of the sun. There is probably no foundation for the claim advanced by Montesinos that the use of letters was known in remote antiquity, but subsequently lost. So far as known, the quipu was the only mnemonic system in use in Peru. Rocca, the eleventh (?) ruler before the conquest, is said to have been the first to assume to himself and his successors the title of Inca. The Calchaqui of Tucuman were subdued under Viracocha (about 1330?); the Chincha and Chimu, to the latter of whom belonged the great temple of Pachacomac, about 1400. The Moxos of eastern Bolivia were brought into alliance by Yupanqui (d. 1439). Tupac Yupanqui, toward the close of the fifteenth century, subdued the Cañari of Ecuador, and began the conquest of Quitu, which was accomplished by his son, Huayna Capac, in 1487. Huayna Capac divided the sovereignty between his two sons, giving Quitu and the northern provinces to Atahualpa, and leaving the southern provinces, or Peru proper, to Huascar. On his death in 1525 civil war soon broke out, and almost at the same time Pizarro's band lauded on the coast. Huascar was captured by his royal brother and was killed in 1533. Within the year the Empire of Peru was brought to an end, after a short struggle, by the treacherous seizure of Atahualpa himself by Pizarro, by whom he was executed on 29 August, 1533 (see PERU). Tupac Amaru, nephew of Huascar and last of the direct claimants to imperial dignity, was beheaded by order of the viceroy in 1571. The natives were now parcelled out into repartimientos and mitayos as slaves, or forced labourers, the result being the swift and terrible wasting of their numbers. Although the spirit of the Indians was well-nigh broken there were occasional outbreaks, the most notable of which was the great rising of 1780 led by another Tupac Amaru, claiming descent from the old Inca race, who for a time restored Indian supremacy over a large extent of territory. Being finally taken he was butchered at Cuzco, together with his wife, children and all his relatives, with a barbarous cruelty never exceeded in history. His sacrifice, however, resulted in a mitigation of the oppressive system, which was finally abolished at the close of the war of independence (1824), in which the Indians bore their full part. With the establishment of settled conditions after the Conquest, the work of Christianizing the natives was begun, chiefly by the Dominicans and Jesuits, and before the close of the seventeenth century practically the whole of the native race of the former empire, west of the Cordilleras, was converted. The civilization of the ancient Quichua was not quite equal in some respects to that of the Maya nations of Yucatan and Guatemala. The social organization, while imperial in form, was really based upon the clan system. For administrative purposes the empire was divided into four great districts (suyu), respectively north, south, east, and west from Cuzco, the capital. Land was held and tilled by the clan in common, and every able-bodied person, not assigned to other service, was a producer. Of the crop, one-fourth was assigned to the workers and their families; one-fourth to the dependent sick, widows, and orphans; one-fourth to the Government, and one-fourth to religion. From the one-half claimed for Government and religion a portion was held in reserve for famine seasons and other emergencies. Seeds, wool, leather, and cotton were also distributed, under supervision of the Government, which also regulated the ownership of livestock. Military service was a universal obligation. To hasten the assimilation of the conquered peoples large bodies of them were regularly colonized in the older portions of the empire, the inhabitants of these latter districts being transplanted to the new possessions. The religion of the Sun was made obligatory throughout the empire as was also, so far as possible, the use of the Quichua language. There seems to be no doubt that the ancient Peruvians had attained the monotheistic idea. Their great god was the Sun, from whom the Incas themselves claimed descent, although the white-skinned and bearded culture hero, Vriacocha, "Sea Foam" (?), apparently a personification of the dawn, was regarded with almost equal veneration. The emperor was the great high priest of the nation. The ceremonial forms were elaborate and magnificent and without the bloody rites so frequent and sickening in other native systems. The great Temple of the Sun in Cuzco contained a massive golden image of the sun, and the walls and roof were covered with plates of solid gold, which the unfortunate Atahualja in vain delivered as a ransom to the faithless Pizarro. The great Sun temple at Quito and the temple dedicated to the Yunca god Pachacamac were of nearly equal magnificence. The dead were wrapt in cloths and deposited in graves or tombs of various construction. At Ancon on the coast is a vast necropois from which thousands of mummified bodies have been resurrected. Near Trujillo, in the Yunca country, are several great burial pyramids, one of them two hundred feet high, filled with bodies in separate niches. From one of these pyramids sixteen millions of dollars in gold are said to have been taken. The golden wealth of Peru under the Incas almost surpasses belief. The country was rich in the precious metal, which was systematically mined by the Government. Silver was mined in due proportion and worked, like gold, into objects of skill and beauty. Tools, weapons and household implements were fashioned of copper, bronze, and stone. Iron was unknown. Emeralds and porphyry were in use for decorative or sculptural purposes. Their potters excelled in general workmanship and in variety and ingenuity of design. Head flattening prevailed. Clothing, blankets, and other textile fabrics were woven from cotton and from the hair of their flocks. Agriculture had reached a high standard, with systematic irrigation, mountain terracing and use of guano manure from the coast islands. Great herds of llamas and alpacas were kept as burden-bearers or for their hair. The vicuña was protected for game purposes. It is in architecture and engineering that the Quichua have left their most enduring monument. Their temples, fortresses, canals, and stupendous mountain roads are still the wonder of every traveller; and the great imperial highway stretching along the Andes for a thousand miles from Cuzco to Quito was the equal of any of the famous Roman roads, and is still in good preservation. The modern Quichua is of medium height, with large chest, dark-brown skin, and well-marked features; strong, enduring and long lived; industrious, gentle, and disposed to melancholy. He is given to music and song recitation. He is fond of church ceremonial, with which he frequently mingles some of his ancient rites, and loves to set up wayside shrines and decorate them with flowers. Their houses, outside of the towns, are of stone or wood, and thatched with grass, of one room, without window or chimney. Their favourite dish is chupe, a highly peppered meat stew, and the favourite intoxicant is chicha, of corn chewed, boiled with water, and fermented. They are great smokers. They are dressed in woollen clothing of their own weaving, generally surmounted by a cloak, and a white sombrero or skull-cap. The Quichua language has been extensively cultivated; it is capable of expressing fine shades of meaning. Of the several dialects, that of Cuzco is considered the standard and that of Quito the most remote. It is still the language of Ecuador and Peru, outside of the principal cities, and even of the wild tribes formerly attached to the Jesuit and Franciscan missions of the upper tributaries of the Amazon. The earliest study of it is the "Gramática de la lengua general del Perú", by the Dominican Father Domingo de Santo Tomás (Valladolid, 1560). Between that date and 1754 nine other grammars and dictionaries by the missionaries were published at Lima. Of modern studies the most important are: Markham, "Grammar and Dictionary of Quichua" (London, 1864); Anchorena, "Gramática Queehua" (Lima, 1874); von Tschudi, "Organismus der Khetsua Sprache" (Leipzig, 1887); and Middendorf, "Das Ruma Simi oder die Keshua Sprache" (Leipzig, 1890). Of its abundant native literature the most remarkable example is the pre-Conquest drama of Allanta, of which the best of many editions is that of Zegarra, "Ollanta: Drame en vers Quechnas du temps des Incas" (Paris, 1878, tr. London, 1871). A collection of modern native folk songs, under the title of "Yaravies. Quitenos", was published by Espada at Madrid in 1881. ACOSTA, Hist. nat. y moral de las indias (Seville, 1590, tr. London, 1604); AMBROSETTI, Exploraciones Arqueológicos, Calchaqui tribes (Buenos Aires, 1906-8); BALLIVIAN, Docum. para la hist. de . . . Bolivia (Tupac Amaru rising) (La Paz, 1906); BOMAN, Antiquités de la région Andine (Paris, 1908); BRINTON, American Race (New York, 1891); BRÜHL, Culturvölker Alt-Amerikas (Cincinnati, 1837); CASTELNAU, Expédition dans l'Amérique du Sud (1843-7) (Paris, 1890-3); CIEZA DE LEÓN, Hist. de Perú (Seville, 1553; tr. Travels through the Mighty Kingdom of Peru, London, 1709); FORBES, Aymara Indians in Ethn. Soc. Jour. N. S., II (London, 1870); GARCILASO DE LA VEGA, Commentarios reales de el origen de los Incas (Lisbon, 1609; tr. Hakluyt Soc., London, 1869); IDEM, Hist. gen. del Perú (Córdova, 1617; tr. Royal Commentaries of Peru, London, 1688); HERNDON AND GIBBON, Exploration of the Valley of the Amazon, II (Washington, 1854); HERVAS, Catálogo de las lenguas, I (Madrid, 1800); MARKHAM, Cuzco (London, 1856); IDEM, Travels in Peru and India (London, 1862); IDEM, Ollanta, an Ancient Ynca Drama (London, 1871); MONTESINOS, Memorias Peruanas (Ms. ca. 1640, see PRESCOTT, Peru, II); D'ORBIGNY, L'homme americain (Paris, 1839); PRESCOTT, Hist. of the Conquest of Peru (London, 1847); RAIMONDI, El Perú (monumental work in several quarto Volumes with plates and atlas) (1874-1902), III, bk, II, Historia de la geografía del Perú (Lima, 1879); RECLUS, The Earth and its Inhabitants: South America. I. The Andes Regions, tr. KEANE (New York, 1894); RIVIERO AND VON TSCHUDI, Antiguedades Peruanas [Vienna, 1851; tr. (mutilated) by HAWKS, London, 1854]; SAVILLE, Antiquities of Manabe, Ecuador (Heye Expedn.), (New York, 1907); SQUIER, Peru (New York, 1877); SUAREZ, Hist. gen. del Ecuador (Quito, 1890-1903); VON TSCHUDI, Peru: Reiseskizzen (1838-1842) (St. Gall, 1844; tr. Travels in Peru, London, 1847); UHLE, Explorations in Peru (Univ. of California, Berkeley, 1905); VELASCO, Hist. del reino de Quito (written 1789) (Quito, 1841-4; French tr. in TEMAUX-COMPANS, Voyages etc., XIX, (Paris, 1850); DE ZARATE, Hist. de la descubrimiento y de la conquista del Perú (Antwerp, 1550; tr. London, 1581). JAMES MOONEY Quicumque Christum Quaertis Quicumque Christum Quærtis The opening line of the twelfth (in honour of the Epiphany) and last poem in the "Cathemerinon" of Prudentius (q.v.). This twelfth poem or hymn contains 52 iambic dimeter strophes, and an irregular selection from its 208 lines has furnished four hymns to the Roman Breviary, all of which conclude with the usual Marian doxology ("Jesu tibi sit gloria" etc., not composed by Prudentius), slightly varied to make the doxology appropriate for the several feasts employing the hymns. The four centos are: (1) Quicumque Christum qu ritis (Matins and first and second Vespers of the feast of the Transfiguration), comprising sixteen lines (1-4, 37-44, 85-88) and the doxology (which changes its second line): Jesu, tibi sit gloria, Qui te revelas parvulis, etc. Although written for the Epiphany, the lines forming the cento apply well to the Transfiguration, as Daniel notes (Thes. Hymnol., I, p. 136). Of the 18 translations in English verse, twelve are by Catholics. (2) O sola magnarum urbium (introduced by Pius V into the office of the Epiphany and assigned to Lauds), comprises sixteen lines (77-80, 5-8, 61-4, 69-72) with the doxology (which changes its second line): Jesu, tibi sit gloria, Qui apparuisti gentibus, etc. The Roman Breviary changes the opening words of the second strophe, "Hæc stella" into "Quem stella". The hymn has never been adopted by the Carthusians, Cistercians, Dominicans (these last using at Lauds the hymn "A patre unigenitus"). Of the seventeen translations into English verse, six are by Catholics. (3) Audit tyrannus anxius (Matins of the Holy Innocents and of the octave day), comprising twelve lines (93-100, 133-6) and the (unchanged) doxology, "Jesu tibi sit gloria" etc. The Roman Breviary changes the opening word of the third strophe "Quo proficit" into "Quid proficit". (4) Salvete flores martyrum (Lauds and Vespers of feast of the Holy Innocents and of the octave day), comprising (in the Roman Breviary cento) 8 lines (125-132) and the (unchanged) doxology, "Jesu, tibi sit gloria" etc. The third line of the second strophe is, in the Roman Breviary, "Aram sub ipsam . . . ", instead of the original "Aram ante ipsam . . ." (or the other variants of this much-disputed line) == a change which not only consults the interests of classical prosody but happily suggests the words of the Apocalypse (vi, 9): "Vidi subtus altare animas interfectorum . . . ". Until the middle of the sixteenth century the Roman Breviary had no special hymns for this feast, but in 1568 hymns (3) and (4) were assigned by Pius V. The two hymns have never been adopted by the Carthusians, the Cistercians, the Dominicans, these last chanting at Lauds only the strophe from the abecedary of Sedulius (lines 37-40): Caterva matrum personat Collisa deflens pignora, Quorum tyrannus millia Christo sacravit victimas. Clicthoue, Cassandre, Tommasi, favour the doxology: Sit trinitati gloria, Virtus, honor, victoria, Quae dat coronam testibus Per sæculorum sæcula == But the Roman Breviary retains the usual doxology, which better connects the feast with its true background of the Christmas cycle. In selections of various length and arrangement, the "Salvete flores martyrum" was in ancient liturgical use, and substantially comprised both hymns (3) and (4) (Daniel, I, p. 124; IV, p. 120; Dreves, Anal. Hymn., L., p. 27, giving many MSS. references, some dating back to the tenth century), and other strophes not now in use. The older breviaries inverted the order of Prudentius, placing the "Salvete flores" etc., before the "Audit tyrannus" etc.; but the Roman Breviary follows the original order, showing us at Matins the bloody spectacle, and at Lauds saluting the victors, the "flores martyrum". The Marquess of Bute's Roman Breviary (1879) gives Neale's translation All hail! ye infant Martyr flowers! Cut off in life's first dawning hours, As rose-buds snapped in tempest strife, When Herod sought your Saviour's life. The version has the value of retaining the similarity of rhythm with the original; but if ever a departure from this course is justifiable, Father Caswall has vindicated his action in changing the rhythm: Flowers of martyrdom, all hail! Smitten by the tyrant foe On life's threshold == as the gale Strews the roses ere they blow. Not to speak of the beauty and fidelity of the rendering, the trochaic rhythm vividly conveys the sense of suddenness of the onslaught, the ruthlessness and swiftness of the destruction, Caswall's version has been adopted by the (Baltimore) Manual of Prayers (with the first line changed into "Lovely flowers of Martyrs, hail!"). The Paris Breviary text had five strophes (exclusive of doxology), but altered the first strophe as follows (in order to avoid unpleasant elisions): Salvete flores martyrum, In lucis ipso limine Quos sævus ensis messuit, Ceu turbo nascentes rosas. There are in all about twenty-five versions into English, of which about half are by Catholics. JULIAN, Dict. of Hymnology (2nd ed.), 946, 1690, for first lines of translations, etc. To his list should be added the trans. of all four hymns in BAGSHAWE, Breviary Hymns and Missal Sequences (London, 1900), and in DONAHOE, Early Christian Hymns (New York, 1908); also, HENRY, Hymns of the Holy Innocents in Ecclesiastical Review (Dec., 1896), 557-65, for Latin text and English versions and comment; KAYSER, Beiträge zur Geschichte u. Erklärung der ältesten Kirchenhymnen (Paderborn, 1881), 294-317, for texts of four hymns and extensive comment; PIMONT, Hymnes du bréviaire romain, II (Paris, 1878), 65-77, for texts and much comment on the hymns of the Holy Innocents; TRENCH, Sacred Latin Poetry (3rd ed., London, 1874), gives Latin text (in 36 lines) of no. (4); Hymns Ancient and Modern, historical ed. (London, 1909), nos. 72, 82, for Latin and English texts, musical settings, and comment on (2) and (4). The official or "typical" melodies for the four hymns will be found in the Antiphonary now passing through the Vatican press. No. 2 (p. 213) and no. 4 (p. 192) have appeared in proof sheets (1911). H.T. HENRY Councils of Quierzy Councils of Quierzy (Kierzy, Carisiacum) Several councils were held at Quierzy, a royal residence under the Carlovingians, but now an insignificant village on the Oise in the French Department of Aisne. The synod of September, 838, ordered the monks of Saint Calais in the Diocese of Le Mans to return to their monastery, from which they falsely claimed to have been expelled by their bishop. It also condemned some of the liturgical opinions of Amalarius of Metz (q.v.). The two succeeding councils, held respectively in 849 and 853, dealt with Gottschalk (q.v.) and his peculiar teaching respecting predestination. The first of these meetings sentenced the recalcitrant monk to corporal castigation, deposition from the priestly office and imprisonment; his books were to be burned. At the second synod the famous four decrees or chapters (Capitula) drawn up by Hincmar (q.v.) on the predestination question were published. They asserted: + the predestination of some to salvation, and, in consequence of Divine foreknowledge, the doom of others to everlasting punishment; + the remedy for the evil tendencies of free will through grace; + the Divine intention of saving all men; + the fact of universal redemption. The council held in February, 857, aimed at suppressing the disorders then so prevalent in the kingdom of Charles the Bald. The synod of 858 was attended by the bishops who remained loyal to Charles the Bald during the invasion of his dominions by Louis the German. It addressed a firm but conciliatory letter to the invader stating its attitude towards him for the intentions which he expressed, but which his actions belied. N.A. WEBER Prayer of Quiet Prayer of Quiet The Prayer of Quiet is regarded by all writers on mystical theology as one of the degrees of contemplation. It has to be distinguished therefore from meditation and from affective prayer. It holds an intermediary place between the latter and the prayer of union. As the name implies the prayer of quiet is that in which the soul experiences an extraordinary peace and rest, accompanied by delight or pleasure in contemplating God as present. In this prayer God gives to the soul an intellectual knowledge of His presence, and makes it feel that it is really in communication with Him, although He does this in a somewhat obscure manner. The manifestation increases in distinctness, as the union with God becomes of a higher order. This mystic gift cannot be acquired, because it is supernatural. It is God Himself who makes His presence felt in the inmost soul. The certain sight of God therein obtained is not the same as the light of faith, though it is founded upon faith. The gift of wisdom is especially employed in this degree, as it is in every degree of contemplation. According to Scaramelli the office of this gift, at least to a certain extent, is to render God present to the soul and so much the more present as the gift is more abundant. Some authors say that this is not to be understood of the ordinary gift of wisdom which is necessarily connected with sanctifying grace and is possessed by every just man, but of wisdom as one of the charismata or extraordinary graces of the Holy Ghost, specially granted to privileged souls. + At first the prayer of quiet is given from time to time only and then merely for a few minutes. + It takes place when the soul has already arrived at the prayer of recollection and silence, or what some authors call the prayer of simplicity. + A degree of prayer is not a definite state excluding reversions to former states. + A time often comes when the prayer of quiet is not only very frequent but habitual. In this case it occurs not only at the time set for prayer, but every time that the thought of God presents itself. + Even then it is subject to interruptions and alterations of intensity, sometimes strong and sometimes weak. The prayer of quiet does not entirely impede the exercise of the faculties of the soul. The will alone remains captive. The intellect and memory appear to have greater activity for the things of God in this state, but not so much for worldly affairs. They may even escape the bounds of restraint and wander on strange and useless thoughts, and yet the will, attracted by the charm of the Divine presence, continues its delights, not wholly in a passive way, but capable of eliciting fervent affections and aspirations. As to the bodily senses St. Francis de Sales tells us that persons during the prayer of quiet can hear and remember things said near them; and, quoting St. Teresa, he observes that it is a type of superstition to be so jealous of our repose as to refrain from coughing, and almost from breathing for fear of losing it. God who is the author of this peace will not deprive us of it for unavoidable bodily motions, or even for involuntary wanderings of the imagination. The spiritual fruits are: + interior peace which remains after the time of prayer, + profound humility, + aptitude and a disposition for spiritual duties, + a heavenly light in the intellect, and + stability of the will in goodness. It is by such fruits true mystics may be discerned and distinguished from false mystics. ST. TERESA, The Way of Perfection; IDEM, The Interior Castle; ST. JOHN OF THE CROSS, The Dark Night of the Soul; IDEM, Ascent of Mount Carmel; ST. FRANCIS DE SALES, Treatise on the Love of God; POULAIN, The Graces of Interior Prayer (London, 1910). A. DEVINE Quietism Quietism Quietism (Lat. quies, quietus, passivity) in the broadest sense is the doctrine which declares that man's highest perfection consists in a sort of psychical self-annihilation and a consequent absorption of the soul into the Divine Essence even during the present life. In the state of "quietude" the mind is wholly inactive; it no longer thinks or wills on its own account, but remains passive while God acts within it. Quietism is thus generally speaking a sort of false or exaggerated mysticism (q.v.), which under the guise of the loftiest spirituality contains erroneous notions which, if consistently followed, would prove fatal to morality. It is fostered by Pantheism and similar theories, and it involves peculiar notions concerning the Divine cooperation in human acts. In a narrower sense Quietism designates the mystical element in the teaching of various sects which have sprung up within the Church, only to be cast out as heretical. In some of these the Quietistic teaching has been the conspicuous error, in others it has been a mere corollary of more fundamental erroneous doctrine. Quietism finally, in the strictest acceptation of the term, is the doctrine put forth and defended in the seventeenth century by Molinos (q.v.) and Petrucci. Out of their teaching developed the less radical form known as Semiquietism, whose principle advocates were Fénelon (q.v.) and Madame Guyon (q.v.). All these varieties of Quietism insist with more or less emphasis on interior passivity as the essential condition of perfection; and all have been proscribed in very explicit terms by the Church. In its essential features Quietism is a characteristic of the religions of India. Both Pantheistic Brahmanism and Buddhism aim at a sort of self-annihilation, a state of indifference in which the soul enjoys an imperturbable tranquillity. And the means of bringing this about is the recognition of one's identity with Brahma, the all-god, or, for the Buddhist, the quenching of desire and the consequent attainment of Nirvana, incompletely in the present life, but completely after death. Among the Greeks the Quietistic tendency is represented by the Stoics. Along with Pantheism, which characterizes their theory of the world, they present in their apatheia an ideal which recalls the indifference aimed at by the Oriental mystics. The wise man is he who has become independent and free from all desire. According to some of the Stoics, the sage may indulge in the lowest kind of sensuality, so far as the body is concerned, without incurring the least defilement of his soul. The Neoplatonists (q.v.) held that the One gives rise to the Nous or Intellect, this to the world-soul, and this again to individual souls. These, in consequence of their union with matter, have forgotten their Divine origin. Hence the fundamental principle of morality is the return of the soul to its source. The supreme destiny of man and his highest happiness consists in rising to the contemplation of the One, not by thought but by ecstasy (ekstasis). The origin of these Quietistic tendencies is not hard to discover. However strongly the Pantheistic conception of the world may appeal to the philosophic minded, it cannot do away with the obvious data of experience. To say that the soul is part of the Divine being or an emanation from God enhances, apparently, the dignity of man; but there still remains the fact that passion, desire, and moral evil make human life anything but Divine. Hence the craving for deliverance and peace which can be obtained only by some sort of withdrawal from action and from dependence on external things and by a consequent immersion, more or less complete, in the Divine being. These aberrations of Mysticism continued even after the preaching of Christianity had revealed to mankind the truth concerning God, the moral order, and human destiny. Gnosticism (q.v.), especially the Antinomian School, looked for salvation in a sort of intuitive knowledge of the Divine which emancipated the "spiritual" from the obligation of the moral law. The same Quietistic tendency appears in the teaching of the Euchites or Messalians (q.v.), who maintained that prayer frees the body from passion and the soul from evil inclination, so that sacraments and penitential works are useless. They were condemned at the Synod of Side in Pamphilia (383) and at Ephesus (431). The Bogomili (q.v.) of the later Middle Ages were probably their lineal descendants. Medieval Quietism is further represented in the vagaries of Hesychasm (q.v.), according to which the supreme aim of life on earth is the contemplation of the uncreated light whereby man is intimately united with God. The means for attaining to such contemplation are prayer, complete repose of body and will, and a process of auto-suggestion. Among the errors of the Beguines (q.v.) and Beghards condemned by the Council of Vienne (1311-12) are the propositions: that man in the present life can attain such a degree of perfection as to become utterly impeccable; that the "perfect" have no need to fast or pray, but may freely grant the body whatsoever it craves; that they are not subject to any human authority or bound by the precepts of the Church (see Denzinger-Bannwart, 471 sqq.). Similar exaggerations on the part of the Fraticelli (q.v.) led to their condemnation by John XXII in 1317 (Denzinger-Bannwart, 484 sqq.). The same pope in 1329 proscribed among the errors of Meister Eckhart (q.v.) the assertions that (prop. 10) we are totally transformed into God just as in the sacrament the bread is changed into the Body of Christ; that (14) since God wills that I should have sinned I do not wish that I had not sinned; that (18) we should bring forth the fruit, not of external actions, which do not make us good, but of internal actions which are wrought by the Father abiding within us (Denzinger-Bannwart, 501, sqq). Quite in accord with their Pantheistic principles, the Brethren and Sisters of the Free Spirit (thirteenth to fifteenth century) held that they who have reached perfection, i.e. complete absorption in God, have no need of external worship, of sacraments, or of prayer; they owe no obedience to any law, since their will is identical with God's will; and they may indulge their carnal desires to any extent without staining the soul. This is also substantially the teaching of the Illuminati (Alumbrados), a sect that disturbed Spain during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was the Spaniard Michael de Molinos who developed Quietism in the strictest sense of the term. From his writings, especially from his "Dux spiritualis" (Rome, 1675), sixty-eight propositions were extracted and condemned by Innocent XI in 1687 (Denzinger-Bannwart, 1221 sqq.). The key-note of the system is contained in the first proposition: man must annihilate his powers and this is the inward way (via interna); in fact, the desire to do anything actively is offensive to God and hence one must abandon oneself entirely to God and thereafter remain as a lifeless body (prop. 2). By doing nothing the soul annihilates itself and returns to its source, the essence of God, in which it is transformed and divinized, and then God abides in it (5). In this inward way, the soul has not to think either of reward or of punishment, of heaven or hell, of death or eternity. It must not concern itself about its own state, its defects, or its progress in virtue; having once resigned its will to God it must let Him work out His will without any action of the soul itself (7-13). He who has thus committed himself entirely to God must not ask anything of God, or render thanks to Him; must take no account of temptations nor offer any active resistance; "and if nature be stirred one must permit its stirring because it is nature" (14-17). In prayer one must not use images or discursive thought, but must remain in "obscure faith" and in quiet, forgetting every distinct thought of the Divine attributes, abiding in God's presence to adore, love and serve Him, but without producing any acts because with these God is not pleased. Whatever thoughts arise during prayer, even though they be impure or against faith, if they are not voluntarily encouraged nor voluntarily expelled but are suffered with indifference and resignation, do not hinder the prayer of faith but rather enhance its perfection. He who desires sensible devotion is seeking not God but himself; indeed every sensible effect experienced in the spiritual life is abominable, filthy, unclean (18-20). No preparation is required before Communion nor thanksgiving after other than that the soul remain in its usual state of passive resignation; and the soul must not endeavour to arouse in itself feelings of devotion. Interior souls resign themselves, in silence, to God; and the more thorough their resignation the more do they realize that they are unable to recite even the "Pater Noster". They should elicit no acts of love for the Blessed Virgin or the saints or the Humanity of Christ, because, as these are all sensible objects, love for them is also sensible. External works are not necessary to sanctification, and penitential works, i.e. voluntary mortification should be cast off as a grievous and useless burden (32-40). God permits the demon to use "violence" with certain perfect souls even to the point of making them perform carnal actions either alone or with other persons. When these onsets occur, one must make no effort but let the demon have his way. Scruples and doubts must be set aside. In particular, these things are not to be mentioned in confession, because by not confessing them the soul overcomes the demon, acquires a "treasure of peace", and attains to closer union with God (41-52). The "inward way" has nothing to do with confession, confessors, cases of conscience, theology, or philosophy. Indeed, God sometimes makes it impossible for souls who are advanced in perfection to go to confession, and supplies them with as much grace as they would receive in the Sacrament of Penance. The inward way leads on to a state in which passion is extinguished, sin is no more, sense is deadened, and the soul, willing only what God wills, enjoys an imperturbable peace: this is the mystic death. They who pursue this path must obey their superiors outwardly; even the vow of obedience taken by religious extends only to outward actions, only God and the director enter into the soul's interior. To say that the soul in its interior life should be governed by the bishop is a new and very ridiculous doctrine; for on the hidden things the Church passes no judgment (55-68). From this summary it is readily seen why the Church condemned Quietism. Nevertheless, these doctrines had found adherents even in the higher ranks of the clergy, such as the Oratorian, Pietro Matteo Petrucci (1636-1701), who was made Bishop of Jesi (1681), and raised to the cardinalate (1686). His works on Mysticism and the spiritual life were criticized by the Jesuit Paolo Segneri, and a controversy ensued which resulted in an examination of the whole question by the Inquisition, and the proscription of fifty-four propositions taken from eight of Petrucci's writings (1688). He submitted at once, resigned his bishopric in 1696, and was appointed by Innocent XII Apostolic visitor. Other leaders of the Quietist movement were: Joseph Beccarelli of Milan, who retracted before the Inquisition at Venice in 1710; Francois Malaval, a blind layman of Marseilles (1627-1719); and especially the Barnabite Francois Lacombe, the director of Mme. Guyon, whose views were embraced by Fénelon. The doctrine contained in Fénelon's "Explication de Maximes des Saints" was suggested by the teachings of Molinos, but was less extreme in its principles and less dangerous in its application; it is usually designated as Semiquietism. The controversy between Bossuet and Fénelon has already been noticed. The latter submitted his book to the Holy See for examination, with the result that twenty-three propositions extracted from it were condemned by Innocent XII in 1699 (Denzinger-Bannwart, 1327 sqq.). According to Fénelon, there is an habitual state of the love of God which is wholly pure and disinterested, without fear of punishment or desire of reward. In this state the soul loves God for His own sake == not to gain merit, perfection, or happiness by loving Him; this is the contemplative or unitive life (props. 1, 2). In the state of holy indifference, the soul has no longer any voluntary deliberate desire in its own behalf except on those occasions in which it does not faithfully cooperate with all the grace vouchsafed to it. In that state we seek nothing for ourselves, all for God; we desire salvation, not as our deliverance or reward or supreme interest, but simply as something that God is pleased to will and that He would have us desire for His sake (4-6). The self-abandonment which Christ in the Gospel requires of us is simply the renunciation of our own interest, and the extreme trials that demand the exercise of this renunciation are temptations whereby God would purify our love, without holding out to us any hope even in regard to our eternal welfare. In such trials the soul, by a reflex conviction that does not reach its innermost depths, may have the invincible persuasion that it is justly reprobated by God. In this involuntary despair it accomplishes the absolute sacrifice of its own interest in regard to eternity and loses all interested hope; but in its higher and most inward acts it never loses perfect hope which is the disinterested desire of obtaining the Divine promises (7-12). While meditation consists in discursive acts, there is a state of contemplation so sublime and perfect that it becomes habitual, i.e. whenever the soul prays, its prayer is contemplative, not discursive, and it needs not to return to methodical meditation (15-16). In the passive state the soul exercises all the virtues without adverting to the fact that they are virtues; its only thought is to do what God wills; it desires even love, not as its own perfection and happiness, but simply in so far as love is what God asks of us (18-19). In confession the transformed soul should detest its sins and seek forgiveness not as its own purification and deliverance but as something that God wills and that He would have us will for His glory (20). Though this doctrine of pure love is the evangelical perfection recognized in the whole course of tradition, the earlier directors of souls exhorted the multitude of the just only to practices of interested love proportioned to the graces bestowed on them. Pure love alone constitutes the whole interior life and is the one principle and motive of all actions that are deliberate and meritorious (22-23). While these condemnations showed the determined attitude of the Church against Quietism both in its extreme and in its moderate form, Protestantism contained certain elements which the Quietist might have consistently adopted. The doctrine of justification by faith alone, i.e. without good works, accorded very well with Quietistic passivity. In the "visible Church" as proposed by the Reformers, the Quietist would have found a congenial refuge from the control of ecclesiastical authority. And the attempt to make the religous life an affair of the individual soul in its direct dealings with God was no less Protestant than it was Quietistic. In particular, the rejection, in part or in whole, of the sacramental system, would lead the devout Protestant to a Quietist attitude. As a matter of fact, traces of Quietism are found in early Methodism and Quakerism (the "inward light"). But in its later developments Protestantism has come to lay emphasis on the active, rather than the inert, contemplative life. Whereas Luther maintained that faith without work suffices for salvation, his successors at the present day attach little importance to dogmatic belief, but insist much on "religion as a life", i.e. as action. The Catholic teaching avoids such extremes. The soul indeed, assisted by Divine grace can reach a high degree of contemplation, of detachment from created things and of spiritual union with God. But such perfection, far from leading to Quietistic passivity and Subjectivism, implies rather a more earnest endeavour to labour for God's glory, a more thorough obedience to lawful authority and above all a more complete subjugation of sensuous impulse and tendency. E.A. PACE Diocese of Quilon Diocese of Quilon (QUILONENSIS) Diocese of Quilon, in India on the Malabar coast, suffragan of Verapoly, comprises the southern half of the native state of Travancore, and the British territories of Tangacherry and Anjengo. It stretches from the northern branch of the River Ranee down to Cape Comorin, is bounded on the east by the slope of the Ghauts, and on the west by the Indian Ocean, on the coast of which, however, there is one narrow strip belonging to the Diocese of Cochin. Out of a total population of 1,600,000, the Catholics number 116,090, having 161 churches and 29 chapels, served by 59 priests, of whom 17 are Discalced Carmelite Fathers from various provinces of Europe, the rest being native clergy. The bishop's residence, cathedral, and the preparatory seminary with 32 students are all at Quilon, and there are 9 candidates for the priesthood at Kandy Seminary, Ceylon. HISTORY Down to 1838 the territory comprised by this diocese formed part of the Padroado Diocese of Cochin (see COCHIN, DIOCESE OF). In that year, by the Brief "Multa Præclare", jurisdiction was withdrawn from the See of Cochin, and this portion of its territory was placed under the Vicar Apostolic of Malabar (Verapoly). In 1845 its separation into a distinct vicariate was decreed by the Holy See. This arrangement was effected in 1853, and on the establishment of the hierarchy in 1886 it was finally elevated into an episcopal see, suffragan to Verapoly. List of prelates (all Carmelites): + Bernardino Baccinelli of St. Teresa, pro-vicar Apostolic, 1845-53; + Bernardino Pontanova of St. Agnes, nominated 1853 but died shortly after; + Maurice of St. Albert, nominated 1854 but died shortly after; + Charles Hyacinth Valerga, 1854-64; + Marie Ephrem Garrelon, 1866-68; + Ildephonsus Borgna, 1871-83; + Ferdinand Maria Ossi, 1883, became first bishop in 1887, died 1905; + Aloysius Maria Benziger, present bishop from 1905. RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES Discalced Carmelite missionaries, 17; Convent of Discalced Carmelites at Trivandrum, 5 fathers; Sisters of the Third Order Apostolic of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, 37 (of whom five are Europeans) and 2 novices, for the education of girls and the care of orphans, with convents at Trivandrum, Quilon, and Tangacherry; Missionary Canonesses of St. Augustine, 14 European sisters and 13 native lay sisters, for the education of girls and the care of orphans, with convents at Mulagamude, Cape Comorin, and Nagercoil; Sisters of the Holy Cross (from Menzingen), 9 sisters, for nursing the sick in government hospitals at Trivandrum and Quilon; Sisters of the Holy and Immaculate Heart of Mary (from Pondicherry), 8 sisters, 3 novices, and 5 postulants, for instruction of girls in vernacular schools, with convent and novitiate at Cagneracode. BOYS' SCHOOLS The Children's Friend Normal School, Quilon, for training Malayalam schoolmasters, with 59 students; St. Francis's Normal School, Nagercoil, for training Tamil schoolmasters, with 72 students; St. Joseph's English High School, Trivandrum, with 633 pupils; St. Aloysius's English High School, Quilon, with 413 pupils. GIRLS' SCHOOLS Under Sisters of Third Order of Carmel: Holy Angels' Convent, Trivandrum, boarding establishment with 32 boarders, English. high school with 435 pupils, industrial and technical school with 37 pupils; St. Joseph's Convent, Quilon, boarding establishment with 27 boarders, English middle school with 173 pupils, industrial school with 37 pupils; Convent of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Tangacherry, boarding establishment with 15 boarders, English middle school with 71 in the English and 39 in the Malayalam department, industrial school with 31 pupils. Under Canonesses of St. Augustine: Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus, Mulagamude, vernacular school with 350 pupils, industrial school with 276 pupils, besides 1250 outdoor lace-workers; Convent of the Immaculate Conception, Cape Comorin, vernacular and industrial schools with 120 pupils; St. Joseph's School, Nagercoil, with 200 pupils. Under Sisters of the Holy Heart of Mary: Blessed Margaret's Home, Cagneracode, vernacular school with 60 pupils. Besides these there are two mixed schools, viz., St. Joseph's Middle English School, Anjengo, with 173 pupils; St. Leo's vernacular middle school, Tekekaray, with 113 pupils. In other places, 132 vernacular primary schools with 7060 pupils. Total number of schools in the diocese, 144; total of pupils, 10,857. CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS Orphanage for boys at Mulagamude, with 15 inmates; Holy Angels' Orphanage, for girls, Trivandrum, with 83 inmates; St. Joseph's Orphanage, for girls, Quilon, with 47 inmates; Mount Carmel Orphanage, for girls, Tangacherry, with 21 orphans; Infant Jesus Orphanage, Mulagamude, with 276 inmates, foundling home and widows' home; dispensary at Mulagamude; nursing department in general hospital, Trivandrum women and children's hospital, Trivandrum, and district hospital, Quilon, under Sisters of the Holy Cross. Madras Catholic Directory (1910). ERNEST R. HULL Diocese of Quimper Diocese of Quimper (CORISOPITENSIS) Diocese of Quimper includes the Department of Finistère; as re-established by the Concordat of 1802 it embraces a large portion of the ancient Diocese of Quimper, also known as the Diocese of Cornouailles, the whole of the Diocese of St. Pol de Léon, and a small part of the Dioceses of Tréguier and Vannes. From 1802 to 1859 it was suffragan of Tours, and since 1859 it has been a suffragan of Rennes. I. DIOCESE OF QUIMPER We have two versions of the catalogue of the bishops of Quimper: one in the Cartulary of Quimperlé, of the twelfth century; the other preserved in a Quimper cartulary of the fifteenth century. Both mention a St. Corentinus as first Bishop of Quimper; his biography is of very late origin. Nothing accurate is known about him, but he is supposed by some to have been ordained by St. Martin in the fourth century, while others claim that he was a sixth-century monk. Duchesne has proved that the Diocese of Quimper must have been represented at the Council of Angers (453) by one of the four prelates, Sarmatio, Chariato, Rumoridus, and Viventius, and at the Council of Vannes (c. 465) by one of the two prelates Albinus and Liberatus. He puts little credence in the traditions that make St. Gonoganus (Goennoc) or St. Allorus (Alori) successors of St. Corentinus. Among the bishops my be mentioned: Philippe de La Chambre, Cardina de Boulogne (1546-50); Nicholas Cajetan (1550-60); Cardinal de Sermonetta, in 1536. II. DIOCESE OF ST. POL DE LÉON The Christian religion seems to have been preached in Léon twenty years before the evangelization of Cornouaille, but ancient Breton chronology is very uncertain. The legend of St. Paul Aurelian, written in 884, shows that the Breton monks believed the See of Léon had been founded in the Merovingian epoch. Paul Aurelian, a Gallic monk, founder of monasteries at Ouessant on the north-west coast of Brittany and on the Island of Batz, was believed to have founded in an abandoned fort a monastery which gave origin to the town of St. Pol de Léon, afterwards the seat of a diocese. He was the first titular of the see, a wonder-worker and prophet, and was held to have died in 575 at the age of 140 years, after having been assisted in his labours by three successive coadjutors. Some of the legends give the names of three saints among his successors: Golvinus (Goulven), Tenenanus (Thénénan), and Guesnoveus (Gouesnon). Duchesne accepts as certain that the monastery of Léon was founded by Paul Aurelian during the sixth century. As for the see it would appear that the civitas of the Ossismi to which the territory of Léon belonged, was represented at the Council of Angers (453) and of Vannes (c. 465) by a bishop; but the chief town of that civitas (afterwards known as Carhaix) was soon after included in the Diocese of Quimper; and this ancient Diocese of the Ossismi, from which the chief town in the civitas was thus cut off, was translated to St. Pol de Léon at an uncertain date. Duchesne thinks that the Lithardus Uxomensis (not Oximensis) who assisted in 511 at the Council of Orléans was a Bishop of Séez and not of Léon. It is at least certain that there are traces in history of a Diocese of Léon as far back as the middle of the ninth century. Jean François de La Marche, Bishop of St. Pol de Léon from 1772, took refuge in England in 1792, and organized material assistance for the émigré clergy, as well as spiritual comfort for the French prisoners detained in England; he obtained a grant of the Castle of Winchester for the French priests, and gathered there no less than eight hundred of them. He died in 1806. The hermit, St. Ronan, a native of Ireland, often held to be one of the 350 bishops consecrated by St. Patrick, was in the fifth century one of the apostles of Cornouailles and the neighbourhood around Léon. In his honour, every six years, on the second and third Sunday of July, the "Great Tromènie" is held, an immense procession of fifteen or twenty thousand persons, through 5 parishes, halting at 12 improvised chapels. It was mainly the Dioceses of Quimper and St. Pol de Léon that saw the zeal of the great apostles of Brittany in the seventeenth century: the Dominican Michel Le Nobletz (1577-1652), who has been declared Venerable, native of Plouguerneau in the Diocese of Léon, and who preached the catechism in the churches and in the public squares with the help of symbolical painted charts; and his famous disciple, the Venerable Julien Maunoir, S.J. (1606-83), whose sermons were extremely popular. The Dominican Albert Le Grand, born at Morlaix, assisted this great religious revival by his "Lives of the Saints of Brittany" (1636). Maunoir found time to publish a Breton dictionary, and some devotional works in Breton. He was the founder of Breton philology. The cornerstone of Quimper Cathedral was laid in 1424, but the building was still unfinished at the beginning of the sixteenth century. When Alexander VI granted that church the same indulgences as could be gained at the Roman Jubilee, funds came in which allowed its completion. The Cathedral of St. Pol de Léon was built between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. The church of Notre Dame de Creisker, in the same town, restored in the fourteenth century, has a belfry which the Bretons claim to be the handsomest in the world. Formerly Quimperlé had an important Benedictine abbey, Sainte Croix, founded in 1029, and where the Benedictines of St. Maur took up their residence in 1665. It was suppressed by the Revolution. Brest, one of the great fortified harbours of France, is in the diocese. Among saints specially honoured in the diocese are St. Hiltutus (Iltut or Ydeuc), disciple of St. Cadoc and founder of the monastery of Lan-Iltut, where he had for disciples St. David, St. Gildas the Albanian, St. Samson, St. Magloire; St. Guengalaenus (Guénolé), founder and first Abbot of Landevennec, who died, according to some, about 448, according to others in 532, or as others compute in 616; St. Gildas, founder and flrst Abbot of Rhuys and many other monasteries in Cornouailles (sixth century); St. Guevroc, Arch-deacon of St. Pol de Léon, disciple of St. Tudgual, and founder of the church of Notre Dame de Creisker (sixth century); the hermit, St. Hervæus (sixth century); St. Melorius (Melar), a Breton prince, a victim of a political conspiracy, and honoured as a martyr (sixth century); the Cistercian St. Maurice (d. 1191), founder of the monastery of Carnoët; St Jean Discalceat (d. 1349), founder of the convent of St. Francis at Quimper. Le Coz (1740-1815), who under the Revolution as Archbishop of Rennes (1790-1802), was one of the mainstays of the constitutional schism, had previously been principal of Quimper College. Among those born in the Diocese of Quimper are: the Jesuit Bougeant (1690-1743), author of the "History of the Treaty of Westphalia"; the Jesuit Hardouin (1646-1729); the critic Fréron (1719-71), who opposed Voltaire; Abbé Legris Duval (1765-1819), who under the Revolution directed the "Congrégation" for a time, after having founded many charitable and philanthropic institutions. The principal shrines of the diocese are: Notre Dame de Folgoet, near Lesneven, a pilgrimage dating from 1419; Notre Dame de Loemaria at Quimper, a church which dates from the eleventh century, when the Abbey of Loemaria was founded by Count Alain Canihart (1013-40); Notre Dame de Rumengol, near Faou, a chapel founded 1500 years ago, replaced in 1536 by a large church where the unique religious festivals known as "Great Pardons" take place. Before the application of the Associations Law (1901), there were in the diocese Jesuits, Benedictines of the "Pierre qui vire", and many teaching orders of brothers. An important religious community for women originated in the diocese, the Religious de la Retraite du Sacré-Coeur. In 1899 the religious congregations in the Diocese of Quimper had charge of 1 foundling hospital, 35 nurseries, 1 orphanage for boys, 9 orphanages for girls, 10 workrooms, 4 refuges, 29 hospitals, 166 district nursing houses, and 8 houses of retreat. In 1905 there were in the Diocese of Quimper 773,614 inhabitants, 48 parishes, 262 auxiliary parishes, and 280 curacies supported by state funds. Gallia Christiana, nova (1856), XIV, 871-90; 971-1017, and instr., 189-208; 225-32; DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux, II, 244- 56; 368-71; 387-88; TRESVAUX, L'Eglise de Bretagne (Paris, 1839); GUÉNIN, L'évangélisation du Finistére in Bulletin de la Société académique de Brest (1907); Cartulaire de Quimperlé, ed. MAITRE AND DE BERTHOU (Paris, 1904); LE MEN. Monographie de la Cathédrale de Quimper (Quimper, 1877); WRMONOC, Vita Pauli Aureliani, ed. PLAINE, in Analecta Bollandiana (1882), 208-58; CUISSARD, Vie de Saint-Paul de Léon de Bretagne d'après un manuscrit de Fleury sur Loire in Revue Celtique (1883), 413-60; LECUREUX, Saint Pol de Léon (Paris, 1909); ABGRALL, Architecture bretonne, étude des monuments du diocèse de Quimper (Quimper, 1904). GEORGES GOYAU Michael Joseph Quin Michael Joseph Quin Originator of the "Dublin Review", born at Thurles, Co. Tipperary, Ireland, 1796; died at Boulogne-sur-Mer, 19 Feb., 1843. Coming to London he was called to the Bar at Lincoln's Inn and while waiting for practice devoted himself to journalism. For the "Morning Herald" he wrote an account of his experiences in Spain during the latter part of 1822 and the first four months of 1823. This he published in book-form as "A Visit to Spain" (1823). In the following year he issued two translations, "Memoirs of Ferdinand VII" and "A Statement of some of the principal events in the public life of Don Agustín de Iturbide". He became editor of the "Monthly Review" in 1825 and held that post for seven years. During this period he contributed many articles on foreign policy to the "Morning Chronicle", and edited "The Catholic Journal", a weekly newspaper which ran for one year only. Further travels in Hungary, Wallachia, Servia, and Turkey furnished him with material for a new book in 1835, called "A Steam Voyage down the Danube", which was so successful that it was translated into French and German. But his most lasting work was the "Dublin Review", which has ever since remained the leading Catholic periodical in the British Isles. Of its first beginnings Cardinal Wiseman wrote: "It was in 1836 that the idea of commencing a Catholic Quarterly was first conceived by the late learned and excellent Mr. Quin, who applied to the illustrious O'Connell and myself to join in the undertaking". Quin became the editor and chief contributor, writing five articles in the first number and four in the second. But the enterprise was not remunerative. After two numbers he resigned the editorship, being unable to devote so much time and trouble without financial advantage, but continued to contribute articles to succeeding issues. During 1842 he edited "The Tablet", pending the disputes between Lucas and the publishers. His remaining works are: "The Trade of Banking in England" (1833); a pamphlet on the proposed abolition of local probate courts (1834); "Nourmahal, an Oriental Romance" (1838); "Petra", translated from the French (1839), and "Steam Voyages on the Seine, the Moselle and the Rhine" (1843). He married a daughter of Edward Wallis of Burton Grange, York, and had three daughters by her. GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; RUSSELL in Irish Monthly, XXI, 80; CASARTELLI in Dublin Review (April, 1896), 250 sqq. EDWIN BURTON Sts. Quinctianus Sts. Quinctianus (1) Under the date 1 April the present "Roman Martyrology" mentions a saint of this name, together with a companion named Irenæus. In the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" the same saint is mentioned with three companions under the same date, the topographical note "in Asia Minor" being appended [ed. De Rossi-Duschesne (38)]. We have no further information concerning these martyrs. (2) A bishop Quinctianus, probably identical with the "episcopus Urcitanus", suffered martyrdom with several other confessors in Africa during the persecution under the Vandal king, Huneric (476-84), as related by Victor Vitensis ("De persecutione Vandalica", I, xxix; II, xxviii; ed. Halm in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Auct. antiq." I, 8, 18). His feast is celebrated on 23 May. In the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" several other African martyrs of this name are mentioned on various other days, but nothing further is known of them. (3) A long list of Christian martyrs from Catania in Sicily are found in the above-mentioned martyrology [ed. cit., (3)], and also in the present "Roman Martyrology" on 31 December; among these occurs the name of a Saint Quinctianus. Concerning this whole group, however, we have no historical information. (4) In the list of Roman confessors who languished in prison during the Decian persecution (A.D. 250) a certain Quinctianus also occurs ("Epist. Luciani ad Celerinum" inter Epist. Cyrpriani, XXII, iii; ed. Hartel, II, 535). (5) The Synod of Agde (506) was attended by a Quinctianus, then Bishop of Rodez. A native of Africa, he had fled from the Arians to Gaul, and been appointed Bishop of Rodez. During the war between the Franks and the West Goths, he was a zealous supporter of Chlodwig I. He was, therefore, compelled to leave the territory of the West Goths, and proceeded to Auvergne, where he was hospitably received by Bishop Euphrasius. King Theodoric I appointed Quinctianus successor to St. Appolinarius, Bishop of Clermont. On the death of the latter, Quinctianus succeeded to the See of Clermont, which he occupied until his death on 13 November, 525 or 526. His feast is celebrated on this date, except at Rodez, where it is kept on 14 June. In the "Roman Martyrology" his name stands under both dates. J.P. KIRSCH Francis Quinones Francis Quiñones (Quignonez.) Cardinal, born in the Kingdom of Leon, Spain, c. 1482; died at Veroli, Italy, 5 Nov., 1540. He was the son of Diego Fernandez de Quiñones, Count of Luna, was educated as a page of Cardinal Ximenes, and at the age of sixteen entered the Order of Friars Minor in the convent of Los Angeles (Spain), taking the name of Francis of the Angels (1498). Having completed his studies, he successively discharged all the various offices of his orders as custos, commissary general, and minister general. In 1521 he had obtained special permission and faculties from Leo X to go to the missions in America, together with Father Glapion, O.F.M., confessor of Charles V, but Glapion died in the same year, and Quiñones was elected commissary general of the Ultramontane Franciscans (1521-23). In the general chapter of the order at Burgos, in 1523, he was elected minister general (1523-27). As general, he visited the convents of Spain (1523-25), and a great part of Italy and Belgium (1525-27), promoted studies, maintained general discipline, and was not less active in behalf of missions. In 1524 he sent twelve missionaries to Mexico, among them Father Juan Juarez, who later became the first bishop within the present territory of the United States. (See Engelhardt, "The Missions and Missionaries of California", San Francisco, 1908, I, 604). After the sack of Rome and the imprisonment of Clement VII (May, 1527), Quiñones, who was distantly related to Charles V, and also his confidant, seemed the aptest man to effect the release of the pope, and a full reconciliation between him and the emperor. He was thrice sent to the emperor for this purpose, and his efforts were crowned with success by the deliverance of Clement (Dec., 1527), and the treaties of Barcelona (1528) and Cambrai (1529). As these embassies rendered his effective government of the order impossible, Quiñones renounced the generalship in December, 1527, and in September of the following year he was created cardinal of the title of S. Croce in Gerusalemme, hence his name "Cardinal of the Holy Cross". From 1530 to 1533 he was also Bishop of Coria, in Spain, and for a short time, in 1539, administrator of Acerno (Naples), but he was never Cardinal Bishop at Palestrina, as some authors assert. Cardinal Quiñones always occupied a distinguished position in the Sacred College and closely followed the movement of the Reformation in Germany. When Paul III contemplated assembling a general council at Mantua, he sent (1536) the Cardinal of the Holy Cross to Ferdinand I, King of the Romans and of Hungary, to promote that cause. The cardinal, however, did not live to see the opening of the Council of Trent in 1545. His body was brought from Veroli to Rome and buried in his titular church in a tomb which he had prepared himself. Quiñones left some legislative compilations for his order, but is best known for his reform of the Roman Breviary undertaken by the order of Clement VII (see BREVIARY: VI. Reforms). LIVARIUS OLIGER Quinquagesima Quinquagesima (Fiftieth.) The period of fifty days before Easter. It begins with the Sunday before Ash Wednesday, called Dominica in Quinquagesima or Esto Mihi from the beginning of the Introit of the Mass; it is a Sunday of the second class, and the color the Mass and Office is violet. For many early Christians it was the beginning of the fast before Easter, hence called, as with the Syrians, Dom. ingressus jejunii. For some, Quinquagesima marked the time after which meat was forbidden and was therefore called Dom. carnis privium, ad carnes tollendas, carnevala; by the Poles, Ned. zapustna. Since these regulations affected mainly the clergy, we find the name carnis privium sacerdotum and in Germany herren fastnacht. Where abstinence from meat began earlier, this Sunday introduced the time in which neither milk nor eggs etc, (ova et lacticinia) were allowed, hence called by the Greeks Dom. cesei comestrix et ovorum; Melchites, sublationis ovorum et casei; Austrians, Käse- or Milchfaschingsonntag, Sonntag in der Butterwoche; Italians, de'latticini; and Serbians, bele poklade (white meats). The Slavs name it Ned. III. predpepelnicna, i.e. the third Sunday before Ash Wednesday; Bohemians, Ned. II po devitniku, i.e. the second Sunday after the ninth before Easter. In many places this Sunday after and the next two days were used to prepare for Lent by a good confession; hence in England we find the names Shrove Sunday and Shrovetide. As the days before Lent were frequently spent in merry-making, Benedict XIV by the Constitution "Inter Cetera" (1 Jan., 1748) introduced a kind of 'Forty Hours' Devotion to keep the faithful from dangerous amusements and to make some reparation for sins committed. Quinquagesima also means the time between Easter and Pentecost, or from the Saturday after Easter to the Sunday after Pentecost; it is then called Quinquagesima Paschae paschalis, or laetitae. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Agustin Quintana Agustín Quintana Missionary and Indian philologist, born at Antequera, the capital of Oaxaca, Mexico, about 1660; died at Oaxaca, 1734. He entered the Order of Preachers in that city in 1688, and was soon thereafter sent as missionary priest to the Mixe Indians of southern Oaxaca, among whom he laboured for twenty-eight years, mastering their difficult language to a degree never attained by any other white man. He was then appointed superior of the convent of Zacavila, but on account of broken health was soon afterward retired to the main convent at Antequera, where he devoted the rest of his life to writings in the Mixe language. This being the earliest publication in that language, in spite of age and infirmity, he made several journeys to Puebla, to supervise the making of several types. His most important work was a grammar and a series of articles on the principal articles of the Faith, under the title, "Institución cristiana, que contiene el Arte de la Lengua Mije etc." (Puebla, 1729). (See also MIXE INDIANS.) JAMES MOONEY Sts. Quiricus and Julitta Sts. Quiricus and Julitta Martyred under Diocletian. The names of these two martyrs, who in the early Church enjoyed a widespread veneration, are found in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (ed. De Rossi-Duchesne, 79) and also in the calendars and menologies of the Greek and other Oriental Churches. According to the Acts of their martyrdom, which appeared later, and a letter of the sixth century, Julitta fled with her three-months-old child, Quiricus, from Lycaonia, when the Maximinian persecution broke out there, to Isauria and thence to Tarsus in Cilicia. She suffered martyrdom in the last-named city after her child had first been killed before her eyes. The veneration of the two martyrs was common in the West at an early date, as is proved by the chapel dedicated to them in the Church of Santa Maria Antiqua at Rome, as well as by testimony from Gaul. Their relics are said to have been brought to the monastery of Saint-Amand (Elnonense monasterium) in the Diocese of Tournai. The feast is observed on 16 June; in the Synaxarium of Constantinople it is set under the date of 15 July. J.P. KIRSCH Angelo Maria Quirini Angelo Maria Quirini (Querini). Cardinal and scholar, born at Venice, 30 March, 1680; died at Brescia, 6 January, 1755. In 1696 he entered the Benedictine Order at Florence, and was appointed professor of Sacred Scripture in his monastery in 1705. Five years later he started on an educational journey through Germany, the Netherlands, England, and France. In 1718 the pope appointed him a member of the commission instituted for the revision of the Greek liturgical books, and in 1723 named him Bishop of Corfu. A few years later Quirini was transferred to the Bishopric of Brescia and elevated to the cardinalate. He was placed at the head of the Vatican Library in 1730, and became subsequently prefect of the Congregation of the Index. He was elected a member of the Vienna Academy of Sciences in 1747 and of the Berlin Academy the following year. About this time his opposition to the proposed reduction in the number of holy days involved him in a controversy with Muratori, which lasted until Rome enjoined silence on both parties in 1750. His part in the discussion concerning the Patriarchate of Quileia resulted in his enforced retirement from Rome the following year. Quirini generously contributed from his personal means to the relief of the financial needs of the German missionary districts. His writings include works in the liturgy and history of the Greek Church, the history of the papacy (Paul II), and that of Corfu and Brescia. The also include an edition of Cardinal Pole's correspondence (Brescia, 1744-57). N.A. WEBER Sts. Quirinus Sts. Quirinus Several martyrs of this name are mentioned in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" and in the historical Martyrologies of the early Middle Ages, and the feasts of these saints are still to be found in the catalogue of saints of the Roman Church. (1) According to the legendary Acts of the martyrs St. Maris and St. Martha, a Roman martyr Quirinus (Cyrinus) was buried in the Catacomb of Pontian. However, the Itineraries to the graves of the Roman martyrs do not mention him. His feast is celebrated on 25 March. Perhaps this Quirinus is meant by the expression "Romæ sancti Cyri" found in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" of 24 March (cf. "Acta SS.", III, March, 543 sqq.; Dufourcq "Les Gesta martyrum romains", I, 240). In the eighth century the relics of the martyr were translated to the Benedictine abbey of Tegernsee in Bavaria. (2) Another Roman martyr named Quirinus was buried in the Catacomb of Prætextatus on the Via Appia. Both the name and the place of burial are mentioned in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (ed. De Rossi-Duchesne, 52), as also in the Itineraries to the graves of the Roman martyrs (De Rossi, "Roma sotterranea", I, 180-1). His name undoubtedly appeared in the catalogue of Roman martyrs of the fourth century under date of 30 April, which is the day that the Martyrology of Jerome assigns him. He is introduced into the legendary Acts of Sts. Alexander and Balbina, where it is said he was a tribune (Dufourcq, loc. cit., 175). Ado took the name from these Acts and put it in his Martyrology under date of 30 March, on which day it is now also found in the Roman Martyrology (Quentin, "Les martyrologes historiques", 490). In 1050 the relics of Quirinus were given by Leo IX to his sister Gepa, Abbess of Neuss. In this way the relics came to the beautiful Romanesque Church of St. Quirinus at Neuss which still exists. (3) The relics of a third St. Quirinus, now in Rome, were brought thither from Pannonia. This St. Quirinus was Bishop of Siscia, now Sissek in Croatia, and suffered martyrdom in 309. He was thrown into the water with a millstone about his neck and drowned. The genuine Acts of the martyrdom of the saint are still in existence (Ruinart, "Acta mart.", Ratisbon, 522), also a hymn in his honour by Prudentius (loc. cit., 524). Upon the incursion of the barbarians into Pannonia at the beginning of the fifth century the inhabitants fled to Italy and took the bones of St. Quirinus with them. The remains were taken to Rome and interred in a vaulted chamber near the Church of St. Sebastian on the Via Appia (De Waal, "Die Apostelgruft ad Catacumbas an der via Appia", Rome, 1894). His feast is observed on 4 June. (4) The name of a martyr Quirinus, who is venerated in Tivoli, is found in the present Roman Martyrology under the same date of 4 June. There is no historical account of him; he is, perhaps, identical with one of the martyrs of this name who are mentioned in the Martyrology of Jerome among groups of martyrs under the dates of 12 March, 3 and 4 June. Under 4 June a Quirinus is mentioned with a statement of the place "Nividuno civitate" (Mart. Hieron., 31, 73, 75). (5) At Malmedy, in Rhenish Prussia, is venerated a St. Quirinus. It is related that at the beginning of the ninth century his relics were translated to the abbey church there. According to the legend he was put to death, together with a companion Nicasius, in the pagus Vulcassinus (Vexin). No trustworthy historical reports of him exist. His feast is observed on 11 October. J.P. KIRSCH Archdiocese of Quito Archdiocese of Quito (QUITENSIS) The city of Quito, formerly known as San Francisco de Quito, capital of the Republic of Ecuador, is situated 14' south of the Equator, and 114 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. It stands at an elevation of about 9300 feet, and has a population of some 70,000, mostly mestizos. It was the capital of the Incas Huaynacapac and Atahualpa, and was burnt by Rumiñahui in 1533. Sebastián de Belalcázar captured Quito the following year. In 1541 it was made a city by Charles V; in 1565 it became the headquarters of a separate Franciscan province. Quito formed part of Peru till 1718, when it was included in Nueva Granada. The seminary in charge of the Jesuits was the centre of ecclesiastical studies for all middle and northern South America. The Dominicans and Augustinians had high schools in Quito. In 1735 the city was ruined by an earthquake. Independence was declared there on 19 August, 1809; and the following year witnessed a terrible massacre of the nobility, even women and children being put to the sword. President Montes defeated the patriots two years later in the Panecillo; Sucre gained his great victory hard by in 1822. In 1829 Quito became the capital of Ecuador. The city is built on very uneven ground, and the streets run in parallel lines. The most important square is the Plaza Mayor, on the southern side of which is the cathedral, on the eastern the city ball, and on the western the government house. The square was turned into a beautiful garden by President Garcia Moreno, who was assassinated here 6 Aug., 1875. Quito is remarkable for its many beautiful churches, especially the old seventeenth-century Jesuit Church of Santa Ana, San Francisco, La Merced, and El Sagrario. The present university, which was founded by Sixtus V and Philip II in 1586, but opened only in 1621 by the Jesuits, still occupies a portion of the old Jesuit college and has an excellent library, formed in part from that of the San Luis seminary. There are 32 professors and 216 students. The observatory was erected under the direction of the celebrated astronomer Father Menten. García Moreno invited the German Jesuits to lecture in the university; they have since been expelled by the Masonic parties. The College of St. Ferdinand contains a tablet with a Latin inscription commemorative of the French and Spanish mathematicians who measured the degree of the meridian here in 1736-41. The chief manufactures of the city are woollens, laces, rugs, carpets, and tobacco. There is also a large export trade in religious oil-paintings. The Diocese of Quito was erected by Paul III on 8 Jan., 1545, at the request of Charles V, and made suffragan of Lima. The first bishop was Mgr. Garcidia, who died in 1563. In 1853 the Holy See proceeded to the beatification of Maria Ana de Jesù de Paredes y Flores, the "Lily of Quito" (b. 31 Oct., 1618; d. 26 May, 1645). By the Bull "Nos semper Romanis Pontificibus" of 13 Jan., 1848, Pius IX made Quito a metropolitan see, with the Dioceses of Cuenca and Guayaquil as suffragans, to which have since been added the Sees of Ibarra, Riobambo, Loja, and Portoviejo. The first archbishop, Mgr Francisco Xavier de Garaycos, previously Bishop of Guayaquil, was appointed 5 Sept., 1851. The present archbishop, Mgr Gonsález y Suárez, was born at Quito 2 Jan., 1845; consecrated Bishop of Ibarra, 30 July, 1895; transferred to Quito, 14 Dec., 1905, and entered into possession on 6 July, 1906, succeeding Mgr Pedro Rafael Gonsález (b. at Quito, 14 Oct., 1839; Bishop of Ibarra, 29 Sept., 1876; coadjutor titular Archbishop of Synnade, 15 June, 1893, succeeding to the archbishopric in Aug., 1893). The Archdiocese of Quito includes the provinces of Pichincha, Leén, and Tunguragua, and contains 81 parishes, 195 priests, and 420,560 Catholics. The seminary is in care of the Lazarists. WOLF, Geografía y geología del Ecuador (Leipzig, 1893); CEVALLOS, Resumen de la historia del Ecuador (Guayaquil, 1870-89); GONSÁLEZ Y SUAREZ, Historia ecclesiástica del Ecuador (Quito, 1881); MEDINA, La imprenta en Quito (Santiago, 1904); HERRERA, Apuntes para la historia de Quito (Quito, 1874); VELASCO, El reyno de Quito (Quito, 1841-4); Boletín eclesiástico, the official organ of the church province of Quito. A.A. MACERLEAN. __________________________________________________________________ Blessed Maurus Magnentius Rabanus Blessed Maurus Magnentius Rabanus (Also Hrabanus, Reabanus). Abbot of Fulda, Archbishop of Mainz, celebrated theological and pedagogical writer of the ninth century, born at Mainz about 776 (784?); died at Winkel (Vinicellum) near Mainz on 4 February, 856. He took vows at an early age in the Benedictine monastery of Fulda, and was ordained deacon in 801. A year later he went to Tours to study theology and the liberal arts, under Alcuin. He endeared himself to his aged master, and received from him the surname of Maurus in memory of the favourite disciple of St. Benedict. After a year of study he was recalled by his abbot, became teacher and, later, head-master of the monastic school of Fulda. His fame as teacher spread over Europe, and Fulda became the most celebrated seat of learning in the Frankish Empire. In 814 he was ordained priest. Unfortunately, Abbot Ratgar's mania for building temporarily impeded the progress of the school, but under Abbot Eigil (818-82) Rabanus was once more able to devote himself entirely to his vocation of teaching and writing (see CAROLINGIAN SCHOOLS; FULDA, DIOCESE OF). In 822 Rabanus was elected abbot, and during his reign the monastery enjoyed its greatest prosperity. He completed the new buildings that had been begun by his predecessor; erected more than thirty churches and oratories; enriched the abbey church with artistic mosaics, tapestry, baldachina, reliquaries, and other costly ornaments; provided for the instruction of the laity by preaching and by increasing the number of priests in country towns; procured numerous books for the library, and in many other ways advanced the spiritual, intellectual and temporal welfare of Fulda and its dependencies. In the political disturbances of the times he sided with Louis the Pious against his rebellious sons, and after the emperor's death he supported Lothair, the eldest son. When the latter was conquered by Louis the German, Rabanus fled from home in 840, probably to evade taking the oath of allegiance. In 841 he returned and resigned his abbacy early in 842, compelled, it is believed, by Louis. He retired to the neighbouring Petersberg, where he devoted himself entirely to prayer and literary labours. In 845 he was reconciled with the king and in 847 succeeded Otgar as Archbishop of Mainz. His consecration took place on 26 June. He held three provincial synods. The 31 canons enacted at the first, in the monastery of St. Alban in October, 847, are chiefly on matters of ecclesiastical discipline (Acts in Mansi, "Conc. Coll. Ampl.", XIV, 899-912). At the second synod, held in October, 848, in connection with a diet, the monk Gottschalk of Orbais and his doctrine on predestination were condemned. The third synod, held in 852 (851?), occupied itself with the rights and discipline of the Church. Rabanus was distinguished for his charity towards the poor. It is said in the "Annales Fuldenses" that, during the famine of 850, he daily fed more than 300 persons. Mabillon and the Bollandists style him "Blessed", and his feast is celebrated in the dioceses of Fulda, Mainz, and Limburg on 4 February. He was buried in the monastery of St. Alban at Mainz, but his relics were transferred to Halle by Archbishop Albrecht of Brandenburg. Rabanus was probably the most learned man of his age. In Scriptural and patristic knowledge he had no equal, and was thoroughly conversant with canon law and liturgy. His literary activity extended over the entire field of sacred and profane learning as then understood. Still, he cannot be called a pioneer, either as an educator or a writer, for he followed in the beaten track of his learned predecessors. A complete edition of his numerous writings is still wanting. Most of them have been edited by Colvenerius (Cologne, 1627). This uncritical edition is reprinted with some additions in PL 107-112. His poems were edited by Dümmler in "Mon. Germ. Poetae lat. aevi Carol.", II, 154-244. He was a skillful versifier, but a mediocre poet. His epistles are printed in "Mon. Germ. Epist.", V, 379 sq. Most of his works are exegetical. His commentaries, which include nearly all the books of the Old Testament, as well as the Gospel of St. Matthew and the Pauline Epistles == a commentary on St. John is probably spurious == are based chiefly on the exegetical writings of St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, St. Isidore of Seville, Origen, St. Ambrose, and St. Bede. His chief pedagogical works are: "De universo", a sort of encyclopedia in 22 books, based on the Etymologies of Isidore; "De computo ", a treatise on reckoning; "Excerptio de arte grammatica Prisciani", a treatise on grammar, etc. Other important works are: "De ecclesiastics discipline"; sermons, treatises, a martyrology, and a penitential. MICHAEL OTT Rabbi and Rabbinism Rabbi and Rabbinism The special condition which prevailed in Palestine after the Restoration led to the gradually increasing importance of the Temple, and of the priesthood ministering in it. The spirit of Esdras's reform outlasted the reformer and survived in the authority henceforth attached to the Law, an authority soon to overshadow the prestige of the Temple and of the priesthood itself; and tended to put into prominence the teachers and expounders of the Law, the Scribes (Sopherim). Originally the word scribe meant "scrivener"; but rapidly it was accepted as a matter of course that the scribe who copies the Law knows the Law best, and is its most qualified expounder: accordingly the word came to mean more than it implies etymologically. Knowledge of the Law became the chief passport to fame and popularity. The earliest scribes, like Esdras, who came to be hailed as the model of the "ready scribe" (i. e. skilful) in the Law of Moses (I Esd., vii, 6), were priests; but in time a large body of lay teachers came to swell the ranks of the scribes. As gradually the spell of Hellenistic fashions fell upon the priesthood, the lay scribes found themselves more and more the only guardians and exponents of the Law. When the Pharisees began to be recognized as a distinct sect (about 150 b.c.) the scribes as a rule adhered to them as being the most scrupulous observers of the Law (yet Mark, ii, 16; Luke, v, 30, and Acts, xxiii, 9, seem to imply that some scribes belonged to the party of the Sadducees). At any rate, from that time onwards the scribes were accepted as the accredited teachers of the people. Until the fall of Jerusalem they were chiefly congregated in Judea; but in later times we hear of their presence in Northern Palestine, even in Rome, and in every important centre of the Dispersion. From the earliest times the scribes seem to have conceived an exalted opinion of their merits: "The wisdom [knowledge] of the scribe cometh by his time of leisure: and he that is less in action [less steeped in business] shall receive wisdom. With what wisdom shall he be furnished [what knowledge can he acquire] that holdeth the plough, and that glorieth in the goad, that driveth the oxen therewith, and is occupied in their labours, and his whole talk is about the offspring of bulls?" (thus Hebrew; Ecclus., xxxviii, 25, 26). Evidently the scribe in his own estimation belonged to a higher caste. And so it was understood by the people who, after the time of Hillel introduced the custom of saluting them "Rabbi". The word, derived from the Hebrew Rab, "great", originally seems to have been equivalent to "my lord"; when it became the distinctive title of the scribes the specific force of its pronoun was lost, and "Rabbi" was used very much like our "Doctor". That this title was far from unpleasant in the ears of the scribes we know from Matt., xxiii, 7. In point of fact a pupil never would omit it when speaking to or of his teacher (Berach., xxvii, 1), and it became a universal usage never to mention the name of a doctor of the Law without prefixing "Rabbi". Nay more, in order to show the person greater honour, this title was intensified into "Rabban", "Rabboni", so that in the course of time custom established a kind of hierarchy among these various forms: "Rabbi", the doctors said, "is more than Rab, Rabban more than Rabbi, and the proper name more than Rabban." The latter part of this traditional regulation has particularly in view the two great Doctors Hillel and Shammai, always designated by their unqualified proper names; the successors of Hillel, as Gamaliel were titled Rabban, and so also was by exception Johanan ben Zakkai; Palestinian doctors are commonly known as Rabbi So-and-so, yet Rabbi Judas the Saint, who composed the Mishna, is not infrequently called merely Rabbi (par excellence); in the same manner, Rab, without the proper name, designates Abba Arika (died a.d. 247), the founder of the School of Sora, while Rab is the title prefixed to the names of the Amoras of Babylon. The Law, of course, must be the exclusive study of a Rabbi, as it is the one source of religious knowledge, the perfect embodiment of the will of God, and the people's sole binding rule of daily life. But the Law does not cover explicitly every possible case; yet, as it is a Divinely-given Law, it must, in the mind of the learned Rabbi, participate in the infinitude of the Divine Lawgiver; therefore, not only the sentences but the individual words, even the number of letters, nay more, the "jots and tittles", must convey a meaning, since God willed every one of them, and since in all that He does He acts for a reason: thus does the Law apply itself to all possible occurrences. Hence arose in the schools that immense mass of inferential teaching deduced from the written word according to the rules of a special process of reasoning, handed down for generations in the esoteric teaching of the faithful scribes as the official interpretation of the Law, and finally committed to writing, particularly in the Mishnas and Talmuds. Under this parasitic vegetation of traditional teaching the Law itself came gradually almost to be entirely lost sight of and stifled; yet every word designating the tradition was calculated to remind the Rabbi of the connexion of this tradition with the Law. Mishna means "repetition of the Law": its sources were the sayings of the Tannaite or "repeating" doctors; a baraitha is a saying of some early doctor not included in the Mishna; the baraithoth are gathered either into the Tosephta (addition) or in the Ghemara (complement), the Mishna and the Ghemara constituting the Talmud or "teaching" (of the Law). This teaching is either halaka (way) or "customary law", or agada, "information", given by or about the Law. The Law is therefore understood to be at the root of every tradition, even when, in practice, tradition as good as makes void the letter of the Law (Matt., xv, 1-6; Mark, vii, 8-13); nay more, we hear of Rabbis pretending to prove by the Law itself (Ex., xxxiv, 37) that oral traditions should be preferred to the written word (Megill., iv, 74d; cf. Sanhedr., xi, 3). This exaggerated authority these oral traditions obtained on account of the origin attributed to them. They generally purported to have been handed down from Esdras, who received them by Divine inspiration as esoteric wisdom to be imparted to the initiated disciples. Some claimed for them a still higher antiquity, going back to Moses himself (thus at least is usually understood the opening sentence of the "Pirqe Abhoth"; cf. "Peah", tr. Schwab, ii, 37), even in part to the twelve Patriarchs, Enoch, and Adam. This voluminous body of exegetical traditions, the logical system according to which inferences are drawn and the theological conceptions upon which this whole oral teaching is grounded, are commonly designated as a whole by the name of Rabbinism. What has been said above of its theological basis may suffice to show the two radical errors which lie at the bottom of it: infinity of the Scriptures, and necessity of interpreting them in every detail in accordance with that severe precision which alone is worthy of God. A few words on the principles of Rabbinical logic may not be useless to help form a judgment of the whole system. The traditional exegesis was of two kinds. The one, the Halaka, was legal and casuistic: the Halaka it was that so "fenced about the Law" as to render it impossible; the other, the Hagada, was illustrative and practical, embracing innumerable legends and allegories intended to illustrate and enlarge Biblical history, but in reality obscuring it in a maze of idle and fanciful inventions. Hillel is credited with having codified the rules of the Halaka; his original seven rules were later on enlarged to thirteen by R. Israel. Some of these rules are excellent, as when, for instance, it is stated that the meaning of a word is determined by the context, and the sentence by the scope of the passage (rule 12); others, good in themselves, do not sufficiently take into account the vast differences of times which separate the inspired writers and the dissimilar religious and social conditions which prevailed at different periods; others, finally, are the expression of a somewhat fallacious mode of reasoning. As a whole the Halaka is an artificial system, jaundiced by its evident purpose to offer the means of engrafting the tradition on the stem of Scripture (Mielziner). The Hagada method, still more extravagant, was elaborated by R. Eliezer into thirty-two rules, on which it is useless to dwell at any length. From the Halaka and Hagada were subsequently derived the Peshat, or determination of the literal sense, and the Sodh, or determination of the mystical or allegorical sense. The Peshat, used in ancient times only in the Targum of Onkelos and the Greek version of Aquila, acquired prominence later on, seemingly owing to the influence of Arabic learning, especially among the Qaraites. The Sodh first found favour among the Essenes and the Zealots, but attained its full development only in the Kabbalistic system of the thirteenth century. If the tree should be judged by its fruits, the vagaries of the Kabbala, the last term of the natural evolution of the Hagada, make evident the falsity of the principles underlying the method of Rabbinical exegesis. BRIGGS, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture (Edinburgh, 1899); EDERSHEIM, Life and Times of Jesus, the Messiah; ETHERIDGE, Jerusalem and Tiberias, Sora and Cordova (1856); MIELZINER, Introduction to the Talmud (Cincinnati, 1894); CHIARINI, Le Talmud de Babylone, I (Leipzig, 1831); LAGRANGE, Le Messianinme chez les Juifs (Paris, 1909); STAPPER, Les idées religieuses en Palestine à l'époque de J.-C. (Paris, 1878); IDEM, La Palestine au temps de Jésus Christ (Paris, s. d.); WOGUE, Histoire de la Bible (Paris, 1881); BACHER, Die Agada der Tannaiten, I (2nd ed., 1909); II, 1890; IDEM, Die Agada der Palästinischen Amoräer, I (1892); II (1898); III (1899); IDEM, Die Agada der Babylonischen Amoräer (1878); HAUSRATH, Die Zeit Christi (Heidelberg, 1868-72); SCHÜRER, Gesch. des Judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, I [(Leipzig), 4; WEBER, System der Altsynagogalen Palästinischen Theologie (Leipzig, 1880); HILL, De Hebroeorum Rabbinis seu Magistris (Jena, 1746); WÄHNER, Antiquitates Ebroeorum (Göttingen, 1743). CHARLES L. SOUVAY. Rabbulas Rabbulas Bishop of Edessa and, in the later years of his life, one of the foremost opponents of Nestorianism. He was the son of a heathen priest and a Christian mother. He was converted by Eusebius, Bishop of Chalcis (his native town), and Acacius, Bishop of Aleppo. After his conversion he became a monk. For a time he was a devoted admirer of Theodore of Mopsuestia, but there was some quarrel, the details which are not known, and Theodore publicly rebuked him at a synod. In 412 he was appointed Bishop of Edessa and died in 435. According to the anonymous panegyrist who wrote his Life, he from the first took a decided stand against Nestorius and denounced the heresiarch to his face. At the Council of Ephesus, however, he was on the side of John of Antioch, and his name is found among the subscriptions to two letters (Labbe, I, p. 1532 and p. 1557) in which St. Cyril's doctrine is denounced as heretical. But a few months later he realized that St. Cyril was in the right, and became his most uncompromising ally against Nestorianism. His task was not an easy one, for his diocese, owing chiefly to the prestige of Theodore of Mopsuestia, was a stronghold of Nestorianism. The zeal with which Rabbulas endeavoured to suppress Theodore's writings was unfairly attributed by Ibas, in his letters to Maris, to personal rancour against the memory of the deceased (Ibas' letter was read at the Council of Calcedon and may be found in Labbe, Hardouin, Mansi, or Hefele). Most of the surviving works of Rabbulas were published by Overbeck, "S. Ephraemi Syri, Rabulae Episc. Edesseni, Balæei aliorumque opera selecta" (Oxford, 1865). Rabbulas' Syriac translation of St. Cyril's "De Fide Recta" was first published by Philip Pusey (Oxford, 1877). Most of the writings of Rabbulas were translated into German by Bickell in Thalhofer's "Bibliothek der Kirchenväter". According to Burkitt, "St. Ephraim's quotations from the Gospel" (Cambridge Texts and Studies, VII, 2) and "Evangelion Da Mephareshe" (Cambridge, 1901), Rabbulas was the author of the Peshitto. The chief authority for his Life is an anonymous panegyric composed soon after his death by a cleric of Edessa. This was published by Overbeck and translated by Bickell. F.J. BACCHUS Francois Rabelais François Rabelais The life of this celebrated French writer is full of obscurities. He was born at Chinon in Touraine in 1483, 1490. or 1495. According to some his father was an apothecary, according to others a publican or inn-keeper. He began his studies with the Benedictines and finished them with the Franciscans near Angers. He became a Franciscan in the convent of Gontenay-le-Comte, where he remained fifteen years and received Holy orders. But the spirit of his order not being favourable to the studies then esteemed by the Renaissance and for which he himself displayed great aptitude, he left the convent. Through the mediation of Bishop Geoffroy d'Estissac he secured pardon from Clement VII, who authorized him to enter the Benedictine abbey of Maillezais. In 1530 he was at Montpellier as a medical student, and the following year professor of anatomy at Lyons and head physician at the hospital of Pont-du-Rhône. At Lyon he was much in the society of Dolet and Marot, and became the father of a child who died young. In 1534 Cardinal du Bellay brought him to Rome as a physician, and in 1536 he obtained from Paul III an indult which absolved him from his infractions of conventual discipline and allowed him to practice medicine. The next year he received the degree of Doctor of Medicine at Montpellier. In 1540 the pope permitted him to abandon the conventual life and to join the canons of St-Maur-les-Fossés. He took advantage of this to resume his wandering life. In 1541 he was at Turin as physician to the governor, Guilliaume du Bellay. Perhaps through fear of persecution which his works might draw upon him he went in 1546 to practice medicine at Metz, where he was in the pay of the city, but Cardinal du Bellay, being again sent to Rome, induced him to go thither. Du Bellay returned to France at the beginning of 1550 and secured for him the benefices of St-Martin-du-Meudon and St-Christophe-du-Jamber, both of which he resigned two years later, after having, it is said, fulfilled his duties with regularity and seriousness. He died most probably in Paris, either, as in generally thought, in 1553, or in 1559. Statements regarding his last moments are contradictory. . According to some he died as a free-thinker and jester, saying, "Draw the curtain, the farce is played out", according to others his end was Christian and edifying. Rabelais wrote various works, including almanacs, but he was chiefly known for the celebrated romance entitled "La Vie de Gargantua et de Pantagruel". This work comprises four books which appeared from 1532 (or 1533) to 1552; a fifth, the most daring in its ideas, appeared after the death of its author (1562-64); it is not certain that it is his. This history of giants is a chaos wherein are found learning, eloquence, coarse humor, and extravagances. It is impossible to analyse it. Rabelais was a revolutionary who attacked all the past, Scholasticism, the monks; his religion is scarcely more than that of a spiritually-minded pagan. Less bold in political matters, he cared little for liberty; his ideal was a tyrant who loves peace. His strange fictions seem to be a veil behind which he conceals his ideas, for he desires his readers to imitate the dog to whom a bone has been thrown and who must break it in order to reach the marrow. But many of his gigantic buffooneries were merely the satisfaction of a vast humor and boundless imagination. He took pleasure in the worst obscenities. His vocabulary is rich and picturesque, but licentious and filthy. In short, as La Bruyère says: "His book is a riddle which may be considered inexplicable. Where it is bad, it is beyond the worst; it has the charm of the rabble; where it is good it is excellent and exquisite; it may be the daintiest of dishes." As a whole it exercises a baneful influence. Ed. MARTRY-LEVEAUX, Opp. (Paris, 1872); STAFFER, Rabelais (Paris, 1889). GEORGES BERTRIN Raccolta Raccolta (Ital., "a collection") A book containing prayers and pious exercises to which the popes have attached indulgences. The full title of the last official edition is: "Raccolta di orazioni e pie opere, per le quali sono state concesse dai Sommi Pontefici le SS. Indulgenze" (Rome, 1898). The Raccolta was first published at Rome in 1807 by Telesforo Galli, one of the consultors of the Congregation of Indulgences. In the sixth edition there is printed a Decree, dated 30 Nov., 1825, which recognizes the indulgences as authentic, and in the eleventh == the last published by Canon Galli == there is a Decree, dated 13 Nov., 1843, which approves the Raccolta as "praelaudatum opus omnibus Christifidelibus vivis atque defunctis maxime perutile". The new editions were published by Aloysius Prinzivalli, substitute secretary of the congregation, and were specially approved by a Decree of 15 Dec., 1854. The editions of 1877, 1886, and 1898 are the official publications of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences and Holy Relics (see ROMAN CURIA). The Raccolta contains, arranged in convenient order, the prayers, novenas, pious practices, etc. to which general indulgences have been attached, as well as the decrees and rescripts granting the indulgences, and the conditions requisite for gaining them. All the indulgences contained the Raccolta are applicable to the souls in purgatory. It is forbidden to publish a translation of the entire Raccolta without the approval of the Roman congregation (Decret. auth., nn. 351, 415). There is an approved edition of the Raccolta in English, especially adapted for the use of the faithful. F.X. DELANY Human Race Human Race Mankind exhibits differences which have been variously interpreted. Some consider them so great that they regard the varieties of the human race as distinct species; others maintain the unity of the human race, looking upon the differences as not sufficiently great to constitute different species. The apparently unlimited fertility of crossed races is a fact in favour of the unity of mankind. The diversities are indeed only quantitative, the difference between the most opposite varieties (e.g. the darkest blacks and the lightest whites) being bridged over by numerous intermediate stages. The unity of mankind is moreover supported by the intellectual similarity apparent between the most primitive savages and the representatives of the highest culture. The various types of human beings now living are only different races. G. Schwalbe thought that the primitive Quaternary type of man with the prominent bridges, low braincap, chinless lower jaw, etc. (the homo primigenius), must be distinguished as a separate species from the homo sapiens. The peculiarities of this homo primigenius, he claimed, did not fall within the limits of the variations of the homo sapiens. However, the researches of H. Klaatsch, especially his investigation of the skulls of the aboriginal Australians, show that the same peculiarities are to be found even in men now living. Consequently, the homo primigenius is simply one of the races of mankind, although a primitive one. The physical differences found in the human race may be grouped together into basic types or "races", which are divided further into sub-races. Another grouping is into "nations" and "tribes", which may be described as political units of men of like speech and customs. The investigation of physical differences is the task of anthropology (the science of man), whose duty it is to establish numerically in the most exact manner possible the conspicuous differences between the fundamental types and between the mixed races arising from them. A number of methods may be used to attain this end. The method of height and measurement aims at expressing mathematically the differences in size, whether of the whole body or of its parts. The ratio of the different measurements is computed, thus obtaining relative measurements or indices, and the angles which different parts of the body form with one another are determined. For this purpose the greatest possible number of individuals of a race are measured; the average of the results is regarded as the expression of the racial peculiarity, or the results are represented in the form of curves which express the numerical values derived from the study of a group. As absolute and relative measurements alone do not suffice to determine racial peculiarities, outline drawings have of late been resorted to, and the forms thus obtained have been compared. This method has the advantage that all possible dimensions and angles can be measured later independently of the object. On these outline drawings or projections H. Klaatsch constructed triangles and quadrangles (cranio-trigonometry), or sought to define the curves as segments of circles (cyclography of the skull). To the graphical method and that of measurement should also be added the description of morphological peculiarities. The most striking difference in men is that of stature. Consequently, it has been attempted to separate races into groups according to this criterion. Even in Europe, marked differences have been shown to exist between the tall northern peoples of Scandinavia, England, and North Germany on the one hand, and the low statured peoples of the Mediterranean (especially the Italians) on the other. In other regions also tall races are found, e.g. the Fuegians; other races are distinguished by their extremely low stature, e.g. the Bushmen of Africa, the Lapps of the Arctic, above all the extremely small tribes of the forests of Central and Western Africa (stature generally under four feet eleven inches), who are now grouped together as Pygmies, and the natives of the Andaman Island in the Bay of Bengal, the Semand of Malacca, and the Negrites of the Philippines. While the weight of the body, depending greatly on external causes, is not serviceable for differentiation, the proportions of the body on the other hand vary in different races. The primitive races are characterized in particular by a short trunk, long arms, and long legs, in contrast to the civilized peoples, who have a long trunk, short arms, and short legs. The differences, however, are not greater than those between members of different classes in one and the same people, as J. Ranke has proved. G. Fritsch made use of the length of the spinal column for the comparison of the bodily proportions (modulus). In this way he constructed a canon or general rule, which Stratz utilized in comparing various peoples: the white race has the proportions of the canon, the Fuegians undue length of the arms, the negro undue length of all four extremities, and the Chinese deficient length of all four extremities. As regards the skeleton the attempt was made, in the first place, to determine racial peculiarities by the study of the skull. The length, breadth, and height of the cranium were determined, and from these were calculated the length-breadth, length-height, and breadth-height indices == that is, the breadth and height were expressed as percentages of the length or breadth. According to the Frankfort Agreement of 1882 skulls are divided into narrow or dolichocephalic (up to 74.9), medium or mesocephalic (75.0 to 79.9), and broad or brachycephalic (over 80.0); and further into low or chamaecephalic (up to 70.0), medium or orthocephalic (70.1 to 75.0), and high or hypsicephalic (over 75.0). According to the international agreement of 1883 the following designations were added to those already in use: ultradolichocephalic (55.0 to 59.9) hyperdolichocephalic (60.0 to 64.9), hyperbrachycephalic (85.0 to 89.9) and ultrabrachyhcephalic (90.0 to 94.9). The French call skulls with a length-breadth index of 75.01 to 77.77 subdolichocephalic, of 80.01 to 83.33 subbrachyceplhalic; only the indices 77.78 to 80.0 are looked upon by them as mesocephalic. For the front of the skull the criteria used in determining the peculiarities of a race are the height and breadth, the facial angle, and the form of the nostrils, orbital entrance, and palate. The ratios of the breadth of the zygomatic arch (supposing it equal to 100) to the height of the entire face (from the nasion to the gnathion), and to the height of the upper face (from the nasion to the prosthion), give facial indices which are divided by R. Martin into the following groups: (1) Index for the entire face: hypercuryprosopous (to 79.9), curyprosopous (80.0 to 89.9), leptoprosopous (90.0 to 94.9), hyperleptoprosopous (over 95.0). (2) Index for the upper face: hypereuryonic (to 44.9), euryonic (45.0 to 49.9), mesial (50.0 to 54.9), leptous (55.0 to 59.9), hyperleptus (over 60.0). The expressions euryprosopous and euryonic correspond to the chamaeconchous of the Frankfort Agreement; leptous is the same as leptoprosopous. According to the Frankfort Agreement the orbits are chamaeconchous (to 80.0), mesoconchous (80.1 to 85.0), hypsiconchous (over 85.0); the nostrils are leptorhine (to 47.0), mesorhine (47.1 to 51.0), platyrhine (51.1 to 58.0), hyperplatyrhine (over 58.0); the palate is leptostaphyline (to 80.0), mesostaphyline (80.0 to 85.0), brachystaphyline (over 85.0). The facial part of the skull with a facial angle up to 82 is called prognathous; with an angle of 83 to 90, orthognathous; with an angle of 91 and over, hyperorthognathous. By facial angle is meant that formed by the line connecting the naso-frontal suture and the point farthest forward on the upper jaw between the central incisors (the alveolar point) with the German horizontal plane. The German horizontal plane passes through the lowest point of the under edge of the orbits and the upper edge of the ear-aperture. Besides these indices, to which correspond groups more or less generally recognized, other points of importance for the shape of the braincap and the facial part of the skull are: the ratio of the greatest breadth of the braincap to the smallest frontal breadth (small distance between the temporal lines over the zygomatic process of the frontal bone); also the ratio of the breadth of the zygoma to the smallest breadth of the forehead, and to the breadth of the face at the two angles of the lower jaw. At the base of the skull measurements can be taken of the angle formed by the plane of the occipital foramen with the German horizontal plane, and of the angle formed by this German plane with the surface between the occipital foramen and the spheno-basilar joint. In the comparison of crania, especially of the ratios of angles, it is necessary to place the skull in a definite position. To attain this, various methods have been used besides the German horizontal plane already mentioned. G. Schwalbe has recently used the glabella-inion line (glabella, the central point between the arches of the eyebrows; inion, the protuberance of the occiput at the median line) for the comparison of the brainpans at the sagittal sutures, while H. Klaatsch has returned to the glabella- lambda line formerly proposed by Hamy (lambda, the point of union of the lambdoid and sagittal sutures). In the first case the height of the cap (the distance of the highest point from the glabella-inion line), the height of the bregma (the linear distance of the bregma from the point of comparison, i. e. the distance between the point of intersection of the coronal and satittal sutures by the glabelle-inion line), and their ratios to the glabella-inion line (which is taken as 100), can be determined. On this line Schwalbe traced the frontal angle (that between the tangent of the frontal bone at the glabella and the glabella-inion line), the bregman angle (bregma-glabella-inion); the lambda angle (lambda-inion-glabella); the opisthion angle (glabella-inion- opisthion; the opisthion is the posterior border of the occipital foramen). Schwalbe also determined the position of the bregma (distance of the base point of the bregma-verticals from the glabella) and the index of this position to the glabella-inion line, the glabella-cerebral index (ratio of the tendon of the glabella arch to the tendon of the arch of the frontal bone). The other bones of the skeleton were not made the object of exhaustive study until more recent times. Particular attention should be made, as important in the comparative anatomy of races, of the cross-section of the diaphysis of the long bones, and of the position of the epiphyses to the diaphysis. Not only the structure of the skeleton, but also the musculation and the general formation of the soft parts are taken into consideration. As regards the musculation attention is given especially to the varieties found in the face; measuring the thickness of the soft parts of the face (by piercing with needles such parts in fresh or preserved cadavers) also yields good results, when there are sufficient subjects for investigation. Apparently, the flat, broad face of the Mongol is mainly conditioned by the great thickness of the soft parts in the region of the cheek. Racial differences are also shown by the nose. The nose of Europeans and Asiatic Indians is long, narrow, with a more or less decided projection; the roots are high and narrow, the back straight or convex, the wings are appressed, the nostrils set vertically to the upper lip, the elevation (that is the height of the point above the lip) relatively large. According to Topinard's theory noses are divided into aquiline, straight, flat, hooked, and Semitic noses. The nose of the aboriginal Australians is poorly developed; it does not project, the roots are low and broad, the back broad and rather concave, the wings decidedly projecting; the nostrils lie parallel to the upper lip, and the elevation is slight. There are a large number of intermediate forms between these extreme ones (e.g. according to Topinard, the Mongoloid, negroid, and Australioid). The roots of the nose may enter the forehead without depression, by a sharp bend, or in a flat curve. The region above the orbits and between the borders of the orbits varies. Either the entire part projects in a ridge (brow ridges, torus supraorbitalis), or only the glabella, that is the prominent part of the forehead just above the root of the nose, seems to be curved, or projections arise from a somewhat depressed glabella and extend to about the middle of the upper orbital border, the sections on the sides being then flat (planum supraorbitale). The forehead is either flat and receding, or is full, domed, and rises more or less abruptly. The position of the sockets of the eyes if horizontal in the white race and inclines obliquely upwards in Mongols; in the latter case the lacrimal caruncle is generally not free, but is covered by a fold that inclines downward in a curve (the Mongolian fold). In the same way the edge of the Mongolian eyelid, which in other cases is free, generally lies under a transverse fold. The forms of the ear and mouth are less used as racial characteristics. They display only individual variations, although a peculiarity of the negro race is the great protrusion and thickness of the lips. Especially important for the differentiation of races are the colour of the eyes and skin, and the form and colour of the hair. The colour of these parts of the body is conditioned by a brownish pigment, on the amount and seat of which the shade of colour depends. Eyes are called blue and blue-grey when only the black layers of the iris contains the pigment, which appears blue through the cloudy outer layers of tissue. If the other layers of the iris also contain pigment, the eye appears from light to dark brown. The pupils are like a dark circle, the blood-vessels of the retina appearing red only in albinos (persons with very little or no pigment). The other parts of the eye also contain more or less pigment. The pigment of the skin is found chiefly in the epidermis: in new-born children of coloured races (at times also in white infants), as the Mongolians and negro, pigment in the true skin or corium produces blue spots in the region of the loins, called the blue Mongolian spot. In hair the horny outer portion is the main seat of the pigment. Besides the amount of air in the hair is also of importance; hair containing a great amount of air (appearance of age) looks grey or white, this condition being usually accompanied by a disappearance of the hair-pigment. Hair is divided as to colour into flaxen, light brown, black, red, and grey; it is lank, smooth, wavy, or curly. Lank hair generally shows a round cross-section, and curly an oval one; there are other cross-sections (e.g. the reniform or elliptical). In the same individual the eyes, hair, and skin may be of different colours. Blue eyes, flaxen hair, and white skin constitute the blonde type; brown eyes, brown hair, and dark skin make the brunette type. Between these two types are all possible variations and mixtures. Although the human race must be regarded as a unit intellectually and physically, there have existed and still exist differences which permit a classification into various groups and races. Even the most ancient remains of man, dating from the glacial period in Europe, show differences that justify the acceptance of at least two races. Remains of skeletons that certainly belong to the Quaternary age have been found in France, Germany, and Austria. The shape of the crania found at Spy, Krapina, La Chapelle aux Saintes, Le Moustier, etc., resembles that of the skull discovered at Neandertal, the geological stratification of which is uncertain. These remains can be grouped together as the "Neandertal race", which had a long, narrow, low skull with very retreating forehead, enormous brown ridges (torus supraorbitalis), powerful masticating apparatus, upper jaw with the fossae caninae, heavy under jaw with broad ascending branch, no chin, and chin part with an outward convex curve. Some of these characteristics are still to be found among the Eskimo and aboriginal Australians. The bones of the skeletons indicate a bulky, relatively low-sized frame. The gait was upright, but it would seem with knees somewhat bent. Variations existed even in this era. The Krapina remains belong to crania somewhat broader than do the remains of the Neandertal race of Western Europe. The strata in which the remains of the skeletons were found must be regarded as belonging to the last warm intermediate period (or the last glacial period), and were found with remains of the early Palaeolithic period, the stage of civilization represented by the Saint-Acheul and Le Moustier remains. During the glacial period, particularly during the late Palaeolithic period (as represented by the remains found at Aurignac, Solutré, and La Madeleine), human beings of a different form existed. Their remains, as those found at Laugerie-Basse, Chaneclade, Mentone, and Combe-Capelle, may be grouped together as the "Cro-Magnon Race". The peculiarities of the Neandertal race are not to be found; the generally long dolichocephalic crania have a good vault, and are relatively high without great brow ridges; the apparatus for mastication is less powerful; the upper jaw contains plainly fossae caninae; the under jaw is less massive, the chin being fine and projecting. In the structure of the cranium the Cro-Magnon race on the whole resembled the modern European. Local variations are recognizable. It is not impossible that both diluvial races lived at the same era, so that crossing appeared, as would seem the case from the skulls found at Galley Hill and at Brünn. The bones of the skeletons indicate a higher stature. Variations with a broader skull appeared in Europe very soon after this, if not along with the long-skulled Cro-Magnon race in the diluvian epoch, so that the present different shapes of crania found in Europe seem to go back to the earliest era. Schliz ascertained two main forms of crania in the remains found in a layer of the Ofnet cave near Nördlingen (Bavaria) belonging to the transition period between the Quaternary and the present geological era: one was a low, short skull and the other a moderately high, long skull, both with a low, broad face. These skulls recall, on one hand, the form of the skull of the homo alpinus, and, on the other, the structure of the skull of the later lake-dwellers and of the Mediterranean type. While in the course of the prehistoric epochs in Europe the variations in the form of the skull multiplied, Schliz believes that the various prehistoric ages (Stone age, Bronze age, Iron age) show races with well-defined forms of the skull. At present time the European, of all the branches of mankind, has been the most thoroughly investigated anthropologically. Notwithstanding the crossings which have occurred continuously for centuries, certain groups with definite somatological peculiarities are recognizable. Stature, the shape of the skull, and the colour of the complexion have been taken as the criteria of these groups. According to this classification there is in the interior of Europe, in Alpine territory, a brunette population of medium stature and with a broad head; toward the north the crania are narrower, the colour of the skin, hair, and eyes is lighter, the stature is higher; towards the south the stature decreases, the complexion is darker, but the skull in the south, as in the north, is narrower than in the case of the first-named class. Starting from the north to the south, Ripley names these three types; (1) Teutonic race: long head and face, very light hair, blue eyes, high stature, narrow and partly curved nose; (2) Alpine race: round head, broad face, light chestnut brown hair, nut-brown eyes, robust medium stature, variable but generally broad, strong nose; (3) Mediterranean race; long head, long face, hair dark-brown to black, dark eyes, medium to small stature, rather broad nose. Between these pure types there are innumerable crossings. It is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to include the various races of mankind in one system. All attempts made hitherto contain certain defects which are perhaps unavoidable. Linnaeus sought to establish the characteristic physical and intellectual peculiarities of the inhabitants of the four quarters of the globe then known. Later investigators have selected one or a few peculiarities of the body (e.g. the shape of the cranium or hair, the colour of the skin) as the principle of classification, or have used a combination of several characteristics. Finally ethnological peculiarities (especially the language and degree of civilization) were invoked for aid in characterization. Linnaeus differentiated four varieties of the homo diurnus (a sub-division of the homo sapiens): (1) American; (2) European; (3) Asiatic; (4) African. Not only were the colour of the skin and eyes, the colour and form of the hair, and the form of the nose used as criteria of these four divisions, but the different temperaments of the four races were also distinguished, other criteria being their peculiarities of character, mode of dress, and whether the individual races were governed by customs, laws, beliefs, or arbitrary rule. Blumenbach already attempted to group the races of mankind on the basis of purely somatological peculiarities, selecting five typical forms of the cranium as the criteria of the five races of men. He took as the normal type the skull of the Caucasian race, which is distinguished by harmony of the individual parts, none being unduly prominent: with roundness (mesocephaly) are united a massive high forehead, narrow cheek-bones, round alveolar arch, and an orthognathous upper jaw. To the Caucasian type belong: European (except the Lapps and Finns), Western Asiatics, and North Africans. Around this type are grouped the others, which are related both to it and one another. The Mongolian race includes most Asiatics, the Finnish tribes, the Lapps and the Eskimo; it has an almost square skull (exceedingly brachycephalic), flat nose, flat projecting malar bone, somewhat broad alveolar arch, and projecting chin. The American race has a higher forehead, highly developed superciliary arch, deeply sunken bridge of the nose, cheek-bones strongly projecting sidewards, and high, broad, and strong lower jaw. In this race Blumenbach included all aboriginal Americans except the Eskimo. The skull of the Malay race is brachycephalic; the parietal bones project strongly sidewards, the nose and cheek-bones are flat, and the upper jaws slightly prognathous. To this race belong the inhabitants of Malacca in Asia and the natives of the islands of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The Ethiopian race includes the inhabitants of Africa except the Caucasian Africans in the north; the skull is dolichocephalic, the forehead full, the cheek-bones prominent, the nostrils wide, the alveolar arch narrow and prominent, the jaws prognathous, and the lower jaw large and strong. Blumenbach added to these craniological criteria others of a general somatological character, deduced from the observation of the members of the body, chiefly of the head and its parts. Blumenbach's classification still has adherents, B. P. Ehrenreich, for example, being a vigorous supporter of it. He adds to the classification, however, those races that have become known or at least better known since Blumenbach's time. These are mainly the blacks of Asia and the aboriginal races of Augstralia and Oceania. According to Ehrenreich, the classification is: (1) Caucasian- Mediterranean; (2) African-Nigritian; (3) Mongolian; (4) American; (5) Malay Polynesian; (6) Australian. In addition there is (7) the Papuans and the blacks of Asia, including the Dravidians and the Kolarian tribes of India, whose position in Ehrenreich's anthropological system must still be regarded as uncertain. Blumenbach's classification was based on observation and description. There now followed a series of attempts to determine the different types of measurements. For the determination of the variations in the facial part of the skull Camper had already settled by measurement the facial angle, that is the angle made by the profile line and auriculo-subnasal line (the line from the ear orifice to the lowest part of the nose). A. Retzius introduced the word orthognathism to signify an almost right facial angle (90°), and called the more acute facial angle prognathy. Having noticed that in Sweden the Germans had narrow skulls, while the skulls of the Lapps were broad, Retzius sought to determine these shapes mathematically by the length-breadth index. He combined the groups of dolichocephalic and brachycehalic crania gained in this way with the groups of facial angles, and thus arrived at four main types of crania: orthognathous dolichocephalic, orthognathous brachycephalic, prognathous dolichocephalic, and prognathous brachycephalic. However, this classification of the shapes of the cranium was unsatisfactory, even when mesocephalic crania were separated from the others, since the various forms appear within every race, although perhaps with varying frequency. Welcker's investigations proved that crania ranging from dolichocephalic to hyperbrachycephalic are found in the Mediterranean, Malayan, and American races; the Monoglians appear to be rather mesobrachycephalic and hyperbrachycephalic, while the black races incline more to dolichocephaly. J. Kollman also based his racial classification on the shape of the skull and face. He supposed six sub-species: chamaeprosopous dolichocephalic, chamaeprosopous mesocephalic, chamaeprosopous brachyhcephalic, leptoprosopous dolichocephalic, leptoprosopous mesocephalic, leptoprosopous brachycephalic. These sub-species have, through migrations and penetrations, spread over the entire world, and may be grouped into eighteen varieties according to the nature of the hair (smooth, bristly or coarse, and woolly). Besides the shape of the skull, other somatological peculiarities have been employed by P. Topinard in the classification of races. Following Cuvier's classification, he takes as his main divisions the white, yellow, and black races, which he characterizes mainly by the shape of the nose. The narrow-nosed (leptorhine) white race has wavy hair with oval cross-section. Of those with dolichocephalic crania, one division is blond and large (Anglo- Scandinavian or Cymric); another large with red hair (first type of the Finns); a third brunette and relatively small (Mediterranean races). The mesocephalic type with brown hair and relatively small stature is found in the Semites and Egyptians. The brachycephalic type is composed of the little Lapps and Lagurians with brown hair, and the Celto-Slavs of medium height. The yellow race with nose of medium width (mesorhine), coarse, straight hair of round cross- section, also contains dolichocephalic, mesocephalic, and brachycephalic types. The Eskimo are small, dolichocephalic, and have a yellow skin; the Tehuelches are large, dolichocephalic, and have a reddish skin; the Polynesians are large, mesocephalic, and have a reddish skin. The brachcycephalic type is represented by the Quaranni and Peruvians, the former being of medium size with yellow skin, and the latter small with olive skin. The broad-nosed (platyrhine) black race was divided by Topinard into one group with straight hair of oval cross-section, and a second group with a woolly hair of elliptical section. The first group, comprising the aboriginal Australians, are dolichocephalic, tall, and have a black skin; all three types of skull appear in the second group. The very small yellowish Bushmen, the large black Melanesians, and the African negroes are dolichocephalic, the medium-sized black Tasmanians mesocephalic, the small black Negritos brachycelphalic. A summary according to somatological principles has been given lately by J. Deniker (cf. The Races of Man, p. 225), a Frenchman, who has selected the divisions of the earth as the principle of classification in the description of the several races and tribes. + Frizzly hair, broad nose o yellow skin: the Bushman races, comprising Hottentots and Bushmen == yellow skin, steatopygous, small stature, dolichocephalic; o dark skin: # Negrito races, comprising both very small, sub-brachycephalic or sub-dolichoceplhalic; # Negro, comprising the Nigritian and Bantu stocks == black skin, dolichocephalic; # Melanesians, comprising Papuans and Melanesians == blackish-brown skin, medium stature, dolichocelphalic. + Hair frizzly or wavy o dark skin # Ethiopians == reddish brown skin, narrow nose, large stature, dolichoceplhalic; # aboriginal Australians == chocolate brown skin, broad nose, medium stature, dolichocephalic; # Dravidians == black-brown skin, broad or straight nose, small stautre, dolichocephalic; o skin dirty white: Assyrioids == nose narrow, and convex with thick end. + Hair wavy, brown or black in colour, eyes dark o skin light brown: Indo-Afghan == hair black, nose narrow, straight or convex, tall stature; o dirty white skin, black hair # tall stature, long face: @ Arabians and Semites == aquiline nose, projecting occiput, dolichocephalic, elliptical face; @ Berbers == nose straight and thick, dolichocephalic, square face: @ Inhabitants of the European coasts == nose straight and small, mesocephalic, face oval; # Small stature: Inhabitants of the Iberian island == colichocephalic; o dull white skin, hair brown: # Inhabitants of Western Europe == small stature, strongly brachycephalic, face round: # Inhabitants of countries on the Adriatic == tall stature, brachycephalic, long face. + Hair wavy or straight, flaxen in colour, eyes light, skin pinkish white o Northern Europeans == hair generally wavy, flaxen or reddish, tall stature, dolichocephalic; o Eastern Europeans == hair generally straight, tow-coloured, small stature, sub-dolichocephalic. + Hair straight or wavy and black, dark eyes o Skin light brown: Ainos == body very hairy, nose broad and concave, dolichocephalic; o Skin yellow, body without hair: # Polynesians == nose projecting and often convex, tall stature, elliptical face, brachycephalic or mesocephalic; # Indonesians == small stature, nose flat and often concave, projecting cheek-bones, face lozenge-shaped, dolichocephalic; # Native races of South American == small stature, nose projecting and straight, mesocephalic or dolichocephalic. + Straight hair o Sallow skin: # Straight or aquiline nose; @ North American races-tall stature, mesocephalic; @ Native races of Central America == small stature, brachycephalic; # Straight nose; Patagonians == tall stature, brachycephalic, square face; o Skin yellow-brown: Eskimo == small stature, face round and flat, dolichocephalic; o Skin pale yellow: # Lapps == snub-nose, small stature, brachycephalic; # Ugrian race ==nose straight or concave, small stature, mesocephalic or dolichocephalic, projecting cheek-bones; # Turks or Turko-Tatars == straight nose, medium stature, very brachycephalic; o Skin sallow: Mongolians == projecting cheek-bones, Mongolian fold, slightly brachycephalic. Huxley classified mankind on a somatico-anthropological basis. He divided the human race into four main types: the Australioid, Negroid, Kanthoeroi, and Mongoloid, to which he afterwards added the Malenochroi. The aboriginal Australians are the chief representatives of the dolichocephalic Australioid type (dark skin and eyes, wavy black hair, flat nose, pronounced osseous superciliary arch, and very prognathous). Outside Australia, Huxley claimed to have found the Australioid type in the interior of the Deccan, and among the Egyptians. The standard for the Negroid type is the African negro. Huxley wrongly considered this type as almost without exception dolichocephalic. It generally lacks a bony superciliary arch; skin and eyes are brown to black; the hair black, short and frizzly or wooly; lithe nose flat and broad; the lips thick and protruding, while prognathism is universal. According to Huxley, the particular modifications of the Negroid type are: the small Bushmen with lighter skin; the partly brachycephalic Negritos with heavy superciliary arch, living in southern and south-eastern Asia (the Malay Peninsula), and in the Andaman, Philippine, and South Sea Islands (Papuans) as far as Tasmania. Among these Negritos there has been a considerable crossing with Polynesians and Malayans. Huxley grouped together the inhabitants of the greater part of Central Europe as the Kanthoeroi or fair-white type. This group is characterized by an almost colourless soft skin, blue or grey eyes, and light hair; the shape of the skull ranges from dolichocephalic to brachycephalic. In the south and west this type comes into contact with the Melanochroi; in the north and east, where it extends to Hindustan, with the Mongoloid type. According to Huxley all Asia and its surrounding islands in the east and south-east, the east and north- east of Europe and the whole of America are inhabited by the Mongoloid type (yellowish-brown skin, black eyes, black, lank hair, small, flat nose, oblique fold of the eyelid, but no projecting bony superciliary arch); the type is partly brachycephalic, partly dolichocephalic. The Melanochroi or brunettes live around the Mediterranean Sea, and extend through Asia Minor across Arabia and Persia to Hindustan. The skin is brownish, the fine wavy hair almost black, the eyes dark. Huxley considered the Melanochroi the result of a mixture of the Kanthoeroi and Australioids. The attempt of Linnaeus to employ intellectual peculiarities as criteria has also been repeatedly imitated. Thus, Fredrich MMulleruuml;ller has combined somatic (for of the hair) and linguistic peculiarities to form the basis of his racial classification. According to his theory mankind is divided, according to the shape of the head, into woolly-haired and sleek-haired. The woolly-haired races are subdivided into those with tuft-like hair (Hottentots, Papuans), and those with fleecy hair (African negro, Kafir); the sleek-haired races into the straight-haired (as the Australians, Hyperboreans, Americans, Malayans, Mongolians) and the curly-haired (as the Dravidians, Nubians, and Mediterranean races). These races are subdivided into a number of family groups on the basis of language and of the intellectual culture arising from it MMulleruuml;ller distinguished: the Indo-Germanic family of languages (Germanic, Romanic, Slavonic, Celtic, Greek, Albanian, Iranian, Indian); the Ural-Altaic family (Finno-Ugrian, Turkish and Yakutish, Mongolian, Tungusian, Samoyedic); the South-Asiatic family (Chinese, Siamese, Annamite, Burmese, and Thibetan); the Hamito-Semitic family (Semito-Arabic, and Hamite); the Malayo-Polynesian group (the Malayan, Polynesian, and Melanesian languages); the Bantu family, and along with it the American languages (related to this group only as to structure), the Dravidian, and various isolated languages. Following Cuvier and Topinard, W. H. Flower, an Englishman, separates mankind into three main divisions: + Ethiopian or Negroid Races: (a) The African type of negro; (b) Hottentots and Bushmen; (c) The Oceanic negro or Melanesians; (d) Negritos. + Mongolian Race: (a) Eskimo; (b) The Mongols proper, comprising the Mongolo-Altaic group; and the southern Mongolian group; (c) Malayans; (d) Polynesians, Maoris; (e) Americans. + Caucasians, comprising Kanthoeroi and Melanochroi. From these three main races (called archimorphic by C.H. Stratz), G. Fritsch has distinguished the mixed races derived from them as metamorphic. Both divisions have a strongly developed instinct for migration (nomadic peoples), which has promoted the growth of civilization. At the same time Fritsch and Stratz assumed a series of tribes without an instinct for migration (non-nomadic peoples); these were named by Stratz protomorphic. These theories, however, have scientific value as working hypotheses, even though the one or the other may prove to be incorrect. Following in part the investigations made by Klaatsch of the skeleton, Stratz takes as protomorphic criteria: great individual variability; normal proportions (according to the calculations of Fritsch) with slightly excessive length of the arm; total height six or seven times the height of the heads; external appearance little different in the two sexes; women with small hips and mamma areolata; light to dark brown skin; hair of the head very variant with oval cross-section; hair on the body moderately developed; pronounced protuberance of frontal bone; inclination to dolichocephaly and prognathism; strong, broad jaws; facial part of the skull large in proportion to the back of the skull; coarse features; broad nose; small orbits widely separated from each other; pointed ear, like the ear of the Macaca monkey; graceful, slender frame, narrow vertebrae; slighter curvature of the vertebral column; narrow pelvis; platyknemic tibia; nates weak; femur slight; no calves; tendency to a crouching position and to turning the foot inwards; foot adapted for climbing; prehensile foot; weaker development of the ankle-bone (talus), of the heel-bone (calcancus), of the cuboid bone (os cuboideum), of the toe; very slight arch to the sole of the foot; entire sole set on the ground in walking; early development of sexual instinct. Stratz has selected the following as the criteria for the three archimorphic races. Those of the melanodermic or black race are: excessive length of the legs; total height 7 to 7.5 heads; skin from dark brown almost to black; the hair of the head thick, black, and frizzly, with an elliptical cross-section; hair on the body scant; an inclination to dolichocephaly (with a very decided breadth of the skull behind); pronounced prognathism; powerful broad, and high jaws. Among the characteristics of the yellow or xanthodermic race are: deficient length of the limbs; total height 7 to 7.5 heads; mamma papillata; brownish-yellow to light yellow skin, coarse and black hair of the head, with a round cross- section; hair on the body scant; inclination to brachycephaly; broad, short jaw; slight frontal ridge; short, small, strong foot with moderate arch. Among the criteria of the leucodermic or white race are: normal proportions; stature, 7.5 to 8 heads; mamma papillata; light brown to almost white skin; orthognathism; from slight to hardly noticeable frontal ridge; narrow, high jaws; large muscles of the seat and calves; narrow, long foot with powerful arch; strong ball of the great toe; powerful heel. Stratz has also sought to compare the different races according to their relationship and development. According to him, the aboriginal Australians of to-day are the nearest to the common monogenetic original form. The second earliest protomorphic races are the Papuans, Koikoins, and kindred races. After the black races in Africa had become separated from the main stock of mankind, the third earliest protomorphic group separated from the first stock (the American races, Malays of the interior of the peninsula, Kanakas, and Andamans). After the main yellow race had been thrown off from the main stock, the fourth earliest protomorphic group was formed (according to Stratz, the Ainos, Veddahs, Dravidians, Basques, and Celts). Finally the main white race was developed. The metamorphic races are to be regarded as races still in the process of formulation. Fritsch regards the three archimorphic main races as centres of radiation: the white race in South-Western Asia, the yellow race in North-Eastern Asia, and the black race in Central Africa. The white stock divided into the Semitic and Sanskritist branches; the yellow into the Chinese and Seythian branches; while the Finno-Tatar branch belongs to both the white and yellow stocks. The black stock divided into the Pelagic branch (living on the islands south and south-east of Asia) and the African branch. According to Fritsch, owing to the universal fertility of crosses among mankind, the contact of the main stocks with one another and with the protomorphic races gave rise at the points of contact to the metamorphic races. Fritsch took as protomorphic non-nomadic peoples (i. e. as remains of original primitive peoples): in Africa, the Bushmen, Akkas Obongos, Batuas; in Australia, the natives of Queensland; in Asia, the Dravidians, Veddahs, Guang, Senoi, Kubu-kubu, Hieng, Miao-Tse, Ainos; in America, the Makuks, the Ges tribes of Eastern Brazil, Fuergians; in Europe, the Neandertal race, the Alpine race, the European dwarf race, and the Lapps living in stone huts. On the basis of the theories of Stratz and Keane, Schurtz makes the following classification: + Early races (that is the almost disappeared remains of earlier races): (1) Palaeo-Asiatic, non-Mongolian race (the Ainos); (2) Ethiopian race (the Nubians); (3) dwarf race. + Chief family groups: A. Light colour or European-West-Asiatic group of races: northern Alpine, and Mediterranean main races; B. Asiatic-Polynesian group of races: Mongolian stock, Malayo- Polynesian stock; C. Nigritian group of races: (1) Negro; (2) dark-coloured Indian (Dravidic races); (3) Indonesian and oceanic Nigritian (Negritos, Melanesians); (4) Australians and Tasmanians; D. American group of races. + Hybrid races: (1) Finno-Ugrian hybrid race; (2) Berber hybrid race. Most of the above racial classifications offer certain advantages, but also show faults that may not be overlooked. All contain three great groups which may be characterized from the most striking attributes as the smooth to wavy-haired white race, the coarse-haired yellow race, and the frizzly-haired black race. In addition, however, these races all exhibit a series of other differences, somatological and ethnological. However it is difficult to group together a number of branches of these three main stocks. Most writers who desire to give a descriptive summary of the races and peoples of the world (as Deniker, Buschan, Schurtz, and others) have, therefore, primarily guided themselves by the abodes of these races, and have grouped them according to the divisions of the earth within which it can be shown that various branches and subordinate groups live. BARTOLS in Zeitschr. fur Morph. u. Anthrop., VII, 81; BUSCHAN, Menschenkunde (Stuttgart, 1909); IDEM, Illustrierte Volkerkunde (Stuttgart, 1910); CZEKANOWSKI in Arch. fur Anthrop., new series, VI, 47; DAVENPORT, Statistical Methods (New York, 1899); DENIKER, Les races et les peuples de la terre (Paris, 1900), tr. The Races of Man (London, 1900); EHRENREICH, Anthrop. Studien uber d. urbewohner Brasiliens (Brunswick, 1897); FLOWER in Journal Antr. Institu. of Great Britain and Ireland, XIV, 378; FRITSCH in Zeirschr. fur Ethnol. (1910), 580; HADDON, Study of Man (London, 1898); HOERNES, Natur-u. Urgesch. D. Menschen (Vienna, 1909); KEANE, Man, Past and Present (Cambridge, 1904); KLAATSCH in Arch. fur Anthr., new series, VIII, 101; QUATREFAGES, Etude des races humaines (Paris, 1900); RANKE, Der Mensch (3rd ed., Brunswick, 1911); RANKE in Arch. Fur Anthr., new series, II, 295; RIPLEY, The Races of Europe (London, 1900); SCHLIZ in Archiv. fur Anthr., new series, IX, 202; SCHURTZ, Volkerkunde Leipzig and Vienna, 1903); SCHMIDT, Die Stellung der Pygmaen (Stuttgart, 1910); SCHWALBE in Anat. Anz., IX (1901), Supplement, 44; STRATZ in Arch. fur Anthr., new series, I, 189; IDEM, Naturgesch. des Menschen (Stuttgart, 1904); TOPINARD, Elements d'anthr. generale (Paris, 1885), tr. (London, 1890). FERDINAND BIRKNER Negro Race Negro Race The term negro, derived from the Spanish and the Latin words meaning "black" (negro; niger), may be applied to a large portion of mankind, but it is more strictly confined to certain peoples and tribes of Central Africa and their descendants in various parts of the world. The Bluemback fivefold division of mankind considers the negro in the first place under Ethiopian, embracing the Kafir, Hottentot, Australian, Alforian, and Oceanic negroes. Pritchard and Latham rightly protest against the error of considering the term negro synonymous with African. There are dark-skinned people of various types throughout the tropical countries of the world. The negro properly so called is dark-skinned, with wooly hair and other characteristics, while differing in minor traits. It is a mistake to hold, as some do, that all negroes have common traits. Professor Jerome Dowd, a Southern white man, declares that "to speak of all negroes in Africa as one race having common characteristics, is as misleading and is as unscientific as if we should consider all Europeans and Americans as of one race and attribute to all of them the same traits." Observations and the records of the African continent go to show that it is not necessarily the races with the blackest skins that are lowest in the scale of civilization. The negro is originally a native of the Sudan and other parts of West and Central Africa, where there is now [1910] a population of about 128,000,000 blacks. In the West Indies, South America, and the United States they are the descendants of Africans, though in the United States those of mixed blood, the mulattoes, and even those with a preponderance of white blood are classed as negroes. HISTORY The origin of the negro race dates from the formation of races in the twilight of human history. Like the origin of the human race in general, it is a subject for anthropologists and theologians. The ethnological aspects of the question are many and varied. The original African is said to be the Bushman, who is rather brown than black; the negro, the real black man, probably came from other regions. This, however, must have occurred at a remote period. The chief divisions of the native population of Africa are the negro, or black, the Bushman, and the Bantu, or mixed, races, generally brown in colour, who invaded South Africa, driving out the original Bushman. But centuries of slavery have so broken and intermingled the different stocks that it is difficult to find the negro without any mixture of foreign blood. The history of the black man in America, with which this article is more especially concerned, begins with the African slave-trade. Under the compulsion and rod of the slave-master the negro became part of the population of the New World. The negro slavery of modern times followed the discovery of America. The Portuguese, who possessed a large part of the west African coast, began the employment of negroes as slaves, in which they were followed by others colonizing the new World. The first country in the New World to which negroes were extensively brought was Haiti, or Hispaniola. The aboriginal race had at first been employed in the mines there, but this kind of labour was found so fatal to them that Las Casas, Bishop of Chiapa, the celebrated protector of the Indians, although at a later period he disapproved of slavery, urged Charles V to substitute African slaves as a stronger race. Accordingly, the emperor, in 1517, authorized a large importation of negroes. Sir John Hawkins was the first Englishman who engaged in the traffic. Others of his countrymen soon followed his example on an extensive scale. England is said to have taken, between 1680 and 1700, no fewer than 300,000 slaves from Africa, and between 1700 and 1786 Jamaica alone absorbed 610,000. A Dutch ship brought from the Guinea Coast to Jamestown, Virginia, a cargo of twenty negroes in 1620; this was the beginning of slavery in the English colonies of America. An English company obtained the monopoly of supplying negro slaves to the Spanish colonies for thirty years; the contract was annulled by Spain in 1739, and England thereupon declared war on Spain. The number of slaves annually exported from Africa amounted, at the end of the eighteenth century to 74,000. Between 1680 and 1786 there were 2,130,000 negro slaves brought into the British colonies of America, including the West Indies. Altogether it is estimated that probably 12,000,000 slaves were landed in North and South America from the beginning to the end of the slave-trade. An equal number is supposed to have perished in the African slave raids and on their way to America. The slave-trade was usually attended with extreme cruelty; the ships which transported the slaves from Africa to America were overcrowded to such an extent that a large proportion died on the passage. The treatment of the slave after his arrival depended much on the character of his master; restraints, however, were imposed by law in the various settlements to protect slaves from injury. Early in the seventeenth century Cartagena, in Colombia, was a noted slave market. This was the field of labour of St. Peter Claver, of the Society of Jesus, the apostle of the negroes. As many as twelve thousand slaves were landed annually at Cartagena. They were usually in a wretched condition, and the saint sought to alleviate their hardships and sufferings. In time a strong Christian sentiment asserted itself against the traffic. In Catholic times in Europe and the East, under the benign influence of the Catholic Church, the nations gradually emancipated the slaves. From the beginning of the Africa slave-trade the popes, from Pius II, in the fifteenth century, to Leo XIII, in the nineteenth, issued encyclicals and directed anathemas against the barbarous and inhuman treatment of human beings in slavery. The traffic and its cruelties were condemned by the Holy See before the discovery of America. In America the Friends, or Quakers, of Pennsylvania, in 1776, required their members holding slaves to emancipate them. Abolition societies were formed to discourage and oppose the slave-trade. On a great increase in the traffic, action was taken by the British Government and further importation of slaves into the colonies was prohibited in 1805. The United States prohibited the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, though to some extent slaves continued to be brought into the country secretly and unlawfully up to the emancipation of the slaves during the Civil War. The importation of slaves was likewise forbidden in the South American republics. Eventually, all the states of Europe passed laws or entered into treaties prohibiting the traffic. The next thing was the total abolition of slavery and the emancipation of slaves. This was brought about in the British colonies in 1834. The French emancipated their negroes in 1848. In Haiti slavery ceased as far back as 1791; its abolition was one of the results of the negro insurrection of that year. Many of the Spanish-American states abolished slavery on declaring their independence; the others have since that time abolished the institution. Brazil passed a law of gradual emancipation in 1871. Pope Leo XIII, in 1888, wrote to the bishops of Brazil setting forth the position of the Church on slavery: he condemned the cruelties of the slave-trade and commended the abolition of slavery. In the United States slavery was firmly established at the time of the Declaration of Independence and was recognized by the Constitution, ratified in 1788. There were then several hundred thousand slaves in the republic. Slavery declined in the Northern states, but not in the South, where negro labour was required for the cultivation of sugar and cotton. The diversity of feeling and interest between the North and South on the question of slavery brought about the Civil War. Negro slavery was then brought to an end in the United States, when, in the interest of the Union and as a military measure, President Lincoln issued his Proclamation of Emancipation (1 January, 1863). Since acquiring freedom the negro has increased in numbers and advanced in a material way. Discrimination, prejudice, and fierce criticism have spurred on the more ambitious and more respectable class among them to acquire education and property. In less than forty years of freedom, up to the year 1900, the number of blacks that could read and write rose from 5 to 55 percent. The rate of increase of the negro population is estimated by the United States Census authorities to be about 15 percent for the ten years preceding the Census of 1900. The Census Reports for 1900 give 8,833,994 negroes for the Continental United States. There are also 363,742 persons of pure or mixed negro blood under United States jurisdiction in Porto Rico. The Census statistics for 1910 in relation to the various races are not as yet available, but by using the normal percentage of increase, we may estimate the approximate figures for that year, placing the present negro population of the Continental United States at 10,158,092. The census of mulattoes or those of mixed blood of varying degree was taken in the years 1850, 1860, 1870, and 1890. While this enumeration is acknowledged to be very subject to error, some general results have been obtained. The indications are that from 11 to 16 percent of those classed as negroes have some degree of white blood. The figures warrant the belief that between one-sixth and one-ninth of the negro population of the Continental United States have been regarded by four groups of enumerators as bearing evidence of an admixture of white blood. In the South negroes form about one-third of the population. In 1900 three-tenths of the entire negro population of the country were living in the adjoining states of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. These, together with the adjacent Atlantic-Coast states (Virginia, North, and South Carolina) and the Gulf states (Louisiana and Texas), had then each over half a million negroes. In 1900 the negro population was distributed by states as follows: Georgia == 1,034,813 Mississippi == 907,630 Alabama == 827,307 South Carolina == 782,321 Virginia == 660,722 Louisiana == 650,804 North Carolina == 624,469 Texas == 620,722 Tennessee == 480,243 Arkansas == 366,856 Kentucky == 284,706 Maryland == 235,064 Florida == 230,730 Missouri == 161,234 Pennsylvania == 156,845 New York == 99,232 Ohio == 96,901 District of Columbia == 86,702 Illinois == 85,078 New Jersey == 69,844 Indiana == 57,505 Kansas == 52,003 The remaining states had less than 50,000 each, making up the total of 8,833,994. LEADING OCCUPATIONS The Census Reports show that negro agricultural labourers, farmers, planters, and overseers, unclassified labourers, servants, waiters, launderers, and laundresses constituted 83.6 percent, or about five-sixths, of the negroes in all wage-earning occupations in the Continental United States. The same documents also show that 27 occupations included 95.4 percent, or over nineteen-twentieths, of all negroes in wage-earning occupations. More than three-fourths (77.3 per cent) of the negroes live in the country. In 1900 there were in the United State 746,717 farms operated by negroes. These farms covered 38,233,933 acres, valued at $499,943,734. Of the 746,717 farms operated by negroes 21 percent were owned entirely, and an additional 4.2 percent owned in part, by the farmers operating them; in other words, forty years after emancipation 25.2 percent, or about one-fourth, of all negro farmers had become land owners. The value of all taxable property now owned by the coloured people in the United States is estimated at $550,000,000. EDUCATION Statistical summaries which are available from 16 former slave states give for 1908-9 in the common schools for coloured children an average daily attendance of 1,116,811. In these schools are employed 30,334 coloured teachers. There are 141 public high school for the coloured race with 10,935 pupils and 473 teachers. The governmental education report for 1910 also gives statistics of 189 secondary and higher schools, colleges, industrial schools, etc., for coloured students (excluding public high schools). These schools are usually under the control of various religious denominations. Some are controlled by private corporations and are classed non-sectarian. The list is admitted to be incomplete. Only two Catholic schools are given in the list, namely, St. Joseph's Industrial School, Clayton, Delaware, and St. Francis's Academy, Baltimore, Maryland. There are, besides these, two other Catholic boarding schools for coloured boys, one at Rock Castle, Virginia, the other at Montgomery, Alabama, besides the Van de Vyer College, at Richmond, Virginia, and others. There are also several Catholic boarding schools for coloured girls where academic and industrial branches are taught. The Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament have institutes at Rock Castle, Virginia, Nashville, Tenn., and Cornwells, Pennsylvania. The coloured Oblate Sisters, of Baltimore, and the Holy Family Sisters, of New Orleans, have each several boarding institutions. The Catholic day schools for coloured children number about one hundred. No education is given in the South except in separate schools. Many of the schools described in the Government report of non- public high schools are termed normal and industrial schools and institutes. Others are termed missionary colleges. They are supported largely by the religious denominations of the North. Considerable income is also derived from tuition fees and private subscriptions. Generous allotments are also received by the non- Catholic institutes from educational funds established for freedmen by Northern philanthropists, such as the Peabody Fund, the John F. Slater Fund of New York. The John F. Slater Fund alone disbursed $72,950 (about £14,590) to various coloured institutes throughout the South in 1909-10. The so-called non-sectarian colleges receive also state and municipal aid. In 1868 Samuel Chapman Armstrong, a celebrated friend of the negro, founded Hampton Institute of Virginia for the education of negroes and Indians. At the present writing (1911) Hampton Normal and Industrial Institute has 1374 students, male and female, with 112 white and coloured teachers. Hampton has been the inspiration of an extensive system of similar educational and industrial institutes for the coloured race throughout the South. The most noted offspring of Hampton is Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute, Tuskegee, Alabama, which now has 1698 students, 1137 of them male, and 561 female. There are 185 instructors, all coloured. The property of the institute is valued at $1,278,635 (£255,727). It has a large endowment, which is being increased. The total income of the school for 1909- 10 was $258,940. RELIGION The negro has a religious nature. His docile, cheerful, and emotional disposition is much influenced by his immediate environment, whether those surroundings be good or evil. Catholic faith and discipline are known to have a wholesome effect on the race. Observing men and judges of courts have remarked on the law-abiding spirit existing in Catholic coloured communities. Some elements of the white man's civilization do not always tend to elevate the morality of the negro. The negro is naturally gregarious, and the dissipations and conditions of city life in many instances corrupt the native simplicity of the younger generation to the sorrow of their more conservative elders. (For a view of religion in these later times among the blacks in the native African home of the race, see AFRICA.) Contrary to a prevalent opinion, the negro, when well grounded in the Catholic faith, is tenacious of it. In the United States the negroes and their descendants naturally adopted more or less the religion of their masters or former owners. Thus it comes that, outside of Maryland and the Gulf Coast, in a large section of the South comprising former slave states and colonized by English Protestants, the negroes who claim affiliation to any Church are for the most part Baptists and Methodists. Catholics and the Catholic faith were entirely unknown to the negroes in those states. In colonial times the religion of Catholics and the religion of negroes were regarded with equal disfavor, the latter being considered non-Christian. Under the law of Virginia as it was in 1705, Catholics, Indians, and negro slaves were denied the right to appear "as witnesses in any case whatsoever, not being Christians". The negro Methodists comprise those who are in a manner affiliated to the white Methodists, as also those who form independent bodies having no connection with the white bodies. The three more important organizations of coloured Methodists are the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, and the Coloured Methodist Episcopal Church. These bodies claim together 869,710 members. With other African Methodists the total number of coloured Methodists is probably nearly 1,500,000, with 13,000 churches. The greater number of coloured Protestants are Baptists. After the manner of the Baptist sect, the Baptist congregations are independent of each other. However, according to statistics given for 1908, there are eighty-nine state organizations and six hundred district associations with 18,307 organized negro Baptist churches and 17,088 ordained preachers in the United States. The entire number of coloured Baptists is given as 2,330,535. The number of negroes adhering to other Protestant sects is comparatively insignificant. Taken together there are probably about 4,000,000 negroes who profess Protestantism in the United States. There are probably about 200,000 coloured Catholics, which leaves over 5,000,000 who profess no Christianity. Remembering that some of the Baptist sects do not baptize young children, we may conclude that there are over 6,000,000 negroes in the United States unbaptized. On the other hand, the vast majority of those who claim adherence to some Protestant denomination have no definite notions of Christian doctrine and have equally vague ideas about Christian morality. This state of things may be largely attributed to the lack of definite religious training in youth. The negroes of the West India Islands and of South America have for the most part the religion of the original conquerors and settlers of those regions, and the matter is treated under the respective proper titles. As before stated, the Catholic negroes of the United States lived chiefly in those Southern states originally settled in part by Catholics. Among these are Maryland and the states on the Gulf of Mexico, namely, Florida, Mississippi, and especially Louisiana, where the larger number dwell. The bishops of the Catholic Church in times past, made zealous endeavours to spread the elevating influence of the Catholic Faith among the coloured people of this country. The two later councils of Baltimore, in burning words, urge work among the coloured race. The Second Plenary Council implores priests "as far as they can to consecrate their thoughts, their time and themselves, wholly and entirely, if possible, to the service of the coloured people". The want of men and means has much hampered the work. At one time it was reported that many thousands had lost the Faith for want of priests to care for them. It is said that in one portion of Louisiana alone as many as 30,000 strayed away. But strenuous efforts are now being made to reclaim them. The supply of priests devoted to the interests and salvation of the negro race is recognized as a serious problem, as there seems to be hardly a sufficient number of vocations among white youth. Some time before his death, Pope Leo XIII issued a letter urging a native clergy. Pope Pius X has also encouraged missionary work among the negroes. It is almost impossible to obtain the exact number of Catholic negroes in the United States. While a great number live in coloured parishes and have their own churches, to the number of about sixty, many others are mingled among whites in widely separate parishes, where no report is ever made of the colour of the members. However, a conservative estimate gives 225,000 as the approximate number in the Continental United States. There are about ninety-five priests labouring exclusively among coloured people. Of these the Fathers of the Society of St. Joseph, about fifty in number, labour in twelve Southern dioceses and have their mother-house at Baltimore, Maryland. The remainder are twenty-eight diocesan priests in various dioceses and priests of the Society of African Missions, in the Diocese of Savannah; of the Society of the Divine Word, in the Dioceses of Natchez and Little Rock; of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost, in Pennsylvania and Virginia. There are five priests in the country who are coloured men. Some white sisterhoods are assisting the good work for the race, teaching 11,000 children in the parish and mission schools. Besides these, there are two communities of coloured sisters. One of these is the Oblate Sisters of Providence. The Sisters of the Holy Family, another order of coloured women, now has 116 sisters, who have charge of seventeen schools and asylums situated in the Archdiocese of New Orleans and in the Dioceses of Galveston and Little Rock. They also conduct a Government school with 295 pupils in British Honduras. A commission established by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore for the Catholic missions among the coloured people and Indians, consisting of three archbishops, distributes the funds collected for this purpose annually throughout the United States; and a special "Catholic Board for Mission Work among the Coloured People", incorporated by the hierarchy in 1907, fosters a missionary spirit among Catholics in favour of the coloured people and labours also to provide funds for this object. (See PRIESTS, CONFRATERNITIES OF: VI. The United States.) DOWD, The Negro Races (New York, 1907); JOHNSTON, The Negro in the New World (New York, 1910); CLARK, Cardinal Lavigerie and the African Slave Trade (London, 1889); BLYDEN, Christianity, Islam and the Negro Race (London, 1888); CLARKSON, On the Slave Trade (2 vols., London, 1808); Negroes in the United States, census reports (Government Printing Office, Washington, 1904); Schools for the Colored Race (United States Bureau of Education, Washington, 1911); JACKSON AND DAVIS, The Industrial History of the Negro Race (Richmond, 1908); BRUCE, The Plantation Negro as a Freeman (New York, 1889); WILSON, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America (3 vols., New York, 1883); TUCKERMAN, William Jay and the Abolition of Slavery (New York, 1893); WASHINGTON, Story of the Negro (2 vols., New York, 1909); IDEM, The Future of the American Negro (Boston, 1899); IDEM, The Negro in Business (Boston, 1907); ODUM, Social and Mental Traits of the Negro (New York, 1910); DURHAM, Star of Liberia (London, 1892); STILL, The Underground Railroad (Philadelphia, 1883); SIEBERT, The Underground Railroad (New York, 1898); GERVASIS, La Raza Negra (Valladolid, 1901); PRICE, De la rehabilitation de la race noire (Port au Prince, 1900); MERRIAM, The Negro and the Nation (New York, 1906); NOBLE, The Redemption of Africa (New York, 1899); BRACKETT, The Negro in Maryland (John Hopkins University, 1889); The Ku Klux Conspiracy. Reports of Trials in United States Courts (13 vols., Government Printing Office, 1872); LAVERMORE, Negroes as Slaves, Citizens and Soldiers (Boston, 1863); WILSON, The Black Phalanx (Hartford, 1892); Twenty-two Years' Work (Hampton Institute Press, 1893); The Southern Workman, Progress of a Race (Atlanta, 1898); BAKER, Following the Color Line (New York, 1908); DUBOIS, The Study of the Negro Problems (Atlanta University Press); IDEM, The Negro Church (Atlanta University Press); IDEM, Social and Physical Conditions of Negroes in Cities (Atlanta University Press, 1897); HOFFMAN, Race Traits of the American Negro (New York, 1896); ASHMAN, History of the American Colony in Liberia from 1821 to 1823 (Washington City, 1826); BARRINGER, The American Negro, His Past and Future (Raleigh, 1900); ARCHER, Through Afro-America, an English Reading of the Race Problem (New York, 1910); LEWIS, The Prosperity of the South Dependent upon the Elevation of the Negro (Richmond, 1900); THOMAS, The American Negro (New York, 1901); BRYCE, Impressions of South Africa (New York, 1897); CARMICHAEL, Domestic Manners and Social Conditions of the White, Colored and Negro Populations of the West Indies (London); CLOWES, Black America (London, 1891); ALEXANDER, History of the Colored Race in America (New Orleans, 1887); PULLEN, Ethiopia in Exile; Jamaica Revisited (London, 1905). JOSEPH BUTSCH Rachel Rachel Rachel ("a ewe"), daughter of Laban and younger sister of Lia. The journey of Jacob to the "east country" (Mesopotamia) in quest of a bride of his own kin, and his providential meeting with Rachel at the well in the open country followed by his introduction into the household of Laban are told with idyllic charm in the twenty-ninth chapter of Genesis. Jacob, being in love with Rachel, agreed to serve her father for her seven years. Laban accepted the proposal, and the seven years seemed to Jacob "but a few days, because of the greatness of his love". He was deceived, however, by Laban, who at the end of the term of service gave him to wife, not Rachel, who "was well favoured, and of a beautiful countenance", but her elder sister Lia, who was "blear-eyed", and Jacob received the younger daughter to wife only on condition of serving seven years more. Rachel, being for a time without offspring and envious of her sister, to whom four children were born, gave to Jacob as a secondary wife her handmaid Bala, whose issue, according to a custom of the times, would be reckoned as her own. From this union were born Dan and Nephtali. In the quarrel which arose between Jacob and Laban, Rachel as well as Lia sided with the former, and when departing from her father's home she carried away with her the teraphim or household gods, believing in their protecting influence over herself and her husband (Gen., xxxi, 19). Among the sons of Rachel after the "Lord remembered" her were Joseph and Benjamin, in giving birth to the latter of whom Rachel died. At the point of death "she called the name of her son Benomi, that is, The son of my pain: but his father called him Benjamin, that is, the Son of the right hand". Rachel was buried "in the highway that leadeth to Ephrata, this is Bethlehem. And Jacob erected a pillar over her sepulchre: this is the pillar of Rachel's monument, to this day" (Gen., xxxv, 18-20). The exact location of the grave of Rachel is a disputed point. A passage in Jeremias (xxxi, 15) would seem to indicate that it was on the northern border of Benjamin towards Ephraim, about ten miles north of Jerusalem. Tradition, however, has from at least the fourth century fixed the spot four miles south of Jerusalem and one mile north of Bethlehem. VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s. v.; VON HUMMELAUER, Comment. in Gen., ch. xxix-xxxv. JAMES.F. DRISCOLL Jean Racine Jean Racine Dramatist, b. a La Ferté-Milon, in the old Duchy of Valois, 20 Dec., 1639; d. in Paris, 21 April, 1699. Left an orphan at a very early age, his relatives sent him to the College of Beauvais, which was intimately connected with Port Royal, whither he went in 1655. Here, though only sixteen years of age, he made such progress that he not only read Greek at sight, but wrote odes both in Latin and in French. In 1658, he entered the Collège d'Harcourt. While boarding with his uncle, Nicolas Vitart, he formed too close an acquaintance with some theatrical people, and in order to guard him against temptation his relatives sent him to another uncle, the Abbé Sesvrin, at Uzès; but failing to obtain any position there, he returned to Paris in 1663, where he wrote two odes which made him known to the court. In 1664 his first play, "La Théba*de, ou les Frères ennemis", was performed. It was followed by "Alexandre", another drama equally insignificant. "Andromaque", in 1667, proved a great success, and was followed by his only comedy "Les Plaideurs" (1668). "Britannicus" followed in 1669, "Bérénice" (1670), "Bajazet" (1672), "Mithridate" (1673), "Iphigénie" (1674). After the failure of "Phèdre" in 1677, Racine abruptly severed his connection with the stage, partly because he was weary of unjust criticism and unfair rivalry, and partly from conscientious motives. He remained silent for twelve years, but in 1689, at the the request of Madame de Maintenon, he wrote "Esther", and "Athalie" in 1691. Racine's dramas were variously received. "Andromaque" achieved as great a success as "Le Cid", and deservedly. the author devoted his most delicate and refined art to the portrayal of the most tragic passion. No characters on the French stage are more interesting and attractive than "Hermione", the type of passionate love, and "Andromaque", of maternal. His comedy, "Les Plaideurs", inspired by the "Wasps" of Aristophanes, failed at first, but, being applauded by Louis XIV, it subsequently met with great favour. "Britannicus" was called by Voltaire la pièce des connoisseurs. "Bérénice" was written in competition with a play on the same subject by Corneille, which it far surpassed. His two tragedies on Oriental subjects, "Bajazet" and "Mithridate", do not breathe the Oriental spirit. "Iphigénie" is full of pathos. "Phèdre", which may dispute with "Andromache" and "Athalie" the title of Racine's masterpiece, was represented at the H?tel de Bourgogne, while the "Phèdre" of Pradon was performed by the king's actors. From the first Racine had been bitterly opposed by various cabals, whom his success and his sarcasm had irritated. His own "Phèdre" was a failure, while Pradon's triumphed. He now ceased all dramatic work, married, and became very pious, devoting himself entirely to domestic life and to his duties as royal historiographer. In the remaining twenty years of his life he wrote only two plays. Madame de Maintenon, who had established an institution at Saint-Cyr for the education of poor girls of noble family, asked Racine for a drama to be represented by her protégées. He wrote "Esther", which had an enormous success. Every critic admires in it the splendour of the chorus, the perfection of the characters, and the wonderful art of the play as a whole. The other was "Athalie", a drama of the same kind. As a dramatic writer, Racine is one of the leaders of the classical school. His dramatic art was a protest against the heroic and bombastic tragedies which, until that time, had been the fashion. We read in the preface to "Britannicus": "What can I do to satisfy my stern critics? It would be very easy to do so if I were willing to sacrifice common sense. I need only disregard nature and rush into the sensational." Corneille liked an action rather complicated, "full of incident, a large number of theatrical surprises, and high-flown speeches". Racine, to quote his own words, always chose "a simple action, not overladen, which, progressing steadily to the catastrophe, is sustained by the interest, the feelings, and the passions of the characters." Again, while in Corneille the characters are secondary to the action, in Racine the action is suited to the characters. Hence we do not find sensational situations in his tragedies, but rather a deep and complete study of the passions to which the human heart is prey and, above all, of love. Racine is the great painter of love, but love as he conceives it is always violent, impetuous, jealous, and sometimes criminal. The effect of his new method was to bring about a change in that of the French drama. Racine's style is simple and smooth, always pure, elegant, harmonious, and, nevertheless, when necessary, strong and bold. Racine was a sensitive, vain, and irritable man, with deeply religious feelings, and a keen, supple, and strong intellect. He displays in his work almost unique powers of psychological analysis, a wonderful delicacy of sentiment, and an exquisite sense of literary art. The standard text of his works is MESNARD (7 vols., Paris, 1865-73); tr. BOSWELL, in BOHNÕS Library (London, 1889-91); DE BURY, Racine and the French Classical Drama (London, 1845); TROLLOPE, Corneille and Racine in Foreign Classics Series (Edinburgh, 1881); BRUNETIèRE, Les Epoques du théâtre français (Paris, 1892); LARROUNERT, in Les grands écrivains français (Paris, 1898); STENDHAL, Racine et Shakespeare (Paris, 1882); SAINTE-BEUVE, Port Royal, VI, (4th ed., Paris, 1878); DE GROUCHY, Documents inédits relatifs ? Jean Racine (Paris, 1892); LEMAITRE, Impressions de théâtre, I, II, IV (Paris, 1888--); FIGUET, Dix-Septième Siècle. JEAN LEBARS Matthew Rader Matthew Rader Philologist and historian, born at Innichen in the Tyrol in 1561; died at Munich, 22 December, 1634. At the age of twenty he entered the Society of Jesus and subsequently taught the humanities for twenty-one years in different Jesuit institutions. He wrote several school dramas, but was particularly known among Catholics and non-Catholics for his scholarly attainments. In 1599 he published an improved and expurgated edition of Martial, and in 1628 one of Quintus Curtius. His edition of the Acts of the Eighth Xcumenical Council was incorporated by Labbe and Cossart in their collection of the Acts of councils; that of the works of St. John Climacus, published in 1614, was reprinted by Migne in his Greek patrology (LXXXVIII, 585 sqq.). More important than the publications just mentioned were his now very rare works: "Bavaria Sancta" (Munich, 7), and "Bavaria Pia" (Munich, 1628). Both were reprinted in 1704 at Dillingen and Augsburg, and the former was partly published in a German translation by Father Rassler at Straubing in 1840. N.A. WEBER Florens Radewyns Florens Radewyns Co-founder of the Brethren of the Common Life, b. at Leyderdam, near Utrecht, about 1350; d. at Deventer, 25 March, 1400. He passed a brilliant university course, took his M.A. degree at Prague. Returning home, he was installed canon of St. Peter's, Utrecht. For some little time he led a gay life, until converted by a sermon of Gerard Groote. Thereupon he resigned his canonry, placed himself unreservedly under Groote's direction, at his instance was ordained a priest, and accepted a poor benefice at Deventer, where Groote resided. There he powerfully seconded his friend's apostolate, especially among the poor clerical scholars of Deventer, and it was at his suggestion and in his house that the first community of the Brethren of the Common Life was formed. It was also from his house that the six brethren who established the Congregation of Windesheim went forth in 1386, and among them John, the elder brother of Thomas à Kempis. Thomas himself was under the immediate care and guidance of Radewyns from his thirteenth to his twenty-first year. He wrote a loving and edifying sketch of his master, wherein he describes Florens as a man learned in the Scriptures and all sacred science, exceedingly devout, humble, simple, zealous, charitable, and excessively mortified. His austerities enfeebled his health, possibly hastened his end. He was commonly regarded among the brethren as a saint. His skull, with that of Groote, is still preserved in the Catholic church (Broedern Kerk) of Deventer. Of his correspondence we have only one letter, preserved by us by à Kempis, who also gives us a collection of his notable sayings. VINCENT SCULLY Joseph Maria von Radowitz Joseph Maria von Radowitz Born at Blankenburg, 6 February, 1797; died at Berlin, 25 December, 1853. Radowitz was of Hungarian descent, though his family had lived in Germany since 1745. In his youth he fought with the French in the War of Liberation, but had no feeling against the German cause. While an army officer in the service of the Elector of Hesse (1815-23) he gained an extensive knowledge of modern languages and history, and laid the foundation of his religious and political convictions. As the child of a mixed marriage he had lived in purely Protestant surroundings, but in time he grasped the historic fact of the Incarnation of God, the founding of the Church by Christ, and the superiority of the truth of Christian dogma and the Catholic view of life over all philosophy, thus becoming a strong Catholic. Repelled in politics by Liberalism, which he considered superficial, he studied Burke and Haller, adopted the theories of the latter, and became an opponent of Absolutism in every form. His preference was for constitutional government by the Estates, but he considered a representative constitution unavoidable at that time, In 1823 Radowitz entered the Prussian army, and from this time served Prussia with enthusiasm. The king took a kindly interest in him, the crown prince was his friend, and by his marriage with Countess Voss, a Protestant, he came into connexion with the higher aristocracy. His efforts to improve Prussian military training and artillery were rewarded by repeated promotion, but on account of his birth and faith he met with opposition among the bureaucracy and army officers. In 1831 he combined with the "Christian-German" followers of Haller in issuing at Berlin the "Politisches Wochenblatt" (see JARCKE) and wrote largely for the publication. For this transgression of military traditions the king removed him from Berlin in 1835. Until 1848 he was Prussian military attaché at the German Diet at Frankfort, and from 1842 also Prussian ambassador at the Courts of Karlsruhe, Stuttgart, and Darmstadt. He had nothing to do with the dispute between the government and Prussian Catholics in 1837. After Frederick William IV ascended the throne in 1840 Radowitz was frequently called to Berlin to give advice and was also sent on missions to other countries. Notwithstanding the secret opposition of Austria and the open opposition of the States of central Germany, his duties as military attaché led him to examine the constitution of the German confederation, the immediate reform of which he declared to be a necessity if Germany were to be preserved from a revolution. He soon felt himself called to become the reformer of the Confederation, and, in view of the difficulties in the way, advocated the stimulation of the German people by a war whenever the opportunity offered itself (e. g. in 1840, during the strained relations between France and Germany, and in 1846, when the Schleswig-Holstein question became acute); victory was to be utilized to strengthen the German position among the European Powers and to develop Germany internally. He desired to make Germany, including Austria, a unit and to enlarge it by the addition of Switzerland and the Netherlands. He wished Prussia to take the lead in the reorganization of internal affairs, as he had discovered at Frankfort that Austria's interests lay in eastern and southern Europe, and could not be depended on for German interests. To attain these internal reforms by peaceful means, he considered it necessary to place military matters and legislation under the control of the Confederation; a strong central power could then be formed as need required. To accomplish his desires he advised the king to attain the unity which the "public opinion" of the German people demanded by introducing a constitutional form of government, in which the parliament should be less powerful than the crown and independent of the bourgeoisie and capitalists. He proposed social legislation to win the workmen for the government, but on account of the weak character of Frederick William IV, these plans were not carried out. While in Baden Radowitz watched the approach of the revolution. In 1846 he wrote the "Gespräche über Staat und Kirche", setting forth in the form of a dialogue all the antitheses in the German life of his time and pointing out in a clear, simple manner what he would have done to improve conditions. In a memorial presented in November, 1847, he urged the king to take up at last the reform of the Confederation, as Germany had been carried into the revolutionary movement. He was sent on this business to Vienna and Paris, but before he was able to accomplish anything Metternich was overthrown in March, 1848, and Frederick William IV, after granting a parliamentary constitution, called a Liberal ministry. Radowitz withdrew from public affairs, but without any effort on his own part was elected member of the preliminary Parliament of Frankfort, where he brilliantly represented more as orator than as leader the Christian and conservative principles. Though the majority of Catholics were adherents of the Liberal party and opposed to forming a confederation under the leadership of Prussia, Radowitz worked both to attain this end, and to prevent the whole national movement from failing. He was willing that Austria should merely be connected with the German states in a "new confederation", thus he was among those who elected Frederick William IV as German Emperor, March, 1849, though the king had declined the election. In April Radowitz was called to Berlin and by his advice the king invited all the German governments except Austria to carry out the principles of the constitution agreed upon at Frankfort in a freer confederation called the "Union", all revolutionary elements being suppressed. To Austria he offered to exchange guarantees of their possessions. Fear of Prussia led most of the German governments to accept this proposition, to which the moderate Liberals also agreed. Radowitz, however, was not made minister, and the Conservative party was rapidly growing in strength in Prussia. They opposed him because he was willing in the plan of the Confederation to concede an assembly that would represent the people. At too late an hour (26 September, 1850) the king appointed Radowitz minister of foreign affairs. Austria had gained time to plan its measures, and Radowitz wished to settle the matter by war. Austria and Prussia mobilized their armies, but Frederick William gave up the idea of war. Radowitz retired from his post on 2 November, and went to London as extraordinary ambassador but could gain no diplomatic success on account of the weakness Prussia had shown. In the spring of 1851 he retired into private life. In 1852 the king prevailed upon him to come again to Berlin, where, however, he performed only military duties. He was an active author all his life. At the close of his twentieth year he had written an "Ikonographie", and later he published numerous pamphlets. The pamphlet issued, April, 1848, on "Deutschland und Friedrich Wilhelm IV" attracted much attention. The "Gespräche" was followed during the fifties by five volumes of collected writings. The first volume of his comprehensive biography, published by Hassel in 1905, gives the remainder of his literary works up to May, 1848. The second volume, which is being prepared by Meinecke, is expected to give a detailed explanation of much that is not clear in the Prussian-German policy of 1848-50. His son has had a brilliant diplomatic career. He came especially into notice in 1885 when threatenings of war disturbed European diplomacy, and lately when he was the representative of Germany at the conference at Algeciras. FRENSDORFF, Joseph von Radowitz (Leipzig, 1850); Chilianeum, VII (Würzburg, 1865), 463 sqq.; Allgem. deutsche Biog., XXVII, 141 sqq. MARTIN SPAHN. Radulph of Rivo Radulph of Rivo (or OF TONGRES; RADULPH VAN DER BEEKE) An historian and liturgist, born at Breda, in Dutch Brabant, about the middle of the fourteenth century; died at Tongres, 3 Nov., 1403. He pursued his studies in various parts of Europe -- in Italy, where he was in 1362, at Paris, and at Orléans (1367-75), where he studied canon and civil law. In 1371 at the latest he was subdeacon. Invested in 1371 with the deanery of Tongres by a Bull of Gregory IX, he took possession of his charge in 1383. In the interval he returned to Italy; in 1381 he was still at Rome, where he had as master Simon of Constantinople, Archbishop of Thebes, who taught him Greek. After 1390 he was replaced at Tongres by a vice-dean. During this time he had matriculated at the new University of Cologne (founded in 1388), where for a time he was rector (1397). He made his last journey to Rome somewhat prior to that date. In 1398 he returned to Tongres, where he resumed his duties as dean. Here he occupied himself, as during his first stay, with firm and enlightened zeal in the maintenance of discipline during the period disturbed by the beginning of the Great Schism of the West. He exerted himself especially for the reform of the liturgy. He was the friend, protector, and guide of the new institutions of Windersheim and Corsendonck. Several of his works date from this period, while his liturgical writings were chiefly composed during his second stay at Rome. He was buried in the cloisters of the church of Ste-Marie at Tongres. Radulph wrote a great deal. Besides some works on grammar, mention must be made of his chronicle of the bishops of Liège published by Chapeaville (3 vols., Liège, 1612-16) and his liturgical works. The last-named are the most important and the best of his writings, especially for the history of the Breviary and the Mass. Here he displays a great spirit of piety, showing at the same time much critical ability, learning, and wide reading. He is decidedly in favour of maintaining ancient Roman liturgical customs and rejects recent modifications. Among his writings (many still unedited) especially notable are: "Liber de canonum observantia" (ed. Hilthorp, Cologne, 1508, and in "Maxima Patrum Bibliotheca", Lyons, vol. XXVI, 289); "Calendarius ecclesiasticus Generalis" (Louvain, 1508); "De psalterio observando" and "Liber de Officiis ecclesiasticis", the last two unpublished. BALAU, Sources de l'histoire de Liège (Brussels, 1903); BATIFFOL, Histoire du Bréviaire (Paris, 1911); FOPPENS, Bibliotheca belgica (Brussels, 1739); MOHLBERG, Radulph de Rivo (Louvain, 1911). J. DE GHELLINCK. Pierre Raffeix Pierre Raffeix Missionary, born at Clermont, 1633; died at Quebec, 1724. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1653, and came to Canada in 1663. In 1668 he established near Montreal a settlement for converted Iroquois (now Caughnawaga). In 1671 he replaced Father Carheil in the Cayuga mission, and afterwards went to the Senecas until 1680, receiving an amble share of the hardships and dangers inseparable from the Iroquois mission. Raffeix was a learned cartographer, as the following maps still preserved in Paris bear witness: (a) "Carte des regions les plus occidentales du Canada", dated 1676, and bearing a legend relating to the voyage of discovery of Marquette and Joliet; (b) "Le lac Ontario avec les pays adjacents et surtout les cinq nations iroquoises"; (c) "La Nouvelle-France, de l'Océan au lac Erié, et, au sud, jusqu'à la Nouvelle-Angleterre". After his return to Quebec he acted as procurator to the mission. He spent two years at Jeune-Lorette (1699-1700), shortly after the final migration of the remnants of the Huron nation. LIONEL LINDSAY Paul Ragueneau Paul Ragueneau Jesuit missionary, b. in Paris, 18 March, 1608; d. 8 Sept., 1680. He entered the Society in 1626. In 1636 he went to Quebec and was soon sent to the Hurons with Le Moyne, Depron, Jogues, and Garnier, to labour under Brébeuf during the long and painful period preceding the conversion of that nation. He was one of the heroic band who, in 1637, being exposed to death at every moment, signed and sent to their superior as their last will a joint act of resignation to martyrdom. In 1645 Ragueneau was superior of the Huron mission which counted eighteen workers. He possessed a perfect mastery of the language. The death of the martyr Jogues was the signal for many conversions, and Ragueneau writes with admiration of the fervour of his neophytes. Five of his fellow missionaries won the martyr's crown in different posts under Ragueneau's direction, the first being Father Daniel (4 July, 1648). He remained at his post on St. Mary's on the Wye until persuaded by the Huron captains to join the fugitives on St. Joseph's island (1649). The notable increase in the number of conversions (3000 Indians being baptized in 1649) rewarded his zeal. After a bloody defeat, followed by the massacres of Father Chabanel and Garnier, Ragueneau, yielding to the entreaties of the few whom famine, pestilence, and the fury of the Iroquois had spared, led the small band of 400 survivors, the remnants of a nation of ten thousand, to their final refuge, Quebec, after a long and perilous journey. In 1650 he became vice rector of the College of Quebec and superior of the Canadian mission. It was during this time that he directed in the ways of holiness a highly privileged soul, Sister Catherine of St-Augustine, whose life he wrote. His influence in the supreme council and with Governor de Lauzon was the occasion of his removal to Three Rivers (1656). The year following he was sent as superior to the Iroquois mission. On his way to Onondaga he witnessed the butchery of his Huron companions, for which he reproved the murderers, the Senecas and Onondagas, at the peril of his own life. Informed of the impending massacre of all the French in the Iroquois country, Ragueneau's genius planned and realized their escape and return to Quebec (1658). He returned to France (1662) with Bishop Laval, and remained there as procurator of the missions. Besides a life of Sister Catherine of St-Augustine (Paris, 1671), Ragueneau wrote "Relations" of 1648-9, 1649-50, 1650-1, and 1651-2. No other Jesuit in Canada wrote so much as he. On one of his missions he saw and mentioned Niagara Falls thirty-five years before Hennepin, the alleged discoverer, described the cataract. ROCHEMONTIEUX, Les Jésuites et la Nouvelle-France (Paris, 1896); CAMPBELL, Pioneer Priests of North America (new York, 1908); PARKMAN, The Jesuits of North America (Toronto, 1899); THWAITES, Jesuit Relations (Cleveland, 1896-1901). LIONEL LINDSEY Ragusa Ragusa DIOCESE OF RAGUSA (EPIDAURUS; RAGUSINA). A bishopric in Dalmatia, suffragan of Zara. The episcopate of its first bishop Fabricanus was followed by a long series of bishops. For more than a thousand years Ragusa was an independent republic and consequently had archbishops. The first archbishop was Joannes II (d. 970). After the dissolution of the republic (1806) the see was vacant for a long time, until in 1830 Ragusa was once more the see of a bishop. At the present day the diocese has a Catholic population of 73,000, with 115 secular priests; religious orders of men, 93 members in 19 houses; religious orders of women, 51 members. DOLCI, De Ragusini episcopatus antiquitate. Accedit eiusdem ecclesiæ antistitum series chronologica (Ancona, 1761); FARLATI, Illyricum sacrum (Venice, 1751-1819); COLETI, tom. VI, 1-285; THEINER, Vetera monumenta historica, II (Rome, 1839). C. WOLFSGRUBER Johann Michael Raich Johann Michael Raich Catholic theologian, born at Ottobeuren in Bavaria, 17 January, 1832; died at Mainz, 28 March, 1907. Raich pursued his gymnasial studies under the Benedictines at St. Stephen's at Augsburg, and studied philosophy and theology at the Collegium Germanicum at Rome (1852-5). On 29 May, 1858, he was ordained priest at the same place. In the autumn of 1859 he left Rome and went to Mainz as secretary of Bishop von Ketteler. He accompanied the bishop on journeys and thus was at Rome during the Vatican Council. He was also a cathedral prebend from 4 May, 1867. After the death of Bishop von Ketteler, during the years of the Kulturkampf, Raich had a position in the episcopal Chancery. On 29 November, 1890, Bishop Haffner appointed him cathedral canon, and on 11 April, 1900, he became cathedral dean. Raich did much notable literary work. Among his writings are: "Die Auflehnung Döllingers gegen die Kirche u. ihre Autotät" (Mainz, 1871); "Ueber das Alter der Erstcommunicanten" (Mainz, 1875); "Shakespeare's Stellung zur katholischen Religion" (Mainz, 1884); "Die innere Unwahrheit der Freimaurerei" (first issued at Mainz, 1884, under the pseudonym of Otto Beuren; 2nd ed. under his own name Raich, 1897); "St. Augustinus u. der Mosaische Schöpfungsbericht" (Frankfort-on-Main, 1889). Besides these original works he edited the following: Liebermann's "Institutiones theologicæ" (10th ed., 2 vols., Mainz, 1870); "Joannis Maldonati Commentarii in quatuor Evangelistas" (new ed., 2 vols., Mainz, 1874); "Predigten des Bischofs von Ketteler" (2 vols., Mainz, 1878); "Briefe von u. an Wilhelm Emmanuel Freiherrn von Ketteler, Bischof von Mainz" (Mainz, 1879); "Hirtenbriefe von Wilhelm Emmanuel Freiherrn von Ketteler, Bischof von Mainz" (Mainz, 1904); "Novalis' Briefwechsel mit Schlegel" (Mainz, 1880); "Dorothes von Schlegel geb. Mendelssohn und deren Söhne Johannes und Phillip Viet, Briefwechsel" (w vols., Mainz, 1881); J.B. Rady's "Geschichte der katholischen Kirche in Hessen" (Mainz, 1904). After the death of Heinrich and Moufang, Raich was editor of "Der Katholik" from 1891 to 1907. From 1887 he also revised the "Frankfurter zeitgemässen Broschüren". FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT Marcantonio Raimondi Marcantonio Raimondi Engraver, b. at Bologna, 1475 (1480?); d. there, 1530 (1534?). He studied under the goldsmith and niellist Francia, and later often signed his work M-A. F., F referring to his teacher. His earliest plate (1505), "Pyramus and Thisbe", shows a goldsmith-like shading. His first artistic stimulation came from seeing plates by Durer, some of which he copied (1506) with such perfection that they sold as originals. When rebuked by the Venetian Senate on Durer's complaint, the young man subsequently added his own to Durer's initials. From Lucas of Leyden Raimondi also learned much; his burin gained in mellowness from engraving Perazzo's work. Rapidly assimilating and always simplifying, Marcantonio's "Mars and Cupid" (1508) finds him master of technic and finished in style. About this time Raimondi left for Rome, stopping at Florence to sketch Michelangelo's (lost) cartoon "The Climbers", which he afterwards engraved in Rome (1510). Seeing a proof of this Raphael exclaimed: "It is the finest I have ever seen and the finest that can be seen!" The two artists became friends and Raimondi's next work was Raphael's "The Death of Lucretia". This and later plates show the darks becoming less dramatic and the burin work more "open". Raphael left much to Raimondi, never giving him a finished picture but a pencil or pen outline-drawing, knowing that the proper treatment and elaboration would come from his engraver; and hence there is often a marked discrepancy between an oil by Raphael and Raimondi's engraving thereof. Marcantonio's triumphs in Rome equalled those of Raphael; Durer wrote for proofs from his hand, and German engravers flocked to Rome to study under him. Romano and Aretino subsequently induced him to engrave obscene or suggestive plates, for which he was imprisoned by Pope Clement, who, however, freed him several months later at the solicitation of Cardinal de Medici. In 1527, at the sack of Rome, he is said to have escaped, leaving a fortune and his plates in the victors' hands. Some authorities record that he died four years before this, heartbroken at the death of Raphael. Raimondi opened up a new province of the burin -- reproduction; he inspired the largest following that ever an engraver had, and he drew as well as da Vinci or Raphael. "His sentiment was noble, his taste pure" (Delaborde); his style, simple and sober, his modelling of figures beautiful, and he was the first engraver who omitted details. Of texture, tone, and local colour of modern engravers he had not a trace. Raimondi engraved about six hundred plates. His best are: "Adam and Eve" (probably the finest); "Virgin with the Bare Arm"; "Massacre of the Innocents"; "The Plague"; "The Judgment of Paris" (with a trace of goldsmith-like shading). HIND, A Short History of Engraving and Etching (New York, 1908); DELABORDE, La Gravure (Paris, s.d.); LIPPMAN, Engraving and Etching (3rd ed., New York, 1910). LEIGH HUNT Rainald of Dassel Rainald of Dassel Born probably not before 1115; died in Italy, 14 August, 1167. A younger son of a rich Saxon count, Rainald I, and destined as such to be an ecclesiastic, he was sent to the cathedral school at Hildesheim. At a later date he probably went to Paris. As early as 1130 he is said to have had a high reputation for classical learning, and to have been a member of the cathedral chapter of Hildesheim. According to documentary evidence he was provost in 1148, and in 1154 received the provostship of Petersberg at Goslar and of St. Moritz at Hildesheim. Soon after 1154 he was also provost of the cathedral chapter at Munster but declined the See of Hildesheim. As a member of the embassy sent by Frederick I in 1153 to Eugenius III at Rome he first revealed his political ability, and in 1156 the emperor appointed him chancellor of the empire. The Diet of Besancon (October, 1157) left no doubt as to the drift of his policy. He inaugurated a German policy which insisted upon the rights and the power of the German kings, the strengthening of the Church in the German Empire, the lordship of Italy, and the humiliation of the papacy. Full of life, at times rough and blunt and again careful and calculating, Rainald, who, in spite of his ecclesiastical dignities, knew how to wield the sword, henceforth influenced the policy of his imperial masters. Though he did not wish to separate Germany entirely from Rome and still held the medieval respect for the Church, his temperament carried Barbarossa much further than the latter desired, or then was advantageous under the circumstances. When Frederick finally submitted, it was Rainald who prevented him from making concessions which might have proved of advantage. The struggle with the curia began at the Diet of Besancon, where Rainald vigorously rejected the use of the word beneficium, which might mean fief as well as benefit. In the expression used, that the pope would have been glad to grant the emperor even greater beneficia (or benefits), it was thought that the old desire of the curia for the mastery of the world was to be found. In 1158 Rainald undertook a diplomatic journey into Italy to prepare the way for the emperor. In 1159 he was appointed Archbishop of Cologne, and during the schism between Alexander III and Victor IV supported the imperial pope. In 1160 he was the ambassador of the emperor to the courts of the French and English kings, whom he endeavoured to win to the side of the antipope, but he did not succeed. In 1161 he joined the emperor before Milan and influenced him to consent to the destruction of the city. Rainald was also employed in diplomatic negotiations with Genoa, Pisa, and Louis VII; these, however, failed. In 1163 Alexander III excommunicated Rainald, who had loudly proclaimed in these negotiations the right of the emperor to dispose of the papal see. Basing his action on the Roncalian decrees, Rainald was once more successfully employed in Italy in the affairs of the emperor. When Victor IV died, Rainald, of his own volition and without waiting for the consent of the emperor, elected at Lucca a new antipope, Paschal III. Frederick would hardly have continued the schism. Rainald knew this and therefore wished to force the emperor to continue the struggle for imperial supremacy. In 1164 he was again in Germany, and brought the bones of the Three Kings with him. In the meantime the number of the adherents of the lawful pope increased in Germany. Finally only Rainald supported the antipope. Rainald won the consent of the King of England to common ecclesiastico-political action in behalf of Paschal and once more took up arms in defence of his one ambition, which he hoped the proposed canonization of Chgarlemagne at Aachen in 1165 would advance. In 1166 he was again in Italy, actively engaged in preparing the way for the emperor. While there with a few mounted soldiers he defended himself in Tusculum against a much larger force of Roman troops. His death was caused by the pest; he was buried in the Lady Chapel of the cathedral at Cologne. FICKER, Rainald von Dassel, Reichskanzler u. Erzbishof of von Koln (Cologne, 1850); HAMPE, Deutsche Kaisergeschichte in der Zeit der Salier u. Staufer (Leipzig, 1900); HAUCK, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, pt. iv (Leipzig, 1903). F. KAMPERS Rajpootana Rajpootana Prefecture Apostolic in India, attached to the Province of Agra, comprises approximately the collection of Native States which form the Rajpootana Agency. To the north it is bounded by the Bahawalpur State and the Punjab; on the east it extends to Abahari, Pipli, Rania, Sirsa, Hissar, Rewari, the Native States of Alwar, Bharatpur, Dholpur, and as far as Sipri (which however belongs to Agra), then to Lallitpur and Bina; on the south it reaches to the limits of the Bhopal State and the River Nerbudda; on the west to the borders of the Bombay Presidency -- excepting Mount Abu and Abu Road station, which belong to the Archdiocese of Bombay. Out of a total population of 10,800,00 the Catholics number about 3846 (Europeans 656, Eurasians 609, natives 2581) who have 9 churches and 8 chapels served by 29 Capuchin Fathers of the Province of Paris, assisted by 10 lay brothers of the same order. The residence of the Prefect Apostolic is at Ajmere. HISTORY Originally a portion of the Vicariate Apostolic of the Great Mogul, and later on of the Thibet-Hindustan mission, Rajpootana had no ecclesiastical history down to the year 1891, when it was separated from the Archdiocese of Agra, and made into a prefecture apostolic. At this date the district had only one mission station, Jaipur. Besides this, a priest was residing at Ajmere in charge of a small community of Eurasians and Goanese, and there were also stations for troops at Nasirabad, Neemuch, and Mhow, served by three military chaplains. Since the coming of the French Capuchins other stations have been established at Ratlam, Thandla, Mariapur, Jhabua, Jhalrapatan, Parbatpura, and Bhawanikhera, besides sub-stations visited from time to time. There have been two prefects apostolic:-- Father Bertram, 1892-1902, and Father Fortunatus, present prefect Apostolic from 1903. INSTITUTIONS The Third Order of St. Francis of Assisi, with 35 members, besides various confraternities numbering 347 members. For education of boys: St. Anselm's School, Ajmere, with 37 boarders and 17 day scholars; St. Joseph's School, Jaipur, for training teachers and catechists, with 25 native orphans; School of the Sacred Heart, Mhow, with 35 boarders and 8 day scholars; besides 25 elementary schools attended by native boys from the villages. For education of girls: under the Franciscan Nuns of St. Mary of the Angels -- Convent of the Assumption, Mhow, 15 nuns and 4 lay sisters, convent high school with 21 boarders and 47 day scholars, St. Joseph's School with 12 boarders, St. Anne's School with 37 native pupils, of whom 10 are orphans; Convent of St. Mary Magdalen, Ajmere, with 10 nuns and 4 lay sisters, convent high school with 34 boarders and 105 day scholars. Charitable institutions: besides those attached to the foregoing, there are agricultural orphanages at Mariapur with 72 inmates, and at Thandla with 29 Bhil orphans; St. Joseph's convent, Thandla, for Bhil girls; surgical home at Indore attended by 4 nuns;-- also dispensaries in seven places. Madras Catholic Directory, 1910; FORTUNAT, Au Pays des Rajas (Paris, 1906). ERNEST R. HULL Sebastian Rale (Rasle) Sebastian Râle (Rasle) Missionary, martyr, b. at Pontarlier, Diocese of Besançoison, 20 Jan., 1654 (?); shot by the English force attacking Norridgewock Mission, Maine, 23 August, 1724. He entered the Jesuit novitiate at Dole, province of Lyons, in 1675. He made his first studies at Carpentras, taught for a time at Nîmes, finished his theology at Lyons in 1688, volunteered for the missions in America, and sailed the next year with with a party under Frontenac from Rochelle. His first missionary work was at an Abenaki village near Quebec, whence he was recalled to Quebec in 1691. Next he laboured for two years among the Illinois Indians. In 1694 he went to the Abenaki mission on the Kennebec. The colonists of New England regarded with suspicion and hatred the arrival of a Frenchman in the midst of savages who were for the most part hostile to the English. The latter presumed that the missionary would do his best to keep alive this hostility. Hence the Indian outrages perpetrated on the eastern frontier of New England during Râle's long residence amongst the Abenakis were for the most part attributed, either directly or indirectly, to him. Râle made his headquarters at Norridgewock, where in 1698 he built a church. During Queen Anne's War, frequent attacks were made by the English upon Norridgewock, and in 1705 the church was burned. Râle and his converts escaped capture by flight. The treaty of Utrecht, 1713, established relatively peaceful conditions for a short time. A conference was held by the English and the Indians at Portsmouth, of which we have two conflicting reports. According to Penhallow (Indian Wars) the Indians acknowledged themselves subjects of Greta Britain, who in return promised them free possession of their lands about the Kennebec. Râle denied, however, that the Indians promised subjection to England. His source of information was the verbal report of the Abenakis, who, if they made any promises, carefully concealed them from the missionary. It is most likely, however, that the Indians had no idea of what a promise of subjection to England meant. This is Parkman's opinion (Half-Century of Conflict, I, 212-13). Ere long the English encroachments upon Indian lands again stirred up the Abenakis. As a result, hostilities broke out in September, 1721. In the following January an English expedition started for Norridgewock with the purpose of apprehending Fr. Râle. The missionary escaped, however, and soon returned to his mission. In August, 1724, another English expedition set out to capture him. The attacking party came upon Norridgewock unexpectedly; the Indians were routed and fled, leaving behind them many wounded and dead, among the latter their beloved missionary. Râle's long residence with his flock, over a quarter of a century, gave him an intimate knowledge of their tongue. As evidence of this, he prepared a dictionary of the Abenaki language, the manuscript copy of which is preserved in the library of Harvard College. Some Indian prayers, and a catechism, still in use among the Penobscots and Passamaquodies, are attributed to him. In "The Jesuit Relations", LXVII, are two lengthy letters written by him from Norridgewock. Records of the Am. Cath. Hist. Soc., XVIII (Philadelphia, 1790, art. A Typical Missionary: The Jesuit Relations (1716-27); PARKMAN, A Half-Century of Conflict (Boston, 1902); COVERS, Life of Rev. Sebastian Rale in Library of American Biography, 2nd ser. VII, Boston, 1845); BAXTER, The Pioneers of New France in New England (Albany, 1894); CHARLEVOIX, Hist. of New France II, tr. SHEA (New York, 1866-72); PENHALLOW (ed. DODGE), Hist. of Wars in New England with the Eastern Indians (Cincinnati, 1859); Collections of the Mass. Hist. Soc., passim, especially 2nd ser., VIII; 3rd ser. VI; 4th ser. V; 5th ser., V, VI, VII; 6th ser., I, II; Coll. of the Maine Hist. Soc., 1st and 2nd series; Coll of the N. H. Hist. Soc, I, II; PLUMER, MSS. Biographies of Persons Connected with the Hist. of New Hampshire, II (N. H. Hist. Soc.); Collection de Manuscrits relatifs à la Nouvelle France, II, III (Quebec, 1883-85); ROCHEMONTIEX, Les Jésuites et la Nouvelle France, III (Paris, 1895). H.C. SCHUYLER Ven. Ralph Crockett Ven. Ralph Crockett English martyr, b. at Barton, near Farndon, Cheshire; executed at Chichester, 1 October, 1588. Educated at Cambridge, and ordained at Reims in 1585, he was captured on board ship at Littlehampton, Sussex, 19 April, 1856, with three other priests, Thomas Bramston, George Potter, and his fellow martyr, Edward James (b. at Breaston, Derbyshire, about 1557), educated at Derby Grammar School, St. John's College, Oxford, and the English colleges at Reims and Rome; ordained by Bishop Goldwell of St. Asaph in October, 1583; all were sent up to London and committed to prison 27 April, 1586. After the failure of the Armada the Government determined to revenge itself on some of the priests in its custody. Crockett and James with two others, John Oven and Francis Edwardes, were selected for trial, which took place at Chichester on 30 September, 1588. All were condemned to death, under 27 Eliz. c. 2, for being priests and coming into the realm; but Oven on taking the oath of supremacy was respited. The other three were drawn on one hurdle to Broyle Heath, near Chichester, where Edwardes recanted, but the other two suffered with great constancy after absolving each other. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Bl. Ralph Sherwin Bl. Ralph Sherwin English martyr, born 1550 at Rodesley, near Longford, Derbyshire; died at Tyburn, 1 December, 1581. In 1568 Sir William Petre nominated him to one of the eight fellowships which he had founded at Exeter College, Oxford, probably acting under the influence of the martyr's uncle, John Woodward, who from 1556 to 1566 had been rector of Ingatestone, Essex, where Sir William lived. There Blessed Ralph took the degree of M.A., 2 July, 1574, and was accounted "an acute philosopher, and an excellent Grecian and Hebrician". In 1575 he fled abroad and went to the English College at Douai, where 23 March, 1577, he was ordained priest by the Bishop of Cambrai. On 2 August, 1577, he left for Rome, where he stayed at the English College nearly three years, becoming leader of the movement, which placed it under the supervision of the Jesuits. On 18 April, 1580, he set out for England, a member of a party of fourteen; at Milan they were guests of St. Charles for eight days, and Blessed Ralph preached before him. On 9 November, 1580, he was imprisoned in the Marshalsea, where he converted many fellow prisoners, and on 4 December was transferred to the Tower, where he was severely racked, 15 December, and afterwards laid out in the snow. The next day he was racked again, after which second torture he "lay for five days and nights without any food or speaking to anybody. All which time he lay, as he thought in a sleep, before our Saviour on the Cross. After which time he came to himself, not finding any distemper in his joints by the extremity of the torture." After a year's imprisonment he was brought to trial, on an absurd charge of treasonable conspiracy, in Westminster Hall 20 November, 1581, and being found guilty was taken back to the Tower, whence he was drawn to Tyburn on a hurdle shared by Blessed Alexander Briant. He suffered very bravely, his last words being, Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus! JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Pierre Francois Xavier de Ram Pierre François Xavier de Ram Born at Louvain 2 Sept., 1804; died there 14 May, 1865; Belgian historian and rector of the Catholic University of Louvain. He belonged to an ancient family, originally from the Province of Zealand. De Ram entered the seminary at Mechlin, where he was ordained in 1827. During the trying period when King William I of the Netherlands was carrying on his campaign against the Catholic faith and traditions of the Belgians, and whilst de Ram was still young, he took an active part in the struggle maintained by the Belgian clergy against the government of the Netherlands, republishing eighteenth-century works, in which, in a series of historical studies refuting the doctrines of Joseph II, he combated the latter's disciple, King William I. He was next appointed keeper of the diocesan records and professor in the episcopal seminary at Mechlin. In order to stay the spread of Protestantism in the Netherlands he collaborated with a movement for the publishing of religious works, bringing out "Levens von de voornaemste Heyligen en roemweerdige peersonen der Nederlanden" (Lives of the most prominent saints and celebrities of the Netherlands). His chief study for many years was hagiography, and he published an edition of Butler's "Lives of the Saints" (Louvain, 1828-35). Between 1828 and 1858 appeared the "Synodicon Belgicum", a collection of unpublished documents upon the ecclesiastical history of the Netherlands since Philip II (Louvain, 4 vols., in quarto). These books met with a warm appreciation and showed remarkable ability. His position as keeper of the records facilitated his researches to a great extent. Then came the Belgian Revolution of 1830. Nothing need be said of the political and philosophical opinions of de Ram, as they are but secondary features of his career. He is best known as a prolific writer upon history and the restorer and first rector of the Catholic University of Louvain. He showed a remarkable talent for organization and administration during his tenure of office. He still continued his historical researches, and the history of the university was treated by him in numerous monographs. For this purpose he had at his disposal the material in the National Archives at Brussels. Upon the reorganization of the Bollandists, de Ram ceased his work upon hagiography, but still continued to produce works upon ecclesiastical and University history. De Ram was an active member of the "Académie Royale de Belgique" and a foreign associate of the Bavarian Academy. The complete list of his works given in the "Bibliographie de l'Universite' Catholique de Louvain" (Louvain, 1880) comprises 205 volumes. Many of these are of considerable length, and the majority contain hitherto unpublished papers of great value. Among the many tributes paid to the historian, that of Gachard, the renowned keeper of the national records, is remarkable for its sincerity and warmth. No complete biography of de Ram has as yet appeared, although such, considering his influential position and important work, would awaken no inconsiderable interest. Review Cath., XXII (Louvain, 1865), 317-30; DE BUCK, Mgr de Ram (Paris, 1865); THORRISSEN in Annuaire de l'Académie royale de Belgique (Brussels, 1866); NAMECHE in Annuaire de l'Université de Louvain (Louvain, 1866). VICTOR BRANTS Ramatha Ramatha A titular see in Palestine, suppressed in 1884 by the Roman Curia. It was never an episcopal see properly so called, but, in the Middle Ages, the crusaders established the Diocese of Lydda and Rama, the titular of which was generally called Bishop of Rama, i.e. of Ramlet, a town near Lydda, but more populous than the latter. Later this was forgotten and there was a titular see of Lydda, as well as of Rama or Ramatha; the mistake has been discovered and rectified (see Lydda). S. VAILHÉ The Rambler The Rambler A Catholic periodical (not of course to be confused with the older "Rambler", published a century earlier by the famous Dr. Johnson), has an importance in the history of English Catholicism during the nineteenth century which is not to be measured by its mere duration as a journal. Closely associated with the names of Sir John (afterwards Lord) Acton (q.v.), Richard Simpson and, for a brief period, Newman himself, it represented a phase of convert thought which was in opposition to the extreme ultramontanism of W.G. Ward and Manning, and which eventually led to increasing friction with the leading members of the newly established English hierarchy. The chief external facts in the history of the periodical are recounted in an announcement which appeared in the last number published under the old name (May, 1862) headed "Enlargement of the 'Rambler'": "The Rambler was commenced on 1st of January 1848 as a weekly magazine of home and foreign literature, politics, science and art. Its aim was to unite an intelligent and hearty acceptance of Catholic dogma with free enquiry and discussion on questions which the Church left open to debate and while avoiding, as far as possible, the domain of technical theology, to provide a medium for the expression of independent opinion on subjects of the day, whether interesting to the general public or especially affecting Catholics". Before the year 1848 was over the new venture succeeded so well that it was found necessary to increase the size of the magazine and to issue it in a monthly form. It continued to be published as a monthly serial from 1 Sept., 1848, to 1 Feb.,1859. "During this period of ten years and a half", says the same announcement, "we at first endeavoured to restrict it to topics of social and literary interest, without entering directly into the graver problems of moral or political philosophy, but the events of the time and the circumstances of English Catholicism-compelled us more and more open our pages to investigations of a deeper and more complex nature." In view then of the fact that "The Rambler" had thus "assumed a less ephemeral character than ordinarily belongs to a monthly periodical", a new series was started in May, 1859, of which the numbers, in a slightly enlarged form, appeared only every two months. This came to an end in May, 1862, and, in accordance with the announcement above quoted, a quarterly journal, "The Home and Foreign Review", under the same editorial management, appeared in its place in July. For some time before this "The Rambler" had contrived to give considerable offence to the Catholic authorities in England and particularly to Cardinal Wiseman. Before June, 1861, we find Manning writing confidentially to Rome that he hoped soon to be able to announce the cessation of "The Rambler" (Purcell, "Life of Manning", II, 384). The change from a monthly to a two-monthly form had really marked a crisis in the journal's history, for in May, 1859, at the intervention of Cardinal Wiseman, Simpson had withdrawn from the editorship and Newman had consented to take it over, though his connection with the periodical was to prove a very brief one. Acton then succeeded to the direction, Simpson, however, continuing to write a great number of the articles. Amongst the other leading contributors were Wetherell and H.N. Oxenham. "The Home and Foreign Review", which was supported by the same staff of writers, soon came into conflict with the authorities, notably both with Cardinal Wiseman and Bishop Ullathorne, and it lasted only until April, 1864. HERBERT THURSTON Jean-Philippe Rameau Jean-Philippe Rameau Musician, b. at Dijon, Burgundy, 25 Sept., 1683; d. at Paris, 12 Sept., 1764. His father, himself an organist, was his first master. At the age of seven he was able to perform every kind of music. For his further education he was sent to a Jesuit college; but even during class he was either singing or writing music. Excepting a short stay in Italy, he always lived in France, was twice organist at Clermont, and from 1723 remained constantly in Paris, where he was organist in several churches. Rameau was very tall and extraordinarily thin, so he had more the appearance of a ghost than of a human being. He was a great thinker, fond of solitude, and out of place in society. In 1726 he married Marie-Louise Mangot, and had four children, a son and three daughters, one of whom entered the Order of the Visitation. Without denying the merits of Lully (1633-1687) and Couperin (1663-1733), the founders of the French opera, and even admitting that Rameau was not right in all the details of his theory, we must acknowledge that he opened up a new road, which was followed by all who came after him. His main principle, for the defence of which he had to sustain hard struggles, was that melody, far from being sufficient for a good piece of music, itself depends on the rules of harmony, so that the real guide of every composer is harmony, not melody. His chief merit consists in having established the relations between science and art, and in having highly developed the symphonic part of the opera. His most famous theoretical works are: "Traité de l'harmonie réduite à son principe naturel" (1722); "Génération harmonique" (1737); "Démonstration du principe de l'harmonie" (1750); "Code de musique pratique" (1760). Only at the age of fifty did he begin to write for the stage, and in sixteen years (1733-1749) he composed about thirty operas and ballets, the best of which are: "Castor et Pollux", "Les Indes Galantes", "Dardanus" and "Zoroastre". Of his church music some motets only are known. He left many compositions for the piano, either alone or with other instruments, eighteen of which have been lately published by Vincent d'Indy. Durand, in Paris, has undertaken a complete edition of Rameau's works, under the direction of Saint-Saëns. MARET, Eloge historique de M. Rameau (Paris, 1766); POUGIN, Rameau, Essai sur sa vie et ses oeuvres (Paris, 1878); LAURENCIE, Mercure musical du 15 Juin (1907); LALOY, Rameau (Paris, 1909), 2 edit. A. WALTER Ramsey Abbey Ramsey Abbey Ramsey Abbey, Huntingdonshire, England, was founded by Ailwine (Ethelwine, Egelwine), a Saxon noble, in 969. He was encouraged in the undertaking by St. Oswald of York, who advised him that where men have renounced the world the air becomes salubrious, the fruits of the earth are gathered in abundance, famines and pestilence disappear, the State is duly governed, prisons are opened, and captives set free, those wrecked at sea are relieved, the sick are healed and the weak find means for their convalescence. The site chosen, Ramsey (Ram+eie, insula arietis), was then the largest and finest of the islands of a great marsh formed by the waters of the Ouse. It was afterwards connected with the mainland by a causeway constructed by the monks. Here Aednoth, nephew of Ailwine, commissioned by Oswald to make preparations, built a wooden church and offices, and as soon as all was ready, the saint sent twelve monks from his monastery of Westbury (Worcester) to take possession. The wooden minster was dedicated by Oswald and St. Dunstan of Canterbury to St. Mary, all Holy Virgins, and St. Benedict. Soon a fine stone church with towers was erected and consecrated by St. Oswald, Archbishop of York, assisted by Aescwio, Bishop of Dorchester, in 991. The year following (992) the two founders, Ailwine and Oswald, died, and the monastery, governed till then by priors (Germanus and Aednoth), was permitted to elect an abbot. Aednoth, son of Aednoth, the prior, was the first to hold office. Ailwine handsomely endowed his foundation with lands and privileges. He also presented the new church with an altar-frontal (tabula in fronte eminentioris altaris) of wood, covered with silver plates and many-coloured jewels. King Edgar, Henry I, Henry II, and others extended and confirmed the possessions and liberties. In 1002 the body of St. Ives (Ivo) was miraculously discovered in the neighbourhood and this led to the establishment of the dependent priory of St. Ives. Another dependent priory or cell was Modney, in Norfolk. The abbot had a seat in Parliament and ranked next after Glastonbury and St. Alban's. At the Dissolution (1539) John Wardeboys, alias Lawrence, willingly resigned the abbey into the king's hands and received a pension of £266. 13s. 4d. per annum. The estates were granted by Henry VIII to Sir Richard Williams, alias Cromwell. The revenue, according to Dugdale, was £1716. 12s. 4d., but according to Speed, £983. 15s. 3 1/4 d. Nothing important remains of the buildings but a ruined Late Gothic gateway. Chronicon Abbatiæ Rameseiensis in Rolls Series (1886); Cartularium Monasterii de Ramsesia in Rolls Series (3 vols.); DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum, II (London, 1846); REYNER, Apostolatus Benedictinorum, 149; WISE, Ramsey Abbey, its rise and fall, (1881). J.C. ALMOND Peter Ramus Peter Ramus (PIERRE DE LA RAMÉE) Humanist and logician, b. at Cuth in Picardy, 1515; d. in Paris, 1572. In spite of many difficulties, including poverty and the loss of both his parents at an early age, he succeeded in obtaining a good education, and graduated at the University of Paris in 1536 as Master of Arts. The thesis which he defended "Quæcumque ab Aristotele dicta sunt, commentitia sunt" ("All Aristotle's doctrines are false") indicates the direction of his thoughts even at that time. He was an outspoken and uncompromising opponent of the Aristotelean philosophy which was at that time the authoritative philosophy in every European centre of learning. His two principal works, "Aristotelicæ Animadversiones" and "Dialecticæ Institutiones", both of which were written in elegant humanistic Latin and published in Paris in 1543, brought him into still sharper conflict with the official world of scholarship. The books were condemned by the University of Paris, an act which was made the subject of debate in the French Parliament, until Francis I interposed by appointing a committee to listen to a disputation between Ramus and his principal opponent, Anthony of Govea. The majority of the committee decided against Ramus, and condemned him as "rash, arrogant and impudent". This decision was confirmed by the king. In 1547, after the accession of Henry II, and owing to the protection of the Cardinal of Lorraine, Ramus was accorded greater liberty, and succeeded in obtaining a position as teacher, or "royal lecturer", at the College of Navarre. In 1562, he renounced Catholicism and became a Calvinist. In the massacre of St. Bartholomew, in 1572, he was singled out by his enemies and put to death with every circumstance of cruelty and brutality. Ramus was a writer of more than ordinary brilliancy and effectiveness. He sought out the weak points in the method of teaching logic then in vogue, and directed his attack against them with the ability, and indeed, very much in the manner, of the celebrated Italian Humanist, Vives. He objected especially to what he called the sterility of the logic then currently taught, and pleaded for a reform of the science along lines of broader human interest. In his positive teaching, that is to say, in the logic which he wished to substitute for the Aristotelean, he was not very successful. In a general way, he may be said to have advocated a closer union between rhetoric and logic, between the art of exposition and the art of argumentation. Among his following, the "Ramists", as they were called, were the Englishman, William Temple, and the Germans, Sturm, Freige, and Fabricius. In the official academic world he met with opposition not only at the University of Paris but also at Wittenberg, Helmstadt, and elsewhere. His opponents were called Anti-Ramists. For a time, his campaign against Aristotle had the effect of rallying to his views the Anti-Aristoteleans of every country in Europe. His influence, however, did not last long, although some writers find evidences of it as late as 1662 in the famous "Port Royal Logic". WADDINGTON, De Petri Rami vita (Paris, 1848 and 1855); STÖCKL, Geschichte der Phil. des Mittelalters, III (Mainz, 1866, 296 sqq. WILLIAM TURNER Jean-Armand Le Bouthillier de Rance Jean-Armand le Bouthillier de Rancé Abbot and reformer of Notre Dame de la Trappe, second son of Denis Bouthillier, Lord of Rancé, Councillor of State, etc., b. at Paris, 9 Jan., 1626; d. at La Trappe, 27 Oct., 1700. Originally intended for the Knights of Malta, the illness of his older brother caused his father to dedicate him to ecclesiastical service, in order to preserve in the family the former's numerous benefices. On the death of his brother, 1637, he became Canon of Notre Dame de Paris, Abbot of La Trappe, and of several other places, which gave him a revenue of about 15,000 livres. He early gave evidence of great precociousness in study, publishing, at the age of twelve years, an edition of Anacreon, with Greek notes, dedicated to his godfather, Cardinal Richelieu. In 1651, he was ordained priest by his uncle, the Archbishop of Tours. This dignity did not effect a change in his manner of life, which was worldly in the extreme. In 1652 his father died, leaving him a further increase in estate. At the age of twenty-six he was thus left absolutely his own master, handsome of person, polished and with practically unlimited wealth. Feasting and the pleasures of the chase, to which he was passionately attached, divided his time with preaching and other sacerdotal ministrations. His uncle, who desired him as coadjutor, made him archdeacon, caused him to be elected deputy of the second order to the General Assembly of the French Clergy in 1655, and had him appointed first chaplain to Gaston, Duke of Orleans, in 1656. For several years his conscience reproached him for his scandalous conduct, but he paid little heed to its voice. The death of the Duchess of Montbazon, in 1657, gave him the first serious thought leading to his conversion. He retired to his Château de Verets, where he gave himself to reflection on the vanities of life; put himself under capable direction, and began to live more in conformity with his obligations. In 1660 he assisted at the death of the Duke of Orleans, which made so great an impression on him that he said: "Either the Gospel deceives us, or this is the house of a reprobate" After having taken counsel, he disposed of all his possessions, except the Abbey of La Trappe, which he visited for the first time in 1662. He decided to become a religious, and obtained permission from the king, in 1663, to become its regular abbot and reformer. After having passed through his novitiate and made profession, he took formal possession of his monastery as its regular abbot, and began the work of its reform, which, after he had overcome immense difficulties, was solidly established in his own abbey, from whence it was adopted into numerous other monasteries. His time and energy were so taken up with this work that, during the first year of his retirement he obliged himself to an entire separation from the world. He devoted his spare time to manual labour, and to the compilation of spiritual books. These latter were by no means inconsiderable. Amongst the most important are: "Vies de plusieurs solitaires de La Trappe"; "Le traité de la sainteté et des devoirs de la vie monastique"; "La règle de s. Benoît, traduite et explique selon son véritable esprit"; etc. His penitential mode of life made him many enemies, and caused him to be accused of Jansenism, but he refrained from defending himself, until finally, at the request of his most intimate friends, he wrote to the Maréchal de Bellefonds, stating that he had signed the "Formula" (against Jansenism) without restriction or reservation of any kind; adding that he had always submitted himself absolutely to those whom God had placed over him, i. e. the pope and his bishop. If this is considered insufficient to vindicate his orthodoxy, the letters and pamphlets with which he attacked the Jansenists, as published by Bossuet, are certainly enough to justify him from this charge. In 1695, feeling his health to be declining, he obtained permission from the king to resign his position, and for several years continued to give an example of humility and resignation. His remains are interred at the Monastery of La Grande Trappe. Le Nain, Vie du R. P. Armand Jean Le Bouthillier de Rancé (Paris, 1715); Marsollier, Vie du T. R. ... de Rancé (Paris, 1703); Maupeou, Vie du T. R. ... de Rancé (AParis, 1702); D 'Inguimbert, Genuinus Character R. in X. Patris ... de Rancoe;i (Rome, 1718); ChÂteaubriand, Vie de l'Abbé de Rancé (Paris, 1844); Dubois, Histoire de l'Abbé de Rancé et de sa réforme (Paris, 1866); D'Exauvillez, Histoire de l'Abbé Rancé (Paris, 1842); Schmid, Armand de Rancé, Abt. u. Reformator von La Trappe (Ratisbon, 1897); Serrant, L'Abbé de Rancé et Bossuet (Paris, 1903); Didio, La Querelle de Mabillon et de l'Abbé de Rancé (Amiens, 1892); Buettgenbach, Armand Jean de Rancé Reformator der Cistercienser von La Trappe (Aix-la-Chapelle, 1897); Fellow, Visit to the Monastery of La Trappe (London, 1818); Gonod, Lettres de Rancé (Paris, 1846). EDMOND M. OBRECHT James Ryder Randall James Ryder Randall Journalist and poet, b. 1 Jan., 1839, at Baltimore, Maryland; d. 15 Jan., 1908 at Augusta, Georgia. As author of "Maryland, my Maryland", the famous war song of the Confederacy, he has been frequently styled the "Poet Laureate of the Lost Cause". He received his education at Georgetown University, but did not graduate. He travelled in South America and the West Indies and upon returning to the United States, accepted the chair of English Literature at Poydras College, Pointe-Coupée, La., then a flourishing Creole institution. Hearing of the attack upon the federal troops in Baltimore on 21 April, 1861, in which a classmate had been wounded, his Southern sympathies were so aroused that during the night by the light of a candle he composed what is generally acknowledged to be America's most martial poem, which first appeared in the New Orleans "Sunday Delta" of 26 April, 1861. Reaching Baltimore, it was set to the music of "Lauriger Horatius" by Miss Jennie Cary, who added "My Maryland" to each stanza. A German musician of Southern sympathies eventually set the poem to "Tannenbaum, O Tannenbaum", the original of "Lauriger Horatius". After the close of the war, Randall engaged in newspaper work, holding several important editorial positions, eventually becoming Washington correspondent for the Augusta "Chronicle". He was the author of numerous other poems, none of which, however, attained the popularity of "Maryland, my Maryland". His later work breathed a deeply religious tone. Maryland, My Maryland, and other Poems (Baltimore, 1908); Poems of James Ryder Randall, ed. ANDREWS, with a biographical sketch of the poet (New York, 1910). WILLIAM J. DWYER Feast of Our Lady of Ransom Feast of Our Lady of Ransom 24 September, a double major, commemorates the foundation of the Mercedarians. On 10 August, 1223, the Mercedarian Order was legally constituted at Barcelona by King James of Aragon and was approved by Gregory IX on 17 January, 1235. The Mercedarians celebrated their institution on the Sunday nearest to 1 Aug. (on which date in the year 1233 the Blessed Virgin was believed to have shown St. Peter Nolasco the white habit of the order), and this custom was approved by the Congregation of Rites on 4 April, 1615 (Anal. Juris Pont., VII, 136). But the calendar of the Spanish Mercedarians of 1644 has it on 1 Aug., double. Proper lessons were approved on 30 April, 1616. The feast was granted to Spain (Sunday nearest to 1 Aug.) on 15 Feb., 1680; to France, 4 Dec., 1690. On 22 Feb., 1696, it was extended to the entire Latin Church, and the date changed to 24 September. The Mercedarians keep this feast as a double of the first class, with a vigil, privileged octave, and proper Office under the title: "Solemnitas Descensionis B. Mariæ V. de Mercede". Our Lady of Ransom is the principal patron of Barcelona; the proper Office was extended to Barcelona (1868) and to all Spain (second class, 1883). Sicily, which had suffered so much from the Saracens, took up the old date of the feast (Sunday nearest to 1 Aug.) by permission of the Congregation of Rites, 31 Aug., 1805 (double major), Apparition of Our Lady to St. Peter Nolasco in the choir of Barcelona, on the Sunday after 24 Sept. In England the devotion to Our Lady of Ransom was revived in modern times to obtain the rescue of England as Our Lady's Dowry. F.G. HOLWECK St. Raphael the Archangel St. Raphael The name of this archangel (Raphael = "God has healed") does not appear in the Hebrew Scriptures, and in the Septuagint only in the Book of Tobias. Here he first appears disguised in human form as the travelling companion of the younger Tobias, calling himself "Azarias the son of the great Ananias". The story of the adventurous journey during which the protective influence of the angel is shown in many ways including the binding "in the desert of upper Egypt" of the demon who had previously slain seven husbands of Sara, daughter of Raguel, is picturesquely related in Tobit 5-11, to which the reader is referred. After the return and the healing of the blindness of the elder Tobias, Azarias makes himself known as "the angel Raphael, one of the seven, who stand before the Lord" (Tob., xii, 15. Cf. Apoc., viii, 2). Of these seven "archangels" which appear in the angelology of post-Exilic Judaism, only three, Gabriel, Michael and Raphael, are mentioned in the canonical Scriptures. The others, according to the Book of Enoch (cf. xxi) are Uriel, Raguel, Sariel, and Jerahmeel, while from other apocryphal sources we get the variant names Izidkiel, Hanael, and Kepharel instead of the last three in the other list. Regarding the functions attributed to Raphael we have little more than his declaration to Tobias (Tobit 12) that when the latter was occupied in his works of mercy and charity, he (Raphael) offered his prayer to the Lord, that he was sent by the Lord to heal him of his blindness and to deliver Sara, his son's wife, from the devil. The Jewish category of the archangels is recognized in the New Testament (I Thess., iv, 15; Jude, 9), but only Gabriel and Michael are mentioned by name. Many commentators, however, identify Raphael with the "angel of the Lord" mentioned in John 5. This conjecture is base both on the significance of the name and on the healing role attributed to Raphael in the Book of Tobias. The Church assigns the feast of St. Raphael to 24 October. The hymns of the Office recall the healing power of the archangel and his victory over the demon. The lessons of the first Nocturn and the Antiphons of the entire Office are taken from the Book of Tobias, and the lessons of the second and third Nocturns from the works of St. Augustine, viz. for the second Nocturn a sermon on Tobias (sermon I on the fifteenth Sunday), and for the third, a homily on the opening verse of John, v. The Epistle of the Mass is taken from the twelfth chapter of Tobias, and the Gospel from John 5:1-4, referring to the pool called Probatica, where the multitude of the infirm lay awaiting the moving of the water, for "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". Thus the conjecture of the commentators referred to above is confirmed by the official Liturgy of the Church. Vigouroux, Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Raphael. JAMES F. DRISCOLL Raphael (1483-1520) Raphael The most famous name in the history of painting, b. at Urbino, 6 April (or 28 March), 1483; d. at Rome, 6 April, 1520. He belongs to the Umbrian School. Raphael is only a Christian name, the full name being Raphael (Raffaele) Santi (Sanzio is an absolutely incorrect form). His father, Giovanni Santi, held an important but indefinite post at the Court of Urbino. He was the artistic factotum of Duke Frederick, one of the most intellectual princes and most enlightened art-lovers of his age. The best painters, Piero della Francesca, Melozzo, and Justus of Ghent, were in his service and had made Urbino one of the most prominent art centres of the time. The ducal palace is still one of the wonders of Italy. Nor was the social and worldly life less advanced; at this Court was written the "Cortegiano" of Baldassare Castiglione, the complete handbook of the man of the world, according to the ideal of the Renaissance. The relations which Raphael formed in these early surroundings (especially about 1506), the serene and pure moral atmosphere which he breathed and which is characteristic of his genius, followed him throughout his life. Giovanni Santi died on 1 August, 1494. The orphan, placed under the guardianship of his maternal uncle, entered the studio of a charming painter, Timoteo Viti, a pupil of Francia, who had just returned to take up his residence in the country. Probably to the beginning of this apprenticeship, perhaps somewhat previous to it, belongs Raphael's famous sketch-book of the Academy of Venice. This book was discovered in 1803 by Bossi and purchased by Cicognara for the City of Venice. It is a small portfolio, now mutilated, consisting of a hundred pen-and-ink drawings; the author copied, in particular, the "Savants" and the "Philosophers" attributed to Justus of Ghent, which were then in the palace of Urbino (half of them are now at the Louvre and the other half at the Barberini Palace). Morelli (Lermolieff) thinks he recognizes in these drawings the hand of Pintoricchio, but the old opinion has prevailed over his criticism. These are rather the first studies and attempts of Raphael between his twelfth and fifteenth years. Though childish, they already reveal the masterly genius of the artist, his singular, divine sentiment of beauty. In Timoteo's studio and under his influence were painted the earliest pictures of his illustrious pupil which have reached us, four small exquisite pictures, of the shape and value of miniatures, the "Dream of the Knight" (National Gallery), "St. George and St. Michael" (Louvre), and the most charming of the four, the "Three Graces" of the Tribune of Chantilly. In June, 1499, Raphael had not yet left Urbino. In May, 1500, he must have been at Perugia, but could not have entered Perugino's studio prior to that date, for the latter, who had been away for twelve years, returned then to paint the Cambio frescoes. Therefore, Vasari's story of Raphael's education by Perugino is not to be believed, being pure fable. Perugino's influence was important to a young man of eighteen, and, in fact, with his wonderful faculty of assimilation, Raphael had soon succeeded in mastering the suggestions and methods of the older painter, his poetic sense of light and space, his harmoniously symmetrical system of composition. He shortly became a sort of foreman, or head of the studio, supervising the making of those countless Madonnas for which Perugino's "workshop" was the best patronized in Italy. This period of somewhat commercial production is the least interesting of Raphael's life. The "Virgin of the Book" at the Hermitage and the "Virgin between St. Jerome and St. Francis" (Berlin) are among his most insignificant works. The "Crucifixion" of 1502 (National Gallery) shows an archaic and "primitive" dryness. But his genius soon threw off its half slumber. The "Coronation of the Virgin", painted in 1503 for the Franciscans of Perugia (Pinacoteca of the Vatican), shows qualities apparently borrowed from Perugino, but vivified by new imagination and youth, the three panels of the predella especially displaying great progress. A very important work, unfortunately lost since the Revolution, seems to have been the "Triumph of St. Nicholas of Tolentino". But the pearl of this period is the "Espousal of the Virgin", preserved at Milan (1504). A similar picture in the Museum of Caen is not the model wrongly ascribed to Perugino, but a copy of Raphael's picture, the work of the mediocre Spagna. This masterpiece worthily ends the period of Raphael's youth. The final word of Umbrian art of the fifteenth century was spoken in this page of youth and divine modesty. FLORENTINE PERIOD (1504-08) After a short visit in the summer at Urbino, Raphael went to live at Florence towards the end of 1504. The four years he spent there were a new and decisive stage in his career. At that date Florence was the most intense and active centre of the Renaissance (and the period was pregnant with artistic development). Leonardo da Vinci and the young Michelangelo, the two leaders of the movement, revealed (1506) in their rival "cartoons" (now lost) of the Signory perfect models of historical composition. In the stimulating atmosphere of a perpetual contest dominated by an impassioned love of beauty and fame Raphael found fresh incentive. The knowledge and skill of the least of the Florentine painters were calculated to amaze the young provincial and sharpen his ideas, which proved most profitable to his talent. At Florence he began his education over again; he resumed his studies and in a few years learned more about form than he had acquired from Timoteo and Perugino. His earnings were still modest. During his stay in Florence Raphael was a young, unknown artist with a good future. He had few acquaintances and not many commissions. He was only given small pictures to paint, portraits of middle-class people, such as Angelo and Maddalena Doni (Uffizi, 1506) and the "Donna Gravida" (pregnant woman) of the Pitti Palace, and an especially large number of Madonnas which he executed for private oratories. But nothing could show more advantageously the progress he had made since his Umbrian period. He had found a model of a more regular type, a fuller oval and a richer form than was Perugino's usual model. His sense of life became more natural without losing any of its poetry. Raphael's Madonnas are all his own; they have not the melancholy affectation of those of Botticelli, nor the mysterious smile of those of Leonardo. They are all near to us, material and human. Their familiarity, of a thoroughly Franciscan grace, is expressed with the greatest tact. They retain the easy good-humour, sometimes excessive, indulged in by the painters of the North. They are not intended to be "edifying", properly speaking, but in these matters degree is a matter of taste. As Burckhardt has said, for the first time since Phidias, art reached those heights where human beauty by its nobility and perfection of form undertakes to call forth the divine. The Madonnas of the Florentine period may be divided into three groups according to the nature of the motif and the composition. The oldest and most simple are those which represent the Madonna with the features of a young Italian woman, standing and at half length, holding the Christ Child in her arms. The masterpiece of this class is the "Madonna of the Grand Duke" (Florence, Pitti Palace, 1505). Despite a trace of timidity in the arrangement the Virgin is so charming that one cannot prefer even the more perfect Madonnas of the next period. This simple composition has given rise to many variations, such as the little "Cowper Madonna" (Panshanger), so tenderly pensive, and the charmingly spirited, sweet, and impassioned "Madonna Casa Tempi" (Munich). The second group does little more than modify the first by the introduction of new elements, such as interior decoration or landscape, for example the "Virgin of Orleans" (Chantilly), the "Bridgewater Madonna", the "Colonna Madonna" (Berlin), and the great "Cowper Madonna" (Panshanger), the two last-named being contemporaries (1506 or 1507) and to a certain extent twins. The third group, however, shows a new stage, a superior type of composition and style. Raphael was then under the influence of the great Dominican painter, Fra Bartolommeo, one of those who did most in the sixteenth century to organize the truly Florentine pictorial tradition. This learned painter who was gifted to a high degree with a sense of balance and beautiful composition, greatly influenced the young Umbrian, the influence becoming apparent as early as 1505, when Raphael executed at San Severino, Perugia, a fresco of which he painted only the upper part (it was completed in 1521 by the aged Perugino). This fresco, which was important inasmuch as it contained the germ of the "Disputa", merely reproduces the arrangement of Fra Bartolommeo's "Last Judgment". To him Raphael owes the methods by which he produced the Virgins of the third group, in which the Madonna appears at full length in a landscape with the Infant and the young St. John. The sublime trio in such compositions as "La Belle Jardinière" (Louvre, 1507), the "Madonna of the Meadow" (Vienna), or the "Madonna of the Goldfinch" (Uffizi, Florence) is an idea directly derived from the teachings of the artist-monk. Here Raphael detaches himself from the external symmetry of Perugino's art, attaining a harmony at once more complex, intimate, and living. From this period date several more important works in which the young man practised painting in the "noble" style. He began to receive orders and to gain a reputation. On setting out for Rome he left unfinished the "Madonna of the Baldacchino" (Pitti Palace, 1508), and it is not known when it was completed, but it is without originality and might pass for a picture by Fra Bartolommeo. Preferable to it is his "Madonna Ansidei" (National Gallery, 1507), less "modern" and more "Peruginesque", but one of the loveliest things conceivable in this traditional style. From 1508 dates the "Entombment" of the Casino Borghese. This work, ordered by Atalanta Baglioni for the chapel of her son Griffonetto at Perugia, is Raphael's first attempt in the historic manner. His client was important and he had an opportunity to gain distinction; it is evident that he spared no pains. Prepared for by an extraordinary number of drawings, the work is nevertheless one of the artist's least fortunate ventures. It is spoiled by excessive labour. Raphael wished to display all his knowledge and resources, uniting on the same canvas the qualities of the two masters of the "cartoons" of the Signory, the men whom he most admired and who tantalized him most, Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. Too many contradictory ambitions injured the result and the great attempt ended in failure. But his contemporaries judged otherwise, and the "Entombment" ranked Raphael among the foremost of the Florentine painters. Thenceforth all eyes were on him. The period of beginnings and attempts was over. In the summer of 1508 the young man went to Urbino. Julius II had just ascended the papal throne. Duke Guidobaldo recommended Raphael to the pope who was having the Vatican repainted and redecorated. In October, 1508, Raphael reached Rome. ROMAN PERIOD (1508-20) The twelve years of Raphael's life in Rome are unparalleled. In this short space of time the young master multiplied masterpieces and left behind him the most complete, serene, and harmonious expression of the Renaissance. The painter of the Madonnas and of the little pictures of the Florentine period underwent the most surprising transformation, becoming all at once a most productive decorative painter on a vast scale. His genius set itself to the most exalted as well as the most diverse tasks, his inexhaustible resources permitting him to conceive of and complete within a few years the Stanze or Chambers of the Vatican, the "Acts of the Apostles", the Farnesina, and the Loggie, not to mention other undertakings as architect, archæologist, and sculptor, and fifty pictures or portraits, nearly all of which are masterpieces. It is a metamorphosis without precedent or explanation. When we consider that his vast and immortal work was accomplished in less than twelve years by a young man who was twenty-six when he began and who died at thirty-seven, we must question whether the world has twice beheld the wonder of such a genius. Julius II, the reigning pope, was one to whom modern speech willingly accords the title "superman" or "hero". He was one of the first to conceive of and pursue the policy of Italian unity. Beyond doubt this warrior pontiff, who entered the citadel of Mirandola through the breach, had a somewhat temporal idea of his power, but through art he endowed the Church with an intellectual importance which it seemed to have lost since the Great Schism. In his powerful hands Rome became what it only recently ceased to be, the capital of the civilized world. Space does not permit adequate treatment of this point; but when face to face with the chief problems of the sixteenth century; when the question arose as to whether the Church would absorb or reject and condemn progress, whether or not it would associate itself with the humanistic spirit, Julius II deserves the credit for having taken sides with the Renaissance and prepared the stage for the moral triumph of the Church. The great creations of Julius II, Bramante's St. Peter's and Raphael's Vatican, are inseparable from the great ideas of humanity and culture represented by the Catholic Church. Here art surpasses itself, becoming the language of something higher, the symbol of one of the noblest harmonies ever realized by human nature. At the will of this extraordinary man Rome became at the end of the sixteenth century the meeting place and centre of all that was great in art and thought. With the infallible sense and discernment of great judges of men, the pope had immediately called to his service those who would do most honour to his reign. He did not make a mistake, and posterity can only ratify his choice. But his infallible divination is best shown in his selection of Raphael. There was nothing in the young man's work to presage the wholly new genius he was to display nor the unequalled powers of composition, nobility, and beauty which slumbered in that privileged soul. It is probable that Bramante who, like Raphael, was a native of Urbino, actively furthered his young townsman's interest with the pope, and caused him to be received among the inner circle of artists whom Julius II had engaged for the works in his palace. It must have been chiefly to the great architect, whose magnificent frescoes were at the Castle of Milan, to the conversations, the example, and familiar intercourse with this powerful genius, that Raphael owed the sudden broadening of his ideas and the unforeseen maturity of his style; the young Umbrian became worthy of the grandeur of Rome. But nothing completely explains this singular metamorphosis; it remains the miracle of Raphael's existence. The pope, weary of dwelling in the apartments of his predecessor (the famous Appartamento Borgia, decorated by Pinturicchio), decided to remodel the lower chambers which had already been used by Nicholas V. A whole colony of painters, including the aged Signorelli and the aged Perugino, Sodoma and Bramantino, Peruzzi, Lotto and the Fleming Ruysch, in 1502 took up their residence in the Vatican and once more Raphael worked beside his former master. But his first attempts showed such mastery that the pope dismissed all the others and unhesitatingly confided to the youngest and the latest comer (1509) the vast task of decorating the Chambers. The first of these was called the Stanza della Segnatura, it being that of a tribunal of the Roman Curia. It is a somewhat irregularly vaulted hall with two windows on each side which are not on the same axis. These unfavourable conditions (which were repeated in the other chambers) the young artist turned to his advantage. This hall contains a plenitude of art and an intellectual harmony which will never be surpassed. On the four triangles of the ceiling he painted four large circular medallions representing, in the guise of young women crowned and surrounded by genii, Theology, Law, Science, and Poetry. In the spaces between these four circles he painted as many bas-reliefs representing a scene or "story" typical of the four disciplines: Original Sin (Theology), The Judgment of Solomon (Law), Apollo and Marsyas (Poetry). Unable to find a similar subject for Science, he gracefully depicted Astronomy in the form of a beautiful young woman leaning over the celestial sphere and by a gesture signifying the discovery of the stars. These figures on the ceiling sound the keynote of the paintings on the walls, which have always been regarded as the most perfect expression of the genius of the Renaissance, the harmonious agreement of all the human faculties, reason, and faith, justice and poetry, the balancing of all the forces and needs of our nature, and the joy resulting from the peaceful and happy exercise of all our activities. It is difficult to believe that Raphael himself conceived so extensive and complicated a design. The theme was certainly set by a cleric, a Humanist, or man of letters, such as Phædrus Inghirani or Sigismondo de' Conti (for whom Raphael painted the "Foligno Madonna" as a thank-offering). Furthermore, the ideas which he had to represent were not new in art. To go back no further than the fourteenth century painting had been endeavouring to express ideas. The frescoes at the Spanish Chapel of Andrew of Florence (c. 1355), that of Giusto at Padua, Traini's picture at St. Catherine's of Pisa, or the fresco of Filippino Lippi at the Minerva representing the "Triumph of St. Thomas Aquinas" are well-known examples of what may be called philosophic painting. Raphael was largely inspired by these models. His work, novel in the style and spirit of its forms, merely takes up again on a larger scale, and with consummate art brings to perfection ideas which had been a national tradition in Italy since the Middle Ages. Lack of space forbids a detailed description of these celebrated frescoes, permitting only a general outline of the principal ones. One of their most remarkable characteristics is the incomparable clearness of the composition, the faculty of adapting it to one order of ideas and so placing the spectator, previous to any analysis on his part, in a mood appropriate to each scene represented. That is, a spectator standing before the "Disputa" or the "School of Athens", even though he did not know the names of the persons and the meaning of the subject, would nevertheless immediately receive from the combination of forms and the general arrangement, an informing impression of the things represented. With its two and even three planes, its hierarchical aspect, its regular movement descending from the Father to the Holy Ghost, from the Son to the Host placed vertically below Him, to rebound in concentric waves through the two parallel hemicycles of the celestial and the terrestrial Church, the "Disputa" is stamped with theological majesty. In contrast to this presentment of august solemnity, in which everything follows an emphatically Scholastic method==the deduction from principles of a rigorous chain of reasoning like that of ontology==the "School of Athens" displays the most varied action, effervescence, scattered groups, and the agitation of a scientific congress. Ideas, methods, everything is changed; we pass from one world to another. No other painter could sensibly express the most delicate nuances by the pure language of forms. On the other hand, in such subjects it was allowable for the artist to make abundant use of allegory. There existed for the personification of abstract ideas a whole body of figures characterized by complicated attributes; often long inscriptions, streamers, phylacteries, completed the explanation. Pinturicchio proceeded in this manner in the Borgia apartments, as did also the author of the magnificent tapestries of Madrid. With better taste Raphael forbore this confusion of kinds, the mingling of fiction with reality, of personifications with persons. For the representation of ideas he made use only of real and historical persons, philosophy being represented by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Democritus. Thus this chamber of the Vatican became a sort of mirror of the tendencies of the human mind, a summary of all its ideal history, a sort of pantheon of spiritual grandeurs. Thereby the representation of ideas acquired a dramatic value, being no longer, as in the Middle Ages, the immovable exposition of an unchangeable truth, but the impassioned search for knowledge in all its branches, the moral life of humanity. Finally these historic figures conceived of as portraits for which the artist made use of all the documents possessed by the iconography of his time, blended in heroic familiarity with contemporary persons, the very circle of Julius II and Raphael. There are found Bramante, the Duke of Urbino, Raphael, Sodoma, and twenty others named by Vasari. Thus abstract ideas became animated, and we are afforded the magnificent spectacle of the world of the spirit, the society formed of the harmonious concert of the highest intelligences. Nevertheless these frescoes, which are so full of life, are perhaps the most highly decorative ever imagined. It is wonderful to see how the artist's thought adapts itself to the law of architecture, readily inventing simple and monumental motifs which endow his ideas with imperishable grandeur. Berenson is perhaps mistaken in reducing Raphael's genius to the incomparable mastery of the language of extent which he calls "composition in space". This is to cheapen his unique and enchanting qualities as designer and painter, plastic gifts which no other mortal ever possessed in the same degree. It is none the less true that the ease with which Raphael moves about in space, the aerial, spacious qualities which characterize his frescoes, is one of the essential parts of his particular magic. He is the greatest decorator who ever lived. [It is worthy of note that the titles of these two famous frescoes are a later and incorrect invention of the eighteenth-century engravers. The "Disputa" is really a picture of the life of the Church and an affirmation of the dogma of the Real Presence. The title of the "School of Athens" is due to mistaking the figures of Aristotle and Plato, although they are designated, by the titles of their writings, for those of St. Paul and Dionysius the Areopagite. Moreover, the whole of this second scene is but a new illustration of the traditional theme of the seven liberal arts or the seven disciplines of the trivium and quadrivium]. The paintings on the other two walls were, as has been said, obstructed by a window. Raphael easily found a most ingenious solution of the difficulty. The painting of "Law" was divided into three parts: on the lintel he painted the three theological virtues (they are among his most exquisite creations), to left and right of the window he depicted in two symmetrical scenes "Civil Law" (Justinian bestowing the Pandects; this scene is imitated in Mellozo's fresco in the Vatican Library) and "Canon Law" (Gregory IX, with the features of Julius II, publishing the Decretals). These two frescoes are unfortunately much damaged. On the opposite wall Raphael painted Parnassus. This shows a mountain-top crowned with laurel where Apollo, surrounded by the Muses, his divine daughters, plays on the lyre; Homer sings, and about the inspired blind man is gathered his ideal family: Virgil leading Dante, Petrarch conversing below with Anacreon, Alcæus, and the wonderful Sappho. Thus on the poetic mount beside the source of Helicon the dream of Humanism is fulfilled in the joy of living and intellectual pleasures. The whole code of classic art is formulated in these unrivalled pictures. In them beauty, nobility of posture, purity and grace of form, the sense of rhythm and life==all combine to form one joyous whole. The serenity of Greek art is recovered without effort, and the noblest harmony is the result. It is the most complete expression of the magnificent ideal which for a time was believed realizable in the Church and which was called Humanism. The decoration of the second Chamber or Stanza of Heliodorus is quite different. The pope was not one to be satisfied for long with impersonal allegories. He was eager for glory and greatness and his own apotheosis or rather the papacy personified by Julius II, forms the subject of the new chamber. His portrait was to appear on all sides, and in fact it is found in two out of every four of these frescoes. They were begun in 1511 and completed in 1514 under Leo X, whose countenance appears in the last fresco, "St. Leo halting Attila". This picture, which was done by pupils, shows, despite the beauty of the picturesque idea, inferior execution. The "Deliverance of St. Peter", with its night effects, its various lights (the moon, torches, and the nimbus or radiance of the angel) is one of the most famous but not the most beautiful or purest of the artist's works. But the frescoes of the other two walls, "The Expulsion of Heliodorus from the Temple" and the "Mass of Bolsena" are among his finest creations. The "Heliodorus" (an obvious allusion to the despoilers of the Papal States and the war-cry of Julius II, Fuori i barbari!) is a splendid work of dramatic art wherein everything is simultaneously composed and expressed with startling clearness and energy. The "Mass of Bolsena" is perhaps still more beautiful. Raphael never produced a richer or more profound composition; never was he more picturesque and noble, more dramatic and strong. Furthermore, as regards colouring, it is impossible to imagine anything more beautiful than the portrait of the pope or the Swiss Guard grouped kneeling at his feet. In this instance the always-impressionable artist was influenced by the Venetian, Sebastiano del Piombo. With his usual genius and rapidity of assimilation he added the Venetian palette to his art. Julius II died on 21 Feb., 1513. His successor, Leo X, lost no time in restoring or assuring to Raphael all his commissions and duties. But the work in the Chambers was almost neglected. In the third in point of time Raphael painted only one fresco, the "Incendio del Borgo" (1514). The other three are all by his pupils and are very poor. The "Incendio" itself is one of his least happy and personal works. Michelangelo had just uncovered the ceiling of the Sixtine Chapel, and this masterpiece was obviously in Raphael's thoughts. He sought only to assemble nude bodies in sculptural attitudes. Though it displayed more skill and beauty in detail, it repeated the mistake made six years previous in the "Entombment". The entire fourth Chamber, that of Constantine, was painted after the death of Raphael, under the direction of Giulio Romano, and it is very difficult to state precisely what remains of the spirit and original ideas of Raphael. The frescoes of the Hall of Constantine were painted to convey the impression of immense tapestries. Tapestries were the fashion, after Raphael, by command of Leo X, had painted the cartoons for the "Acts of the Apostles" which were to be copied in the studio of Pieter van Aelst at Brussels. Ordered in 1514, the hanging, composed of ten pieces, was suspended on the walls of the Vatican in 1519. Stolen in 1527 during the sack of Rome, these tapestries were not restored to the Vatican till 1808, and then in a ruined condition. Seven of the original cartoons, discovered by Rubens at Brussels in 1630, are now preserved at the South Kensington Museum in London. This work de luxe, woven of threads of silk and gold, is the most robust and easily intelligible of all Raphael's productions. In it is found after an interval of a century the epic inspiration of Masaccio. Many of the details are textual reminiscences of the frescoes of the Carmine. At the same time Raphael's genius rarely manifested itself so freely or with such happiness in so beautiful a story. This happiness, the joy of creating, ease, and fertility are the beneficent characteristics of all the later works of Raphael's life. It is evident that the artist profoundly enjoyed the beauty of his inventions and the feeling is communicated to the spectator, lifting him above himself. Once more antiquity and Christianity, the profane and the sacred, were mingled but in a new and properly "historic" form. To revive the Temple with its twisted columns (two of which are preserved at St. Peter's and which Bernini imitated in the baldacchino in the following century), to reproduce according to a bas-relief a scene of sacrifice (Sacrifice of Lystra) to imagine an agora, a sort of Athenian forum, surrounded by porticoes and temples in which all antiquity lived again, and to set in this scene the "Preaching of St. Paul" was to Raphael an uninterrupted pleasure. Such works have remained the unsurpassable models of historic composition, each of them begetting for more than two centuries a lengthy posterity and stirring many echoes in art. The "Death of Ananias" inaugurated the series of lurid miracles. Without such examples as the "Sacrifice of Lystra" and the "Preaching of St. Paul" Poussin's art would hardly be understood. The "Conversion of St. Paul" is a marvel of noble and luminous composition in a subject which seventeenth-century art often treated with vulgarity. But the finest examples of this splendid series are the first two scenes which form the evangelical prelude or prologue to the "Acts"; the "Calling of the Apostles" and the "Pasce Oves" are works in which the Umbrian soul, the serene and poetic sensibility of Raphael could not be surpassed. Here the artist has given us the true colour of things, the pastoral charm and original atmosphere of the preaching of Christ. The idyllic and confident sense of life as it is expressed in the catacombs or on the tomb of Galla Placidia, in the type of the Good Shepherd, the moral perfume so long vanished or evaporated were successfully revived by the wonderful divination and tact of a great artist. Raphael's genius would seem to have been bestowed by Providence to restore lost feelings to Christianity. This same poetry as of a higher kind of eclogue characterizes the second of the great works undertaken by Raphael at the command of Leo X, the decoration of the Loggie, known as the Loggie of the Vatican. This was a story added by Raphael to the two stories of the façade built by Bramante. It comprised three arcades and as many little cupolas, each of which received four small pictures. In the decoration of this gallery RaphaelÕs idea was to rival the Thermæ of Titus, the recent discovery of which had stirred artistic and literary Rome. The walls were covered with charming stuccoes by John of Udine; trellises painted so as to deceive the eye framed the pictures on the vaulted ceilings. Nothing equals the gaiety and grace of this aerial portico, flooded with sunlight and completed by the horizon of the Roman Campagna. The ceiling was painted from 1513 to 1519, but Raphael had not time to make it his own handiwork, executing only the designs, and those of the last three cupolas are not at all worthy of him. Here he delineates sacred history from the Creation to the Last Supper. The first "scenes" illustrate the same subject from Genesis which Michelangelo had just painted on the ceiling of the Sixtine Chapel. But Raphael does not outshine his rival, being only spirituel and charming where the latter is magnificent. In the succeeding compositions often occurs a reflection of the lovely pictures which Pietro Cavallini had painted about 1280 in the basilica of S. Lorenzo, reproduced in a MS. of the Vatican still extant. But the pastoral scenes are wholly original with Raphael, especially those in which landscape figures largely. Nothing could be more nobly graceful than the "Angels received by Abraham", the "Meeting of Jacob and Rachel", or "Moses saved from the waters". "Raphael's Bible", as it is often called, is a series of epic miniatures, the clearness of interpretation of which rivals their simplicity, perfect equilibrium of arrangement, charm of motifs, and grace of style. But the service of Leo X did not stop here. The artist had to respond to the most unforeseen whims; now it was the decoration of the theatre which he had to plan, again his holiness desired the life-size portrait or an elephant and again there were the baths of Cardinal Bibbiena to be decorated. But neither these nor many other tasks exhausted the activity of Raphael. In 1512 the desire to compete with Michelangelo caused him to consent to paint at S. Agostino for the Luxemburger John Göritz a figure of Isaias which is almost a plagiarism, and in 1514 for the Sienese banker, Agostino Chigi, the four celebrated "Sibyls" of S. Maria della Pace. By their divine elegance the latter recall the sublime qualities of the Camera della Segnatura. For Chigi were also painted in 1516 the cartoons for the mosaics which were to adorn Santa Maria della Popolo, his funeral chapel, but only the figures of God the Father and the planets were finished. Finally this Mæcenas conceived the ostentatious idea of having the pope's favourite painter decorate the villa which he was building in the Trastevere and which in the seventeenth century was called the Farnesina. This delightful summer palace, one of Peruzzi's most charming creations, is a perfect type of country house, a patrician dwelling of the Renaissance period, and was decorated by the most popular masters of of the age. Sodoma decorated the first story with subjects from the "Marriage of Alexander" which form an heroic and voluptuous epithalamium. Raphael had to decorate the large gallery on the ground floor. The first fresco was the "Triumph of Galatea". Raphael took as his theme the celebrated verses from Politian's "Giostra" which had already inspired Botticelli. But what is the mythology of this charming artist beside the resurrection of an immortal and chaste paganism? Zeuxis and Apelles did not do otherwise. It is curious that Raphael made the purest profession of faith in idealism with regard to this figure of a woman which arouses all the veneres cupidinesque of painting. "With regard to the "Galatea" he writes to his friend Castiglione, "I should consider myself a great master if it had only half the merits of which you write. I know that to paint a beautiful woman I should see several and should have you also to assist me in my choice. But as I have few good judges or good models I work according to a certain idea which presents itself to my mind. If this idea possesses any perfection I do not know it, though this is what I endeavour to attain." Plato might recognize himself in these exquisite lines, or they might be a recovered fragment of the "Ion" or "Phædrus". The "History of Psyche" on the ceiling of the large gallery was painted in 1518 when Raphael, overburdened with work, had no leisure and confided to his pupils, chiefly to Giulio Romano, the task of executing his sketches and designs. His original sketches are marvels, and the composition of the frescoes, despite their rather heavy and vulgar colouring, is calculated to charm an artist's eye. With his spiritually inclined imagination Raphael feigns that the loggia opening on the garden is a large trellis, an arched and vine-covered pergola through which appear in mid-heaven the winged whiteness of the goddesses. Two or three figures fill these azure triangles. These ideal and floating figures are a very festival. But the middle of the pergola is covered with a velum formed by a double tapestry which depicts in two scenes the "Entrance of Psyche to Olympus" and the "Marriage of Psyche". Giulio Romano's coarse execution and the still more regrettable retouching of Maratta could not wholly dishonour these incomparable works. Pictures and portraits of the Roman period Together with these vast decorative works Raphael continued to produce as though for pastime works of small size but great importance, for they are the sole means whereby his art could be known outside of Italy, and Raphael become more than a name to the great European public. Moreover, there are many masterpieces among these works of small compass. The Madonnas of the beginning of the Roman period still retain somewhat of the relative timidity of the preceding period. The lovely little "Virgin of the Casa Alba" (St. Petersburg, 1510), the Leonardo-like "Madonna Aldobrandini" (National Gallery), the charming "Madonna of the Veil" of the Louvre (1510), still preserve a remnant of the Florentine grace and simplicity. The "Foligno Madonna", painted in 1511 for Sigismundo Conti after the Camera della Segnatura, marks the transition to a new manner. The graceful figure of the Virgin seated amid clouds on a sunlit throne with her Child in her arms recalls the celestial figures of the "Disputa"; the three saints and the donor kneeling below on the earth before the beautiful landscape, the Child with a cartel on which was formerly written the ex-voto, show brilliant and scholarly painting, but perhaps too evident symmetry. The "Virgin of the Fish" (Madrid, 1513), the "Virgin of the Candlesticks" (London, 1514), the "Virgin of the Curtain" (Madonna della Impannata, Pitti, 1514) are unfortunately among his pupils' works. There is a coldness, a lack of the artist's personal qualities and peculiar sensibility, which chills works otherwise charming in conception. Execution is a part of art which seems material but which is in reality quite spiritual; through it the artist betrays his emotion, gives us his confidence, and communicates his impressions. The work of another hand always lacks the most valuable qualities of style. Raphael was therefore not sufficiently careful of his reputation when he confided his most original inspirations to his pupils, for they lost in being expressed by others. The division of labour which has but few inconveniences in decorative works becomes fatal in works of a "lyric" or familiar nature, and which are only valuable in so far as the artist endows them with his personality. It is this which injures or spoils irreparably some of his most famous works, such as the "Spasimo" of Madrid, the "Madonna of the Rose" (or "La Perla") of the same museum, the "St. Michael" of the Louvre, and the "Holy Family" known as that of Francis I (all these belong to the years 1516-18). A thought of Raphael's translated even by such a master as Giulio Romano or Francesco Penni has nevertheless only the value of a shadow or a copy. Translation in such a case too often means betrayal. Some works of this period are nevertheless by the artist himself and are rightly numbered among his most popular works. The "Madonna of the Chair" (Pitti Palace) is perhaps the best liked by women. No other links so happily the familiar charm of the Florentine period with the maturity of the Roman period. She is only a peasant in the costume of a contadina with the national kerchief on her hair, but Raphael never found in such simple materials a more profound and natural combination of forms, such curving lines, such an expressive, enfolding arabesque. The whole of maternal love seems to be enclosed within the perfect circle of this picture. It is the perfection of genre pictures, wherein the most ordinary human life reaches its noblest expression, a universal beauty. Art has lived for four centuries on this sublime idea. Though from Giulio Romano to Ingres it has been imitated a thousand times, no one has discovered the secret of its perfection. Among tableaux de grace must be mentioned together with the little "Vision of Ezechiel" of the Pitti Palace, the splendid picture of St. Cecilia of Bologna (1515). This canvas, as well as its contemporaries the "Madonna of the Chair" and the "Sistine Madonna", coincides with the appearance of a new model whose portrait we have in the famous "Donna Velata" of the Pitti Palace. It was she who posed for the St. Cecilia as for the Dresden picture. These two pictures, especially the second, occupy a place apart in Raphael's works. Here the artist directly attempts the expression of the supernatural. The Dresden picture is the most beautiful devotional picture in existence. The impression is obtained not only by the idealism of its form, but by the vision-like representation of space, by the scheme of clouds on which the Virgin is upheld, and the solemnity of the drapery. An almost forbidding mystery fills this majestic canvas, truly unequalled in Raphael's work. It would perhaps have had a companion had not death interrupted the "Transfiguration" (Vatican Gallery, 1520). The upper part, which is all Raphael had time to complete, is one of his highest inspirations. In uniting this "glory" with the earthly and agitated scene below, he was confronted with a problem which it required all his genius to solve. The devotion of his pupils, who assumed the task of completing this well-nigh unrealizable task, produced only a cold and confused work. This is why we often prefer Raphael's portraits, which the taste of those days neglected, to his most talked-of works, his most famous Virgins. It is now the fashion to praise the portrait painter at the expense of the painter of the Madonnas and even of the decorator. It is truly said that in the first two Chambers the beauty of the portraits adds much to the life of the whole. Later, starting with the Chamber of the Incendio, Raphael, doubtless following Michelangelo's example, ceased to introduce portraits into his historical works; he no longer represented individuals, but only the general species. Nevertheless he continued to paint portraits and even here, though he has equals, no one excels him. The half-dozen portraits he has left, the Julius II of the Uffizi, the Leo X of the Pitti Palace, the portrait of Phædrus Inghirami (Boston, Fenway Court), and that of Castiglione (Louvre) are rivals of the most perfect work of Titian, Velasquez, and Rembrandt. There is no doubt that the original of the splendid "Donna Velata" of the Pitti Palace, who so often inspired him, played a part in his life, but she keeps her secret and no one has ever succeeded in piercing her incognito. It is only certain that she was not the Fornarina, who seems to be an invention of a romance dating only from the end of the eighteenth century. The rather indecent portrait of a woman in the Barberini Palace, which bears on a bracelet the name of Raphael, is the work of Giulio Romano, and the signature is a forgery of the seventeenth century. Raphael's fame, after three centuries of unclouded splendour, has been violently attacked during the last century. The progress of historical criticism and the discovery of the "Primitives" were the beginning of a reaction as violent as it was unjust. It was asserted that the Renaissance, instead of furthering the progress of art, was a source of decadence. A school was founded bearing the standard of the Pre-Raphaelites. This school, whose herald was John Ruskin, did much good, but without denying it its due, it is time to reject some of its narrow and prejudiced judgments. There is no doubt that Raphael, like other men of genius, had no pupils worthy of him. It would be strange to reproach him with the fact that his art was quite personal to himself. It may be that compared with Leonardo and especially with Michelangelo, Raphael seems less great or less original. He made no discoveries in nature like those of his great rivals, he added nothing to our knowledge of anatomy, of modelling, or construction; he is not a colourist like Titian, nor even a draughtsman in the absolute sense of the word, such as was Dërer or Pollaiuolo. It is probable that Raphael will never recover the singular position ascribed to him in the schools as the faultless master and the professor whose instructions are always to be consulted. On the other hand, he appears more and more the most exquisite and perfect expression of an age and a society which will never return. Nevertheless the fact remains that if there have been rarer or more learned painters than he, he excels them all in his incomparable sense of beauty. No other has shown us so much nobility in nature, no one ever had or led us to form a better opinion of human nature. No other painter handled so completely all the resources of his art. He has never been equalled as a portrait painter and decorator. No one has known so well how to invest the highest and most precious ideas with plastic forms. He has given form to our dreams. The most comprehensive source of information is the work of MNTZ, Les biographes et les critiques de Raphal (Paris, 1883); VASARI, Le vite, ed. Milanesi, IV (Florence, 1879); PUNGILEONI, Elogio storico di Giovanni Santi (Urbino, 1822); IDEM, Elogio storico di Giovanni Santi (Urbino, 1829); PASSAVANT, Raffael von Urbino u. sein Vater Giov. Santi, I, II (Leipzig, 1839); III (1858), French tr. LACROIX (Paris, 1860); BURCKHARDT, Der Cicerone (Basle, 1855); ed. BODE (Leipzig, 1879); French tr., GERARD (Paris, 1894); GRUYER, Raphal et l'antiquité (Paris, 1864); IDEM, Essai sur les fresques de Raphal; IDEM, Les vièrges de Raphal (Paris, 1869); IDEM, Raphal, peintre de portraits (Paris, 1887); TAINE,Voyage en Italie (Paris, 1866); IDEM, Philosophie de l'art en Italie (Paris, 1868); SPRINGER, Raphael u. Michelangelo (Leipzig, 1878); MORELLI, Italian Painters (London, 1893); MNTZ, Raphal, sa vie, son Ïuvre et son temps (Paris, 1887); new ed., 1900); MINGHETTI, Raffaello (Bologna, 1885); WICKHOFF, Die Bibliothek Julius II in Jahrbuch f?r Kunstwiss., XIV (Berlin, 1893); CARTWRIGHT, Raphael (London, 1895); KNACKFUSS, Raffael (Bielefeld, 1897); KLACZKO, Jules II, Rome et la Renaissance (Paris, 1898); BERENSON,Central Italian Painters (New York, 1900); IDEM, The Study and Criticism of Italian Art (2nd series, London, 1902); BERTAUX, Rome (Paris, 1902); CAROTTI, Le opere di Leonardo, Bramante et Raffaello (Milan, 1906); GILLET, Raphal (Paris, 1907). LOUIS GILLET Raphoe Raphoe Diocese of Raphoe (Rapotensis) Comprises the greater part of the Co. Donegal (Gael. Tirconail), in the ecclesiastical province of Armagh. Raphoe (Gaelic, Rathboth, fort of cottages) was the first of St. Columba's Irish foundation to become as episcopal see. The monastery which he founded there in the sixth century was renovated about the year 700 by Adamnan, who succeeded him in Raphoe as well as in Iona. Although Adamnan died in Iona (704) he spent the last six years of his life in Ireland, and his mother's kindred were the clan that occupied the Raphoe district. It is suggested that then, but not before, he may have been in episcopal orders with a sedes at Raphoe (Cuimhne Coluimcille, 12). Be that as it may, for Eunan, venerated as the first bishop of Raphoe, and so recorded by early Irish writers and the ancient calendars, is no other than Adamnan, whose name has the same pronunciation with Irish speakers. There is no record of a break in the line of Catholic succession in Raphoe. But from the death of Nial O'Boyle in 1610 to the appointment of James O'Gallagher in 1725, owing to the violence of persecution, the diocese was administered by vicars except during the episcopate of John O'Culenen from 1625 to 1661. The sufferings of this prelate were characteristic of the times. He was arrested, taken to Dublin, and twice brought before the viceroy and Privy Council. About 1643 he again fell into the hands of his enemies. Along with some prominent men of his diocese he was besieged by English soldiers and forced to surrender. Though promised quarter, seventy-two of his followers were put to the sword, and the bishop was given the choice between death by drowning and death at the hands of the military. Electing the latter fate he was stripped naked, and as the crossbows and matchlocks failed to discharge against the kneeling victim, pikemen were advancing to dispatch him, when Colonel Sir James Asken arrived upon the scene and prevented the murder, severely rebuking the soldiers. The bishop was then confined for four years in Derry in a dark dungeon where cold, hunger, and thirst were his portion. In the exchange of prisoners after Owen Roe O'Neill's victory at Benburg he regained his liberty in 1647. But when the remnant of the Irish army under Heber MacMahon was defeated near Letterkenny in 1650, O'Culenan's life was once more in daily peril. He made his way out of the country in 1653, and died at Brussels, 24 March, 1661. Six bothers, all older than himself, held high offices in the Church. The eldest, Gelasius, a doctor of the Sorbonne and Abbot of Boyle, was imprisoned in Dublin, tortured, and hanged. The next Bishop of Raphoe, whose appointment comes just a hundred years after that of O'Culenan, had also to fly for his life. In 1734 James O'Gallagher escaped capture by mounting a horse in the dead of night shortly before soldiers came to seize him. He sought refuge on a remote island in an Irish lake, and, during a year's concealment there, wrote for publication the Irish sermons which he had been accustomed to deliver to his flock, and which, when printed in 1736, became a powerful reminder of the duties of a Christian life throughout the western half of Ireland at a time of fierce aggression on the Faith. A marked man, he could not show himself again in Raphoe, and he was transferred to Kildare in 1737, where he found it needful to make a secluded spot in the Bog of Allen the centre of his apostolic labours. Driven out at the Reformation, a Catholic bishop has never since resided at Raphoe. Even before the flight of the earls from Rathmullen (1607), Donald MacCongail, a remarkable prelate, who was present at the Council of Trent in 1563 and at the Ulster provincial Council in 1587, seems to have resided most of his time at Killybeg, on ground now occupied by structures connected with St. Columba's Marine Industrial School. A remnant of the ancient cathedral church in Raphoe still shows in the chancel of the Protestant cathedral there; but no ruin marks the site of the ancient monastery. It is different with the foundations at Gartan, Glencolumbkille and Kilmacrenen, associated with Columba. More striking to the eye are the remains of the remarkable abbeys founded during the Middle Ages in the Diocese of Raphoe. The Cistercians were at Assaroe, near Ballyshannon, the Carmelites at Rathmullen, the Franciscans in almost every district of Tirconail. The most celebrated of these foundations was the Franciscan abbey at Donnegal, under whose shelter, after it was dismantled, the "Annals of the Kingdoms of Ireland" were compiled by the Four Masters (1632-1636). After the plantation of Ulster in the seventeenth century not an acre of good land remained in the hands of a Catholic in Tirconill. To this day some of its confiscated abbey lands yield an annual income of £9000 sterling to the Trinity College, Dublin. Dr. Patrick McGettingen (1820-1861) brought the Loreto Sisters to the Diocese of Raphoe (1854); Dr, Daniel McGettingen (1861-1871), afterwards primate of all Ireland, introduced the Sisters of Mercy (1867), and Dr. James McDevitt (1971-1879) established the Raphoe Diocesan Society (1872); the Presentation Brothers came to Letterkenny in 1894. The year 1901 is an important date in the history of Raphoe; it was then that the ancient cathedral-chapter was re-established by Leo XIII and St. Columba declared joint patron with St. Eunan of the diocese and of the new cathedral. In that year also the new cathedral, with which the bishop's residence is at Letterkenny, was solemnly dedicated. Cardinal Logue, a native and former bishop (1879-1897) of Raphoe, presided, and Archbishop Keane of Dubuque, also a native, preached the dedication sermon. St. Eunan's (Adamnan's) College was begun at Letterkenny on 23 September 1904, the twelfth centenary of St. Adamnan, and opened in 1906. There are many pilgrimages in Raphoe, the most frequent being Doon Well, Inniskeel, St. Catherine's Well, and Glencolumbkille. ST. ADAMNAN, Life of Columba, ed. REEVES (Dublin, 1857); O'DONOVAN (ed.), Annals of the Four Masters (Dublin, 1856); O'CLERY, Life of Red Hugh O'Donnell, ed. Murphy (Dublin, 1893); MAGUIRE, Cuimhne Coluimcille (Dublin, 1908); BURKE (ed.), Sermons of the Most Rev. Dr. James O'Gallagher (Dublin, 1887); MEEHAN, The Rise and Fall of the Irish Franciscan Monasteries (Dublin, 1872); ARCHDALE, Monasticon Hibernicum, ed. MORAN (Dublin, 1873). PATRICK O'DONNELL Rene Rapin René Rapin French Jesuit, born at Tours, 1621; died in Paris, 1687. He entered the Society in 1639, taught rhetoric, and wrote extensively both in verse and prose. His first production, "Eclogæ Sacræ" (Paris, 1659), won him the title of the Second Theocritus, and his poem on gardens, "Hortorum libri IV" (Paris, 1665), twice translated into English (London, 1673; Cambridge, 1706), placed him among the foremost Latin versifiers. Of his critical essays, the best known are: "Observations sur les poèmes d'Horace et de Virgile" (Paris, 1669); "Réflexions sur l'usage de l'éloquence de ce temps" (Paris, 1672); "Réflexions sur la poétique d'Aristote et sur les ouvrages des poétes anciens et modernes" (Paris, 1676). He is also the author of several theological and ascetic treatises like "De nova doctrina dissertatio seu Evangelium Jansenistarum" (Paris, 1656); "L'esprit du christianisme" (Paris, 1672); "La perfection du christianisme" (Paris, 1673); "La foi des derniers siècles" (Paris, 1679). These books and many other pamphlets were collected in "Oeuvres complétes" published at Amsterdam, 1709-10. Rapin's best titles to celebrity are his two posthumous works: "Histoire du jansenisme", edited by Domenech (Paris, 1861), and "Mémoires sur l'église, la société, la cour, la ville et le jansénisme", edited by Aubineau (Paris, 1865). The latter book is the counterpart of the Jansenistic "Mémoires de Godefroi Hermant sur l'histoire ecclésiastique du XVIIe siècle", edited by Gazier (Paris, 1905). Ste-Beuve in his own "Port Royal" tries on every occasion to find Rapin at fault, but recent studies on Jansenism show that he is, in the main, reliable. J.F. SOLLIER Raskolniks Raskolniks (Russian raskolnik, a schismatic, a dissenter; from raskol, schism, splitting; that in turn from raz, apart, and kolot', to split; plural, raskolniki). A generic term for dissidents from the Established Church in Russia. Under the name Raskolniki, the various offshoots and schismatic bodies originating from the Greek Orthodox Church of the Russian Empire have been grouped by Russian historians and ecclesiastical writers. Strictly speaking, the name Raskolniki refers merely to those who have kept the outward forms of the Byzantine Rite; the others who have deserted its ritual as well as its teaching are grouped under the name Sekstanstvo (sectarianism). In the present article they are both treated together, since either form of dissent is but slightly known outside of Russia. The Raskolniks represent in the Russian Church somewhat the antithesis of Protestantism toward the Catholic Church. Protestants left the Catholic Church because they claimed a desire to reform it by dropping dogmas, beliefs, and rites; the Raskolniks left the Russian church because they desired to keep alive the minutest rites and practices to which they were accustomed, and objected to the Russian Church reforming them in any respect. In doing so they fell into the greatest of inconsistencies, and a section of them, while keeping up the minutiæ of ritual, rejected nearly every doctrine the Church taught throughout the world. I. TRUE RASKOLNIKS Even from the time that the Russians were converted to Christianity there were various dissident sects among them, reproducing in some respect the almost forgotten heresies of the early ages of the Church. These are mere names today, but the main separation from the Russian Established church came in 1654 when Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow, convened a synod at Moscow for the reform of rituals and the correction of the church books. At the time the air in Southern Russia was filled with the idea of union with Rome, in Central and Northern Russian there was the fear of the Polish invasion and the turning to Latin customs. When Nikon corrected the church service books, into which many errors had crept through careless copying, and conformed them with the original Greek text, great complaint was expressed that he was departing from old Slavonic hallowed words, and was making cause with the stranger outside of Russia. When he undertook to change the style of popular forms and ceremonies, such as the sign of the cross, the spelling and pronunciation of "Jesus", shaving the beard, or to differ in the number of Alleluias before the Gospel, he aroused popular resentment, which rose until there came an open break in which every point he proposed was rejected. Afterwards when Peter the Great came to the throne (1689-1725) and introduced western customs, abolished the Patriarchate of Moscow, substituted the Holy Synod and made himself the head of Church authority, changed the form of the ancient Russo-Slavonic letters, and set on foot a host of new things in Church and State, the followers of the old order of things publicly condemned him as the Antichrist and renounced the State Church forever, while clinging to the older forms of their fathers. But both Nikon and Peter had the whole Russian episcopate with them, as well as the great majority of the Russian clergy and people. The dissenters who thus separated from the established Greco-Russian Orthodox church became also known as Stariobriodtsi (old Ritualists) and Staroviertsi (old Believers), in allusion to their adherence to the forms and teaching prevailing before Nikon's reforms. As none of the Russian bishops seceded from the Established Church the Raskolniks therefore had but an incomplete form of Church. Of course a number of priests and deacons adhered to them, but as they had no bishops they could not provide new members of the clergy. Soon death began to thin the ranks of their clergy, and it became apparent that within a brief period they would be left without any priesthood whatever. Then some of their leaders began to deny that a priesthood was necessary at all. This lead to the splitting of the Raskolniks into two distinct branches: the Popovsti (priestly, i.e., "Pope"-ly), who insisted on the hierarchy and priesthood, and the Bezpopovsti (Priestless, i.e., without "Popes") who denied the necessity of any clergy whatever. The latter, however, accepted their ministrations. The fortunes of these two denominations or sects were quite different. The former grew to great importance in Russia, and are now said to have between thirteen and fifteen millions of adherents. The latter subdivided again and again into smaller sects, and are said to number between three and four million, all included. They will be taken up separately. Popovtsi or Hierarchical Raskolniks At first these renewed their clergy by taking over dissatisfied or dismissed priests from the established Orthodox Church, after having them take an oath against all the reforms instituted by Nikon and Peter; but this method was hardly satisfactory, for in most cases the material thus obtained was of low moral grade. They believed that the whole Russian episcopate had gone over to Antichrist, but were still valid bishops, and hence endeavoured to have bishops ordained by them, but in vain. They searched the Eastern world for a bishop who held their particular ideas, and it seemed almost they must eventual change for lack of clergy, when chance aided them. A community of Popovtsi monks had settles at Bielo-krinitsa (White fountain) in Bukowina. Ambrose (1791-1863), a Greek monk, was appointed Bishop of Sarajevo in Bosnia, and was consecrated by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Subsequently a later patriarch deposed him, and when his resentful feelings against the a Constantinople authorities were at their height, the Raskolniks approached him with the request to become their bishop. On 16 April, 1846, Ambrose agreed to go over to their faith and adopt all the ancient practices, consecrate other bishops for them, and become their metropolitan or archbishop. On 27 October, 1846, he was solemnly received in the monastery of Bielo-krinitsa, took the necessary oaths, celebrated pontifical Mass and assumed episcopal jurisdiction. Bielo-krinitsa is only a few miles from the Russian border, and a hierarchy was soon brought into being for Russia. After bishops were consecrated for Austria and Turkey, bishops were consecrated and installed in Russia. The Russian government could not crush the head of the Raskol Church, for it was in Austria. The Popovsti grew by leaps and bounds, commenced to provide for a regular educated clergy and vied with the established church. At present they have, since the decree of toleration in 1905, a well-established hierarchy in Russia with a Metropolitan in Moscow, and bishops at Saratoff, Perm, Kazan, Caucasus, Samara, Kolomea, Nijni-Novgorod, Smolensk, Vyatka, and Kaluga. Their chief stronghold is the Rogozhsky quarter in Moscow, where they have their great cemetery, monastery, cathedral, church, and chapels. In 1863, at the time of the Polish insurrection, the Raskolnik archbishop and his lay advisors sent out an encyclical letter to the "Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of the Old Believers", supporting the tsar and declaring that on all main points they were in agreement with the Established Church. This again split their church into two factions which last to this day: the Okruzhniki or Encyclicalists, and the Raznordiki or Controversialists, who denied the points of agreement with the national Church. In addition to this the Established Church has set up a section of these Raskolniks in union with it, but has permitted them to keep all their peculiar practices, and these are called the Yedinovertsi or "Uniates". A great many of the Controversial section of the Raskolniks are coming into the Catholic Church, and already some eight or ten priests have been received. Bezpopovtsi, or the Priestless, seemed to represent the despairing side of the schism. They have their greatest stronghold in the Preobrazhenky quarter in Moscow, and are strong also in the Government of Archangel. They took the view that Satan had so far conquered and throttled the Church that the clergy had gone wrong and had become his servants, that the sacraments, except baptism, were withdrawn from the laity, and that they were left leaderless. They claimed the right of free interpretation of the Scriptures, and modelling their lives accordingly. They recognize no ministers save their "readers" who are elected. Lest this be said to duplicate Protestantism it must be said that they have kept up all the Orthodox forms of service as far as possible, crossings, bowings, icons, candles, fastings, and the like, and have regularly maintained monasteries with their monks and nuns. But they have no element of stability; and their sects have become innumerable, ever shifting and varying, with incessant divisions and subdivisions. The chief of these subdivisions are: (1) Pomortsi; or dwellers near the sea, a rural division which is very devout; (2) Feodocci (Theodosians) who founded hospitals and laid emphasis on good works; (3) Bezbrachniki (free lovers) who repudiated marriage, somewhat like the Oneida community in New York; (4) Stranniki (wanderers) a peripatetic sect, who went over the country, declaring their doctrines; (5) Molchalniki (mutes), who seldom spoke, believing evil came through the tongue and idle conversation; and (6) Niemoliaki (non-praying) who taught that, as God knows all things it is useless to pray to him, as He knows what one needs. These various divisions of the priestless are again divided into smaller ones, like many of the strange sects in England and America, so that it is almost impossible to follow them. Often they indulge in the wildest immorality, justifying it under the cover of some distorted text of Scripture or some phrase of the ancient Church service. II. SECTARIANS The various bodies which make up the Sektanstvo have seceded from the national Russian Church quite independently of the schism at the time of Nikon and the reform in the church books. They correspond more closely with the various sects arising from Protestantism, and are founded upon some distorted idea of the Church, or a rule of life of doctrines of the Faith. Some of them are older than the schism, but most of them are later in point of time. The principal ones comprise between one and two millions and may be subdivided, or classified as follows: (1) Khylsti (Flagellants), who believe in severe penances, reject the Church, its sacraments, and usages. They also are called the Ludi Bozhi, or "God's People", and also the "Farmazoni" (Freemasons) on account of the secret initiations they have. They hold secret meetings in which they sing wild, stirring hymns, dress in white, and jump, dance, or whirl, much like the negro revivals in the Southern States. (2) Skoptsi (Eunuchs), who not only teach absolute celibacy, but mutilate themselves so as to be sexless. They boast that they are pure like the saints and walk untainted through this world of sin, and take the literal view of Matthew 19:12. Women are also mutilated, particularly after they have borne children to recruit the sect, but these children are not born in wedlock. The Skoptsi are said to be usurers and money changers. (3) Molokani (Milk-drinkers) said to be so named because they make it a point to drink milk and use other prohibited foods during Lent and fast days, to show their objection to the Orthodox church. They abhor all external ceremonies of religion, but lay stress upon the Bible. They say there is no teacher of the faith but Christ himself, and that we are all priests; and they carry their logic so far as to have neither church nor chapel, simply meeting in one anothers' houses. (4) Dukhobors (Spirit wrestlers) are those who deny the Holy Ghost and place but a minor importance on the Scriptures. They are better known to America, for some thousands of them emigrated to Canada, where they are now good colonists. They give a wide place to tradition, and designate a man as "the living book", in opposition to dead books of paper and ink. In some respects they are pantheists, saying that God lies within us, that we must struggle with the spirit of God to attain the fullness of life. They do not give an historical reality to the gospel narratives, but take them figuratively. Their idea of the Church is in conformity with their belief; they consider it an assembly of the righteous on earth, whether Christians, Jews, or Moslems. Yet they have all the peculiarities and fanaticism of the Slav. (5) Stundists, or a kind of Russian Baptist. These seem to be an offshoot of the Lutherans or Mennonites who settled in Russia. Their name is derived from the German Stunde, or hour, because they assembled at stated hours to read the Bible or worship. They rejected the sacraments, even baptism at first, yet retain it. They gave up all Christian holidays, and agreed with the Melokani in repudiating the idea of a clergy. They are nearly all Little Russians, in the South of Russia. (6) Subbotniki (Sabbatarians), who have substituted Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, for Sunday. They have also taken up a great many practices from the Old Testament along with such elemental forms which they retain. They are practically Unitarians, and expect the Messias; and they are also said to be like the Mormons, living in polygamy in many instances, although most of them are content with one wife. Besides these principal sects there are numerous smaller ones. One can almost run the same round of strange and erratic religious beliefs in Russia as in the United States. There are the Pliassuny (Dancers), Samobogi (Self-gods), Chisleniki (Computers), who have changed Sunday so as to fall on Wednesday, and Easter to the middle of the week, Pashkovites, Radstockites (so named after their founders), and numerous others, which exploit some peculiar tenant of their various founders and believers. In addition to those are the various missionary enterprises and local churches of Western Protestantism, of which the Lutherans and Baptists are the leading ones. LEROY-BEAULIEU, The Empire of the Tsars, III (New York, 1902); HEARD, The Russian Church and Russian Dissent (New York, 1887); Pravoslavnaya Bogoslavskaya Enciclopedia, II (St. Petersburg, 1903); IGNATIUS, Istoria Raskola v russkom starovierykh Raskolnikoff (St. Petersburg, 1895). ANDREW J. SHIPMAN Andreas Rass Andreas Räss Bishop of Strasburg, b. at Sigolsheim in upper Alsace, 6 April, 1794; d. at Strasburg, 17 November, 1887. After receiving his classical training at Schlettstadt and Nancy, Räss studied philosophy and theology at the seminary at Mainz under Liebermann and was ordained priest in 1816. At first he was a teacher in the seminary for boys at Mainz. In 1822 he received the degree of doctor from the theological faculty of Würzburg. When Liebermann left Mainz for Strasburg Räss was made, in 1825, director of the seminary at Mainz and professor of dogmatics at the same place. After failing to be elected Bishop of Mainz in 1828, on account of the opposition of the Hessian Government, he had charge for a short time of the theological seminary at Molsheim; in 1829 he became superior of the seminary for priests at Strasburg and professor of dogmatics, theology, and homiletics. On 5 August, 1840, he was made coadjutor Bishop of Strasburg with the right of succession, and was consecrated on 14 February, 1841. In 1842 he became Bishop of Strasburg. As bishop he devoted himself particularly to the training of the clergy and the extension or religious societies. He was one of the most determined defenders of Papal Infallibility at the Vatican Council. His declaration in 1874 in the German Reichstag that the Treaty of Frankfort was recognized by the Catholics of Alsace and Lorraine did much to shatter the great popularity he had until then enjoyed among his fellow-countrymen of Alsace. In his earlier years, before he was raised to the episcopate, Räss showed great and very creditable activity as an author. One undertaking which is much to his honour is the founding, with Nicholas Weis, of the "Katholik" at Mainz in 1821. In the years 1819-39, also with the aid of Weis, he published a large number of works, chiefly translations and revisions of French and English originals. Among the most important of these are Alban Butler's "Leben der Väter und Märtyrer" (20 vols., Mainz, 1823-26; 2nd ed., 23 vols., 1838-40); a brief summary of this work; "Leben der Heiligen Gottes" (4 vols., Mainz, 1826--); later, completely revised by J. Holzwarth (2 vols., Mainz, 1854--); 13th ed. (1903); another was the "Bibliothek der katholischen Kanzelberedsamkeit" (18 vols., Frankfort, 1829-36). Räss also brought about the German translation of the "Annalen der Verbreitung des Glaubens", which he edited, and in this way did much to promote the interest in missions to the heathen. During his episcopate Räss published his well-known and most important work: "Die Convertiten seit der Reformation nach ihrem Leben und aus ihren Schriften dargestellt" (13 vols. and index, Freiburg, 1866-80). BERNARD (Pseudonym for GUERBER), Andreas Räss, Bischof von Strassburg (Würzburg, 1873) in the series "Deutschlands Episcopat in Lebensbildern", I, pt. IV); Räss, Mgr A. Räss, eveque de Strasbourg, biographical notice in Revue catholique d'Alsace, new series, XXI (1901), sqq; Räss, Andrea Räss et l'oeuvre de la propagation de la foi (Rixheim, Strasburg, 1902). FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT Joseph Rathborne Joseph Rathborne Priest and controversialist (sometimes erroneously called RATHBONE), born at Lincoln, 11 May, 1807; died at Cowes, 12 August, 1842. He was educated at Ushaw (1813-22), and St. Edmund's, Old Hall (1823-30), where he was ordained 18 Feb., 1830. In November he was appointed by Bishop Bramston to the mission at Cowes, where the rest of his life was spent. He published "Letters of Alethphilos" (1839), which dealt with a local controversy about prayers for the dead. Under the same pseudonym he published a series of other pamphlets, "Good Friday and Easter Sunday" (1839); "Letters to the Protestants of the Isle of Wight on the Catholic Religion" (1839); "A Reply to the Reverend Barnabas Rodriguez Almeda" (1840); "A Letter to Dr. Adams, shewing Purgatory inseparably connected with Prayers for the Dead" (1840); "Are the Puseyites sincere?" (1841); and "The Church in its Relations with Truth and the State" -- a reply to Mr. Gladstone (1841). Under his own name he published "The Clergy of the French Revolution", an obituary sermon on the Rev. Dr. de Grenthe. Tablet, III, 423, 455, 583; DAVIES, History of Cowes Mission (Cowes, 1897); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v. Rathbone. EDWIN BURTON. Ratherius of Verona Ratherius of Verona He was born about 887; died at Namur 25 April, 974. He belonged to a noble family which lived in the territory of Liège. While still a boy he was sent as an oblate to the Benedictine Abbey of Lobbes in the Hennegau, where he was a diligent student, acquired much learning, and became a monk of the abbey. At an early age he displayed a restless nature, a disposition difficult to get along with, great ambition, and a zeal that was harsh. Consequently, notwithstanding his strict orthodoxy, his wide learning, and sobriety of conduct, he met with great difficulties in every position he assumed, and nowhere attained permanent success. His entire life was a wandering one and not in reality fruitful. When Abbot Hilduin of Lobbes went in 926 to Italy, where his cousin, Hugo of Provence, was king, he took Ratherius with him as companion. After many difficulties Ratherius received from the king the Diocese of Verona in 931. Yet he only ruled his see for two years. He soon fell into a quarrel with both the members of his diocese and with the king, so that the latter sent him to prison and had him brought to Como. In 939 he escaped from Como into Provence, where he was tutor in a noble family until he returned to the Abbey of Lobbes in 944. In 946 he went again to Italy and, after he had been held for some time as a prisoner by Berengar, the opponent of King Hugo, he obtained once more the Diocese of Verona. The difficulties that arose were again so great that after two years he fled to Germany and for some time wandered restlessly about the country. He took part in the Italian expedition of Ludolph of Swabia, the son of Otto I, but was not able to regain his diocese, and in 952 returned to Lobbes. From Lobbes he was called to the cathedral school of Cologne by Archbishop Bruno of Cologne; who soon afterwards, in 953, gave Ratherius the Diocese of Liège. However, as early as 955, a revolt of the nobility against him obliged Ratherius to leave this see, and he now retired to the Abbey of Aulne. In 962 the Emperor Otto restored to him the Diocese of Verona, but after seven years of constant quarrels and difficulties he was obliged once more to withdraw. In 968 he went to Lobbes, where he incited such opposition against the Abbot Folcwin that Bishop Notker of Liège restored order by force, and in 972 sent Ratherius to the Abbey of Aulne, where he remained until his death. His writings are as unsystematic as his life was changeable and tumultuous. While his style is confused and lacks clearness, his writings generally had reference to particular occasions and were pamphlets and invectives against his contemporaries. He also wrote complaints against himself in his own affairs. Among his writings should be mentioned: "Præloquia", in six books, a criticism of all the social ranks of the period; "Conclusio deliberativa", and "Phrenesis", both in defence of his right to the Diocese of Liège; "Dialogus confessionum" and "Qualitatis conjunctura", reckless self-accusation; "De contemptu canonum", "Synodica", "Discordia inter ipsum et clericos", and "Liber apologeticus", against the ecclesiastics of his era and in defence of himself. Some of his sermons and 1etters have also been preserved. The writings throw much light upon his era. His works were edited by the brothers Ballerini (Verona, 1765); also in "P. L.", CXXXVI. Unedited letters are to be found in "Studie documenti di storia e diritto" (1903) 51-72. HURTER, Nomenclator (3rd. ed., Innsbruck, 1903), I 901-06; VOGEL, Ratherius von Verona und das X. Jahrhundert (2 vols. Jena, 1854); HAUCK, Kirchengesch, Deutschlands. III (Leipzig, 1896), 285 sqq. J. P. KIRSCH. Rationale Rationale Rational, an episcopal humeral, a counterpart of the pallium, and like it worn over the chasuble. At the present time it is only used by the Bishops of Eichstätt, Paderborn, Toul, and Cracow. As worn by the Bishops of Eichstätt, Paderborn, and Toul, the rationale is in the form of a humeral collar, ornamented in the front and back with appendages. The one used by the Bishop of Cracow is made of two bands crossing the shoulder and joined at the breast and at the back, having the appearance of a discoid connected by medallions. During the Middle Ages the use of the rationale was affected by a number of German bishops, e. g. the Bishops of Würzburg, Ratisbon, Eichstätt, Naumburg, Halberstadt, Paderborn, Minden, Speier, Metz, Augsburg, Prague, Olmutz, and by the Bishops of Liège and Toul, whose dioceses at that time belonged to the German Empire. There is no account of this rationale being worn by any other bishops except a few in territories adjoining that of Germany (Cracow, Aquileia). Of the above-mentioned bishops many only used it temporarily. The earliest mention of the rationale dates from the second half of the tenth century. The earliest representations are two pictures of Bishop Sigebert of Minden (1022-36), a miniature and an ivory tablet, which were both incorporated in a Mass Ordo belonging to Bishop Sigebert. The form of the rationale during the Middle Ages was manifold. Besides the two forms which have survived to our time, there were two other types, one closely resembling a Y-form pallium, the other like a T-form pallium, with the difference that instead of being striped vertically, it was simply tasselled in front and at the back. There were no rules governing the ornamentation of the rationale, as is clearly seen by representations of it on monuments, and by such rationales as have been preserved (Bamberg, Ratisbon, Eichstätt, Paderborn, Munich). The edges were generally adorned with small bells. The Rationale is an imitation and an equivalent of the pallium. That this is the case is evident, apart from other papal Bulls, from the Bull of John XIX (1027), conferring on the Patriarch Poppo of Aquileia the pallium and the rationale at the same time, with the condition that he could only wear the pallium on high festivals. It appears, however, that the humeral ornaments of the Jewish high-priests (ephod, etc.) were not without influence in evoking this pontifical adornment, as may be seen from the original rationales preserved at Bamberg and Ratisbon. The name at least is derived from the appellation of the breast ornament of the high-priest Aaron. From the tenth to the thirteenth century the rationale was also the name of an episcopal ornament similar to a large pectoral clasp, made of precious metal, ornamented with diamonds, and worn over the chasuble. It is frequently met with in pictures of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and is generally square, seldom round in form. Its use was discontinued in the course of the thirteenth century, and it is only at Reims that its use can be traced to the beginning of the sixteenth century. It originated undoubtedly in the pomp developed in episcopal vestments during the tenth century, and took its name from the breast ornament of the Jewish high-priest. BRAUN, Die liturgische Gewandung im Occident und Orient (Freiburg, 1907). JOSEPH BRAUN. Rationalism Rationalism (Latin, ratio == reason, the faculty of the mind which forms the ground of calculation, i. e. discursive reason. See APOLOGETICS: ATHEISM; BIBLE; DEISM; EMPIRICISM; ETHICS; BIBLICAL EXEGESIS; FAITH; MATERIALISM; MIRACLE; REVELATION). The term is used: (1) in an exact sense, to designate a particular moment in the development of Protestant thought in Germany; (2) in a broader, and more usual, sense to cover the view (in relation to which many schools may he classed as rationalistic) that the human reason, or understanding, is the sole source and final test of all truth. It has further: (3) occasionally been applied to the method of treating revealed truth theologically, by casting it into a reasoned form, and employing philosophical Categories in its elaboration. These three uses of the term will be discussed in the present article. (1) The German school of theological Rationalism formed a part of the more general movement of the eighteenth-century "Enlightenment". It may be said to owe its immediate origin to the philosophical system of Christian Wolff (1679-1754), which was a modification, with Aristotelean features, of that of Leibniz, especially characterized by its spiritualism, determinism, and dogmatism. This philosophy and its method exerted a profound influence upon contemporaneous German religious thought, providing it with a rationalistic point of view in theology and exegesis. German philosophy in the eighteenth century was, as a whole, tributary to Leibniz, whose "Théodicée" was written principally against the Rationalism of Bayle: it was marked by an infiltration of English Deism and French Materialism, to which the Rationalism at present considered had great affinity, and towards which it progressively developed: and it was vulgarized by its union with popular literature. Wolff himself was expelled from his chair at the University of Halle on account of the Rationalistic nature of his teaching, principally owing to the action of Lange (1670-1774; cf. "Causa Dei et reilgionis naturals adversus atheismum", and "Modesta Disputatio", Halle, 1723). Retiring to Marburg, he taught there until 1740, when he was recalled to Halle by Frederick II. Wolff's attempt to demonstrate natural religion rationally was in no sense an attack upon revelation. As a "supranaturalist" he admitted truths above reason, and he attempted to support by reason the supernatural truths contained in Holy Scripture. But his attempt, while it incensed the pietistic school and was readily welcomed by the more liberal and moderate among the orthodox Lutherans, in reality turned out to be strongly in favour of the Naturalism that he wished to condemn. Natural religion, he asserted, is demonstrable; revealed religion is to be found in the Bible alone. But in his method of proof of the authority of Scripture recourse was had to reason, and thus the human mind became, logically, the ultimate arbiter in the case of both. Supranaturalism in theology, which it was Wolff's intention to uphold, proved incompatible with such a philosophical position, and Rationalism took its place. This, however, is to be distinguished from pure Naturalism, to which it led, but with which it never became theoretically identified. Revelation was not denied by the Rationalists; though, as a matter of fact, if not of theory, it was quietly suppressed by the claim, with its ever-increasing application, that reason is the competent judge of all truth. Naturalists, on the other hand, denied the fact of revelation. As with Deism and Materialism, the German Rationalism invaded the department of Biblical exegesis. Here a destructive criticism, very similar to that of the Deists, was levelled against the miracles recorded in, and the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless, the distinction between Rationalism and Naturalism still obtained. The great Biblical critic Semler (1725-91), who is one of the principal representatives of the school, was a strong opponent of the latter; in company with Teller (1734-1804) and others he endeavoured to show that the records of the Bible have no more than a local and temporary character, thus attempting to safeguard the deeper revelation, while sacrificing to the critics its superficial vehicle. He makes the distinction between theology and religion (by which he signifies ethics). The distinction made between natural and revealed religion necessitated a closer definition of the latter. For Supernaturalists and Rationalists alike religion was held to be "a way of knowing and worshipping the Deity", but consisting chiefly, for the Rationalists, in the observance of God's law. This identification of religion with morals, which at the time was utilitarian in character (see UTILITARIANISM), led to further developments in the conceptions of the nature of religion, the meaning of revelation, and the value of the Bible as a collection of inspired writings. The earlier orthodox Protestant view of religion as a body of truths published and taught by God to man in revelation was in process of disintegration. In Semler's distinction between religion (ethics) on the one hand and theology on the other, with Herder's similar separation of religion from theological opinions and religious usages, the cause of the Christian religion, as they conceived it, seemed to be put beyond the reach of the shock of criticism, which, by destroying the foundations upon which it claimed to rest, had gone so far to discredit the older form of Lutheranism. Kant's (1724-1804) criticism of the reason, however, formed a turning-point in the development of Rationalism. For a full understanding of his attitude, the reader must be acquainted with the nature of his pietistic upbringing and later scientific and philosophical formation in the Leibniz-Wolff school of thought (see KANT, PHILOSOPHY OF). As far as concerns the point that occupies us at present, Kant was a Rationalist. For him religion was coextensive, with natural, though not utilitarian, morals. When he met with the criticisms of Hume and undertook his famous "Kritik", his preoccupation was to safeguard his religious opinions, his rigorous morality, from the danger of criticism. This he did, not by means of the old Rationalism, but by throwing discredit upon metaphysics. The accepted proofs of the existence of God, immortality, and liberty were thus, in his opinion, overthrown, and the well-known set of postulates of the "categoric imperative" put forward in their place. This, obviously, was the end of Rationalism in its earlier form, in which the fundamental truths of religion were set out as demonstrable by reason. But, despite the shifting of the burden of religion from the pure to the practical reason, Kant himself never seems to have reached the view ==; to which all his work pointed ==; that religion is not mere ethics, "conceiving moral laws as divine commands", no matter how far removed from Utilitarianism ==; not an affair of the mind, but of the heart and will; and that revelation does not reach man by way of an exterior promulgation, but consists in a personal adaptation towards God. This conception was reached gradually with the advance of the theory that man possesses a religious sense, or faculty, distinct from the rational (Fries, 1773-1843; Jacobi, 1743-1819; Herder, 1744-1803; == all opposed to the Intellectualism of Kant), and ultimately found expression with Schleiermacher (1768-1834), for whom religion is to be found neither in knowledge nor in action, but in a peculiar attitude of mind which consists in the consciousness of absolute dependence upon God. Here the older distinction between natural and revealed religion disappears. All that can be called religion == the consciousness of dependence == is at the same time revelational, and all religion is of the same character. There is no special revelation in the older Protestant (the Catholic) sense, but merely this attitude of dependence brought into being in the individual by the teaching of various great personalities who, from time to time, have manifested an extraordinary sense of the religious. Schleiermacher was a contemporary of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, whose philoasophical speculations had influence, with his own, in ultimately subverting Rationalism as here dealt with. The movement may be said to have ended with him == in the opinion of Teller "the greatest theologian that the Protestant Church has had since the period of the Reformation". The majority of modern Protestant theologians accept his views, not, however, to the exclusion of knowledge as a basis of religion. Parallel with the development of the philosophical and theological views as to the nature of religion and the worth of revelation, which provided it with its critical principles, took place an exegetical evolution. The first phase consisted in replacing the orthodox Protestant doctrine (i. e. that the Sacred Scriptures are the Word of God) by a distinction between the Word of God contained in the Bible and the Bible itself (Töllner, Herder), though the Rationalists still held that the purer source of revelation lies rather in the written than in the traditional word. This distinction led inevitably to the destruction, of the rigid view of inspiration, and prepared the ground for the second phase. The principle of accommodation was now employed to explain the difficulties raised by the Scripture records of miraculous events and demoniacal manifestations (Senf, Vogel), and arbitrary methods of exegesis were also used to the same end (Paulus, Eichhorn). In the third phase Rationalists had reached the point of allowing the possibility of mistakes having been made by Christ and the Apostles, at any rate with regard to non-essential parts of religion. All the devices of exegesis were employed vainly; and, in the end, Rationalists found themselves forced to admit that the authors of the New Testament must have written from a point of view different from that which a modern theologian would adopt (Henke, Wegseheider). This principle, which is sufficiently elastic to admit of usage by nearly every variety of opinion, was admitted by several of the Supernaturalists (Reinhard, Storr), and is very generally accepted by modern Protestant divines, in the rejection of verbal inspiration. Herder is very clear on the distinction == the truly inspired must be discerned from that which is not; and de Wette lays down as the canon of interpretation "the religious perception of the divine operation, or of the Holy Spirit, in the sacred writers as regards their belief and inspiration, but not respecting their faculty of forming ideas. . ." In an extreme form it may be seen employed in such works as Strauss's "Leben Jesu", where the hypothesis of the mythical nature of miracles is developed to a greater extent than by Schleiermacher or de Wette. (2) Rationalism, in the broader, popular meaning of the term, is used to designate any mode of thought in which human reason holds the place of supreme criterion of truth; in this sense, it is especially applied to such modes of thought as contrasted with faith. Thus Atheism, Materialism, Naturalism, Pantheism, Scepticism, etc., fall under the head of rationalistic systems. As such, the rationalistic tendency has always existed in philosophy, and has generally shown itself powerful in all the critical schools. As has been noted in the preceding paragraph, German Rationalism had strong affinities with English Deism and French Materialism, two historic forms in which the tendency has manifested itself. But with the vulgarization of the ideas contained in the various systems that composed these movements, Rationalism has degenerated. It has become connected in the popular mind with the shallow and misleading philosophy frequently put forward in the name of science, so that a double confusion has arisen, in which; + questionable philosophical speculations are taken for scientific facts, and + science is falsely supposed to be in opposition to religion. This Rationalism is now rather a spirit, or attitude, ready to seize upon any arguments, from any source and of any or no value, to urge against the doctrines and practices of faith. Beside this crude and popular form it has taken, for which the publication of cheap reprints and a vigorous propaganda are mainly responsible, there runs the deeper and more thoughtful current of critical-philosophical Rationalism, which either rejects religion and revelation altogether or treats them in much the same manner as did the Germans. Its various manifestations have little in common in method or content, save the general appeal to reason as supreme. No better description of the position can be given than the statements of the objects of the Rationalist Press Association. Among these are: "To stimulate the habits of reflection and inquiry and the free exercise of individual intellect . . . and generally to assert the supremacy of reason as the natural and necessary means to all such knowledge and wisdom as man can achieve". A perusal of the publications of the same will show in what sense this representative body interprets the above statement. It may be said finally, that Rationalism is the direct and logical outcome of the principles of Protestantism; and that the intermediary form, in which assent is given to revealed truth as possessing the imprimatur of reason, is only a phase in the evolution of ideas towards general disbelief. Official condemnations of the various forms of Rationalism, absolute and mitigated, are to be found in the Syllabus of Pius IX. (3) The term Rationalism is perhaps not usually applied to the theological method of the Catholic Church. All forms of theological statement, however, and pre-eminently the dialectical form of Catholic theology, are rationalistic in the truest sense. Indeed, the claim of such Rationalism as is dealt with above is directly met by the counter claim of the Church: that it is at best but a mutilated and unreasonable Rationalism, not worthy of the name, while that of the Church is rationally complete, and integrated, moreover, with super-rational truth. In this sense Catholic theology presupposes the certain truths of natural reason as the preambula fidei, philosophy (the ancilla theologiæ) is employed in the defence of revealed truth (see APOLOGETICS), and the content of Divine revelation is treated and systematized in the categories of natural thought. This systematization is carried out both in dogmatic and moral theology. It is a process contemporaneous with the first attempt at a scientific statement of religious truth, comes to perfection of method in the works of such writers as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus, and is consistently employed and developed in the Schools. HAGENBACH, Kirchengesch. des 18. Jahrhunderts in Vorlesungen über Wesen u. Gesch. der Reformation in Deutschland etc., V-VI (Leipzig, 1834-43); IDEM (tr. BUCH), Compendium of the History of Doctrines (Edinburgh, 1846); HASE, Kirchengesch. (Leipzig, 1886); HENKE, Rationalismus u. Traditionalismus im 19. Jahrh. (Halle, 1864); HURST, History of Rationalism (New York, 1882); LERMINIER, De l'influence de la philosophie du XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1833); SAINTES, Hist. critique du rationalisme en Allemagne (Paris, 1841); SCHLEIERMACHER, Der christl. Glaube nach der Grundsätzen der evangelischen Kirche (Berlin, 1821-22): SEMLER, Von freier Untersuchung des Kanons (Halle, 1771-75); IDEM, Institutio ad doctrinam christianam liberaliter discendam (Halle, 1774); IDEM, Versuch einer freier theologischen Lehrart (Halle, 1777); STAÜDLIN, Gesch. des Rationalismus u. Supranaturalismus (Göttingen, 1826); THOLUCK, Vorgesch. des Rationalismus (Halle, 1853-62); BENN, History of Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1906). FRANCIS AVELING. Ratio Studiorum Ratio Studiorum The term "Ratio Studiorum" is commonly used to designate the educational system of the Jesuits; it is an abbreviation of the official title, "Ratio atque Institutio Studiorum Societatis Jesu", i.e. "Method and System of the Studies of the Society of Jesus". The Constitutions of the Society from the beginning enumerated among the primary objects of the Society: teaching catechism to children and the ignorant, instructing youth in schools and colleges, and lecturing on philosophy and theology in the universities. Education occupied so prominent a place that the Society could rightly be styled a teaching order. Even during the lifetime of the founder, St. Ignatius, colleges were opened in various countries, at Messina, Palermo, Naples, Gandia, Salamanca, Alcalà, Valladolid, Lisbon, Billom, and Vienna; many more were added soon after his death, foremost among them being Ingolstadt, Cologne, Munich, Prague, Innsbruck, Douai, Bruges, Antwerp, Liège, and others. In the fourth part of the Constitutions general directions had been laid down concerning studies, but there was as yet no defininte, detailed, and universal system of education, the plans of study drawn up by Fathers Nadal, Ledesma, and others being only private works. With the increase of the number of colleges the want of a uniform system was felt more and more. During the generalate of Claudius Acquaviva (1581-1614), the educational methods of the Society were finally formulated. In 1584 six experienced schoolmen, selected from different nationalities and provinces, were called to Rome, where for a year they studied pedagogical works, examined regulations of colleges and universities, and weighed the observations and suggestions made by prominent Jesuit educators. The report drawn up by this committee was sent to the various provinces in 1586 to be examined by at least five experienced men in every province. The remarks, censures, and suggestions of these men were utilized in the drawing up of a second plan, which, after careful revision, was printed in 1591 as the "Ratio atque Institutio Studiorum". Reports on the practical working of this plan were again sent to Rome, and in 1599 the final plan appeared, the "Ratio atque Institutio Studiorum Societatis Jesu", usually quoted as "Ratio Studiorum". Every possible effort had been made to produce a practical system of education; theory and practice alike had been consulted, suggestions solicited from every part of the Catholic world, and all advisable modifications adopted. The Ratio Studiorum must be looked upon as the work not of individuals, but of the whole Society. At the present time the question of origin is a favourite topic of historical investigation. It has been asserted that the Ratio was modelled chiefly o the theories of the Spanish Humanist, Luis Vives (see Vives, Juan Luis), or on the plan of the famous Strasburg "reformer" and educationist, John Sturm. No such dependence has been proved, and we can unhesitatingly point to other sources. The method of teaching the higher branches (theology, philosophy, and the sciences) was an adaptation of the system prevailing in the great Catholic universities, especially in Paris, where St. Ignatius and his first companions had studied. The literary course is modelled after the traditions of the humanistic schools of the Renaissance period; it is probable that the flourishing schools of the Netherlands (Louvain, Liège, and others) furnished the models for various features of the Ratio. Certain features common to the Ratio and the plan of Sturm are accounted for naturally by the fact that the Strasburg educationist had studied at Liège, Louvain, and Paris, and thus drew on the same source from which the framers of the Ratio had derived inspirations. Several Jesuits prominent in the drawing up of the Ratio were natives of the Netherlands, or had studied in the most celebrated schools of that country. But, as is evident from the description of the origin of the Ratio, its authors were not mere imitators; the most important source from which they drew was the collective experience of Jesuit teachers in various colleges and countries. The document of 1599 remained the authoritative plan of studies in the schools of the order until the suppression of the latter in 1773. However, both the Constitutions and the Ratio explicitly declared that, according to the special needs and circumstances of different countries and times, changes could be introduced by superiors. As a consequence, there was and is a great variety in many particular points found in different countries and periods. After the restoration of the Society in 1814, it was felt that the changed conditions of intellectual life necessitated changes in the Ratio and, in 1832, the Revised Ratio was published; nothing was changed in the essentials or the fundamental principles, but innovations were made in regard to branches of study. In the colleges Latin and Greek remained the principal subjects, but more time and care were to be devoted to the study of the mother-tongue and its literature of history, geography, mathematics, and the natural sciences. In more recent times still greater emphasis has been laid on non-Classical branches. Thus the Twenty-third General Congregation (legislative assembly of the Society) specially recommended the study of natural sciences. Non-Classical schools were pronounced proper to the Society as well as Classical institutions. In regard to methods, the present general declared in 1910 that, "as the early Jesuits did not invent new methods of teaching but adopted the best methods of their age, so will the Jesuits now use the best methods of our own time". This voices the practice of Jesuit colleges, where physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, astronomy, geology, and other branches are taught according to the established principles of modern science. From this it is clear that it is not the intention of the Society to make the Ratio Studiorum stationary and binding in every detail; on the contrary, it is intended that the educational system of the order shall adapt itself to the exigencies of the times. Concerning the character and contents of the Ratio a brief description must suffice. The final Ratio did not contain any theoretical discussion or exposition of principles. Such discussions had preceded and were contained in the trial Ratio of 1585. The document of 1599 was rather a code of laws, a collection of regulations for the officials and teachers. These regulations are divided as follows: I. Rules for the provincial superior; for the rector, in whose hands is the government of the whole college; for the prefect of studies, who is the chief assistant of the rector and has direct supervision of the classes and everything connected with instruction, while another assistant of the rector, the prefect of discipline, is responsible for all that concerns order and discipline; II. Rules for the professors of theology: Scripture, Hebrew, dogmatic theology, ecclesiastical history, canon law, and moral theology; III. Rules for the professors of philosophy, physics, and mathematics; IV. Rules for the teachers of the studia inferiora (the lower department), comprising the literary branches. In this department there were originally five classes (schools), later frequently six: the three (or four) Grammar classes, corresponding largely with a Classical high school; then the class of Humanities and the class of Rhetoric (freshman and sophomore). Besides Latin and Greek, other branches were taught from the beginning under the name of "accessories"-especially history, geography, and antiquities. As was said above, gradually more attention was paid to the study of the mother-tongue and its literature. Mathematics and natural sciences were originally taught in the higher course (the department of Arts), together with philosophy; in more recent times they are taught also in the lower department. In philosophy Aristotle was prescribed as the standard author in the old Ratio, but he is not mentioned in the revised Ratio; St. Thomas Aquinals was to be the chief guide in theology. The Ratio Studiorum does not contain any provisions for elementary education. The cause of this omission is not, as some have thought, contempt for this branch of educational activity, much less opposition to popular instruction, but the impossibility of entering that vast field to any great extent. The Constitutions declared elementary education to be "a laudable work of charity, which the Society might undertake, if it had a sufficient number of men". In missionary countries, however, Jesuits have frequently devoted themselves to elementary education. If it be asked what is most characteristic of the Ratio Studiorum, the following features may be mentioned: It was, first of all, a system well thought out and well worked out, and formulated at a time when in most educational establishments there was little system. The practical rules and careful supervision insured efficiency even in the case of teachers of moderate talent, while to the many teachers of more than ordinary ability sufficient scope was left for the display of their special aptitudes. The arrangement of subjects secured a combination of literary, philosophical, and scientific training. The Ratio insisted not on a variety of branches taught simultaneously (the bane of many modern systems), but on a few well-related subjects, and these were to be taught thoroughly. To secure thoroughness, frequent repetitions (daily, weekly, and monthly) were carried on in all grades. What the teacher presented in his proe;lectio (i.e. explanation of grammar or authors in the lower grades, or lecture in the higher faculties) was to be assimilated by the student through a varied system of exercises: compositions, discussions, disputations, and contests. Attention was paid to the physical welfare of the students, school hours and work being so arranged as to leave sufficient time for healthful play and exercise. Compared with the severity of many earlier schools, the discipline was mild, the barbarous punishments not unfrequently inflicted by educators of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries being strictly forbidden. For the moral training of the pupils much was expected from the personal contact with the teacher, who was supposed to take an interest in every individual pupil. Religious training was the foremost object, and religious influence and inspiration were to pervade all teaching. In modern times objections have been raised against various features of the Ratio Studiorum, but most of them are either based on a misunderstanding of the Ratio, or directed against features which are entirely unessential. Thus the supervision and examination of students by other pupils, the constant colloquial use of Latin, etc. are secondary features which have been abolished in most Jesuit schools. Much has been said against the supposed disastrous influence of emulation and rivalry, encouraged by the Ratio, and the awarding of prizes and premiums. This system is not necessarily dangerous and, if properly and cautiously used, may become a wholesome stimulus. At the time when the elective system was looked upon by many as the greatest modern discovery in education, the Ratio Studiorum was severely censured for upholding the "antiquated system of prescribed courses". As the free elective system is now considered a failure by the foremost educationists, it is not necessary to refute this charge against the Ratio. Besides, there is nothing in the Jesuit system which prohibits a reasonable amount of election, and many American Jesuit colleges have introduced certain elective branches in the higher classes. In regard to the numerous controversies concerning Jesuit education, Mr. Brown, U. S. Commissioner of Education (1911), has well observed that "in most of these controversies the Jesuit side is the side of many who are not Jesuits" (Educational Review, Dec., 1904, p. 531). Even critics who judge the Ratio with excessive severity are compelled to admit that it contains "much educational vision and experience, practical skill, and a pedagogical insight which never swerves from the main purpose" (Professor Fleischmann). Most of its essential features can well be reatined and will prove advantageous no matter what new branches of study or methods of teaching are introduced. Some points deserve to be specially treated on account of the serious objections raised against the Ratio. We hear frequent, and often animated, discussions concerning the aim or scope of educational systems and of various branches of study. What was the intellectual scope of the Ratio Studiorum? It cannot be better defined than in the words of the general of the Society, Father Martin, who said in 1892: "The characteristics of the Ratio Studiorum are not to be sought in the subject matter, nor in the order and succession in which the different branches are taught, but rather in what may be called the "form", or the spirit of the system. This form, or spirit, consists chiefly in the training of the mind [efformatio ingenii], which is the object, and in the various exercises, which are the means of attaining this object." This training or formation of the mind means the gradual and harmonious development of the various powers or faculties of the soul-of memory, imagination, intellect, and will; it is what we now call a general and liberal education. The training given by the Ratio was not to be specialized or professional, but general, and was to to lay the foundation for professional studies. In this regard the Ratio stands in opposition to various modern systems which aim at the immediately useful and practical or, at best, allot a very short time to general education; it stands in sharp contrast with those systems which advocate the earliest possible beginning of specialization. Jesuit educationists think, with many others, that "the higher the level on which the professional specializing begins, the more effective it will be". Besides, there are many spheres of thought, many branches of study, especially literary and historical, which may not be required for professional work, but which are necessary for a higher, broader, and truly liberal culture. The educated man is to be not merely a wage-earner, but one who takes an intelligent interest in the great questions of the day, and who thoroughly understands the important problems of life, intellectual, social, political, literary, philosophical, and religious. To accomplish this a solid general training, preparatory to strictly professional work and reasonably prolonged, is most valuable. One of the means, in fact the most important one, for this liberal training, the Ratio finds in the study of the Classics. Much has been said and written, within the past decades, for and against the value of the Classics as a means of culture. The Ratio does not deny the educational value of other branches, as sciences, modern languages, etc., but it highly values the Classical curriculum not merely because it is the old traditional system, but because, so far, it has proved to be the best means for giving the mind the much desired liberal training and general culture. It cannot be denied that the study of Latin, in particular, is excellently fitted to train the mind in clear and logical thinking. Immanent logic has been called the characteristic of the Latin language and its grammar, and its study has been termed a course in applied logic. Some writers have asserted that the Ratio prescribed Latin because it was the language of the Church, and of political and scholarly intercourse of former centuries, and that for this reason the perfect mastery of Latin, the acquisition of a Ciceronian style, was the primary aim of Jesuit education. It is true that in former ages, when Latin was the one great international tongue of the West, the study of this language had an eminently practical purpose, and both Protestant and Catholic schools aimed at imparting a mastery of it. But this was by no means the only object evne in those days. As a distinguished Frendh Jesuit educationist expressed it in 1669: "Besides literary accomplishments gained from the study of the Classical languages, there are other advantages, especially an exquisite power and facility of reasoning", that is, in modern terms, mental training. The same is evident from the fact that Greek was always taught, certainly not for the purpose of conversation and intercourse. As there are many other advantages, besides the formal training to be derived from the study of the Classics, the Ratio needs no apology for the high value it set on them. As was said above, the various exercises (the "prelection", memory lessons, compositions, repetitions, and contests) are the means of training the mind. The typical form of Jesuit education, minutely described in the Ratio, is called proe;lectio; it means "lecturing" in the higher faculties, and its equivalent (Vorlesung) is even now used in German for the lectures in the universities. In the lower grades it means "explanation", but, as it has some special features, it is best to retain the word in an English dress as "prelection". It is applied both to the interpretation of authors and to the explanation of grammar, prosody, precepts of rhetoric, poetry, and style. In regard to the authors, the text was first to be read by the teacher, distinctly, accurately, and intelligently, as the best introduction to the understanding of the text. Then follow the interpretation of the text, formerly a paraphrase of the contents in Latin, now a translation into the vernacular; linguistic explanations of particular sentences; study of poetical or rhetorical precepts contained in the passage; finally, what is called "erudition" (i.e. antiquarian and subject explanation, including historical, archæological, geographical, biographical, political, ethical, and religious details, according to the contents). From many documents it is evident that a great deal of interesting and useful information was given under this head. But what is more important, the systematic handling of the text, the completeness of the explanation from every point of view, was an excellent means of training in accuracy and thoroughness. Still it has been maintained that this method of teaching was too "formal", too "mechanical", and that as a result "originality and independence of mind, love of truth for its own sake", were suppressed (Quick). Should this "independence of mind" be taken as unrestrained liberty of thought in religious matters, as outspoken liberty of thought in religious matters, as outspoken or disguised Rationalism which places itself above the whole deposit of Divine Revelation, it must, indeed, be admitted that the Ratio and the whole Jesuit teaching are opposed to this kind of "originality and independence of mind". This, however, is a question of philosophy and theology rather than of pedagogical methods. Still, even some Catholic writers have thought that the Jesuit system is unfavourable to the development of great individualities, at least among the members of the order. Cardinal Newman says: "What a great idea, to use Guizot's expression, is the Society of Jesus! What a creation of genius is its organization; but so well adapted is the institution to its object that for that very reason it can afford to crush individualities, however gifted" (Hist. Sketches, III, 71). Whether the great cardinal here fully endorses Guizot's sentiments or not, it is certain that he virtually refutes them in another passage, when he states that the order was not over- zealous about its theological traditions, but suffered its great theologians to controvert with one another. "In this intellectual freedom its members justly glory; inasmuch as they have set their affections not on the opinions of the Schools, but on the souls of men" (ibid., II, 369). The history of the Society is the best refutation of the charge of crushing individualities. The literary and scientific activity of the order has been admired by its bitterest enemies. It has produced not only great theologians (Suarez, Vasquez, Molina, de Lugo, and others), but men prominently mentioned among the earlier Orientalists and writers on comparative language, as Hervas, Beschi, Ricci, Prémare, Gaubil; in the field of mathematics and natural sciences high distinction has been obtained by Clavius, called "the Euclid of his age", chief agent in the reformation of the Calendar under Gregory XIII; Grimaldi, Scheiner, and Secchi are famous as astronomers; Athanasius Kircher was a polyhistor in the best sense of the term; Hardouin, though frequently hypercritical and eccentric, was a most acute critic and in many ways far in advance of his age; Petavius was the father of the historical treatment of dogma and a leader in chronology; and the Bolandists have achieved a work which is truly a monumentum oe;re perennius. If the number of great men be taken as a criterion of the merit of an educational system, a long roll can be exhibited of pupils who were among the most prominent men in Europe: poets like Calderon, Tasso, Corneille, Molière, Goldoni; orators like Bossuet; scholars like Galileo, Descartes, Buffon, Muratori, Montesquieu, Malesherbes; statesmen like Richelieu; church dignitaries like St. Francis de Sales and Benedict XIV, called "the most learned of the Popes". All these men were trained under the Ratio, and, though it would be puerile to claim all their greatness for the system of education, one thing is certain, namely that the Ratio did not crush the originality and individuality of these pupils, whether members of the order of outside it. Nor has the educational system of the Society been sterile in more recent times in this regard; among its pupils it numbers men who have become distinguished in every walk of life. The history of the practical working of the Ratio is the history of the colleges of the Society. In 1706 the number of collegiate and university institutions was over 750; Latin America alone had 96 colleges before the suppression of the Society. Some of the Jesuit colleges had over 2000 pupils each; while it is impossible to give an absolute average, 300 seems to be the very lowest. This would give the 700 and more colleges a sum total of over 210,000 students, all trained under the same system. Even non-Catholics bestowed great praise on the educational efficiency of the Jesuit schools; it was a common complaint among Protestants that many non-Catholic parents sent their sons to Jesuit schools because they considered the training given there superior to that obtained elsewhere. The suppression of the Society in the second half of the eighteenth century meant the total loss of property, houses, libraries, and observatories. After its restoration it had to struggle into existence under altered and unfavourable conditions. During the nineteenth century the Jesuits were persecuted almost without cessation in one country or other, and driven out again and again. These persecutions seriously hampered the educational work of the Society and prevented it from obtaining the brilliant success of former days. Still, the Jesuits possess now a respectable number of colleges, which is continually increasing, particularly in English-speaking countries. Pachtler, Ratio Studiorum et institutiones scholasticæ Societatis Jesu, per Germaniam olim Vigentes in Monumenta Germaniæ Pædagogia, II, V, IX, XVI (Berlin, 1867-94), the standard work, containing the text of the various revisions of the Ratio Studiorum and many other valuable documents; Monumenta historica Societatis Jesu (Madrid, 1894-); Hughes, Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits in Great Educators Series (New York, 1892); Schwickerath, Jesuit Education, Its History and Principles, Viewed in the Light of Modern Educational Problems (St. Louis, 1903); valuable notes on this work by Brown in Educational Review (December, 1904), 523-32; Duer, Die Studienordnung des Gesellschaft Jesu (Freiburg, 1896); Commentaries on the educational practice of the Society by the Jesuits Sacchini, Jouvancy, Kropf, PerpiÑa, Bonifacius, and Possevin, translated into German and annotated by Stier, Schwickerath, Zorell, Scheid, and Fell in Herder's Bibliothek der Katholischen Pädagogik, X, XI (Freiburg, 1898-1901; Quick, Educational Reformers (New York, 1890); Paulsen, Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts auf den deutschen Schulen (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1896); Schmid, Gesch. der Erziehung, III-V (Stuttgart, 1884-1901); Fleischmann in Rein, Encyclopädisches Handbuch der Pädagogik, s. v. Jesuiten-pädagogik. ROBERT SCHWICKERATH. Ratisbon Ratisbon DIOCESE OF RATISBON (RATISBONENSIS), also called REGENSBURG. Suffragan of Munich-Freising. It embraces the greater portion of the administrative district of Oberpfalz, and portions of the districts of Upper and Lower Bavaria, and Upper Franconia (see GERMANY, map), an area of about 5340 square miles. It is divided into the three episcopal commissariates of Ratisbon, Amberg, and Straubing, and into thirty deaneries. In 1910 it numbered 473 parishes, 167 benefices (exclusive of 74 united with other prebends), 80 expositurships, 371 curacies, and 36 other pastoral offices, 1283 clergy (including 442 pastors and 159 regular priests), and over 865,000 Catholics. In addition to the ordinary, there is a coadjutor bishop (consecrated 18 April, 1911); the cathedral chapter consists of a provost, 8 capitulars, 6 cathedral vicars, and a cathedral preacher. There is also a chapter at the collegiate Church of Our Lady "Zur Alten Kapelle" in Ratisbon, with 11 members, and a chapter in the collegiate Church of Sts. John the Baptist and John the Evangelist at Ratisbon, with 7 members. The diocesan institutions include the episcopal seminary for the ecclesiastics at Ratisbon, with four courses in theology and one in philosophy, and the episcopal seminaries for boys at Ratisbon, Metten, and Straubing. For philosophical and theological studies there exists at Ratisbon a state lyceum, in which 10 religious and a few lay professors lecture. The monasteries and monastic institutions are: for the Benedictines, the Abbey of Metten with a gymnasium and episcopal seminary for boys (43 fathers, 8 clerics, and 15 lay brothers) and the Priory of Weltenburg (6 fathers, 2 clerics, and 12 lay brothers); 3 monasteries of the Discalced Carmelites, with 22 fathers, 3 clerics, and 21 brothers; 2 monasteries of the Calced Carmelites, with 13 fathers, and 11 brothers; 5 monasteries of the Franciscans, with 21 fathers, and 46 brothers; 1 Capuchin monastery, with 7 fathers and 7 brothers; 2 hospices of the Minorites, with 4 fathers and 6 brothers; 2 Augustinian priories, with 7 fathers, and 6 brothers; 3 Redemptorist colleges with 27 fathers, and 26 brothers; 4 monasteries of the Brothers of Mercy, with 5 fathers and 100 brothers; 1 brotherhood of hermits, with 30 brothers, in 25 hermitages; 3 convents of the Poor Clares; 2 of the Dominican Sisters; 2 of the Cistercian Sisters; 1 of the Ursulines; 1 of the Elizabethines; 1 of the Franciscan Sisters of the Third Order; 1 of the Ladies of the Good Shepherd; 76 establishments of the Poor School Sisters; 3 of the English Ladies; 23 of the Sisters of Mercy, in 12 townships; 1 mother-house and 67 branches of the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis of Mallersdorf; 5 establishments of the Franciscan Sisters from the mother-house at Dillingen; 1 institute for the Daughters of the Divine Redeemer from the mother-house at Niederbronn in Alsace; 1 convent of Carmelite Sisters. The total number of sisters is 2400. The religious and social societies are highly developed; it will be sufficient to mention here the Confraternity of Perpetual Adoration, the Congregations of Mary for men, boys, and girls, the Catholic associations for workmen, journeymen, and apprentices, the students' associations, the Albertus Magnus association, the Volksverein for Catholic Germany, and the Catholic Press Association for Bavaria. Among the churches of the diocese may be mentioned: the Gothic cathedral of St. Peter, begun in 1275, but not completed until the nineteenth century; the old cathedral, or St. Stephanskirche (end of tenth century); the Churches of St. Emmeram (eleventh century), St. Jakob (twelfth century), the former Dominican Church of St. Blasius (1273-1400), all at Ratisbon; the churches of Amberg, Straubing, Naabburg; numerous old monastery churches, such as those of Weltenburg, Prüfening, Ober-Alteich etc. Much-frequented places of pilgrimage are: Mariahilf, near Amberg; the Eichelberg, near Hemau; the Kreuzberg, near Schwandorf; and Neukirchen beim hl. Blut. Ratisbon, the oldest town in Bavaria, had its origin in the Roman camp, Castra Regina, the remains of whose walls exist to-day. Christianity was introduced during the time of the Romans. In the sixth century Ratisbon was the chief town of Bavaria, and the seat of the apostolic labours of several holy evangelists, such as St. Rupert (about 697), St. Emmeram (about 710), St. Erhard (about 720), and Blessed Albert (about 720). In 739 St. Boniface divided the Duchy of Bavaria into the four dioceses of Ratisbon, Passau, Freising, and Salzburg, and appointed as first Bishop of Ratisbon Blessed Gawibald or Gaubald (739-61). The early bishops were chosen alternately from the canons of the Church of St. Peter and the monks of the Benedictine monastery of St. Emmeram, of which monastery they were simultaneously abbots; after the elevation of Salzburg to metropolitan rank by Leo III, Ratisbon was placed under it. Through the favour of the native dukes and, after their removal, through that of the Carlovingians and Ottos, the bishops received much property and many gifts for their churches. The possessions of the chapter consisted of the three free imperial domains Donaustauf, Wörth (both on the Danube), and Hohenburg on the River Lautrach, the domain of Pechlarn below the Enns, and the administration of a few places in Lower Bavaria. During the early period the chief care of the bishops was the conversion of the Slavs, Bohemia being for the most part won for Christianity by Ratisbon. Bishop Bahurich (817-48) baptized fourteen Bohemian princes at Ratisbon in 847, and Bohemia long belonged to the diocese. Under Ambricho (864-91) Louis the German built the celebrated "Alte Kapelle" in which his spouse Emma and the last Carlovingian emperors Arnulf and Louis the Child found their resting-places. During the reign of Blessed Tuto (894-931) the see suffered much from the inroads of the Hungarians; Bishop Michael (942-72) took personal part in the wars against these invaders, especially in the battle of Lechfeld. St. Wolfgang (972-94) agreed to the separation of Bohemia from the diocese of Ratisbon, and also separated the property of the cathedral from the Monastery of St. Emmeram. The era of the following bishops is characterized by the foundation of numerous monasteries. Gebhard I (995-1035) founded the Abbey of Pruhl; his attempt to annul the separation between the diocese and Emmeram gave rise to much dispute; he received from Otto III the right of coinage. Gebhard III (1036-60) received from Henry III the Abbey of Kempten; during his episcopate the collegiate chapter of Ohringen and the convent of Geisenfeld were founded. Otto of Ritenberg (1061-89) espoused the cause of the emperor in the Conflict of Investitures, while Blessed William, provost of St. Emmeram and later abbot of the renowned monastery of Hirsau, the "hero of monasticism and champion of reform", worked in the spirit of Pope Gregory. Under Gebhard IV, who received neither papal ratification nor consecration, the Benedictine abbey of Oberalteich was founded; under Hartwich I (1105-26) were founded the Scots monastery of St. James at Ratisbon, and the Benedictine monasteries of Mallersdorf, Prüfening, Reichenbach, and Ensdorf; under the zealous Konrad I (1126-32), the Cistercian abbey of Waldsassen, the Benedictine monastery of Biburg; under Heinrich I (1132-55), the Premonstratensian monastery of Windberg and several chapters of Augustinian Canons. Konrad III (1186-1204) took part in Barbarossa's crusade; Konrad IV again confirmed the dominion of the bishops over the city of Ratisbon, which in the following period gradually acquired independence and developed into a free town of the empire; in 1226 Konrad gave the recently-founded Franciscan Order a residence and chapel in the city. Under Siegfried the Carmelites and Dominicans also established themselves in the diocese. Prominent among the Franciscans was Blessed Bernhard of Ratisbon, one of the most powerful preachers of the Middle Ages; the Dominicans gave to the diocese the great bishop, Albertus Magnus, on whose voluntary retirement Leo Thundorfer (1262-77), who began the building of the cathedral, was elected. The building was continued vigorously under Heinrich II of Rotteneck (1277-96), who led a truly holy life and proved himself an excellent spiritual and secular prince. Konrad of Luppurg (1296-1313), Nikolaus of Stachowitz (1313-40), and Konrad VI (1368-81) were also distinguished bishops. Albert of Stauf (1409-21), an adherent of the popes of Pisa, devoted himself zealously to the reform of the monasteries and the clergy; in 1419, at a diocesan synod, he issued an excellent pastoral instruction for his diocese. Albert and his immediate successors -- Johann of Streitberg (1421-28) and Konrad VII of Rehlingen (1428-37), a Westphalian -- had to take the field against the Hussites, who had made several devastating inroads into the territory of the diocese. Heinrich IV of Absberg (1465-92), an admirable bishop, took energetic measures against the Hussites and other fanatics, against the superstitions of the people, and the incontinency of the clergy; to the restoration of discipline and order in the monasteries, especially in several convents, he devoted a restless activity. In the same spirit worked Rupprecht II, Count Palatine of Sponheim (1492-1507), under whom the diocese had to suffer much in consequence of the war between the Wittelsbachs concerning the succession in Bavaria-Landshut. The religious innovations of Luther were on the whole successfully opposed by Johann III of the Wittelsbach family, the administrator of the diocese (1507-38); in 1524 he took part in the assembly of the South-German bishops and princes at Ratisbon, which, under the presidency of the papal legate Campeggio, decreed the execution of the Edict of Worms and the maintenance of the old religion. Under his weak successor Pankraz von Sinzenhofen (1538-48), however, the new doctrines were allowed to spread, and this prelate was unable to prevent the town from accepting the Reformation and demolishing the cathedral. The negotiations at the Diet of Ratisbon in 1541 resulted in the Ratisbon Interim, which went very far towards meeting the wishes of the Protestants, but yet did not find approval with the Protestant princes. The efforts of the zealous Georg Marschalk of Pappenheim (1548-63) and David Kölderer of Burgstall (1567-79) met with especially obstinate resistance from the city. Under Philipp (1579-98), son of Duke William V of Bavaria and afterwards cardinal, the Jesuits were assigned a college at Ratisbon, with which a gymnasium was combined in 1589. Wolfgang II von Hausen (1600-13) was a zealous patron of the Jesuits and promoter of Catholic reform, and joined the Catholic League in 1609. Albert von Törring (1613-59), when the Count Palatine Wolfgang Wilhelm became a Catholic in 1614, brought back under his spiritual jurisdiction a portion of the Protestant parishes, especially in the Upper Palatinate; even the town of Eger with its territory was recovered in 1627 for the Catholic faith. The Thirty Years' War caused great injury to the diocese; Duke Bernhard of Weimar, a partisan of the Swedes, captured the town of Ratisbon and a portion of the diocesan territory in 1633, looted the church treasury, exacted from the clergy large contributions, and held the bishop in confinement for fourteen months. Franz Wilhelm von Wartenberg (1649-61), who was also Bishop of Osnabrück, Minden, and Verden, sought to supply the growing need for priests by founding a clerical seminary in 1653. With Albert Siegmund (1668-85) began the series of bishops from the house of Wittelsbach, which for nearly a century occupied the episcopal see. Albert was simultaneously Bishop of Freising, as was Joseph Klemens (1685-1716), who, as Elector of Cologne (from 1688), espoused the cause of Louis XIV in the War of the Spanish Succession, and was for this reason, like his brother Elector Max Emmanuel, placed under the imperial ban. Cardinal Johann Theodor (1719-63) occupied, in addition to Ratisbon, the Dioceses of Freising and Liège, and other benefices. Excellent administrators were the last prince-bishops, Anton Ignaz von Fugger (1769-87), Max Prokop von Törring (1787-89), and Joseph Konrad von Schroffenberg (1790-1803). On the secularization of the German Church in 1803 a portion of the diocese was left undisturbed for a time; then Napoleon named, even during the lifetime of Schroffenberg, as Archbishop of Ratisbon and Prince-Primate of Germany, Karl Theodor von Dalberg, Elector of Mainz, and assigned him a portion of the earlier ecclesiastical territory. It was only on 1805 that Dalberg received the papal consent to the exercise of archiepiscopal power (1805-17). Although Dalberg, in his desire to save his precarious sovereignty, accepted Cardinal Fesch, Napoleon's uncle, as coadjutor, he was compelled to surrender the secular territory of the Diocese of Ratisbon to Bavaria in 1810, whereupon its secularization was finally accomplished. With Dalberg's death the short-lived Archdiocese of Ratisbon came to an end. The Bavarian Concordat of 1817-18 declared Ratisbon a simple suffragan see in the newly-created ecclesiastical province of Munich-Freising, and assigned to it its present limits. The first bishop of the new diocese was the former coadjutor, Johann Nepomuk von Wolf (1821-29). He was succeeded by the celebrated Michael Sailer (1829-32). George Michael Wittmann, who was named successor to the latter, died before his preconization (1833). Franz Xaver von Schwäbl (1833-41), under whom Diepenbrock (later cardinal) worked at Ratisbon, restored the cathedral. Valentin Riedel (1842-57) founded the boys' seminary at Metten and the priests' hermitage, and prepared the way for the reform of church music. Ratisbon now possesses the world-renowned school for the special study of Church music, founded by Haberl. Ignatius von Senestréy (1858-1906) completed, with the help of King Louis I, the towers of the cathedral, founded the boys' seminaries at Ratisbon and Straubing, reformed the liturgy in accordance with the Roman model, and greatly promoted the religious life of the diocese by frequent tours of visitation, the establishment of new pastoral offices, the holding of popular missions, and the building of churches and schools. At the Vatican Council he belonged to the Commission on Faith, and was one of the most resolute champions of the dogma of the infallibility of the pope. In the ecclesiastico-political wars in Bavaria, especially since the appearance of the Old Catholic movement and its encouragement by Minister Lutz, von Senestréy always fearlessly and unyieldingly contended for the rights of the Church. The pallium was conferred on him as a mark of distinction by the pope in 1906. He was succeeded in 1906 by Antonius von Henle, who had occupied the See of Passau from 1901 to 1906. ENHUBER, Conciliorum Ratisbonensium brevis recensio (Ratisbon, 1768); GEMEINER, Chronik der Stadt u. des Hochstifts Regensburg vom Jahre 143 bis zum J. 1496 (4 vols., Ratisbon, 1816); RIED, Codex chronologico-diplomaticus episcopatus Ratisbonensis (2 vols., Ratisbon, 1816-17); GUMPOLZHEIMER, Gesch. der Stadt Regensburg (2 vols., Ratisbon, 1830-38); WITTMANN, Gesch. der Reformation in der Oberpfalz (Augsburg, 1847); JANNER, Gesch. der Bischöfe von Regensburg (3 vols., Ratisbon, 1883-86), reaching to 1507; Matrikel des Bistums Regensburg (2 vols., 1863); VON WALDERSDORFF, Regensburg in seiner Vergangenheit u. Gegenwart (4th ed., Ratisbon, 1896); SCHLECHT, Bayerns Kirchen-Provinzen (Munich, 1902), 90 sq.; SCHEGLMANN, Gesch. der Säkularisation im rechtsrheinischen Bayern (3 vols., Ratisbon, 1903-07); SCHRATZ AND DENGLER, Regensburg (7th ed., Ratisbon, 1910); HAGER, Die Kunstdenkmale des Königsreichs Bayern: II: Oberpfalz (Ratisbon, 1905--); HILDEBRANDT, Regensburg (Leipzig, 1910); Verhandlungen des hist. Vereins von Oberpfalz u. Regensburg (Ratisbon, 1831--); Schematismus der Geistlichkeit des Bistums Regensburg (Ratisbon, 1910). JOSEPH LINS Maria Alphonse Ratisbonne Maria Alphonse Ratisbonne A converted Jew, born at Strasburg on 1 May, 1814; died at Ain Karim near Jerusalem, on 6 May, 1884. He belonged to a wealthy and prominent Jewish family in Alsace. After studying law at Paris he became a member of his uncle's famous banking firm, and in 1841 was betrothed to the daughter of his oldest brother. As she was only sixteen years old, the marriage was postponed, and Ratisbonne entered upon a pleasure trip to the Orient. Though nominally a Jew, he was a radical infidel, a scoffer at religion, and, after the conversion of his brother Theodor, a rabid enemy of everything Catholic. On his intended tour to the Orient, he came to Rome, where on 20 January, 1842, he was miraculously converted to Catholicism in the Church of S. Andrea delle Fratte by an apparition of the Blessed Virgin. After his conversion he assisted his brother, Theodor, in founding the Sisterhood of Our Lady of Sion in 1843, was ordained priest in 1847, and entered the Society of Jesus. Desirous, however, to devote himself entirely to the conversion of the Jews, he left the society with the consent of Pius IX, transplanted the Sisters of Sion to Jerusalem in 1855, and built for them in 1856 the large Convent of Ecce Homo with a school and an orphanage for girls. In 1860 he erected the Convent of St. John on the mountain at Ain Karim, together with a church and another orphanage for girls. Here Alphonse laboured with a few companions (Pères de Sion) for the conversion of Jews and Mohammadens until his death. For boys he erected the orphanage of St. Peter, near the Gate of Jaffa outside of Jerusalem, with a school for mechanical arts in the city. De Bussière, L'enfant de Marie (Paris, 1859); Hewit, Two miraculous conversions from Judaism in Catholic World, XXXIX New York, 1884), 613-26; Rosenthal, Convertitenbilder aus dem 19, Jahrh.,III,I (Schaffhausen, 1869), 194-237; Narrazione storica della prodigiosa apparizione di Maria SSma Immacolata e istantanea conversione alla fede cattolica dell' ebreo Maria Alfonso Ratisbonne, avvenuta in Roma il 20 gennaio 1842, nela chiesa parrocchiale di S. Andrea delle Fratte, de' PP. Minimi di S. Francesco di Paolo (Rome, Vatican Press, 1892). MICHAEL OTT Maria Theodor Ratisbonne Maria Theodor Ratisbonne A distinguished preacher and writer, and director of the Archconfraternity of Christian Mothers, b. of Jewish parentage at Strasburg, 28 Dec., 1802; d. in Paris, 10 Jan. 1884. He was raised in luxury, was educated at the Royal College of his native city, and at the age of manhood, was considered a leader among his people, who unanimously elected him to replace Samson Libermann when the latter was converted in 1824. The conversion of his three friends, Emile Dreyfus, Alfred Mayer, and Samson Libermann, caused him to study the Bible and the history of the Church. For two years the work of grace went on within him, and finally he was baptized in 1826. He entered the seminary, and received Holy orders in 1830. He worked in his native diocese until 1840, when he became subdirector of the Confraternity of Notre Dame des Victoires at Paris. It was whilst in this city, in 1842, that his brother Alphonse, a free-thinker animated with greatest hatred against Christianity, was miraculously converted at Rome, and suggested to him to secure a home for the education of Jewish children. Providence seemed to design him for the work, and answered his prayer for light by sending him the two daughters of a Jewish lady whom he subsequently converted. During the same summer he went to Rome; Gregory XVI decorated him a Knight of St. Sylvester, complimented him for his "Life of St. Bernard", and granted his request to labour for the conversion of the Jews. Houses were opened under the patronage of "Our Lady of Sion" for the Christian education of Jewish boys and girls. Pius IX gave Ratisbonne many marks of his affection, and Leo XIII appointed him prothonotary Apostolic. At his death he received the last Sacraments from the Archbishop of Paris, and the final blessing from Leo XIII. His chief works are: "Essai sur l'Education Morale" (1828); "Histoire de Saint-Bernard" (1841); "Méditations de Saint-Bernard sur le Présent et Futur" (1853); "Le Manuel de la Mère Chrétienne" (1860); "Questions Juives" (1868); "Nouveau Manuel des Mères Chrétiennes" (1870); "Le Pape" (1870); "Miettes Evangéliques" (1872); "Réponse aux Questions d'un Israélite de Notre Temps" (1878). The Jewish Encyclopedia, X; Currier, History of Religious Orders; Vapereau, Dictionnaire des Contemporains; Larousse, Grand Dictionnaire Universel; Hogan, Irish Monthly, XII; M. Th. Ratisbonne (Paris, 1904). MARTIN A. HEHIR Ratramnus Ratramnus (Rathramnus) A Benedictine monk at the Abbey of Corbie, in the present Department of Somme, one of the most important ecclesiastical authors of the ninth century, d. after 868. Scarcely anything is known of his life. His best known work is a treatise on the Holy Eucharist, entitled "De corpore et sanguine Domini". It was written at the instance of the Emperor Charles the Bald, against a work of the same title by Paschasius Radbertus. The basis of Ratramnus's work is an attempt to solve the two questions: 1. Do we in the Holy Eucharist directly see the Body of Christ with our bodily eyes, or is the Body of Christ hidden from our sensory vision? 2. Is the Eucharistic Christ identical with the historic Christ? In the solution of the first question Ratramnus distinguishes correctly between the invisible substance, "invisibilis substantia", which, he says, is truly the body and blood of Christ, "vere corpus et sanguis Christi" (xlix), and the external appearances which after the consecration by the priest remain the same as they were before (ix-x). The second question he answers in the negative, stating that the Eucharistic Christ is not in everything identical with the historic Christ "who was born of Mary, suffered, died, was buried, ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father" (cap. lxxxix). The work had almost been forgotten during the Middle Ages. Attention was again called to it by Blessed John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, who cited it in defence of the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist in the preface to his work: "De veritate corporis et sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia adversus Joh. OEcolampadium" (Cologne, 1527). It was first printed with the wrong title: "Bertrami presbyteri ad Carolum Magnum Imperatorem" (Cologne, 1532). A wrong interpretation of the words "figura" and "veritas", and a few ambiguous passages have given rise to the opinion among a few Catholics and most Protestants that Ratramnus taught a merely symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Various German, French, and English translations made by the Sacramentarians only served to corroborate this opinion. For this reason it was placed on the Index of Prohibited Books in 1559, but was removed in 1900. His best work, from a literary as well as a dogmatic standpoint, is "Contra Græcorum opposita Romanam ecclesiam infamantium, libri quattuor". It was written in 868 at the request of the bishops of the province of Reims, as a refutation of Photius who, in a letter to the King of Bulgaria, had fiercely assailed the "Filioque", the papal primacy, and various customs of the Latin Church. His earliest work, "De eo quod Christus ex virgine natus est liber", defends the Catholic doctrine that the birth of Christ occurred in a natural manner. In his work: "De prædestinatione, libri duo", he upholds the double predestination for salvation and damnation but not for sin. A treatise in defence of the expression "trina Deitas", against Hincmar, has been lost, and two dissertations "De anima" are still unprinted. His works are in "P. L.", CXXI, 1-346 and 1153- 6, his extant letters in "Mon. Germ. Epist.", VI, 149 sq. NÄgle, Rathramnus u. die hl. Eucharistie (Vienna, 1903); Martin, Ratramnus, une conception de la cène au IX ^e siècle (Montauban, 1891); Draeseke, Rathramnus u. Photios in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XVIII (Leipzig, 1909), 396-421; Traube in Mon. Germ. Poetæ Lat., III, 709 sq.; Schnitzer, Berengar von Tours (Munich, 1890), 150- 874; Boileau, Dissertatio in librum de corpore et sanguine Domini in P. L., CXXI, 171-222; Histoire Littéraire de la France, V, 332-51; Mabillon, Acta SS. O. S. B., sæc. IV, pars II, præfatio, 50-63; NÄgle in Kirchliches Handlexikon, s. v. Rathramnus; Ernst, Die Lehre hl. Paschasius Radbertus von der Eucharistie (Freiburg, 1896), 99 sqq. MICHAEL OTT. Georg Ratzinger Georg Ratzinger Political economist and social reformer, b. at Rickering, near Deggendorf, in lower Bavaria, 3 April, 1844; d. at Munich, 3 December, 1899. Ratzinger was a pupil at the gymnasium at Passau during the years 1855-63, studied theology at Munich, 1863-67, and was ordained priest in 1867. In 1868 he received the degree of Doctor of Theology at Munich. During the following years he devoted himself partly to pastoral, partly to journalistic work. In 1869 he was chaplain at Berchtesgaden; 1870-71 he was editor of the journal "Fränkisches Volksblatt" at Würzburg; 1872-74, chaplain at Landshut, then editor, until 1876, of the "Volksfreund", at Munich. During the years 1875-77 he was a member of the Bavarian Diet; 1877-78 he was a member of the imperial Reichstag; during this period he belonged to the Centre Party. With exception of a pastorate of three years at Günzelhafen, 1885-88, he lived for a number of years at Munich, where he devoted himself to journalism and research. From 1893 Ratzinger was once more a member of the Bavarian Diet, where he was now a moderate adherent of the "Bauernbund" (Peasant Union) party, his views of social politics having caused him in the meantime to sever his connections with the Centre Party. In 1898 he was again elected a member of the Reichstag. As a literary man Ratzinger deserves much credit for his scholarly work in political economy and in historical subjects. His chief works, distinguished by erudition, richness of thought, and animated exposition, are: "Geschichte der Armenflege" (prize essay, Freiburg, 1868, 2nd revised ed., 1884); "Die Volkswirtshaft in ihrer sittlichen Grundlagen. Ethischsociale studien über Cultur und Civilisation (Freiburg, 1881; 2nd. completely revised ed., 1895); this works maintains the ethical principles of Christianity as the only sure basis of political economy and opposes the materialistic system of what is called the "classical political economy" of Adam Smith. "Forschungen zur bayerischen Geschichte" (Kempten, 1898); this contains a large number of studies on early Bavarian history and on the history of civilization, based on a series of unconnected treatises, which had first appeared in the "Historich-politische Blätter". Of his smaller works the following should be mentioned: "Das Concil und die deustche Wissenschaft" (anonymously issued at Mainz, 1872) appeared first in the "Katholik", 1872, I; "Die Erhaltung des Bauernstandes" (Freiburg, 1883). FRÄNKEL in Biographisches Jahrbuch, IV (1900), 246 sq.; Idem in Alleg. deutsche Biographie, LIII (1907), 215-218. FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT Joseph Othmar Rauscher Joseph Othmar Rauscher Prince-Archbishop of Vienna, born at Vienna, 6 Oct., 1797; died there 24 Nov., 1875. He received his earlier education at the gymnasium in Vienna, devoting himself chiefly to the study of jurisprudence; he also gave much time to the study of poetry, and many examples of his verses have survived. Later his desire to enter Holy Orders was opposed by his parents, but he finally overcame their objections. After his ordination he was appointed curate in Hütteldorf, and later professor of church history and Canon law at Salzburg, where Friedrich Prince Schwarzenberg, director of the Oriental Academy at Vienna, was among his pupils. In January, 1849, Cardinal Schwarzenberg named his former teacher Prince-Bishop of Sekkau, "in recognition of his distinguished qualities, knowledge, and services". In this capacity Rauscher performed great services in a short time, introduced pastoral conferences, and restored to the Redemptorists their mission houses. He also fostered religious associations, and put an end to the intrigues of the Rongeaner, although important business detained him for the most part in Vienna. Scarcely was he consecrated than he hurried to the capital to attend the great episcopal assembly which inaugurated the ecclesiastical revival in Austria; between 29 April and 20 June, 1849, twenty-five bishops and four episcopal proxies held sixty sessions. The last in order of consecration, Rauscher took the most prominent part in the transactions. He laid before the assembly a promemoria, which served as the programme of the business, and drafted five of the seven memorials addressed to the Ministry of the Interior. He also drew up the decrees to serve for the bishops "as the common rule of their aim and activity". The beautiful pastoral of the bishops to the clergy was also composed by him. Before the bishops separated, they chose a committee of five members for the settlement of the memorials and the arrangement of all current affairs. As the reporter of this committee, he acted at times as its sole agent. Rauscher was the father of the Austrian Concordat On 14 Sept., 1852, a cabinet order appeared, naming him imperial plenipotentiary for the conclusion of a concordat. The negotiations were long and troublesome; during them Rauscher was named Prince-Archbishop of Vienna, and made his solemn entry into the Cathedral of St. Stephen on 15 Aug., 1853. To promote the Concordat he found it necessary to visit Rome, where he was engaged in the most difficult negotiations for seven months. He was thus able to take part in the solemnities in connexion with the Definition of the Immaculate Conception. Finally, on 18 Aug., 1855, the Concordat was signed and on 5 Nov., it was published as a law "applicable throughout the empire". For the homogeneous introduction of the concordat sixty-six bishops assembled in Vienna in 1856. Rauscher was raised to the cardinalate in 1855. By 1 Jan., 1857, ecclesiastical courts, for which Rauscher composed the celebrated instructions ("Instructio pro indiciis ecclesiasticis"), were established in all the episcopal sees. Provincial synods prescribed the special application of the Concordat to the individual dioceses. The decrees of the Viennese Council of 1858, skilfully directed by Rauscher and ratified by Rome, still serve as an important form of clerical life and ecclesiastical activity. The sciences, both religious and general, as well as the religious orders and associations and art, flourished during the concordat era. Rauscher's magnanimity is revealed by his foundation of the Austrian house for pilgrims at Jerusalem, thus giving the citizens of the Hapsburg Empire a home in the Holy Land. Up to this period Rauscher's zeal had been constructive; after the unfortunate Austrian wars of 1859-66, he found himself compelled to adopt the defensive, since the blame for the defeats was most unjustifiably referred to the Concordat. The archbishops and prince-bishops are members of the House of Peers; thus, when the war on the Concordat opened in the Reichstag in 1861 and its revision was demanded, Rauscher with the other episcopal members of the Upper House deliberated concerning an address to the emperor. When the House of Delegates demanded the removal of the religious orders from the penitentiaries, hospitals, and other state institutions, he declared in the House of Peers: "Since 1859 no effort of artificial agitation has been spared to open a campaign against defenceless women, who ask of this earthly life only necessities, and serve their fellow-creatures in privations and discomforts. This unworthy agitation bears the stamp of hatred towards Christianity, but it has likewise in it something cowardly and ignoble, of which even one estranged from Christianity should be ashamed." In consequence of the events of 1866, the storm against the Concordat and the Church broke out violently, and the Press added to its power. When the drafts of the new laws concerning marriage, the schools, and the interconfessional relations, in respect to which points there were many gaps in the Concordat, came up for discussion in the House of Peers, Rauscher immediately arose and delivered his celebrated speech on the Concordat, urging harmony between the spiritual and secular powers. When the decrees had been sanctioned, and the new laws had been vigorously condemned by the pope, there arose great dissatisfaction and turmoil. To demonstrate the illogical nature of this agitation Rauscher demanded: "Is it not permissible for a pope to pronounce a law unjust? Every newspaper arrogates to itself the right of stigmatizing the injustice of all laws, which do not agree with its partisan views". A little later the pastoral of Bishop Rudigier of Linz was seized, and the bishop himself subsequently condemned to fourteen days' imprisonment with costs; the pastoral was to be suppressed. However, Rauscher immediately obtained from the emperor the annulment of the sentence and of the consequences which it entailed with respect to civil rights and relations. Still greatly excited, the Austrian bishops proceeded to the Vatican Council immediately after the raging fight about the Concordat. Rauscher regarded the assembly with the greatest hopes and issued two pastorals dealing with the council on 15 Nov., 1869. Pius IX appointed him to the important commission pro recipiendis, which had to investigate all motions submitted. At the first real session of the council (the General Congregation of 28 Dec.) he delivered the first address, and twice spoke against the opportuneness of a universal catechism; the needs and the degrees of culture of the individual peoples were too different. As to the question which finally most strongly stirred the minds of those in and outside the council, that of the infallibility of the pope teaching ex cathedra, Rauscher was the leader of the bishops who combatted the expediency of the definition. His work, "Observationes quædam de infallibilitatis ecclesiæ subjecto", appeared at Naples, and was reprinted at Vienna; the author later explained that it "was especially intended to emphasize the fact that the proposed decision would afford parties hostile to the Church those subterfuges of which they were in need". In the general debate Rauscher, who was ill, had his speech read by Bishop Hefele; it lasted over an hour, and ends characteristically: "But always shall I adore the ways of the Lord", He repeatedly took part in the special debates (8, 9, and 15 June), and at the ballot in the General Congregation of 13 July he voted non placet. However, he did not sign the memorial of the fifty-five bishops of the minority to Pius IX on 17 July, believing he had done all that he should. On 17 July he took leave of the pope, and later, as Archbishop of Vienna, promulgated the doctrinal decrees of the Vatican Council. None of the violations of justice and abuses of power, which resulted in the complete suppression of the Papal States on 20 September, 1870, passed without Rauscher raising a protesting voice. In May, 1874, the laws concerning the external legal position of the Catholic Church, the contributions to the religious funds, and the legal recognition of religious societies were issued (see AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN MONARCHY). With these laws the religious legislation of Austria has found a temporary conclusion. The term "providential personality", so often misused, may be with complete justice applied to Cardinal Rauscher; he saved the monarchy the sufferings of a Kulturkampf. He was a true patriot. Austria's greatness, power, and glory were the guiding stars of his political activity. Daily he prayed: "Lord, let me not die before I have fulfilled the task with which Thou hast entrusted me". This moment was now come. On the eve of the Feast of St. Catherine of Alexandria, patroness of philosophical studies, he had always received the Sacrament of Penance; on the eve of this feast in 1875 he also died. His body rests in Our Lady's Choir of the Stephanskirche before the steps of the altar. At the wall beneath the Rauscher window is his monument. The statue of the cardinal, representing him with his hands crossed over the breast and clothed in episcopal vestments, portrays his principal characteristic, charity. Besides the monument are the pictures of his patron saints, Joseph and Othmar, while all is crowned by a representation of the Risen Redeemer. RAUSCHER, Hirtenbriefe, Predigten, Anreden (Vienna, 1858); IDEM, Hirtenbriefe, Reden, Zuschriften, new ed., I-II (Vienna, 1875), III (1889); WOLFSGRUBER, Cardinal Rauscher. Mit dem Porträte Rauschers u. einem Facsimile seiner Handschrift (Freiburg, 1888). CÖLESTIN WOLFSGRUBER. Antonio Ravalli Antonio Ravalli Missionary, b. in Italy, 1811; d. at St. Mary's, Montana, U. S. A., 2 Oct., 1884. He entered the Society of Jesus about 1833. With Fathers Vercruyesse, Accolti, and Nobili, Brother Huybrechts, and six sisters of the Congregation of Notre Dame de Namur, he responded to Father de Smet's appeal for the American mission in 1843, arriving at Fort Vancouver, 5 August, 1844, after a voyage of eight months. Having made a short stay at the mission of St. Paul on the Willamet (Champoeg, Oregon), where he made a study of the English language and gave attention to the sick (being skilled in medicine in addition to his many other accomplishments), he joined Father Adrian Hoeck in the spring of 1845 at the mission of St. Ignatius among the Kalispel (Pend d'Oreille), on the upper Columbia, Washington. After some time he was transferred to the Flathead Mission of St. Mary's on Bitter Root River, western Montana, where he remained until the mission was temporarily abandoned on account of the hostile Blackfeet in 1850, when, in 1854, he assumed charge of the Scared Heart Mission established by Father Nicholas Point among the Coeur d'Alenes (Skitswish) of Northern Idaho. Here he designed and supervised the building of a handsome church which, with its altar and beautiful statues, carved by himself, has been described by a traveller as "a credit to any civilized country". Governor Stevens, who saw it in 1855, says in his official report: "The church was designed by the superior of the mission, Father Ravalli, a man of skill as an architect and, undoubtedly, judging from his well-thumbed books, of various accomplishments". In the general outbreak led by Yakima in 1856-67 his influence was largely instrumental in holding the northern tribes quiet. In 1866 Father Congiato, superior of the Rocky Mountain missions, established the old Mission of St. Mary's on the Bitter Root, among the Flatheads, and among those appointed to the station was Father Ravalli, who had been with it at its abandonment sixteen years before. Here he remained until his death. His finest eulogy comes from a Protestant historian: "Fifty years a Jesuit and forty years a missionary, one of the noblest men that ever laboured in the ranks of the Church in Montana, his fame stands very high in Montana, where a later generation knows more of him than even of Father de Smet." (Chittenden). (See also FLATHEAD INDIANS; KALISPEL INDIANS; MISSIONS, CATHOLIC INDIAN, OF THE UNITED STATES.) CHITTENDEN AND RICHARDSON, Life, Letters, and Trials of Father Pierre Jean de Smet (4 vols., 1905); SHEA, Catholic Missions (New York, 1854); STEVENS REPORT in Rept. of the Commissioner on Indian Affairs for 1855 (Washington, 1856); also article FLATHEAD in Clark, Indian Sign Language (Philadelphia, 1855). JAMES MOONEY Ravenna Ravenna Archdiocese of Ravenna (Ravennatensis) The city of Ravenna is the capital of a province in Romagna, central Italy, on the left of the Rivers Montone and Ronco, the confluence of which is at Ravenna, not far from the mouths of the Po. The Corsini Canal, constructed by Clement XII in 1736, connects the city and the wet dock with Porto Corsini, on the Adriatic Sea, which is now five miles away. Ravenna is situated on a vast alluvial plain, partly marshy. A pine grove that begins at a distance of two miles from the city, and extends as far as Cervia, was already famous in antiquity, when it extended to the north as far as Aquileia. This grove was greatly damaged by the winter of 1879-80, and also by a fire in 1905. The vast plains are cultivated by the intensive system; and the silk industry also flourishes there. In ancient times, and in the early Middle Ages, Ravenna was on the coast, the sea forming at this place a lagoon that is shown on the maps of the sixteenth century; the city itself was traversed in all directions and surrounded by natural streams and artificial canals, the most important of which was the Augusta; so that Ravenna resembled Venice. Until the time of the first emperors, the houses were all built of wood, or on pile foundations. Its geographical position and the prehistoric objects that have been found at the city show Ravenna to be of ancient origin. It increased very much when the Umbrians and the Etruscans took refuge there at the invasion of the Gauls, against whom it allied itself with Rome, at a date that cannot be established with precision, retaining its own city regulations. After the Social War, it obtained Roman citizenship (88 b.c.); and having sided with Marius, Sulla deprived it of its autonomy, and annexed it to the province of Cisalpine Gaul. Before crossing the Rubicon, Cæsar stopped there, concealing his designs under the apparent concern that he entertained for the creation of a school of gladiators. Augustus recognized the military importance of the city, protected, as it was, on the land side by water, and he made it the second station of the imperial fleet, the first being Misenum, near Pozzuoli. Around the station of the fleet (classis) there soon sprang up a city which took that name, and which consisted of the dockyards and of the houses of employees connected with that place. Classis was surrounded by walls of its own; and thereafter, the Via Cæsarea, which connected it with Ravenna, became flanked with houses on either side, giving rise to the suburb of Cæsarea. Tiberius built a common wall around Ravenna and Classis. The chief public buildings were outside the Porta Aurea, among them the amphitheatre, the temple of Apollo, a circus, baths, and a manufactory of arms. Scarcely any of the buildings of that age are preserved, and the aqueduct of Trajan is completely covered by alluvial deposits; the Porta Aurea was torn down in the sixteenth century; and all that remains of the buildings of Classis are the columns of a few temples, scattered about in different churches of the city, while some of them were transported to Venice; some sculptures are preserved in the museum (Augustus and his family), or serve to adorn a few churches (San Giovanni in Fonte, San Vitale); there is a mosaic pavement which is also of that period. Funereal monuments abound, especially of naval constructors; the most interesting one of them, in the collection of the Museum, is that of the Longidiena family. Thusnelda, widow of Arminius, and Marbod, King of the Marcomanni, were confined at Ravenna. In 404 this city became the imperial residence, Honorius preferring it to Milan, which was more exposed to the incursions of the barbarians and of Alaric, who was serving in the pay of the empire. At this time Ravenna was adorned with its most famous monuments, secular and sacred, the latter of which have been in great part preserved. Already about 380 Bishop Ursus had dedicated a splendid basilica to the Resurrection of Our Lord (called Anastasis in the Byzantine period); on its site the present cathedral stands, entirely remodelled in the eighteenth century, the only remains of the ancient basilica being a few sculptures and mosaics, and two sarcophagi, one of which is said to be that of St. Bartianus; there remain only a few fragments of the ambo of the bishop Angellus (sixteenth century). No vestige remains of the palaces of Honorius, of Ad Laurentum, and of Galla Placidia (425-50). Of the churches that were erected under Honorius, there remains Santa Agata, a basilica of three naves, which in 1893 was restored to its ancient form; it possesses a notable ambo, and ancient columns. San Pietro in Classis was torn down in the sixteenth century, to make room for fortifications. Under Galla Placidia there was built the Church of San Giovanni Evangelista, which in the transformations that it underwent in the fourteenth century and in 1747 lost all the mosaics with which it was adorned, preserving only its columns and its atrium; the Gothic portico dates from 1316. Of the Church of Santa Croce only one half remains. In the Church of San Giovanni Battista only the columns are ancient. Most important is the chapel of the archiepiscopal palace of San Pietro Crisologo, square in shape, and possessing mosaics, of which the beardless Christ in the centre is notable. The mausoleum of Galla Placidia, which is the Church dei Santi Nazario e Celso (440), contains the best mosaics of Ravenna. It is built in the shape of a Latin cross, and has a cupola that is entirely in mosaics, representing eight Apostles and symbolical figures of doves drinking from a vessel; the other four apostles are represented on the vaults of the transverse arm; over the door is a representation of Christ as the Good Shepherd, young, beardless, with flowing hair, and surrounded by sheep; opposite, there is a subject that is interpreted as representing St. Lawrence. There are three sarcophagi, but it is not known whose they were; the largest is said to have been that of Galla Placidia, and that her body was deposited there in a sitting position, clothed with the imperial mantle; in 1577, however, the contents of the sarcophagus were accidentally burned. Of the same period is San Giovanni in Fonte, which was the baptistery of the Catholics, dedicated by Archbishop Neon (449-52). It is believed that the church was built over the caledarium of a bath on the same site. It is of octagonal shape, with the interior walls and vault adorned with mosaics. In the centre of the cupola is the baptism of Christ, on a golden field, with a personification of the River Jordan; around are grouped the twelve Apostles on a blue field; and below are other figures, possibly of the prophets; there are also arabesques, etc. The marbles of the socle seem to have been taken from secular buildings. The art of this period has the merits of ancient art applied to Christian subjects, although its technic already begins to show decadence; for the rest it is still Roman, showing no traces of Oriental influence. The same is true of the artistic period inaugurated by Theodoric, King of the Goths. After the battle of Verona, Odoacer withdrew to Ravenna, where he withstood a siege of three years by Theodoric. The taking of Rimini, however, deprived Ravenna of supplies, and thereby compelled the latter city to capitulate. Archbishop Joannes served as the peace mediator (493). Theodoric employed Roman architects for the building of profane as well as sacred structures. It has been suggested that in his buildings a Germanic influence may be perceived; but this is without foundation, for even in the Gothic period Ravenna preserved its western Roman character. Nothing remains of the palace that Theodoric built near San Apollinare Nuovo; what is called Palazzo di Teodorico to-day was an annex of the former, probably a barrack, and received its present form in the eighth century. Excavations are being made there at the present time. The palace itself was sacked by the Byzantines in 539, and thereafter it became the seat of the exarchs, and of the King of the Lombards. Charles the Great took away the columns of this palace to embellish with them his own palace at Aachen. The last tower that remained of the palace of Theodoric was destroyed in 1295. Theodoric also built the Basilica Herculis, baths, and several churches for the Arians, e.g. San Martino, which is now called San Apollinare Nuovo, because the relics of San Apollinaris were transferred to that church in the ninth century. This church was near the palace of Theodoric, and was the cathedral of the Arians. Its apse and atrium underwent modernization at various times, but the mosaics of the lateral walls, twenty-four columns, and an ambo are preserved. The mosaics of the right side represent a scheme of twenty-six saints going to receive their crowns, towards a group representing Christ, beardless, enthroned amid four angels; which lattter group is the best. This picture contains a schematic representation of the palace of Theodoric. After the Gothic government had passed away, this composition was somewhat transformed, as is shown by some hands that remain near a column. On the left are the virgins moving from the city of Classis towards the group of the Madonna with the Bambino on her lap, and surrounded by four angels; on the two sides are the lines of windows, between which are mosaics representing sixteen saints (Doctors of the Church?) that have much more individuality than the figures already mentioned. On the third story are represented twenty-six scenes of the life and passion of Christ, in which latter, however, the crucifixion is lacking; between each two scenes there is the image of a saint. In another part of the church there is a rough mosaic containing the portrait of the Emperor Justinian. The Church of Santo Spirito (formerly San Teodoro) was the private church of the Arian bishops; near it is Santa Maria Cosmedin, the baptistery of the Arians, the mosaics of which correspond to those of San Giovanni in Fonte; this baptistery also is an octagonal structure with a cupola. The Church of Sant' Andrea, which was built by Theodoric, was destroyed by the Venetians in 1447. After the Byzantine conquest the Arian churches were consecrated by Archbishop Agnellus for Catholic worship. The mausoleum of Theodoric, a decagonal structure, covered with a great monolith thirty-six feet in diameter, is the monument that reveals Roman art in its purest form, at once austere and graceful. In the Middle Ages the sarcophagus that was used as a church (Santa Maria della Rotonda) was removed, and there appeared in its place a Benedictine monastery. To Theodoric's patronage of the arts was due also the Churches of San Vitale, built by Archbishop Ecclesius (526-34), and San Apollinare in Classe, built by Archbishop Ursicinus (535-39); San Vitale, which is a work of the architect Julianus Argentarius, is an octagonal structure of nearly 114 feet in diameter, with an apse for the altar and presbytery. In 1898 it was restored to its original shape, there being preserved however only the frescoes of the cupola, which are by Barozzi and others; betweeen the eight columns that surround the central space there open eight niches of two stories, the upper one of which was a tribune for women (matronæum). The columns, which are placed by pairs between the single pilasters, above and below, are embellished with exquisitely beautiful capitals. The mosaics of the apse and the lateral walls are better than those of the epoch of Theodoric, although not equal to those of the period of the empire. In the apse is represented a juvenile Christ, seated upon the orb, and surrounded by two angels, St. Vitalis and the Archbishop Ecclesius; below to the right is represented the Empress Theodora with her suite, and to the left Justinian and his suite, there being in the latter the Archbishop Maximianus, in whose time (546-56) the mosaics were executed. Other representations are of Abraham extending hospitality to the three angels; the sacrifice of Isaac; the sacrifice of Abel; the Eucharistic Sacrifice (table with bread and wine), and the sacrifice of Melchisedec (these have a dogmatic value); there are also representatives of Moses, of the prophets, of the Apostles, and of other saints. Among the ancient sarcophagi, a notable one is that of the Exarch Isaac (641), in the Sancta Sanctorum, which must be a work of the fifth century, with representations of Daniel, of the adoration of the Magi, and of the resurrection of Lazarus. San Vitale was the model of the palatine chapel of Charles the Great of Aachen. San Apollinare in Classe is a work of that same Julianus. This church, which is a basilica of three naves, divided by two lines of marble columns, has preserved its ancient structure better. The marble incrustations of the walls were removed in 1449 by Sigismondo Malatesta. In the lateral naves there are the sarcophagi of eight archbishops, nearly all of them with metrical inscriptions. The mosaics of the apse have been restored; they represent, around a cross on a blue background, the Transfiguration, the preaching os St. Apollinaris, the sacrifice of Abel; Abraham, Melchisedec, the Emperors Constantine IV, Heracleus, and Tiberius granting privileges to the Archbishop Reparatus (671-77), and four are the portraits of bishops. Pope Leo III restored the church, to which later there was annexed a Camaldolese monastery. Ravenna is to-day substantially as it was at the beginning of the Byzantine period: subsequent ages have done nothing except to pass by, transforming, not always happily, the work of the fifth and sixth centuries. In 539 the city fell into the hands of Belisarius, who, pretending to accept the crown of Italy offered to him by Vittiges, was allowed to enter the town; but when the Goths attempted to retake it (548-550), it was held against them. At the close of the war, Ravenna became the seat of the Byzantine governor, and accordingly was better able than Rome to preserve its outward splendour. The Lombards attempted several times to take possession of the city; in 597 Faroald, Duke of Spoleto, succeeded in taking Classe, but was driven from it two years later by the German Droctulf; the same occurred to Ariulfo in 592, and in 716 to Faroald II, the latter of whom was compelled to restore Classe by Liutprand, who in turn took possession of it 726. Liutprand succeeded in taking Ravenna itself in 731, not, however, without the assistance of a party in the town that was averse to Byzantine domination. This aversion had already manifested itself in 692, when Constans II wished to take Pope Sergius to Constantinople; the militias of Ravenna and the Pentapolis hastened to the assistance of the pope, which happened again in 705 in the case of Pope John VI. When, by order of Leo the Isaurian the Exarch Paulus wished to destroy the sacred images about the year 727, Ravenna revolted, and in the fighting that followed the Exarch himself was killed. Agnello tells of a battle between the Ravennese and the Greeks at a time that is not well defined. In 752 Aistulf, King of the Lombards, took Ravenna; then, however, Pope Stephen II (III) obtained the intervention of Pepin, and the exarchate was united to the dominions of the Holy See. Thereafter Ravenna and the exarchate were governed in the name of the pope by the archbishop, assisted by three tribunes who were elected by the people. Soon, however, the archbishops came to consider themselves feudatories of the empire; and in fact in the confirmation of their temporal power by Henry II and Barbarossa no mention is made of the sovereignty of the pope. The archbishops of Ravenna were the most faithful supporters of the rights and policy of the emperors in Italy, while the emperors on different occasions held their courts at Ravenna. In 1198, however, that city == where the communal institutions had been greatly developed == placed itself at the head of the league of the cities of Romagna and of the Marches against the imperial power; and consequently Innocent III was able easily to enforce the rights of the Holy See over Ravenna, which were ratified by Otto IV and Frederick II at periods when those princes needed the good will of the pope. In the war of 1218 the Guelph Pietro Traversari, having vanquished the faction of the Ubertini and Mainardi, declared himself Lord of Ravenna, and was succeeded by his son Paolo in 1226. Paolo fought against Frederick II, who in 1240 took the office of podestá from Paolo's son, also named Paolo. In 1248, however, the pope took Ravenna, and the Traversari returned to power; but in 1275 they were driven from the city by Guido Novello da Polenta, who was made perpetual captain. His son Lamberto (1297-1316) abolished the democratic government, and having died without children was succeeded by his cousin Ostasio I and Guido Novello, of whom the latter was a lover of letters and of the arts; he received Dante with honours, and called to Ravenna Giotto, who painted the vault of San Giovanni Evangelista with frescos, while other artists who studied under him adorned with frescos Santa Maria in parta fuori (supposed portraits of Guido da Polenta, Dante, Chiara, and Francesco da Polenta), and Santa Chiara, founded by Chiara da Polenta in the thirteenth century. Dante died at Ravenna (1321) and was buried in the vestibule of the Church of San Francesco. His present mausoleum was erected in 1482 by Bernardo Bembo. Ostasio received from Louis the Brave and from Pope Benedict XII the title of vicar. Not less cruel than Ostasio was his son Bernardino (1345-59), against whom his own brothers conspired; they died, hwoever, in the same prison of Cervia into which he had been treacherously thrown. A better ruler was Guido Lucio, who in his old age in 1389 was thrown into prison by his sons, where he ended his days. He was survived by his son Ostasio IV, who died in 1431. Ostasio V in 1438 was forced into an alliance with Duke Filippo Maria of Milan by that prince, on which account the Venetians invited him to Venice, where he soon learned that the annexation to Venice had been proclaimed at Ravenna. He died in a Franciscan convent, the victim of a mysterious assassination. The Venetians governed Ravenna by provveditori and podestá. In 1509 Julius II attempted to retake all of Romagna that was held by the Venetians, and sent the Duke of Urbino with an expedition. Ravenna was defended by the podestá Marcello and by the captain Zeno; but at the news of the defeat of Agnadello, the republic ordered the restoration of Ravenna to the Holy See. Three years later, in 1512, there took place near this city the disastrous battle in which the French defeated the allied Pontifical and Spanish troops. In 1527, notwithstanding their alliance with Clement VII, the Venetians occupied Ravenna and the Romagna, which, however, they were compelled to restore in 1529. The popes governed Ravenna through a cardinal legate. Of this period are: the monument of the battle of 1512, erected in 1557; the tombs of Guidarello Guidarelli, and Tullio Lombardo, in the Museo Nazionale; those of Luffio Numai and Tommaso Flamberti, in the Church of San Francesco (1509), and, above all, the church and the monastery of Santa Maria in Portu (1553), built on the site, and in part with the materials, of the Church of San Lorenzo in Cæsarea (fifth century); it has a Byzantine Madonna of the tenth century. Its construction was undertaken when the Regular Canons of Portu were obliged to leave Santa Maria in portu fuori; the church has three naves, and an octagonal cupola; the stalls of the choir are adorned with beautiful carvings, and the loggia of the garden of the annexed monastery is of very pure style. The facade dates from 1784. The city was adorned with princely palaces, more especially the work of the architects Danisi, Grossi, Morigia, and Zamaglini, while Nicoló Rondinelli, at Santo Domingo, Cotignola, Luca Lunghi and his sons, Guido Reni, at the Duomo, and other painters adorned the churches. Meanwhile, the public works were not neglected. Besides the fortifications already constructed by the Venetians, which were enlarged, there was dug in 1654 the Canale Panfilio (named in honour of Innocent X), by the Cardinal legate Donghi, and, in the following century, the Canale Corsini, works that were necessary not only to facilitate maritime commerce but to preserve the city from inundation in consequence of the raising of the beds of the rivers. In 1797 Ravenna became a part of the Cispadan Republic, and later of the Cisalpine Republic. The Austrians took it from the French, who in turn drove the former from the city in 1800-01. The town was incorporated into the Kingdom of Italy, after which it was attacked again by the Austrians, and finally was restored to the pope. Provisional governments were established in 1831, 1849, and 1859; and in 1860 the annexation of Ravenna to the Kingdom of Italy was declared. The academy of fine arts has some paintings by well-known masters, mentioned above: San Romualdo, by Guercino; a collection of Byzantine and of Slav Madonnas, and sculptures by Canova and Thorwaldsen. The Museo Nazionale contains collections of Etruscan, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine coins and inscriptions, and also coins and inscriptions of the Middle Ages; fragments of ancient sculptures, and a bust of Innocent X by Bernini. It occupies the monastery of the Camaldolese of Classe, who moved into the city in 1515. The archiepiscopal palace also has a lapidary hall, ancient vestments, a Lenten calendar for the years 532 to 626, and a chiselled ivory throne of the sixth century, taken to Ravenna in 1001 by Ottone III, who received it from Pietro Orseolo, Doge of Venice. According to local tradition, St. Peter himself founded the Church of Ravenna, and established as its first bishop St. Apollinaris, a native of Antioch, who according to the same tradition suffered martyrdom under Nero; the acts of his martyrdom, however, have scarcely any historical value; they were probably written under the bishop Maruo (642-61), and intended, together with the alleged Apostolic origin of the See of Ravenna, to abet the autocratic aspirations of that bishop. However, in 1756 there was discovered near Classe a Christian cemetery in which there were found inscriptions that date from the second century; and in 1904 in Classe itself there was unearthed another graveyard, the upper layers of which date from the fifth century. It may be concluded, therefore, that Christianity was taken to Ravenna by sea. It is certain that St. Apollinaris was the first bishop, and that he suffered martyrdom. According to the list of the bishops of Ravenna, handed down to our times by Agnellus (ninth century), who received it from the bishop Marianus (546-56), of whose accuracy there is no reason to doubt, Severus was the twelfth of the series; and as he is among those who signed at the Council of Sardica (343), the epoch of St. Apollinaris may be established as belonging to the beginning of the third century, or possibly to the last decades of the second century, when the Church, under Commodus, enjoyed a measure of peace that was propitious to the development of hierarchical organization. Ravenna accordingly became a centre of Christianization for Emilia. The only martyr among its bishops was St. Apollinaris, whose martyrdom occurred, possibly, under Septimus Severus. Other martyrs were St. Ursicinus, SS. Fusca and Maura, St. Vitalis (not the St. Vitalis of Rome), etc. Among the bishops, besides those already named, mention should be made of Joannes Angeloptes (430-33), so called because he had the gift of seeing his guardian angel; he obtained through Galla Placidia the title and the rights of metropolitan of the fourteen cities of Emilia and Flaminia. The archbishops, as in the past, continued to be confirmed and to be consecrated by the pope; St. Peter Chrysologus (433-49), formerly Deacon of Imola, was so confirmed and consecrated. For the rest, the presence of the imperial court, and later, of that of the exarch, aroused in the minds of the archbishops a great sense of their dignity and a certain spirit of independence in regard to Rome; while the popes on the other hand were disposed to cede no measure of their rights, as was shown in the case of Simplicius, who threatened Joannes III with the forfeiture of the right to consecrate his suffragans; in the case of Felix IV, in regard to the questions that arose between Bishop Ecclesius (521-34) and his clergy; and in the case of St. Gregory the Great, who was compelled to repress the excess of pomp of Archbishop Joannes V (575-595) and that of his clergy, and who, on account of those conditions, at the death of Joannes, caused the election of Mariniano (606), who had been a companion of the pope at the monastery of Sant' Andrea. The better to insure the subordination of the archbishops, the latter were forced to sign at the time of their consecration a declaration to that end (indicula et cautiones), in which were written the chief duties and rights of those prelates. In connexion with this declaration, there arose differences of interpretation between Pope Vitalianus and Archbishop Maurus (648-71), which led to the schism, Maurus having sought and obtained the privilege of autonomy from the Emperor Constans II, who was a Monothelite, and therefore ready to humiliate the pope; even on his deathbed, Maurus exhorted his clergy not to subject themselves to the yoke of Rome; and accordingly Reparatus (671-77) did not go to Rome for his consecration. It is uncertain whether Reparatus or Theodorus (677-88), who also was consecrated by his suffragans, re-established the union with Rome. Theodorus adhered to the Roman Council of Agatho (680); for the rest, he was hated by his clergy for having suppressed many abuses among them. There followed St. Damianus (688-705); St. Felix (705-23), who at first also had aspirations to independence; but when Justinian II, having recovered the throne, sent a fleet to punish Ravenna for its complicity in his dethronement, as he believed, the archbishop was taken to Constantinople, blinded, and sent to Pontus, whence he was recalled by Philippicus Bardanes (712). Of the constancy of Ravenna against Iconoclasm, mention has already been made above. Sergius (748-69) also had differences with the popes. Georgius (835-46) went to France in search of a grant of autonomy, but was imprisoned by the troops of Charles and Louis II, at war at that time with Lothair (835), and with difficulty was able to return to his country. Matters again became acute under Archbishop Joannes X (850-78), who, moreover, had displeased the clergy and people of his own see and his suffragan bishops by his overbearing acts, consecrating bishops against the pleasure of the people and the clergy, imposing heavy expenses upon his suffragans in the visits that he made every other year, preventing his suffragans from communicating directly with Rome, etc. Accordingly, he was cited to appear at Rome by Nicholas I; but Joannes having refused to obey the summons, the pope went in person to Ravenna, where he became convinced of the general aversion to the archbishop, who, being then deprived of the protection of the emperor, was compelled to appear before the council (861), which reprimanded him. Later, however, he again intrigued against Nicholas, with the Bishops of Trier and Cologne. He was the founder of the Benedictine monastery of Isola Palazziola. Romanus (878-88) also was disaffected to the Holy See; Joannes XII (905) became Pope John X. Petrus VI (927-71) was obliged to protect the property of the Church in two synods; Gerbertus (998-99) became Pope Sylvester II; under Leo II (999-1001) the Ravennese grammarian Vilgardus was condemned for heresy; Arnoldus (1014-19) was a brother of St. Henry II, who gave to the archbishops temporal sovereignty over Ravenna, Bologna, Imola, Faenza, and Cervia, without mentioning the sovereignty of the pope; of Archbishop Bebhardus (1027-44), St. Peter Damian says that he maintained himself unsullied in the general corruption of that day; Hunfredus (1046-1051) had been chancellor of Henry III; under him there arose the question of precedence between the bishops of Milan and Ravenna at the imperial court, which gave room to an altercation between the suites of those prelates at the coronation of Henry III. Hunfredus, like his successor, Enrico (1052-71), who had been vice-chancellor of Henry III, was of the imperial party, and opposed to the pope; Enrico favoured the cause of the antipope Cadalous. Guibertus, who was chancellor of Henry IV, caused himself to be elected antipope, in opposition to Gregory VII (1080), by whom he had been excommunicated since 1076. At the beginning of the twelfth century the blessed Petrus Onesti founded the Congregation of the Regular Canons of Santa Maria in Portu. Anselmus (1155-58), formerly Bishop of Havelberg, is famous for his legations to Constantinople, and for his polemical works against the Greeks. Guido da Biandrate (1158-69) favoured the schism of Barbarossa, who was his protector. In the time of Gherardo (1170-90), there arose the question between the monks of Classe and those of San Martino in regard to the body of St. Apollinaris, which, the monks of San Martino claimed, had been transferred to their church for its safety against the incursions of the Saracens. Filippo Fontana (1251-70) preached the crusade against Enzelino. After his death the see remained vacant for four years, until Gregory X appointed to it Bonifacio Fieschi (1274-94). St. Rinaldo Concoreggi (1303-21) restored Christian life, and held six provincial synods. Rinaldo da Polenta was killed by his own brother, Ostasio (1322), who then usurped the Lordship of Ravenna. Fortuniero Vaselli (1342-1347) made a crusade against the Ordelaffi of Forli and the Manfredi of Faenza, and concluded a peace between Venice and Genoa. Pileo de Prata (1370-87), a man of stern doctrines, was made a cardinal by Urban VI, and sent as legate to Germany and Hungary, which countries he held in obedience to the Holy See. Cosmo Migliorati (1387) became in 1400 Pope Innocent VII, and named as his successor at Ravenna his nephew, Giovanni Migliorati (1400-10), whom he made a cardinal. Roverella (1445-76), later a cardinal, was a man of great learning, who was sent on various occasions as legate to England and elsewhere. Pietro Accolti (1524-32) had been professor of canon law at Pisa, and secretary to Julius II. Benedetto Accolti (1532-49), a famous man of letters and historian, was imprisoned under Paul III for unknown reasons. An awakening of Christian life, such as had taken place on former occasions in Italy, was effected at the time at Ravenna. The pious priest Gerolamo Maluselli established the congregation of secular priests of the Buon Gesú (1531); while there appeared a lay oratory, and the Blessed Gentile, widow, and Margherita de' Molli shone for their virtues. Cardinal Guilio della Rovere (1565-78) acquired great merit by the ecclesiastical reforms he effected; he held many provincial and diocesan synods, and built the seminary. His work was continued by Cardinal Cristoforo Boncampagni (1578-1603), Pietro Aldobrandini (1604-21), and Luigi Capponi (1621-1645), of whom the latter caused the paintings of the cathedral to be executed. Maffeo Farsetti (1727-41) restored the cathedral. In the revolutionary fury that broke out at Ravenna, Archbishop Antonio Codronchi displayed great firmness and prudence (1785-1826). Cardinal Enrico Orfei (1860-70) was for two years prevented by the new Government from taking possession of his see. At the present time the suffragans of Ravenna are Bertinoro, Cesena, Forli, Rimini, and Sarsina; Cervia was united to Ravenna in 1909. The ecclesiastical provinces of Bologna (1585), and Ferrara (1735), as well as Modena, until 1106 belonged to Ravenna. The archdiocese has 64 parishes, with 108,051 inhabitants, and 154 secular priests; 3 religious houses for men, with 11 priests, and 10 religious houses for women; 1 educational institution for boys, under the Salesians, and 6 for girls. Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis Eccl. Ravennatis, in Migne, P. L., CVI; Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script. rer. Langobard.; Fabri, Le sagre memorie di Ravenna (2 vols., Venice, 1664); Tarlazzi, Memorie sacre di Ravenna (Ravenna, 1852); Amadesi, In antistitum ravennatum chronataxin, (3 vols., Faenza, 1783); Cappelletti, Le Chiese di'Italia, II; Luther, Rom. und Ravenna, bis zum 8. Jahrhundert (1890); Berti, Ravenna nei primi tre scoli della sua fondazione (Ravenna, 1877); Diehl, Ravenna (Paris, 1903); Etude sur l'administration Byzantine dans l'Exarchat de Ravenna f(Paris, 1888); Ricci, Ravenna iin Italia Artistica (7th ed., Bergamo, 1909); DÜtschke, Ravennatische Studien (Leipzig, 1900); Goetz, Ravenna in Berühmte Kunststatten, n. 10 (Leipzig, 1901); Richter, Die Mosaiken von Ravenna (1878); Kurth, Die Wandmosaiken von Ravenna (1902); Goldmann, Die ravenatischen Sarkophage (1906); Gayet, L'art byzantine d'après les monuments de l'Italie, III (Ravenna and Paris, 1907); Cardoni, Ravenna antica (Faenza, 1879); Pasolini, Gli statuti di Ravenna (Florence, 1868); Fantuza, Storia di Ravenna (6 vols., Venice, 1801-04); Zattoni, Il valore storico della Passione di s. Apollinare in Riv.stor. crit. della science teologiche (1905, 1906). U. BENIGNI Josse Ravesteyn Josse Ravesteyn Born about 1506, at Tielt, a small town in Flanders, hence often called Tiletanus (Jodacus). He studied philosophy at the Collège du Lys, in the University of Louvain, and in 1525 graduated fourth. He was appointed to teach philosophy in the same college, where he continued his course of theology, under the professors, Ruard Tapper and Jean Leonardi, surnamed Hasselius. From 1540 to 1553 he was president of the College of Houterle, and associated with the Abbé de Ste-Gertrude as guardian of the privileges of the university. In 1546 he became ordinary professor in the theological faculty and canon of the first rank in the collegiate chapter of St-Pierre. He was then only a licentiate in theology, but received the doctorate on 5 October following. On the recommendation of Charles Quint he was sent to the Council of Trent (1551) and took an active part in the preparatory work of Sessions XIII-XVI. Arrived at Trent in Sept., 1551, with his four colleagues from the University of Louvain, he presented in November a memorandum "super articulis de sacramentis poenitentiae at extremae unctionis". Later he drew up another on the two articles concerning the Mass. Called by Ferdinand I to the Conference of Worms in 1557, he accompanied François Sonnius and Martin Rythovius and there met three other theologians from the Low Countries: Jean Delphinus, Barthélemy Latomus, and P. Canisius. About 1558 he was made provost of Walcourt, in Namur. In 1561, on the resumption of the work of the general council, he was proposed as a delegate, but failing health forced him to decline the honour. In 1559 he succeeded Ruard Tappert as director of the nuns in the hospital at Louvain, an office he filled till his death, 1570. Through personal merit Ravesteyn was selected as rector of the university in 1545 and 1550. He was a pious and learned priest, zealous in teaching purity of doctrine. Through his efforts the teachings of the innovator Baius were censured by the Spanish Universities of Salamanca and Alcalá, by the Faculty of Paris in 1560, and by Pius V in his Bull "Ex omnibus afflictionibus", 1 Oct., 1567. Ravesteyn's works are: "Epistola Ven. Patri Laurentio Villavincentio", against Baianism; "Demonstratio religionis christianae ex verbo Dei"; "Confessionis, sive doctrinae, quae nuper edita est a ministris qui in ecclesiam Antverpiensem irrepserunt et Augustanae confessioni se assentiri profitentur succincta confutatio"; "Apologia Catholicae confutationis profanae illius et pestilentis confessionis, quam contra inanes cavillationes Matthaei Flacci Illyrici"; "De concordia gratiae et liberi arbitrii"; "Epistolae tres Michaeli de Bay"; "Apologia seu defensio decretorum concilii Tridentini de sacramentis adversus censuaras et examen Martini Kemnitii" in two parts. In this "Apology", which is his chief work, the author comments on, and brilliantly defends, the dogmatic decrees of Sessions IV-VI, the doctrine concerning the Canon of the Scriptures, original sin and justification, the sacraments in general, baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist as a sacrament and as a sacrifice. He died before writing a third part, in which he intended to treat of the other sacraments. PAQUOT, Memoires pour servir a l'histoire litteraire des Pays-Bas, XVI (Louvain, 1769), 306; DE RAM, Memoires de l'Academie Royale de Bruxelles, XIV (Brussels, 1841); FOPPENS, Bibliotheca Belgica, II (Brussels, 1739), 770; HURTER, Nomenclator litterarius, I (Innsbruck, 1892), 13. J. FORGET Gustave Xavier Lacroix de Ravignan Gustave Xavier Lacroix de Ravignan French Jesuit, orator, and author, b. at Bayonne (Basses-Pyrénées), 1 Dec. 1795; d. at Paris, 26 Feb., 1858. Sent quite young to Paris, he studied in private boarding-schools, and for some time attended lectures at the Lycée Bonaparte. He first thought of entering the diplomatic service but decided in 1813 for the law. On Napoleon's return from Elba, de Ravignon joined the Duc d'Angoulême's Royal Volunteers and made the unsuccessful Spanish campaign, distinguishing himself under fire at Hélette. He soon resigned his commission of lieutenant of cavalry and resumed his law studies. Called to the bar he was elected in 1817 a king's counsel in the Paris circuit and in 1821 deputy attorney general. He was becoming famous when in May, 1822, he entered the Sulpician seminary at Issy. This made a sensation, heightened on 2 November, when he was received into the Jesuit novitiate at Montrouge. Here he laid the foundation of that lofty but practical spirituality, master of self, generosity, and and zeal which ever marked him. After his noviceship, he studied theology and was ordained priest 25 July, 1828. Like Bourdaloue, de Ravignan prepared for the pulpit in a professor's chair. For two years at St. Achuel near Amiens, for three more at Brieg, Switzerland, he taught dogmatic theology. While at Brieg and at Estavayer on the Lake of Neufchâtel, he gave missions and retreats in the neighbouring country. His stirring Lenten course in the Cathedral of Amiens (1835), his success at Paris in St. Thomas d'Aquin (1836), pointed him to Mgr de Quélen as the logical successor of Lacordiare at Notre Dame. On the Notre Dame conferences de Ravignan's oratorical fame mainly rests ["Conférences du R, P. de Ravignan de la Compagnie de Jésus" (Paris, 1860, 4 vols., 5th ed., Paris, 1897); "Conferences of Revd. Fr. de Ravignan" (Lent of 1846), tr. Fetherston (London, 1847), cf. also, "The Catholic Pulpit" (London, 1849)]. The subjects treated were the endless conflict of truth and error, God, man, the Divinity, Person, and Doctrine of Christ, the Church and its dogmas. Here the orator introduced a course of moral conferences, but returned to apologetics in a study of the relations between reason and faith. Reading these conferences now we find little colour, imagination, or dramatic movement; we miss the compelling magnetism of the speaker. De Ravignon was "Virtue preaching Truth". His logic, the sincere authority of his affirmation, his unction, his power in repose, his noble presence, his priestly zeal captivated, dominated his hearers. The men's retreats begun by him, and in which he excelled, completed the work. Superior of his brethren at Bordeaux (1837-42), at Paris (1848-51), then, as afterwards, he was preaching in almost every important city in France. He was heard also in Rome, in Belgium, and in London (1851) where he assisted Manning at his first Mass. Everywhere he was winning souls. In 1843-45, public opinion led by Thíers, Cousin, Michelet, Libri, Quintet, Béranger, had set against the Jesuits. Some said they were working for Bourbons, others that they were too loyal to the House of Orléans. Montalembert, Dupanloup, Vatimesnil, Beugnot, Barthelémy defended them. De Ravignon, the foremost Jesuit in France, was accused of having left the order; at another time, of having made unworthy concessions to the Government. He easily cleared himself with his superior-general, Fr. Roothaan, and vindicated his order, its asceticisms, its constitutions, its doctrines, its works, in a calm, logical, but serenely eloquent book, "De l'Existence et de l'Institut des Jésuites" (Paris, 1844; 9th ed., Paris, 1879); tr. Seager (London,1844) and Atchison (London, 1844). The book created a sensation, Boyer-Collard enthusiastically praising it. Twenty-five thousand copies were sold in one year, but the fight continued. Through its agent, Pelligrino Rossi, the Government of Louis-Phillipe asked Gregory XVI to secularize the French Jesuits. The pope replied that to do so would be a violation of the concordant and the constitution, that no crime was imputed to the order, that the French episcopate spoke well of it. He refused, although the Government and its agent tried to create a contrary impression. De Ravignon advised a firm constitutional resistance, but Fr. Roothaan, to spare further embarrassment to the Holy See, without commanding, suggested that the French Jesuits might temporarily and partially disband. They did so, and for a few years, as a corporate body, ceased to exist in France. A painful controversy with Mgr Afre, the future martyr archbishop of Paris, whose measures against the order in 1846 Gregory XVI was obliged to stop, was a sore trial to de Ravignon. Throughout he remained loyal to the Society, respectful but firm to the archbishop. Another trial awaited him. In the campaign for the Falloux Law (1850) for the liberty of education, though recognizing the shortcomings of the measures and trying to eliminate them, he urged the Catholics to unite and to use their opportunities. He was accused of disrupting their ranks, of being a blind follower of de Falloux, Montalembert, and Doupanloup. He was again triumphantly vindicated. Twice again de Ravignon came prominently before the public. In 1855 he preached the Lenten sermons at the Tuileries, before Napoleon III and Empress Eugénie. Sickness had undermined his strength, but he spoke with much of his old vigour, and with the same authority and unction. In 1847 Crétineau-Joly had published his "Clement XIV et les Jesuites". His strictures on Clement XIV were severe and unfair. In 1852 the learned Augustine Theiner had written his "Geschichte des Pontificats Clemens XIV". In it Clement XIII, the defender of the Jesuits, was attacked, Clement XIV, who suppressed them, wronged by injudicious flatteries. At the request of Fr. Roothaan, de Ravignan wrote "Clément XIII et Clément XIV" (Paris, 1854, 2 vols.). He endeavoured to put the facts in their true light. The literary merit of the work is not the highest, but the author writes with impartiality and candour. The work of de Ravignan's last years, if not prominent or striking, was fertile in its results. The confessional, direction of souls, retreats and conferences for noble ladies, familiar talks to the poor, employed his zeal. Many thought him careless of his reputation, but though anxious to do well, he preferred to do good. Several times his name was mentioned for the Archepiscopal See of Paris, but faithful to his vows, he refused the honour. He preferred to work as a simple religious in every good cause. He championed the proclamation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, supported Pététot and Gratry in the reorganization of the French Oratory, and Muard in the formation of the Benedictine monastery of la Pierre-qui-Vire. After two months' sickness, tenderly watched by his friend, superior, and future biographer, de Ponlevoy, he died a saintly death. Berryer had knelt in tears at his bedside; Mgr Dupanloup preached his funeral oration; thousands followed to "Apostle of Paris" to the grave. Besides the volumes mentioned, de Ravignon did not publish anything of great importance. The following works have been gathered and edited since: "Entretiens Spirituels" etc. (Paris, 1859, 7th ed., Paris, 1881); "Suite des entretiens spirituels", etc. (Paris, 1863, 2nd ed., 1871), tr. Ram, "Conferences on the Spiritual Life (London, 1873; 5th ed., New York, 1875); "La vie chrétienne, d'une dame dans le monde" (Paris, 1861, 5th ed., 1895); "Father de Ravignan on Prayer' (Dublin, 189-); "Pensées et Maximes" (Paris, 1911); cf. also articles in "L'Ami de Religion", CXXVI, CXXXIX to CLI, passim. DE DAMPIERRE, Le R. P. de Ravignan (Paris, 1858); MULLOIS, Vie du R. P. de Ravignan (Paris, 1858); de MIRECOURT, Ravignan (Paris, 1858); POUJOULAT, Le R. P. de Ravignan, Sa Vie et ses Oeuvres (Paris, 1858); de PONLEVOY, Vie du R. P. de Ravignan (2 vols. Paris, 1860; 16th ed., 1907; tr. New York, 1869), the fullest and most authoritative biography; VEUILLOT, Mélanges 2nd series, IV (Paris, 1860, 118; de MARGERIE, Etudes Littéraires, no. XII (Paris, 1865), 197-210; LAURENTIE, Mélanges (Paris, 1865), II, 254-7; MAYNARD, Jacques Crétineau-Joly etc. (Paris, 1875), 259-339; HÉBERT, Lettres inédites du R. P. de Ravignan à Mgr Dupanloup, 1840-57 (Tours, 1899; LEDOS, Le Père de Ravignan (Paris, 1908); Brownson's Quarterly Review, XVIII, 211; The Catholic World, IX, 112; Hogg's Instructor, VI, 257; New Englander, XXIX, 23; Revue du Monde Catholique, IV, 33; V, 286; VI, 388; XVI, 637; Le Correspondant, CXI, 1000; Der Katholik, LII, 498; Précis Historiques (1855, 1858, 1869); de LÉTOURVILLE, Le P. de Ravignan et ses contradicteurs etc. (Paris, 1858). JOHN C. REVILLE Henry Augustus Rawes Henry Augustus Rawes Oblate of St. Charles, hymn-writer and preacher, b. at Easington near Durham, England, 11 Dec., 1826; d. at Brighton, 24 April, 1885. Educated at the grammar school, Houghton-le-Spring, where his father was headmaster, and at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he proceeded B.A. in 1849 and M.A. 1852, Rawes entered the Anglican ministry, and after holding curacies at St. Botolph's, Aldgate, and St. Bartholomew's, Moor Lane, became warden of the House of Charity, Soho, 1854. In 1856 he was received into the Catholic Church at Edinburgh by Fr. Ignatius Grant, S.J., and on Whit-Monday, 1857, became one of the original members of the English Congregation of Oblates of St. Charles, founded at St. Mary of the Angels, Bayswater. Ordained priest in November, 1857, Fr. Rawes took charge of the poor district of the Potteries, Notting Hill, where he built the Church of St. Francis of Assisi. As Cardinal Wiseman bears witness, "this has been built entirely at the expense of Fr. Rawes, an Oblate, who has spent all his fortune upon it" (Letter to Cardinal Barnabó in 1860; cf. W. Ward, "Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman", II, 354). After acting as prefect of studies in St. Charles's College, Bayswater, for some years, and doing good work by his sermons and devotional writings, Fr. Rawes was created D.D. by Pius IX at the instance of Cardinal Manning. At Whitsuntide, 1880, he became Superior of the Oblate Congregation, and being re-elected in 1882 and 1884, continued to hold this office till his death. His sermons and devotional writings are strongly marked by a strain of mysticism which was already present in his early Anglican preaching. "Homeward: a Tale of Redemption" (3rd ed., 1873) is an allegory somewhat in the vein of Bunyan, though illuminated by the light of Catholic theology. "The Beloved Disciple" (1872) is inspired by the devotion of which the author gave practical proof a few years later by founding a confraternity in honour of the Evangelist. In like manner, his deep personal devotion to the Holy Ghost found expression not only in his writings but in the foundation of the Society of Servants of the Holy Ghost, which was subsequently made an archconfraternity by Leo XIII. Among other smaller devotional works are: "Sursum; or, Sparks Flying Upward" (1864); "Septem; or, Seven Ways of Hearing Mass" (7th ed., 1869), and some original devotions for the Way of the Cross, published in 1877 with drawings by H.N.J. Westlake. His hymns, too little known nowadays, are remarkable for poetic beauty and deep religious devotion. Some of them appeared separately, but his best work is preserved in "Foregleams of the Desired" (3rd ed., 1881). When received into the Church he had published "The Lost Sheep, and other Poems". Besides his original writings, Fr. Rawes translated the Encyclical of Leo XIII on Catholic Philosophy and the treatises of St. Thomas Aquinas on the Blessed Sacrament and on the Lord's Prayer. His volume of sermons, "God in His Works" (1872), shows that his poetic mysticism was compatible with a keen interest in modern scientific methods. And it may be remarked that in like manner his ultramontane conservatism in matters of theology and Biblical criticism did not hamper his warm sympathies with political Liberalism. Yet his learned discourses and high-flown poetic fancies were a curious counterpart to his quaint ways and the blunt, homely simplicity of his language. At the same time the tender spirit that speaks in some of his hymns and prayers gives us true knowledge of his kindly nature. COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; IDEM in Men of the Time (1884); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v. W.H. KENT Charles Raymbault Charles Raymbault Missionary, b. in France, 1602; entered the Society of Jesus at Rouen (1621); d. at Quebec, 1643. He was procurator in the Canadian mission when he was called to Quebec (1637). When the time came (1640) to give missionaries to the wandering tribes who frequently visited the Hurons, chiefly Nipissings and Algonquins, living east and north of Lake Huron and on the banks and islands of the Ottawa, Raymbault was sent with Father Pijart to follow them. This mission offered greater hardships than that of the Hurons, Neutrals, and Indians of the Tobacco Nation. The generosity of the Jesuits soon bore fruit. When the Sauteux Indians (1641) besought the "blackrobes" to visit them, Raymbault travelled, with the future martyr Jogues, as far the the Sault St. Marie on a voyage of exploration and with a view to a more permanent apostolate. The missionaries, besides their desire to conquer souls, were interested in the discovery of the famous passage to the Western Sea. Shortly after his return, Raymbault intended to join the Nipissings in their winter quarters, but he fell exhausted with fatigue, and was brought to Quebec, where he soon died, the first Jesuit who died in Canada. He was buried besides Champlain. According to the Relation of 1643, he was a man of great stature, of ordinary talent and learning, of sound judgment, excellent heart, and experienced in temporal affairs. ROCHEMONTEIX, Les Jésuites et la Nouvelle-France (Paris, 1896); FERLAND, Cours d'histoire du Canada (Quebec, 1882); Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents (Cleveland, 1896-1901). LIONEL LINDSAY Raymond IV Raymond IV, of Saint-Gilles Count of Toulouse and of Tripoli, b. about 1043; d. at Tripoli in 1105. He was the son of Raymond III, Pons, and in 1088 succeeded his brother, William IV, who had died without male issue. From 1066 he had been count of Rouergue, of Nimes, and of Narbonne, thus becoming one of the most powerful lords of southern France. In 1095 he received the pope, Urban II, on his own estates and took the Cross with enthusiasm, vowing never to return to his own dominions. After a pilgrimage to Chaise Dieu, he set out in October, 1096, entrusting the care of his dominions to his son Bertrand. His army was composed of Aquitanians and Provençals, the pope's legate, Adhémar of Monteil, Bishop of Le Puy, accompanying him. He traversed Lombardy and proceeded to Constantinople through the valleys of the Eastern Alps. After many a successful combat with the half-barbarous Slavs who inhabited this region, he arrived at Durazzo, where he found letters from the Emperor Alexius inviting him to Constantinople. Raymond accepted, leaving his army, which in his absence pillaged the country, and was attacked by the imperial troops. At Constantinople Raymond refused to swear allegiance to Alexius, as most of the crusading chiefs had done. He afterwards took an active part in the expedition against Jerusalem, and, notwithstanding his rivalry with Bohemond, exercised a very great influence on the course of events. He could not prevent Bohemond from taking Antioch in 1098, and out of spite against the Norman chief he became reconciled with the Emperor Alexius, to whom he restored the city of Laodicea (February, 1099). After his rupture with Bohemond, Raymond directed the great bulk of the crusaders against Jerusalem, and was actively engaged in the capture of the Holy City (8 July, 1099). He refused the title of king, and left Jerusalem to return to Constantinople in 1100. He was chosen chief of a new army of crusaders, which was destroyed by the Turks in Asia Minor. Returning to Syria in 1102, he was imprisoned at Tarsus by Tancred, and, on being released, seized Tripoli (1103), where he died two years later. RAYMOND D'AGUILERS, Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Jerusalem in Historiens Occidentaux des Croisades, III, 235-309; VAISSETTE, Histoire du Languedoc, II, III; CHALANDON, Essai sar le regne d'Alexis Comnene (Paris, 1900), 186-88, 205-12, 222-28; BREHIER, L'Eglise et l'Orient, Les Croisades (Paris, 1911). LOUIS BREHIER Raymond VI Raymond VI Count of Toulouse, b. 1156; d. 1222; succeeded his father, Raymond V, in 1195. He was a debauched and sceptical prince, who successively put away three wives, taking as his fourth Jeanne, sister of Richard Coeur de Lion. Loaded with all the benefits of the Church, he showed the greatest benevolence to the heretical Cathares or Albigenses, whom his father had persecuted, refused to molest them, even allowing them to preach before him, and perhaps allied himself with their sect. His court was dissolute, and he took no notice of the reproof of the legate of Innocent III, Pierre de Castelnau, who finally excommunicated him in 1207. But shortly after, an equerry of the count having treasonably killed de Castelnau, Raymond was immediately deposed by the pope. Raymond, frightened into submission, expelled the heretics from his dominions, and on 18 June, 1209, in the presence of the pontifical legate, did public penance before the Church of St-Gilles. When the crusaders, assembled in the north of France, invaded Languedoc, Raymond took part in the Crusade and assisted at the sieges of Beziers and Carcassone in 1209. Returning to Toulouse, Raymond tried to elude his obligations and was excommunicated by the Council of Avignon. He then went to Rome to clear himself of the murder of de Castelnau, and was received by Innocent III, but on his return found his estates entirely overrun by Simon de Montfort. In 1212 he held only Toulouse and Montauban. His brother-in-law, Peter, King of Aragon, came to his rescue, but was killed at the battle of Murat in 1213. In 1215 Simon de Montfort besieged Toulouse and Narbonne. Instead of organizing resistance, Raymond had negotiated with the pontifical legates, who made him the most humiliating propositions. Deprived of his estates, he retired to England, later appearing at the Lateran Council (1215), where he sought to interest Innocent III in his favour. The pope, however, ceded the estates of Raymond to Simon de Montfort, reserving for his son only the Marquessates of Provence and Beaucaire. An exile in Aragon, Raymond VI reassembled his troops, and took Toulouse (7 November, 1217), later defending it successfully against Simon de Montfort, who was killed 25 June, 1218. Before his death Raymond VI had wrested from Amaury de Montfort nearly all the conquests of his father. Raymond VII Raymond VII Count of Toulouse, son of Raymond VI, b. at Beaucaire, 1197; d. at Milhaud, 1249; had espoused a sister of the King of Aragon, and had assisted his father in the reconquest of his estates. In January, 1224, Amaury de Montfort, reduced to the sovereignty of Narbonne, concluded a treaty with him, but ceded his rights in the south to Louis VIII of France. In vain Raymond VII offered his obeisance to the assembly of Bourges in 1226; a new Crusade was decided upon. Louis VIII seized Avignon and occupied Languedoc without resistance, but on his return to the north he died 8 Nov., 1226, at Montpensier. Raymond VII, profiting by the feebleness of Blanche of Castile, took several places from Imbert de Beaujeu, seneschal of the King of France. This success was of short duration; in 1228 new bands of crusaders began to plunder the country of Toulouse, and soon Raymond lost nearly all his strongholds. He then asked peace from Blanche of Castile. After the conference of Meaux, Raymond returned to Paris, and on 12 April, 1229, in the Church of Notre Dame, did public penance and was released from his excommunication. He pledged himself to demolish the walls of Toulouse, and to give his daughter Jeanne in marriage to Alphonse of Potiers, brother of King Louis IX. Returning to Toulouse, Raymond VII kept his promises and accepted the establishment of the Inquisition. In 1234 he went to Rome, and received from the pope the restitution of the Marquessate of Provence. In spite of his zeal in suppressing heresy, he was several times accused of favouring the massacre of the inquisitors. He allied himself with the Emperor Frederick II against the pope, then with the King of England, Henry III, against Louis IX. The victory of the latter at Taillebourg caused him to renew his oath of fealty. In 1247, as he was starting for Palestine with St. Louis, he died, leaving his estates to his daughter Jeanne. LAVISSE, Histoire de France, III, 1, pp. 259, 268; MOLINIER, Les Sources de l'Histoire de France, II (Paris, 1906), nos. 2444, 2455, 2476; VAISSETTE, Histoire du Languedoc, VI (Paris, 1749); PETIT DUTAILLIS, Etude sur le regne de Louis VIII (Paris, 1894); BERGER, Histoire de Blanche de Castile (Paris, 1895); GUGGENBERGER, A general history of the Christian Era, I (2nd revised ed., St. Louis, 1903), Section 548. LOUIS BREHIER Raymond Lully Raymond Lully (RAMON LULL) "Doctor Illuminatus", philosopher, poet, and theologian, b. at Palma in Majorca, between 1232 and 1236; d. at Tunis, 29 June, 1315. Probably a courtier at the court of King James of Aragon until thirty years of age, he then became a hermit and afterwards a tertiary of the Order of St. Francis. From that time he seemed to be inspired with extraordinary zeal for the conversion of the Mohammedan world. To this end he advocated the study of Oriental languages and the refutation of Arabian philosophy, especially that of Averroes. He founded a school for the members of his community in Majorca, where special attention was given to Arabic and Chaldean. Later he taught in Paris. About 1291 he went to Tunis, preached to the Saracens, disputed with them in philosophy, and after another brief sojourn in Paris, returned to the East as a missionary. After undergoing many hardships and privations he returned to Europe in 1311 for the purpose of laying before the Council of Vienna his plans for the conversion of the Moors. Again in 1315 he set out for Tunis, where he was stoned to death by the Saracens. Raymond's literary activity was inspired by the same purpose as his missionary and educational efforts. In the numerous writings (about 300) which came from his facile pen, in Catalonian as well as in Latin, he strove to show the errors of Averroism and to expound Christian theology in such a manner that the Saracens themselves could not fail to see the truth. With the same purpose in view, he invented a mechanical contrivance, a logical machine, in which the subjects and predicates of theological propositions were arranged in circles, squares, triangles, and other geometrical figures, so that by moving a lever, turning a crank, or causing a wheel to revolve, the propositions would arrange themselves in the affirmative or negative and thus prove themselves to be true. This device he called the Ars Generalis Ultima or the Ars Magna, and to the description and explanation of it he devoted his most important works. Underlying this scheme was a theoretical philosophy, or rather a theosophy, for the essential element in Raymond's method was the identification of theology with philosophy. The scholastics of the thirteenth century maintained that, while the two sciences agree, so that what is true in philosophy cannot be false in theology, or vice versa, they are, nevertheless, two distinct sciences, differing especially in that theology makes use of revelation as a source, while philosophy relies on reason alone. The Arabians had completely separated them by maintaining the twofold standard of truth, according to which what is false in philosophy may be true in theology. Raymond, carried on by his zeal for the refutation of the Arabians, went to the opposite extreme. He held that there is no distinction between philosophy and theology, between reason and faith, so that even the highest mysteries may be proved by means of logical demonstration and the us of the Ars Magna. This of course removed all distinction between natural and supernatural truth. Unlike Abelard's, however, Raymond's rationalism was of the mystic type: he taught expressly that, for the understanding of the highest truths, reason must be aided by faith; that once faith has flooded the soul with its radiance, reason, enlightened and strengthened by faith, "is as capable of showing that there are three persons in one God as it is of proving that there cannot be three Gods". "Relying on the grace of God", he writes, "I intend to prove the articles of faith by convincing reasons" ("Opera", Strasburg ed., p. 966). On the other hand, he held that, although reason needs the Divine assistance, faith is just as much in need of reason; faith may deceive us unless reason guides it. He who relies on faith alone is like a blind man who, relying on the sense of touch, can sometimes find what he wants but often misses it; to be certain of finding his object he needs sight as well as touch. So Raymond held that a man, in order to find out the truth about God, must bring reason to the task as well as faith. These principles were taken up by the followers of Raymond, known as Lullists, who for a time had so great an influence, especially in Spain, that they succeeded in founding chairs at the Universities of Barcelona and Valencia for the propagation of the doctrines of the "Illuminated Doctor". The Church authorities, however, recognized the dangerous consequences which follow from the breaking down of the distinction between natural and supernatural truth. Consequently, in spite of his praiseworthy zeal and his crown of martyrdom, Raymond has not been canonized. His rationalistic mysticism was formally condemned by Gregory XI in 1376 and the condemnation was renewed by Paul IV. Raymond's works were published in ten folio volumes at Mainz, 1721-1742. There are, besides, several editions of portions of his writings. His poems and popular treatises, written in Catalonian, had a very wide circulation, in his own day, and their style has won him a high place in the history of medieval Spanish literature. The best know edition of the works in which he describes his logical machine is the Strasburg edition of 1651. The "Rivista Lulliana", a periodical devoted to the exposition of Raymond's philosophy, was started at Barcelona in 1901. RIBEIRA, Origines de la filosofia de Ramon Lullo (Madrid, 1899); DENIFLE in Arch. f. Litt. u. Kirchengesch. (1888), 352; DE WULF, History of Medieval Phil., tr. COFFEY (New York, 1909), 403 sqq.; TURNER, History of Philosophy (Boston, 1903), 394 sqq. WILLIAM TURNER Raymond Martini Raymond Martini Dominican, theologian, Orientalist, b. at Subirats, Catalonia, c. 1220; d. after July, 1284. In 1250 he was selected by his superiors to study oriental languages, in 1264 became a member of the commission appointed by Jaime I of Aragon to censure the writings possessed by the Jews, and subsequently preached to the Moors in Spain and Tunis. Returning to Barcelona (1269) he successfully taught the oriental languages and wrote against the Jews and Moors. His chief work, "Pugio Fidei Christianae" completed after 1278, printed in Paris, 1651, and Leipzig, 1687, is written in Latin and Hebrew. It appeals to the Hebrew scriptures and ancient rabbinical writings to prove the truth of Christianity against the Jews. The work, which clearly indicates that Raymond Martini was extremely well-read in Hebrew literature, is much valued on account of its citations from the Talmud and other sources, and has also been highly esteemed as a polemical source. It is not probable, however, that it was known and used by St. Thomas Aquinas. Martini's other works are the recently discovered "Explanatio simboli apostolorum ad institutionem fidelium edita", written about 1256, of which important fragments were edited by Denifle, and two polemical works also antedating the "Pugio Fidei", but both lost, "Summa contra Alcoranum" and "Capistrum Judaeorum". QUETIF-ECHARD, Script. Ord. Proed., I, 396; TOURON, Hist. des hommes illus. de l'Ordre de St. Dom., I, 489-504; MANDONNET, Siger de Brabant, I (Louvain, 1908), 47, 53, 315; II (Louvain, 1911), 28-9; DOUAIS, Essai sur l'organisation des etudes dans l'ordre des Freres Precheurs au treizieme et au quatorzieme siecle (Paris, 1884), 135-140; Jewish Encycl., VIII (New York, 1906), 351; Journal of Philology, XVI (1887), 131-52; Zeitschrift fur Hebr. Bibl. (1902-3). J.A. McHUGH St. Raymond Nonnatus St. Raymond Nonnatus (In Spanish SAN RAMON). Born 1200 or 1204 at Portello in the Diocese of Urgel in Catalonia; died at Cardona, 31 August, 1240. His feast is celebrated on 31 August. He is pictured in the habit of his order surrounded by ransomed slaves, with a padlock on his lips. He was taken from the womb of his mother after her death, hence his name. Of noble but poor family, he showed early traits of piety and great talent. His father ordered him to tend a farm, but later gave him permission to take the habit with the Mercedarians at Barcelona, at the hands of the founder, St. Peter Nolasco. Raymond made such progress in the religious life that he was soon considered worthy to succeed his master in the office of ransomer. He was sent to Algiers and liberated many captives. When money failed he gave himself as a hostage. He was zealous in teaching the Christian religion and made many converts, which embittered the Mohammedan authorities. Raymond was subjected to all kinds of indignities and cruelty, was made to run the gauntlet, and was at last sentenced to impalement. The hope of a greater sum of money as ransom caused the governor to commute the sentence into imprisonment. To prevent him from preaching for Christ, his lips were pierced with a red-hot iron and closed with a padlock. After his arrival in Spain, in 1239, he was made a cardinal by Gregory IX. In the next year he was called to Rome by the pope, but came only as far as Cardona, about six miles from Barcelona, where he died. His body was brought to the chapel of St. Nicholas near his old farm. In 1657 his name was placed in the Roman martyrology by Alexander VII. He is invoked by women in labour and by persons falsely accused. The appendix to the Roman ritual gives a formula for the blessing of water, in his honour, to be used by the sick, and another of candles. BUTLER, Lives of the Saints; STADLER, Heiligenlexicon; GAMS, Kirchengesch. von Spanien, III; Acta SS., VI, 729. FRANCIS MERSHMAN St. Raymond of Penafort St. Raymond of Penafort Born at Villafranca de Benadis, near Barcelona, in 1175; died at Barcelona, 6 January, 1275. He became professor of canon law in 1195, and taught for fifteen years. He left Spain for Bologna in 1210 to complete his studies in canon law. He occupied a chair of canon law in the university for three years and published a treatise on ecclesiastical legislation which still exists in the Vatican Library. Raymond was attracted to the Dominican Order by the preaching of Blessed Reginald, prior of the Dominicans of Bologna, and received the habit in the Dominican Convent of Barcelona, whither he had returned from Italy in 1222. At Barcelona he was co-founder with St. Peter Nolasco of the Order of Mercedarians. He also founded institutes at Barcelona and Tunis for the study of Oriental languages, to convert the Moors and Jews. At the request of his superiors Raymond published the Summa Casuum, of which several editions appeared in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In 1229 Raymond was appointed theologian and penitentiary to the Cardinal Archbishop of Sabina, John of Abbeville, and was summoned to Rome in 1230 by Gregory IX, who appointed him chaplain and grand penitentiary. The reputation of the saint for juridical science decided the pope to employ Raymond of Penafort's talents in re-arranging and codifying the canons of the Church. He had to rewrite and condense decrees that had been multiplying for centuries, and which were contained in some twelve or fourteen collections already existing. We learn from a Bull of Gregory IX to the Universities of Paris and Bologna that many of the decrees in the collections were but repetitions of ones issued before, many contradicted what had been determined in previous decrees, and many on account of their great length led to endless confusion, while others had never been embodied in any collection and were of uncertain authority. The pope announced the new publication in a Bull directed to the doctors and students of Paris and Bologna in 1231, and commanded that the work of St. Raymond alone should be considered authoritative, and should alone be used in the schools. When Raymond completed his work the pope appointed him Archbishop of Tarragona, but the saint declined the honour. Having edited the Decretals he returned to Spain. He was not allowed to remain long in seclusion, as he was elected General of the Order in 1238; but he resigned two years later. During his tenure of office he published a revised edition of the Dominican Constitutions, and it was at his request that St. Thomas wrote the Summa Contra Gentiles. St. Raymond was canonized by Clement VIII in 1601. His Summa de Poenitentia et Matrimonio is said to be the first work of its kind. His feast is 23 January. Monumenta Historica Ord. Proed., V, iv; Bullarium Ord. Proed.; PENIA, Vita S. Raymundi; MORTIER, Hist. des Maitres Generaux (Paris, 1903); FINKE, Acta Aragonensia, II (1908), 902-904; QUETIF-ECHARD, Script. Ord. Proed.; BALME, Raymundiana (1901). MICHAEL M. O'KANE Raymond of Sabunde Raymond of Sabunde (SABONDE, SEBON, SEBEYDE, etc.) Born at Barcelona, Spain, towards the end of the fourteenth century; died 1432. From 1430 to his death he taught theology, philosophy, and medicine at the University of Toulouse. Apparently, he wrote several works on theology and philosophy, only one of which remains, "Theologia Naturalis". It was first written in Spanish, translated into French by Montaigne (Paris, 1569) and into Latin at various times (e.g. Deventer, 1487; Strasburg, 1496; Paris, 1509; Venice, 1581, etc.). Montaigne bears witness to the extraordinary popularity which the work enjoyed in his day. It represents a phase of decadent Scholasticism, and is a defence of a point of view which is subversive of the fundamental principle of the Scholastic method. The Schoolmen of the thirteenth century, while holding that there can be no contradiction between theology and philosophy, maintain that the two sciences are distinct. Raymond breaks down the distinction by teaching a kind of theosophy, the doctrine, namely that, as man is a connecting link between the natural and the supernatural, it is possible by a study of human nature to arrive at a knowledge even of the most profound mysteries of Faith. The tendency of his thought is similar to that of the rationalistic theosophy of Raymond Lully (q.v.). DE WULF, History of Medieval Philosophy, tr. COFFEY (New York, 1909), 455 sq.; STOCKL, Gesch. der Phil. des Mittelalters, II (Mainz, 1865), 105 sq. WILLIAM TURNER Odorico Raynaldi Odorico Raynaldi Oratorian, b. at Treviso in 1595; d. at Rome, 22 January, 1671. Of patrician birth, he studied at Parma and Padua, joined the Oratorians in Rome, and, distinguished for his piety, beneficence, and scholarship, was twice elected superior general of his congregation. He was entrusted with the continuation of the annals of Baronius and, after the publication of the first volume, was offered the direction of the Vatican library by Innocent X, which honour he declined. His continuation of Baronius extends from 1198 to 1565 and was published at Rome, 1646-77. He was the ablest continuator of the great historian. Although his work is marred here and there by inaccurate chronological data and lack of criticism, the numerous original documents which it reproduces render it very valuable. Raynaldi also published excerpts in Latin and Italian both from the work of Baronius and his own continuation of it. MANSI in Baronius-Theiner, pp. iii-viii; Annales Eccles., XX (Bar-le-Duc, 1870), 3-8. N.A. WEBER Theophile Raynaud Théophile Raynaud Theologian and writer, b. at Sospello near Nice, 15 Nov., 1583; d. at Lyons, 31 Oct., 1663. He entered the Society of Jesus, 21 November, 1602, taught grammar and humanities at Avignon, philosophy and theology at Lyons and for a time at Rome. He was very zealous for souls, a theologian of broad erudition and a writer of great fertility, having produced ninety-two separate works, covering almost the entire field of theology. His style, however, is often prolix and sometimes obscure, whilst in his controversial writings he indulges in satire and invective. His collected works, revised by himself shortly before his death, were published under the direction of his confrère, Fr. John Bertet, in nineteen volumes (Lyons, 1665). A twentieth volume, entitled "Th. Raynaudi Apopompaeus" (i.e. the scapegoat), containing a number of writings which the author had purposely excluded from the collection, was published by an anonymous editor a few years later (Cracow, 1669); this volume was condemned by the Congregation of the Index. The main titles alone of the "Opera" are given, to show the nature and extent of his writings: I. "Theologia Patrum; Christus Deus Homo"; II. "De Attributis Christi"; III. "Moralis disciplina"; IV. "De virtutibus et vitiis"; V. "Theologia naturalis"; VI. "Opuscula eucharistica"; VII. "Marialia"; VIII-IX. "Hagiologium"; X. "Pontificia"; XI. "Critica sacra"; XII. "Miscella sacra"; XIII. "Miscella philologica"; XIV. "Moralia"; XV-XVI. "Heteroclita spiritualia"; XVII. "Ascetica"; XVIII. "Polemica". XIX contains general indices. WEISS in MICHAUD, Biog. Universelle, XXXVII (Paris, 1824); HURTER, Nomenclator Literarius, I (Innsbruck, 1892), 404 sqq.; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J., VI (Brussels, 1895). EDWARD C. PHILLIPS Francois-Juste-Marie Raynouard Françpois-Juste-Marie Raynouard A French poet, dramatist, and philologist, b. at Brignoles, Var, 8 September, 1761; d. at Passy, 27 October, 1836. He studied law at Aix and, on being admitted to the bar, practised there. When the revolution broke out, he showed at first a great enthusiasm for liberty and was elected to the Legislative Assembly, where he sided with the Girondins. He soon abandoned the new ideas. During the Terror, he was arrested and imprisoned at the Abbaye. Being freed after the ninth Thermidor, he returned to his native city and obtained great success as an attorney-at-law. In his leisure hours, he indulged in writing poems, "Socrate au temple d'Aglaure" (1802), and tragedies, "Eléonore de Bavière" and "Les templiers", which were played in 1805 by special command of Napoleon. Their success caused him to be elected to the French Academy in 1807. From 1806 to 1814, he was a member of the legislature. After Napoleon's downfall, he retired from politics and devoted his time to literature and a comparative study of languages. He was one of the pioneers of Romance philology and made a lasting reputation by his researches on the troubadours, although his conclusions now seem hasty and often mere conjectures. He was admitted to the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres in 1815. His chief works besides the dramas above mentioned are the tragedy "Les états de Blois" (1809), and a few others never produced on the stage: "Caton d'Utique", "Don Carlos", "Débora", "Charles I", "Jeanne d'Arc à Orléans"; various contributions to Romance philology: "Recherches sur l'antiquite de la langue romane" (Paris, 1816); "Eléments de la grammaire de la langue romane" (Paris, 1816); "La grammaire des troubadours" (1816); "Des troubadours et les cours d'amour" (1817); "Grammaire comparee des langues de l'Europe latine dans leurs rapports avec la langue des troubadours" (1821); "Choix des poésies originales des troubadours" (Paris, 1821); "Lexique de la langue des troubadours" (Paris, 1824); "Nouveau choix des poésies originales des troubadours" (Paris, 1836-44). JULLIEN, La poesie francaise a l'epoque imperiale (Paris, 1844); MERLET, Tableau de la litt. franc. de 1800 a 1815 (Paris, 1878); GIDEL, Hist. de la litt. franc., III (1883); ALBERT, Hist. de la litt. sous l Revolution, l'Empire et la Restauration (Paris, 1891). LOUIS N. DELAMARRE Reading Abbey Reading Abbey Reading Abbey in Surrey, England, was founded by Henry I in 1121, who built it, writes William of Malmesbury, "between the rivers Kennet and Thames, in a spot calculated for the reception of almost all who might have occasion to travel to the most populous cities of England, where he placed monks of the Cluniac Order, who are to this day a noble pattern of holiness and an example of unwearied and delightful hospitality". The foundation charter declares that the new monastery takes the place of three others, Reading, Choisey, and Leominster; dedicates it to the Blessed Virgin and St. John the Evangelist; accords it every civil privilege conceded to royal monasteries, and instructs the abbot to employ the alms at his disposal for "the entertainment of the prior, pilgrims, and guests". The first abbot was Hugues de Boves, late Prior of St. Pancras, Lewes, afterwards Archbishop of Rouen. From the beginning it was an independent English abbey, which, whilst retaining the Cluniac observance, elected its own abbots, paid no impost to the mother-house, was exempt from Cluniac visitation, and never acknowledged the jurisdiction of the General Chapter or Abbot of Cluny. Hence, though it has been described as a Cluniac establishment in ancient documents, even in papal letters of so late a date as 1309, it was never an "alien" house, and Cluny can only claim the credit of having set it going with monks and monastic customs. The abbey precincts covered about thirty acres and were surrounded on three sides by a great wall with four embattled gateways, one of which, the western or compter gate, served as the town prison. It was entered through an inner gatehouse (existing, restored by Sir G. Scott in 1861) wherein the abbot held his manorial court. The church, consecrated by St. Thomas a Becket in 1164, was 450 feet long and 95 feet broad, with transepts (200 ft.), a Lady-chapel (75 by 50 ft.) built in 1314, and a square central tower with spire. The monastic buildings were on the same scale, and the chapter-house, an apsidal, vaulted hall (79 by 42 ft.), was frequently used as a national council chamber, where Parliament sat, and many synods and ecclesiastical councils were held. There was a leper-hospital, closed in 1413 for lack of inmates. The hospitium had a guest hall (120 ft.), a dormitory (200 ft.) and provision for twenty-six poor pensioners. Part of the building (the dormitory) still exists and for many years was in use as the Royal Grammar School of King Henry VII. The abbot was mitred (1288), a feudal baron, had a seat in Parliament, his own mint, the rectorship of the three Reading parishes and the rents of a number of churches and granges. His chief country-seat was Bere Court, Pangbourne. His officials and servants were some forty, at a time when their number had been cut down for the sake of economy. Three priories (cells) were under his jurisdiction, Leominster (Herefordshire) in England, Rindelgros, and May in Scotland (afterwards resigned into the hands of the Bishop of Aberdeen). At the dissolution the revenues were valued at £2116 3s. 9¼d. The last abbot was Blessed Hugh Cook, alias Faringdon. After serving as a royal palace during some reigns, the buildings were stripped of their carved and dressed stonework for the repairing and building of churches, bridges, and the like, and not much more than the core of some of the walls, huge masses of flint-concrete, is left to preserve the memory of the great abbey which Henry I designed as the monument of his piety and where his body and that of his son were buried. The chief spiritual treasures of the abbey were the hand of St. James the Apostle (now in the sacristy of St. Peter's, Marlow-on-Thames), presented by Henry I, and the skull of St. Philip, given by King John. [Editor's note: Reading is in Berkshire, not in Surrey as stated.] Reyner, Apostolatus Benedictinorum, 152; Hurry, Reading Abbey (London, 1901); Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, IV (London, 1846). J.C. ALMOND Reason Reason GENERAL MEANINGS Both in ordinary life and in philosophical discussions the term reason is of frequent occurrence in different significations. Etymologically the word comes to us, through the French, from the Latin ratio, which is originally the functional noun of the verb reor, "I think" (i.e. I propose a res to my mind). According to Donaldson, res=h-ra-is, a derivative from hir=cheír (hand); hence res is "that which is handled", and means an object of thought, in accordance with that practical tendency of the Roman mind which treated all realities as palpable. Ratio, in opposition to res, denotes the mode or act of thinking; by extension it comes to designate on the one hand the faculty of thinking and on the other the formal element of thought, such as plan, account, ground, etc. This wide use of the word reason to denote the cognitive faculty (especially when dealing with intrinsic evidence, as opposed to authority) is still the commonest. The word has been used in this sense in a definition of the Vatican Council (Denzinger, "Enchiridion", 11th ed., Freiburg, l911, nn. 1785-6); but already in Aristotle we have a clear distinction between intellect (voûs), as the intuitive faculty, and reason (lógos), as the discursive or inferential faculty. This distinction was maintained by the Schoolmen. Yet since Kant, the word reason has been used to shelter a bewildering chaos of notions. Besides using reason (Vernunft) as distinguished from the faculties of conception (Verstand) and Judgment (Urteilskraft), Kant employed the word in a transcendental sense as the function of subsuming under the unity of the ideas the concepts and rules of the understanding. Subsequent German philosophers, as Schopenhauer complained, "tried, with shameless audacity, to smuggle in under this name an entirely spurious faculty of immediate, metaphysical so-called super-sensuous knowledge". DISCURSIVE THINKING In its general sense, therefore, reason may be attributed to God, and an angel may be called rational. But in its narrower meaning reason is man's differentia, at once his necessity and his privilege; that by which he is "a little less than the angels", and that by which he excels the brutes. Reasoning, as St. Thomas says, is a defect of intellect. True, in certain acts our mind functions as intellect; there are immediate truths (ámesa) and first principles (archaí) which we intuite or grasp with our intellect; and in such verities there can be no deception or error. On this point the Scholastic system may be said to be absolutely intellectualist or noocentric. The meanest intellect is, to use an expression of St. Augustine, capax Dei. Within a certain region our cognitive faculties are absolutely infallible. Yet the Scholastics also unanimously hold that man's specific mark is ratiocination or discursus. Some indeed, like St. Augustine (who was intent on his analogy between logos in man and in the Blessed Trinity), insist on the intuitional aspect of our mental operations, and pass over the actual process as a whole. Yet none denied that in this life our knowledge is a thing of shreds and patches, laboriously woven from the threads of sense. It is only in patria, for instance, that God's existence will be to us as self-evident as the principle of contradiction is now. The beatific vision will, in fact, be not only as evident, but also as immediate as our present intuition of personal consciousness. But then we shall be on a level with the angels, who are subsistent intelligences or pure intuitives. An angel, in Scholastic philosophy, is practically the equivalent of noûs (intellectus, intellegentia) when used by such writers as Aristotle, Porphyry, Plotinus, or Pseudo-Dionysius, to denote not a faculty, but a species of being. Opposed to this ideal intellection, so characteristic of Scholastic angelology, is our actual human experience, which is a gignómenon, a coming to be. Man is rational in the sense that he is a being who arrives at conclusions from premises. Our intellectual life is a process, a voyage of discovery; our knowledge is not a static ready-made whole; it is rather an organism instinct with life and growth. Each new conclusion becomes the basis of further inference. Hence, too, the word reason is used to signify a premise or ground of knowledge, as distinguished from a cause or real ground. So important is this distinction that one may say herein lies the nucleus of all philosophy. The task of the philosopher is to distinguish the a priori of logic form from the a priori of time; and that this task is a difficult one is testified by the existence of the many systems of psychologism and evolutionism. Reasoning, therefore, must be asserted to be a process sui generis. This is perhaps the best answer to give to the question, so much discussed by the old logicians, as to what kind of causative influence the premises exert on the conclusion. We can only say, they validate it, they are its warrant. For inference is not a mere succession in time; it is a nexus thought-of, not merely an association between thoughts. An irrational conclusion or a misleading association is as much a fact and a result as a correct conclusion; the existence of the latter is explained only by its logical parentage. Hence the futility of trying to account completely for the existence of a human thought==the conclusion of a train of reasoning==simply by the accompanying sense-data and psychological associations. The question of validity is prior to all problems of genesis; for rational knowledge can never be the product of irrational conditions. Allowing then the indefinability of ratiocination, we may proceed to ask if inference is homogeneous; in other words, are there different forms of reasoning? This raises the difficult question as to whether deduction and induction are ultimately irreducible modes of reasoning. The issue is usually confused by a very narrow definition of the syllogism, which has to be fitted into the word-grooves prescribed by syntax. But if, developing Aristotle's thought, we regard a syllogism as the unit of reasoning, then we may define it as the inference of a relation between A and C from a relation of A to B compounded with a relation of B to C. As an illustration we might instance Mill's famous example of the village matron's inference. Mill calls it reasoning from particulars by analogy; but it can easily be seen to be a syllogism; this drug (A) cured my Lucy (B), who had the same sickness as this neighbour's child (C), and hence will cure this child (C). All reasoning seems to consist in such unit steps, and it seems misleading to talk of inference vi materiæ; material and formal are relative terms. PSYCHOLOGY OF REASONING There is an important sense, however, in which the epithet "material" has been applied to reasoning, to denote illation in which the relational formality has not yet been dissected out. The same laws of thought rule the philosopher's reasoning and the peasant's, but the latter's conclusion will only be fairly certain when its matter comes within his usual cognizance. A man can reason well about familiar matter; but, unless he has explicitly examined the illative process, he will hesitate and err when dealing with new subject-matter. The mistakes of inventors like Newton and Leibniz are very instructive on this point. We are all, then, as Newman put it, more or less departmental; we reason with unequal facility on different subjects. Does it follow that in such cases of concrete informal reasoning there is a rational surplusage of assurance over evidence? This does not seem so clear, and cannot be answered without some analysis. Long before the dawn of modern psychology, Aristotle emphasized the fact that we never think without having an accompanying sense-process, whether it be a visual image, or an auditory symbol or even the motor impression of a word. The Scholastics also admitted this, and indeed many urged the necessity of this conversio ad phantasmata as the explanation of our piecemeal ratiocinative mode of learning. But this is not equivalent to saying that all reasoning can be exactly formulated, crystallized, as it were, into words. Language, after all, is merely a conventional drapery of our thought, which is convenient for logical analysis and for communicating with others. But do we not in ordinary life often syllogize in sights and reason in sounds? Does not our mind in its inferences leap far ahead of the sluggish machinery of language? And which of us has ever succeeded in fully analyzing his most commonplace attitude or emotion? To account, then, for the major part of our existence we must admit something analogous to the Aristotelean phrónesis) whether we call it the illative sense, or the artistic reason, or implicit thought. The main thing to observe is that it is not a special faculty. It is our reason acting under disabilities of language rather than of thought; for, after all, evidence is for ourselves while demonstration has reference to the audience. REASON AND FEELING These experiences have, however, been interpreted in an anti-intellectualist sense. The Pragmatist school regards reasoning as completely determined by its relevance to purpose or interest. And, again, many philosophers (Kant, the Modernists, and many Protestant theologians under the influence of Schleiermacher) have exaggerated the dualism between head and heart. In fact, a species of epistemological mysticism has been devised (cf. Gefüsqlaube, raisons du coeur, etc.). So far as this bears on the problem of reason, we may briefly state the case. It is true that our reason works purposively==that is, reason is selective of our subject-matter, but it is not creative or transforming. Nature is an ordered cosmos of which we form a part, so that every object in it has a "practical" bearing on our lives, is connected with our rational, sensitive, or natural appetency. The known is never completely out of resonance with our volitions and emotions. To affirm anything, or to reason about a subject, is at once to take up a position before it. This is especially true of moral and religious matter, and indeed the emotional genesis of ethical convictions has often been urged as a proof of their irrationality. But we should not forget that the liability to be influenced by emotional causes is not confined to ethical or religious reasoning. To put the case generally, we may ask: What precisely is meant by regarding feeling (or will) as forming with reason a co-ordinate source of knowledge? (Cf. G.E. Moore "Principia Ethica", sec. 79-80.) It may be meant that to have a certain feeling towards a conclusion is the same as to have reasoned it; and this is true in the sense that the complex "feeling" may include ratiocination. But when I draw a conclusion, I do not mean that I prefer it or am affected by it. And the fact that the two things can be distinguished is fatal to the assumed co-ordination between emotion and reason. As St. Thomas urged against the pseudo-mystics and Augustinians of all ages, volition is possible only in so far as it includes cognition; and, we may add, emotion is a mode of experience, only inasmuch as it presupposes knowledge. Again, it may be meant that, without certain experiences of feeling and willing we should not be able to draw certain ethical conclusions. This may be admitted as a psychological fact, viz. that there are many exercises of reason which we shall not correctly perform without an ethical habituation (ethismiô tini, as Aristotle says). In this connection it is interesting to note that Cardinal Newman's object in writing the "Grammar of Assent" was "to show that a right moral state of mind germinates or even generates good intellectual principles". This is very far from countenancing the Kantian view of the practical reason. The School admits a practical reason or "synteresis" (Gewissen, psychological conscience), in the sense of a natural habit of moral Principles. But St. Thomas strenuously denies that it is specialis potentia ratione altior (a special faculty higher than reason). ANIMALS AND REASON Finally, a word may be added on the so-called reason of animals. Man is called animal rationale; this expression stands for what Aristotle might call zôon logistikón. The word zôov (in German, Lebewesen), which Aristotle applied even to God, does not mean "animal", but "living being". Is there then, any rational animal? Catholic philosophy attributes to animals a faculty (vis æstimativa) whose function, analogous to that of reason, might, for want of a better name, be called "estimation". Such a faculty also exists in man, but in a higher form, and was called by the Scholastics ratio particularis or vis cogitativa. Unless animals had this organic faculty, it is hard to see how they could apprehend those pragmatic relations (intentioned) such as utility, danger, etc., which are not objects of external sense. To this extent we may allow that the psychic life of brute animals is one of "meanings" and "values". In some way they apprehend aspects and relations. Otherwise such complex co-ordinations as those required for nest-architecture and food-quest would be inconceivable. The extreme views of Bethe, Uexküll, and others almost imply a return to Cartesian Mechanicism, and really refute themselves. The danger lies rather in the anthropomorphic exaggeration of the powers of the animal mind. Experience has shown how fatally easy it is to read human feelings and reasonings into the "mind" of one's favourite cat or pet lapdog. Continuous, patient observations, like those of Mrs. Mary Austin on sheep or of Professor Yerkes on the dancing-mouse, are worth any number of isolated anecdotes. It may be surely affirmed that there is not a single unambiguous record of animal ratiocination. Such experiments as those of Thorndike (on hungry cats shut up in a cage and forced to learn the way out to food) are easily explained by the gradual stereotyping of association between visual impression and motor response, to the exclusion of other random associations. That animals are incapable of rational valuation is confirmed by the recent observations of Forel, Plateau, and others, who have shown that bees (and probably all insects) have no memory of facts, but only of time and distance. Reason, therefore, is still the exclusive prerogative of man. (See DEDUCTION; INDUCTION; INSTINCT; INTELLECT; INTUITION; KNOWLEDGE.) ALFRED J. RAHILLY Recanati and Loreto Recanati and Loreto DIOCESE OF RECANATI AND LORETO (RECINETENSIS) Province of Ancona, Central Italy, so called from the inhabitants of ancient Recina, capital of Picenum, who, after the devastation of their country by Alaric, established Recanati. Claudius, who attended the Council of Rimini, is believed to have been Bishop of Recina. Recanati was subject to the Diocese of Umana until 1240, when Gregory IX deprived Osimo of its see and transferred it to Recanati. Ranieri, Bishop of Osimo, was the first Bishop of Recanati. In 1263, Recanati, having espoused the cause of Manfred, was deprived of the see which was retransferred to Osimo. Restored in 1289, the See of Recanati was again transferred, in 1320, to Macerata. In 1357 Recanati, united with Macerata, was again made a diocese. Noteworthy bishops were: Marino del Tocco (1412), whose election was contested by the party of John XXIII and King Ladislaus; Giovanni Vitelleschi (1431), afterwards cardinal and commander of the armies of Eugenius IV. In the sixteenth century the sees of Macerata and Recanati were several times separated and reunited. In 1586 Sixtus V definitely separated Macerata from Recanati and created the Diocese of Loreto, to which in 1591 was added aeque principaliter that of Recanati. The first bishop of the united sees was Rutilio Benzoni (1587), who was succeeded by the cardinals Agostino Gelamini (1613) and Giulio Roma (1621). Other bishops were: Cardinal Alessandro Crescenzi (1676), and Lorenzo Gherardi (1693), both famed for their benefactions; Stefano Bellini (1807) and Giuseppe Cardoni (1863-67). The ancient Abbey of S. Maria in Potenza is in this diocese. Recanati was the birthplace of Blessed Girolamo Gherarducci and Blessed Placido (fourteenth century), also of the littérateurs Monaldo and Giacomo Leopardi. The united dioceses have 8 parishes with a population of 26,000; 48 secular and 40 regular priests; 8 religious houses of men and 12 of women; 1 school for boys and 5 for girls. CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d=92Italia, VII (Venice, 1857); VOGEL, De eclesiis Recanatensi et Lauretana (Recanati, 1859). U. BENIGNI Rechab and the Rechabites Rechab and the Rechabites Rechab was the father of Jonadab who in IV Kings, x, 15-28, appears as a fervent supporter of Jehu's attack on the House of Achab in his endeavour to root out the idolatrous worship which that dynasty had encouraged. The characteristic principles which actuated his descendants, the Rechabites, we gather from Jeremias, xxxv, where the Rechabites, being invited to drink wine, answered: "We will not drink wine: because Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us, saying: "You shall drink no wine, neither you, nor your children, for ever: Neither shall ye build houses, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyards, nor have any, but you shall dwell in tents all your days, that you may live many days upon the face of the earth, in which you are strangers" (Jer., xxxv, 6, 7). It was evidently the belief of Jonadab and the Rechabites that settled life with its forms of civilization led to apostasy from the Jewish religion. In I Par., ii, 55, the clan of the Rechabites is connected with the Cinites (Kenites). VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s. v. JAMES F. DRISCOLL Recollection Recollection Recollection, as understood in respect to the spiritual life, means attention to the presence of God in the soul. It includes the withdrawal of the mind from external and earthly affairs in order to attend to God and Divine things. It is the same as interior solitude in which the soul is alone with God. This recollection is twofold: + Active recollection may be acquired by our own efforts aided by the ordinary grace of God. Thus any devout soul can acquire the habit of thinking of God's presence and of fixing attention upon Him and his Divine perfections. + Passive recollection does not depend upon our own efforts, but is an extraordinary grace infused by God, by which He summons together the faculties of the soul and manifests His presence and His perfections; this kind of recollection is classed by mystical writiers as the first degree of infused contemplation. The first kind of recollection belongs to ascetical devotion and practice. It is necessary for all who wish to attain Christian perfection. Without it, it is most difficult to make progress in virtue. Therefore, it is necessary to observe the means by which it may be acquired. These are: + silence and solitude, according to our state of life, keeping in mind, at the same time, that one may be recollected amidst the duties of an active life; + the avoidance of distracting and dissipating occupations not dictated by reason or required by necessity. Multiplicity of occupations is an obstacle to recollection. Father Faber says that the man who undertakes too much is a foolish man, if not a guilty one. + The frequent exercise of the presence of God. As recollection is itself an application of the mind to the Divine presence within us, it is evident that the shortest way to its acquisition is frequently to call to mind that our souls are the temples of God. BELLECIUS, Solid Virtue (Dublin 1879); BLOSIUS, A Book of Spiritual Instruction, tr. WILBERFORCE (London, 1900); POULAIN, The Graces of Interior Prayer (London, 1910). ARTHUR DEVINE Rector Rector (From the Latin regere, to rule). Priests who preside over missions or quasi-parishes are called rectors: in England and the United States they are removable and irremovable, or permanent. These latter are known also as missionary rectors (M.R.). The term rector is applied likewise to the heads of universities, seminaries, and colleges; to the local superiors of religious houses of men; to the pope, as rector of the world, in the conferring of the tiara. In some universities, e.g. Louvain, the actual president is known as rector magnificus. Rector general is the title given to the superior general of certain religious, e.g. Clerics Regular of the Mother of God. In ancient times bishops as rulers of cities and provinces, especially in the Papal States, were called rectors; also administrators of the patrimony of the Church (e.g. rector Siciliæ). To a rector who has resigned is often given the title rector emeritus. One who supplies the place usually occupied by a rector is styled pro-rector (in parishes, administrator), while assistants to rectors in institutions are known as vice-rectors (in parishes, as curates, assistant, or associate, rectors, etc.). Rector is used by Gregory the Great in the "Regula Pastoralis" as equivalent to pastor. Conc. Balt. Plen., III; Acta et Decreta (Baltimore, 1886); TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), s. v. Missionary Rectors. ANDREW B. MEEHAN Rector Potens, Verax Deus Rector Potens, Verax Deus The daily hymn for Sext in the Roman Breviary finds its theme in the great heat and light of the noonday (hora sexta, or sixth hour of the day) sun, and prays the Almighty Ruler to take from the heart the heat of passion. Baudot ("The Roman Breviary", London, 1909, 34) thinks the hymn "probably" by St. Ambrose: "We know, moreover, that the hymns for Vespers, Terce, and None (probably also the hymn for Sext) are his." Perhaps, however, Baudot refers to other hymns ascribed to the saint by Bäumer ("Gesch. des Breviers", 1895, 135). Whatever probability attaches to the hymns for Terce and None affects equally that for Sext, none of the three being found in the oldest Benedictine cycle, while all three are found in the later Celtic cycle. (For discussion of authorship, see RERUM DEUS TENAX VIGOR.) It is interesting to note that the second stanza is in rhyme throughout: Extingue flammas litium, Aufer calorem noxium, Confer salutem corporum Veramque pacem cordium. Biraghi thinks the rhyme merely a matter of chance; Piedmont thinks it deliberate, but finds no sufficient reason in this fact for denying it to St. Ambrose. Johner ("A New School of Gregorian Chant", tr. New York, 1906, 55) selects the first line to illustrate his contention that whilst in ordinary speech anyone would pronounce the line thus: Réctor pótens vérax Deús, a singer commits no fault in stressing as follows: Rectór poténs veráx Déus. "In German (or English), this kind of thing is impossible. But that does not give us a right to forbid the composer of Gregorian melodies to make use of this and similar licenses. We Germans (and English-speaking people) frequently pronounce Latin with such an exaggerated accent that the words fall too heavily on the ear. Other nations, the French, for example, pronounce the words more smoothly, with a lighter accent." (For the full argument, see pp. 55, 56.) JULIAN, Dict. of Hymnology, s.v., for MSS., references, authors, first lines of trs., etc. To his list should be added the Catholic trs. of BAGSHAWE, Breviary Hymns and Missal Sequences (London, 1900), 19; DONAHOE, Early Christian Hymns (New York, 1908), 47; RUSSELL, Hymni Horarum in Irish Eccl. Record (1905), 231; HENRY, Hymns of the Little Hours in Eccl. Review (Sept., 1890), 204-09, with Latin text and commentary; PIMONT, Les hymnes du breviaire romain, I (Paris, 1874), 106-10, for text and comment. For hamonized plain-song, modern musical setting, Latin text and Eng. tr., see Hymns Ancient and Modern (historical edition, London, 1909), no. 10. For additional bibliography, see RERUM DEUS TENAX VIGOR. H.T. HENRY English Recusants English Recusants The first statute in which the term "Popish Recusants" is used is 35 Eliz. c. 2, "An Act for restraining Popish Recusants to some certain place of abode", which was passed in 1593. The statute defines a recusant as one "Convicted for not repairing to some Church, Chapel, or usual place of Common Prayer to hear Divine Sevice there, but forbearing the same contrary to the tenor of the laws and statutes heretofore made and provided in that behalf". The Recusancy Acts are: 1 Eliz. c. 2, 23 Eliz. c. 1, 29 Eliz. c. 6, 35 Eliz. c. 2, 3 Jac. I. c. 5, 7 Jac. I. c. 6, and 3 Car. I. c. 2. But several statutes declare that other offenses shall be deemed acts of recusancy, and that those convicted of them shall be deemed "popish recusants convict". As time went on there were other recusants who were not Catholics, but who for one reason or another refrained from attending the Church of England services. This fact must be remembered in dealing with the Recusancy lists, though, of course, far the larger number of recusants were Catholics. The number of recusants was very great, as may be seen by one instance adduced by J.S. Hansom in his preface to the list of convicted recusants in the reign of Charles II, where on one day (24 Feb., 1690) the names of 1755 recusants were presented in he single town of Thirsk. The recusancy laws were in force from the reign of Elizabeth to that of George III, though they were not always put into execution with equal vigour. Lists of recusants for various counties exist in the Pipe Rolls preserved in the Record Office, Longon. Others are to be found in the British Museum, Bodleian Library, and in various local archives. EDWIN BURTON Feast of the Most Holy Redeemer Feast of the Most Holy Redeemer The feast is found only in the special calendar of some dioceses and religious orders, and is celebrated with proper Mass and Office either on the third Sunday of July or on 23 October. In Venice this feast has been observed for more than three centuries with great solemnity. Moroni in his "Dizionario" gives some interesting data concerning the origin of this feast. In 1576 a plague broke out in Venice which in a few days carried off thousands of victims. To avert this scourge the Senate vowed to erect a splendid temple to the Redeemer of mankind, and to offer therein each year on the third Sunday of July public and solemn services of thanksgiving. Scarcely had the plague ceased when they began to fulfil their vow. The church was designed by the famous Andrea Palladio, and the corner-stone was laid by the Patriarch Trevisan on 3 May, 1577. The celebrated painters Paolo Veronese and Jacopo Tintoretto decorated the interior. The church was consecrated in 1592, and, at the urgent sollicitations of Pope Gregory XIII, placed in charge of the Capuchin Fathers. By concession of Pope Benedict XIV, dated 8 March, 1749, the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer solemnizes this feast as a double of the first class with an octave on the third Sunday of July. The same congregation also keeps the feast as a greater double on 23 October and 25 February, and has, besides, the privilege of reciting once a month the votive office of the Most Holy Redeemer. In Rome also Pope Pius VIII introduced the feast and by a Decree of 8 May, 1830, the Sacred Congregation of Rites assigned it to 23 October. The characteristics of the Mass and Office are joy and gratitude for the ineffable graces and benefits of the Redemption. This appears especially from the Introit "Gaudens gaudebo", from the antiphons of Lauds "Cantate Domino", from the Epistle of the Mass, taken from St. Paul to the Ephesians, chap. i, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath blessed us with spiritual blessings . . . in Christ". For this reason white is the colour of the vestments, and not red, as in the Mass of the Passion. Decreta auth. Cong. S. Rit., II (Rome, 1898), n. 2396; Decr. auth. Gardellini, III (Rome, 1857), n. 4663; NILLES, Kalendarium manuale utriusquue Ecclesiae (Innsbruck, 1881), I, 399; II, 495; Doc. auth. C. SS. R. JOSEPH WUEST Knights of the Redeemer Knights of the Redeemer A secular community founded in 1608 by the Duke of Mentone, Vincent Gonzaga, on the occasion of the marriage of his eldest son Francis II Gonzaga with Marguerite of Savoy. It was founded in honour of the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ, a relic of which has been venerated since time immemorial in the cathedral of Mentone. The emblems of the order consisted of a red silk robe and a golden necklace with a medal on which were figured three drops of blood in a monstrance. The duke was invested with these insignia by his son, Cardinal Ferdinand Gonzaga, and with the approbation of Paul V proclaimed grand master of the order, a dignity inherited by his successors in the duchy. The duke in turn distributed the same insignia to fourteen knights chosen from the highest nobility of Mentone and the neighbouring states. The statutes of the order obliged the members to devote themselves to the defence of religion, the Holy See and their sovereign. This order lasted only a century. It disappeared when the last of its dukes, Ferdinand Charles, having died childless, the Emperor Joseph I in 1708 merged the duchy into his hereditary estates. MIRAENS, Origine des chavaliers et ordres militaires (Antwerp, 1609). CH. MOELLER Redemption Redemption The restoration of man from the bondage of sin to the liberty of the children of God through the satisfactions and merits of Christ. The word redemptio is the Latin Vulgate rendering of Hebrew kopher and Greek lytron which, in the Old Testament means generally a ransom-price. In the New Testament, it is the classic term designating the "great price" (I Cor., vi, 20) which the Redeemer paid for our liberation. Redemption presupposes the original elevation of man to a supernatural state and his downfall from it through sin; and inasmuch as sin calls down the wrath of God and produces man's servitude under evil and Satan, Redemption has reference to both God and man. On God's part, it is the acceptation of satisfactory amends whereby the Divine honour is repaired and the Divine wrath appeased. On man's part, it is both a deliverance from the slavery of sin and a restoration to the former Divine adoption, and this includes the whole process of supernatural life from the first reconciliation to the final salvation. That double result, namely God's satisfaction and man's restoration, is brought about by Christ's vicarious office working through satisfactory and meritorious actions performed in our behalf. I. NEED OF REDEMPTION When Christ came, there were throughout the world a deep consciousness of moral depravation and a vague longing for a restorer, pointing to a universally felt need of rehabilitation (see Le Camus, "Life of Christ", I, i). From that subjective sense of need we should not, however, hastily conclude to the objective necessity of Redemption. If, as is commonly held against the Traditionalist School, the low moral condition of mankind under paganism or even under the Jewish Law is, in itself, apart from revelation no proof positive of the existence of original sin, still less could it necessitate Redemption. Working on the data of Revelation concerning both original sin and Redemption, some Greek Fathers, like St. Athanasius (De incarnatione, in P. G., XXV, 105), St. Cyril of Alexandria (Contra Julianum in P. G., LXXV, 925) and St. John Damascene (De fide orthodoxa, in P. G, XCIV, 983), so emphasized the fitness of Redemption as a remedy for original sin as almost to make it appear the sole and necessary means of rehabilitation. Their sayings, though qualified by the oft-repeated statement that Redemption is a voluntary work of mercy, probably induced St. Anselm (Cur Deus homo, I) to pronounce it necessary in the hypothesis of original sin. That view is now commonly rejected, as God was by no means bound to rehabilitate fallen mankind. Even in the event of God decreeing, out of his own free volition, the rehabilitation of man, theologians point out other means besides Redemption, v.g. Divine condonation pure and simple on the sole condition of man's repentance, or, if some measure of satisfaction was required, the mediation of an exalted yet created interagent. In one hypothesis only is Redemption, as described above, deemed absolutely necessary and that is if God should demand an adequate compensation for the sin of mankind. The juridical axiom "honor est in honorante, injuria in injuriato" (honour is measured by the dignity of him who gives it, offence by the dignity of him who receives it) shows that mortal sin bears in a way an infinite malice and that nothing short of a person possessing infinite worth is capable of making full amends for it. True, it has been suggested that such a person might be an angel hypostatically united to God, but, whatever be the merits of this notion in the abstract, St. Paul practically disposes of it with the remark that "both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one" (Heb., ii, 11), thus pointing to the God-Man as the real Redeemer. MODE OF REDEMPTION The real redeemer is Jesus Christ, who, according to the Nicene creed, "for us men and for our salvation descended from Heaven; and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and became man. He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate and was buried". The energetic words of the Greek text [Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 86 (47)], enanthropesanta, pathonta, point to incarnation and sacrifice as the groundwork of Redemption. Incarnation -- that is, the personal union of the human nature with the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity -- is the necessary basis of Redemption because this, in order to be efficacious, must include as attributions of the one Redeemer both the humiliation of man, without which there would be no satisfaction, and the dignity of God, without which the satisfaction would not be adequate. "For an adequate satisfaction", says St. Thomas, "it is necessary that the act of him who satisfies should possess an infinite value and proceed from one who is both God and Man" (III:1:2 ad 2um). Sacrifice, which always carries with it the idea of suffering and immolation (see Lagrange, "Religions semitiques", 244), is the complement and full expression of Incarnation. Although one single theandric operation, owing to its infinite worth, would have sufficed for Redemption, yet it pleased the Father to demand and the Redeemer to offer His labours, passion, and death (John, x, 17-18). St. Thomas (III:46:6 ad 6um) remarks that Christ wishing to liberate man not only by way of power but also by way of justice, sought both the high degree of power which flows from His Godhead and the maximum of suffering which, according to the human standard, would be considered sufficient satisfaction. It is in this double light of incarnation and sacrifice that we should always view the two concrete factors of Redemption, namely, the satisfaction and the merits of Christ. A. Satisfaction of Christ Satisfaction, or the payment of a debt in full, means, in the moral order, an acceptable reparation of honour offered to the person offended and, of course, implies a penal and painful work. It is the unmistakable teaching of Revelation that Christ offered to His heavenly Father His labours, sufferings, and death as an atonement for our sins. The classical passage of Isaias (lii-liii), the Messianic character of which is recognized by both Rabbinical interpreters and New Testament writers (see Condamin, "Le livre d'Isaie" Paris, 1905), graphically describes the servant of Jahveh, that is the Messias, Himself innocent yet chastized by God, because He took our iniquities upon Himself, His self-oblation becoming our peace and the sacrifice of His life a payment for our transgressions. The Son of Man proposes Himself as a model of self-sacrificing love because He "is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give his life a redemption for many" (lytron anti pollon) (Matt., xx, 28; Mark, x, 45). A similar declaration is repeated on the eve of the Passion at the Last Supper: "Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins" (Matt., xxvi, 27, 28). In view of this and of the very explicit assertion of St. Peter (I Pet., i, 11) and St. John (I John, ii, 2) the Modernists are not justified in contending that "the dogma of Christ's expiatory death is not evangelic but Pauline" (prop. xxxviii condemned by the Holy Office in the Decree "Lamentabili" 3 July, 1907). Twice (I Cor., xi, 23, xv, 3) St. Paul disclaims the authorship of the dogma. He is, however, of all the New Testament writers, the best expounder of it. The redeeming sacrifice of Jesus is the theme and burden of the whole Epistle to the Hebrews' and in the other Epistles which the most exacting critics regard as surely Pauline, there is all but a set theory. The main passage is Rom., iii, 23 sq.: "For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus, Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins." Other texts, like Eph., ii, 16; Col., i, 20; and Gal., iii, 13, repeat and emphasize the same teaching. The early Fathers, engrossed as they were by the problems of Christology have added but little to the soteriology of the Gospel and St. Paul. It is not true, however, to say with Ritschl (" Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versohnung", Bonn, 1889), Harnack ("Precis de l'histoire des dogmes", tr. Paris, 1893), Sabatier ("La doctrine de l'expiation et son evolution historique", Paris, 1903) that they viewed Redemption only as the deification of humanity through incarnation and knew nothing of Christ's vicarious satisfaction. "An impartial inquiry", says Riviere, "clearly shows two tendencies: one idealistic, which views salvation more as the supernatural restoration of mankind to an immortal and Divine life, the other realistic, which considers it rather as the expiation of our sins through the death of Christ. The two tendencies run side by side with an occasional contact, but at no time did the former completely absorb the latter, and in course of time, the realistic view became preponderant" (Le dogme de la redemption, p. 209). St. Anselm's famous treatise "Cur Deus homo" may be taken as the first systematic presentation of the doctrine of Redemption, and, apart from the exaggeration noted above, contains the synthesis which became dominant in Catholic theology. Far from being adverse to the satisfactio vicaria popularized by St. Anselm, the early Reformers accepted it without question and even went so far as to suppose that Christ endured the pains of hell in our place. If we except the erratic views of Abelard, Socinus (d. 1562) in his "de Deo servatore" was the first who attempted to replace the traditional dogma of Christ's vicarious satisfaction by a sort of purely ethical exemplarism. He was and is still followed by the Rationalist School which sees in the traditional theory all but defined by the Church, a spirit of vindictiveness unworthy of God and a subversion of justice in substituting the innocent for the guilty. The charge of vindictiveness, a piece of gross anthropomorphism, comes from confounding the sin of revenge and the virtue of justice. The charge of injustice ignores the fact that Jesus, the juridical head of mankind (Eph., i 22), voluntarily offered Himself (John, x, 15), that we might be saved by the grace of one Saviour even as we had been lost by the fault of the one Adam (Rom., v, 15). It would be a crude conception indeed to suppose that the guilt or culpability of men passed from the consciences of men to the conscience of Christ: the penalty alone was voluntarily assumed by the Redeemer and, in paying it, He washed away our sins and restored us to our former supernatural state and destination. B. Merits of Christ Satisfaction is not the only object and value of Christ's theandric operations and sufferings; for these, beside placating God, also benefit man in several ways. They possess, in the first place, the power of impetration or intercession which is proper to prayer, according to John, xi, 42: "And I knew that thou hearest me always." However, as satisfaction is the main factor of Redemption with regard to God's honour, so man's restoration is due principally to the merits of Christ. That merit, or the quality which makes human acts worthy of a reward at the hands of another, attaches to the works of the Redeemer, is apparent from the easily ascertained presence in them of the usual conditions of merit, namely + the wayfarer state (John, i, 14); + moral liberty (John, x, 18); + conformity to the ethical standard (John, viii, 29); and + Divine promise (Is., liii, 10). Christ merited for Himself, not indeed grace nor essential glory which were both attached and due to the Hypostatic Union, but accidental honour (Heb., ii, 9) and the exaltation of His name (Phil., ii, 9-10). He also merited for us. Such Biblical phrases as to receive "of his fulness" (John, i, 16), to be blessed with His blessings (Eph., i 3), to be made alive in Him (I Cor., xv, 22), to owe Him our eternal salvation (Heb., v, 9) clearly imply a communication from Him to us and that at least by way of merit. The Council of Florence [Decretum pro Jacobitis, Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 711 (602)] credits man's deliverance from the domination of Satan to the merit of the Mediator, and the Council of Trent (Sess. V, cc. iii, vii, xvi and canons iii, x) repeatedly connects the merits of Christ and the development of our supernatural life in its various phases. Canon iii of Session V says anathema to whoever claims that original sin is cancelled otherwise than by the merits of one Mediator, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and canon x of Session VI defines that man cannot merit without the justice through which Christ merited our justification. The objects of Christ's merits for us are the supernatural gifts lost by sin, that is, grace (John, i, 14, l6) and salvation (I Cor., xv, 22); the preternatural gifts enjoyed by our first parents in the state of innocence are not, at least in this world, restored by the merits of Redemption, as Christ wishes us to suffer with Him in order that we may be glorified with Him (Rom., viii, 17). St. Thomas explaining how Christ's merits pass on to us, says: Christ merits for others as other men in the state of grace merit for themselves (III:48:1). With us merits are essentially personal. Not so with Christ who, being the head of our race (Eph., iv, 15 v, 23), has, on that score, the unique prerogative of communicating to the subordinate personal members the Divine life whose source He is. "The same motion of the Holy Ghost", says Schwalm, "which impels us individually through the various stages of grace toward life eternal, impels Christ but as the leader of all; and so the same law of efficacious Divine motion governs the individuality of our merits and the universality of Christ's merits" (Le Christ, 422). It is true that the Redeemer associates others to Himself "For the perfecting of the saints, . . . for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Eph., iv, 12), but their subordinate merit is only a matter of fitness and creates no right, whereas Christ, on the sole ground of His dignity and mission can claim for us a participation in His Divine privileges. All admit, in Christ's meritorious actions, a moral influence moving God to confer on us the grace through which we merit. Is that influence merely moral or does it effectively concur in the production of grace? From such passages as Luke, vi 19, "virtue went out from him", the Greek Fathers insist much on the dynamis zoopoios or vis vivifica, of the Sacred Humanity, and St. Thomas (III:48:6) speaks of a sort of efficientia whereby the actions and passions of Christ, as vehicle of the Divine power, cause grace by way of instrumental force. Those two modes of action do not exclude each other: the same act or set of acts of Christ may be and probably is endowed with twofold efficiency, meritorious on account of Christ's personal dignity, dynamic on account of His investment with Divine power. III. ADEQUACY OF REDEMPTION Redemption is styled by the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" (1, v, 15) "complete, integral in all points, perfect and truly admirable". Such is the teaching of St. Paul: "where sin abounded, grace did more abound" (Rom., v, 20), that is, evil as the effects of sin are, they are more than compensated by the fruits of Redemption. Commenting on that passage St. Chrysostom (Hom. X in Rom., in P.G., LX, 477) compares our liability to a drop of water and Christ's payment to the vast ocean. The true reason for the adequacy and even superabundance of Redemption is given by St. Cyril of Alexandria: "One died for all . . . but there was in that one more value than in all men together, more even than in the whole creation, for, beside being a perfect man, He remained the only son of God" (Quod unus sit Christus, in P. G., LXXV, 135fi). St. Anselm (Cur Deus homo, II, xviii) is probably the first writer who used the word "infinite," in connection with the value of Redemption: "ut sufficere possit ad solvendum quod pro peccatis totius mundi debetur et plus in infinitum". This way of speaking was strongly opposed by John Duns Scotus and his school on the double plea that the Humanity of Christ is finite and that the qualification of infinite would make all Christ's actions equal and place each of them on the same level with His sublime surrender in the Garden and on Calvary. However the word and the idea passed into current theology and were even officially adopted by Clement VI (Extravag. Com. Unigenitus, V, IX, 2), the reason given by the latter, "propter unionem ad Verbum", being the identical one adduced by the Fathers. If It is true that; according to the axiom "actiones sunt suppositorum", the value of actions is measured by the dignity of the person who performs them and whose expression and coefficient they are, then the theandric operations must be styled and are infinite because they proceed from an infinite person. Scotus's theory wherein the infinite intrinsic worth of the theandric operations is replaced by the extrinsic acceptation of God, is not altogether proof against the charge of Nestorianism leveled at it by Catholics like Schwane and Rationalists like Harnack. His arguments proceed from a double confusion between the person and the nature, between the agent and the objective conditions of the act. The Sacred Humanity of Christ is, no doubt the immediate principle of Christ's satisfactions and merits, but that principle (principium quo) being subordinate to the Person of the Word (principium quod), borrows from it the ultimate and fixed value, in the present case infinite, of the actions it performs. On the other hand, there is in Christ's actions, as in our own, a double aspect, the personal and the objective: in the first aspect only are they uniform and equal while, viewed objectively, they must needs vary with the nature, circumstances, and finality of the act. From the adequacy and even superabundance of Redemption as viewed in Christ our Head, it might be inferred that there is neither need nor use of personal effort on our part towards the performance of satisfactory works or the acquisition of merits. But the inference would be fallacious. The law of cooperation, which obtains all through the providential order, governs this matter particularly. It is only through, and in the measure of, our co-operation that we appropriate to ourselves the satisfactions and merits of Christ. When Luther, after denying human liberty on which all good works rest, was driven to the makeshift of "fiducial faith" as the sole means of appropriating the fruits of Redemption, he not only fell short of, but also ran counter to, the plain teaching of the New Testament calling upon us to deny ourselves and carry our cross (Matt., xvi, 24), to walk in the footsteps of the Crucified (I Pet.' ii, 21), to suffer with Christ in order to be glorified with Him (Rom. viii, 17), in a word to fill up those things that are wanting to the sufferings of Christ (Col., i, 24). Far from detracting from the perfection of Redemption, our daily efforts toward the imitation of Christ are the test of its efficacy and the fruits of its fecundity. "All our glory", says the Council of Trent, "is in Christ in whom we live, and merit, and satisfy, doing worthy fruits of penance which from Him derive their virtue, by Him are presented to the Father, and through Him find acceptance with God" (Sess. XIV, c. viii) IV. UNIVERSALITY OF REDEMPTION Whether the effects of Redemption reached out to the angelic world or to the earthly paradise is a disputed point among theologians. When the question is limited to fallen man it has a clear answer in such passages as I John, ii, 2; I Tim. ii, 4, iv, 10; II Cor., v, 16; etc., all bearing out the Redeemer's intention to include in His saving work the universality of men without exception. Some apparently restrictive texts like Matt., xx, 28 xxvi, 28; Rom., v, 15; Heb., ix, 28, where the words "many" (Multi), "more" (plures), are used in reference to the extent of Redemption, should be interpreted in the sense of the Greek phrase no pollon, which means the generality of men, or by way of comparison, not between a portion of mankind included in, and another left out of, Redemption, but between Adam and Christ. In the determination of the many problems that arose from time to time in this difficult matter, the Church was guided by the principle laid down in the Synod of Quierzy [Denzinger-Bannwart n. 319 (282)] and the Council of Trent [Sess. VI, c. iii, DenzingerBannwart, n. 795 (677)] wherein a sharp line is drawn between the power of Redemption and its actual application in particular cases. The universal power has been maintained against the Predestinarians and Calvinists who limited Redemption to the predestinated (cf. the councils named above), and against the Jansenists who restricted it to the faithful or those who actually come to faith [prop. 4 and 5, condemned by Alexander VIII, in Denzinger-Bannwart, 1294-5 (1161-2)] and the latter's contention that it is a Semi-pelagian error to say that Christ died for all men has been declared heretical [Denzinger-Bannwart, n.1096 (970)]. The opinion of Vasquez and a few theologians, who placed children dying without baptism outside the pale of Redemption, is commonly rejected in Catholic schools. In such cases no tangible effects of Redemption can be shown, but this is no reason for pronouncing them outside the redeeming virtue of Christ. They are not excluded by any Biblical text. Vasquez appeals to I Tim., ii, 3-6, to the effect that those children, not having any means or even possibility to come to the knowledge of the truth, do not seem to be included in the saving will of God. If applied to infants at all, the text would exclude likewise those who, as a matter of fact, receive baptism. It is not likely that Redemption would seek adults laden with personal sins and omit infants labouring under original sin only. Far better say with St. Augustine: "Numquid parvuli homines non sunt, ut non pertineat ad eos quod dictum est: vult omnes salvos fieri?" (Contra Julianum, IV, xiii). With regard to the de facto application of Redemption in particular cases, it is subject to many conditions, the principal being human liberty and the general laws which govern the world both natural and supernatural. The Universalists' contention that all should finally be saved lest Redemption be a failure is not only unsupported by, but also opposed to, the New Dispensation which far from suppressing the general laws of the natural order, places in the way of salvation many indispensable conditions or laws of a freely established supernatural order. Neither should we be moved by the reproaches of failure often flung at Redemption on the plea that, after nineteen centuries of Christianity, a comparatively small portion of mankind has heard the voice of the Good Shepherd (John, x, 16) and a still smaller fraction has entered the true fold. It was not within God's plan to illumine the world with the light of the Incarnate Word at once, since he waited thousands of years to send the Desired of the Nations. The laws of progress which obtain everywhere else govern also the Kingdom of God. We have no criterion whereby we can tell with certainty the success or failure of Redemption, and the mysterious influence of the Redeemer may reach farther than we think in the present as it certainly has a retroactive effect upon the past. There can be no other meaning to the very comprehensive terms of Revelation. The graces accorded by God to the countless generations preceding the Christian era, whether Jews or Pagans, were, by anticipation, the graces of Redemption. There is little sense in the trite dilemma that Redemption could benefit neither those who were already saved nor those who were forever lost, for the just of the Old Law owed their salvation to the anticipated merits of the coming Messias and the damned lost their souls because they spurned the graces of illumination and good will which God granted them in prevision of the saving works of the Redeemer. V. TITLE AND OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER Besides the names Jesus, Saviour, Redeemer, which directly express the work of Redemption, there are other titles commonly attributed to Christ because of certain functions or offices which are either implied in or connected with Redemption, the principal being Priest, Prophet, King and Judge. Priest The sacerdotal office of the Redeemer is thus described by Manning (The Eternal Priesthood, 1): What is the Priesthood of the Incarnate Son? It is the office He assumed for the Redemption of the world by the oblation of Himself in the vestment of our manhood. He is Altar, Victim and Priest by an eternal consecration of Himself. This is the priesthood forever after the order of Melchisedek who was without beginning of days or end of life--a type of the eternal priesthood of the son of God. As sacrifice, if not by the nature of things, at least by the positive ordinance of God, is part of Redemption, the Redeemer must be a priest, for it is the function of the priest to offer sacrifice. In an endeavour to induce the newly converted Jews to abandon the defective Aaronic priesthood and to cling to the Great High Priest who entered heaven, St. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews, extols the dignity of Christ's sacerdotal office. His consecration as a priest took place, not from all eternity and through the procession of the Word from the Father, as some of the theologians seem to imply, but in the fulness of time and through the Incarnation, the mysterious unction which made Him priest being none else than the Hypostatic Union. His great sacrificial act was performed on Calvary by the oblation of Himself on the Cross, is continued on earth by the Sacrifice of the Mass and consummated in heaven through the sacrificial intention of the priest and the glorified wounds of the victim. The Christian priesthood, to which is committed the dispensation of the mysteries of God, is not a substitute for, but the prolongation of, the priesthood of Christ: He continues to be the offerer and the oblation; all that the consecrated and consecrating priests do in their ministerial capacity, is to "show forth the death of the Lord" and apply the merits of His Sacrifice. Prophet The title of Prophet applied by Moses (Deut., xviii 15) to the coming Messias and recognized as a valid claim by those who heard Jesus (Luke, vii, 10), means not only the foretelling of future events, but also in a general way the mission of teaching men in the name of God. Christ was a Prophet in both senses. His prophecies concerning Himself, His disciples, His Church, and the Jewish nation, are treated in manuals of apologetics (see McIlvaine, "Evidences of Christianity", lect. V-VI, Lescoeur, "Jésus-Christ", 12e conféer.: Le Prophète). His teaching power (Matt., vii, 29), a necessary attribute of His Divinity, was also an integrant part of Redemption. He who came "to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke, xix, 10) should possess every quality, Divine and human, that goes to make the efficient teacher. What Isaias (Iv, 4) foretold, "Behold I have given him for a witness to the people, for a leader and a master to the Gentiles", finds its full realization in the history of Christ. A perfect knowledge of the things of God and of man's needs, Divine authority and human sympathy, precept and example combine to elicit from all generations the praise bestowed on Him by His hearers -- "never did man speak like this man" (John, vii 46). King The kingly title frequently bestowed on the Messias by the Old Testament writers (Ps. ii, 0; Is. ix, 6, etc.) and openly claimed by Jesus in Pilate's Court (John, xviii, 37) belongs to Him not only in virtue of the Hypostatic Union but also by way of conquest and as a result of Redemption (Luke, i, 32). Whether or not the temporal dominion of the universe belonged to His royal power, it is certain that He understood His Kingdom to be of a higher order than the kingdoms of the world (John, xviii, 36). The spiritual kingship of Christ is essentially characterized by its final object which is the supernatural welfare of men, its ways and means which are the Church and the sacraments, its members who are only such as, through grace, have acquired the title of adopted children of God. Supreme and universal, it is subordinate to no other and knows no limitations of either time or place. While the kingly functions of Christ are not always performed visibly as in earthly kingdoms, it would be wrong to think of His Kingdom as a merely ideal system of thought. Whether viewed in this world or in the next, the "Kingdom of God" is essentially hierarchic, its first and last stage, that is, its constitution in the Church and its consummation in the final judgment, being official and visible acts of the King. Judge The Judicial office so emphatically asserted in the New Testament (Matt., xxv, 31; xxvi, 64; John, v, 22 sq.; Acts, x, 42) and early symbols [Denzinger-Bannwart, nn. 1-41 (1-13)] belongs to Christ in virtue of His Divinity and Hypostatic Union and also as a reward of Redemption. Seated at the right hand of God, in token not only of rest after the labours of His mortal life or of glory after the humiliations of His Passion or of happiness after the ordeal of Golgotha, but also of true judicial power (St. Augustine, "De fide et symbolo", in P.L., XL, 188), He judges the living and the dead. His verdict inaugurated in each individual conscience will become final at the particular judgment and receive a solemn and definitive recognition at the assizes of the last judgment. (See Atonement.) OXENHAM, The Atonement (London, 1881); RlVIERE, Le dogme de la Redemption (Paris 1905); HUGON, Le mystere de la Redemption (Paris, 1910); GRIMAL, Le sacerdoce et 1e sacrifice (Paris, 1911); HUNTER, Outlines of dogmatic theology (New York 1894); WILHELM AND SCANNELL, Manual of Catholic theology (London,;901); TANQUERET, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae specialis (Rome, Tournai Paris, 1909); with a good bibliography II, 404, and passim; RITTER, Christus der Erloser (Linz, 1903); MUTH, Heilstadt Christi als stelloertretende Genugthuung (Ratisbon, 1904). J.F. SOLLIER Redemption in the Old Testament Redemption in the Old Testament Redemption means either strictly deliverance by payment of a price or ransom, or simply deliverance by power, as from oppression, violence, captivity, etc. In the Hebrew Text, the idea of redemption is directly expressed by the verbs ga'ál and padah, and by their derivatives to which the word kophér (ransom) is intimately related. Of these two verbs, the former, ga'ál, is used technically in the Mosaic Law, of the redemption by price of an inheritance, or of things vowed, or of tithes; the latter, padah, of redeeming the first-born of children or of animals. Outside the Law, and in relation to the God of Israel, both verbs are used of simple salvation or deliverance by power. In the New Testament, redeption is specifically that of man from sin by Christ's death. The idea is distinctly expressed by the verb lutroûmai (from lútron, "a ransom") and its derivatives; it is also directly conveyed by the term 'agorázo (to buy, to purchase) and by its compound 'exagorázo. The following is simply a treatment of legal redemption. I. REDEMPTION OF PERSONS The first-born male of every Jewish family was consecrated to Yahweh and had to be redeemed at the price of five sicles or about $2.75 (Ex., xiii, 2, 13; Num., xviii, 16; etc.). Every other Israelite, whether male or female, could be consecrated to God by a personal vow, or by the vow of those to whom he or she belonged. Jephte's actual immolation of his daughter in consequence of his vow concerning her (Judges, xi, 31-39), was contrary to the Law. Many Israelites carried out their dedication to God, under the form of the Nazarite vow. Most, however, availed themselves of the redemption allowed by the Law. The sum then to be paid as ransom for males between 20 and 60 years of age was 50 sacred sicles; for females of a similar age, 30 sicles; for boys between 5 and 20 years old, 20 sicles, and for girls of a corresponding age, 10 sicles; for male children from one month to 5 years of age, 5 sicles, and for those of the female sex, 3; and finally, for old men over 60 years of age, 15 sicles, and for old women, 10. The poor who could not afford this amount had to pay the price fixed by the priest, according to their means (Lev., xxvii, 2-8). Persons lying under anathema could not be redeemed. II. REDEMPTION OF ANIMALS According to the Mosaic Law, the first-born male of animals was sacred to the Lord, and, if a first-born of legally clean animals, and without blemish, had to be offered in sacrifice. As unclean animals should not be immolated to Yahweh, their first-born was either to be redeemed according to the valuation of the priest, with the addition of one-fifth of the value, or to be sold and the price given to the priest (Lev., xxvii, 27). The first-born of an ass, however, had to be redeemed with a lamb, or, if not redeemed, put to death (Ex., xiii, 13). Outside of the first-born, any animal could be dedicated to God by vow. It would be ransomed only if it were legally unfit for sacrifice, in which case the price for its redemption was left to the valuation of the priest, to which was added one-fifth of the value (Lev., xxvii, 11-13). III. REDEMPTION OF LAND, HOUSES, AND TITHES The landed property which, in whole or in part, an Israelite was forced by poverty to sell, could be redeemed by his next of kin (the Go'el), or by the man himself when again able to do so. The redemption price was then fixed according to the number of years yet to elapse before the Jubilee Year, at which time the property would have freely reverted to its original owner or to his heir (Lev., xxv, 25-28). A piece of land dedicated to God could also be redeemed. Its value was reckoned according to the amount of seed required to sow it, and a reduction made in proportion to the number of years till the next Jubilee Year. The owner of the land might redeem it at this price, plus one- fifth; and if unredeemed, it went to the priestly domain at the year of Jubilee. But if the dedicant of the land had himself purchased it from a third person who had sold it because of his poverty, then at the Jubilee it reverted to the latter, and the dedicant had to recompense the sanctuary by paying its redemption price calculated as before (Lev., xxvii, 16-25). With regard to the redemption of sold houses, the Law distinguished between dwellings in walled cities and dwellings in unwalled places. For the former houses, the right of redemption lasted only a full year from the day of sale, at the end of which they fell forever to their respective purchaser. For the latter, there was no term fixed for their redemption, and if unredeemed before the Jubilee they then freely reverted to their original owners. The houses of the Levites, however, could be redeemed at any time, and reverted to them if unredeemed before the year of Jubilee (Lev., xxv, 29-34). Houses which had been simply vowed to God could be ransomed upon the payment of the value fixed by the priest, plus one-fifth of that value (Lev., xxvii, 14, 15). Tithes belonged to God as the real owner of the land, and hence could not be made the subject of vows. Tithes of agricultural produce might be commuted for their money value, plus one-fifth; but the tithes of cattle could not be redeemed (Lev., xxvii, 31-33). Jahn, Biblical Archæology (tr. New York, 1839); Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament (tr. New York, 1883); Keil, Manual of Biblical Archæology (tr New York, 1887, 1888); Boswell, Biblical Antiquities (Philadelphia, 1888); Denzinger, Hebräische Archäologie (Freiburg im Br., 1894); Nowack, Lehrbuch der Hebräische Archäologie (Freiburg im Br., 1894); SchÜrer, Gesch. des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (4th ed., Leipzig, 1901-11); Schwalm, La Vie privée du Peuple Juif à l'Epoque de Jésus-Christ (Paris, 1910). FRANCIS E. GIGOT Redemptions, Penitential Penitential Redemptions Penitential redemptions are the substitution of exercises (especially alms-deeds), either easier or extending over a shorter period, for works of penance imposed according to the penitential canons. These redemptions allow an alleviation, or a shortening of the time of penance; they thus resemble an indulgence, and have a place in the history of indulgences. Among the Anglo-Saxons and the Irish, as manifested by their penitential books, the fundamental idea was reparation in proportion to the number and gravity of the sins, as it were a weregild paid to God and the Church. The confessor imposed a certain number of penitential acts, prayers, fasts, flagellations, alms-deeds etc., extending over a more or less considerable period; hence arose quite naturally the desire to condense the penance into a shorter time. The priest might fix them in each case, but the penitential books show that there actually was a sort of scale in current use. Three things were considered in determining the new works: the penances already imposed, the difficulty of the penitent's accomplishing them, and finally his material condition, especially in the case of alms-deeds. Thus one unable to fast could replace fasting by the Psalter (fifty psalms); an alms of twenty solidi (for the poor, ten solidi or even less) replaced fasts of seven weeks (a carina). A penance of a week, a quarantine, or a year might be accomplished in a short time by accumulating psalters, genuflexions, palmatoe (blows on the breast with the palm of the hand), or by condensing two days of slight into one of severe fasting. These substitutions assumed numerous combinations, and the Irish canons (Wasserschleben, "Die Bussordnungen", Halle, 1851, 193) show nine methods of accomplishing a year's penance in a short time. It was even attempted to have the penance performed by others (cf. "Leges" or "Poenitentiale" of Eadger in Hardouin, "Concilia", VI, i, 659 sq.), but these substitutions, accessible only to the great, were a contradiction of penance and were severely condemned (cf. Conc. of Clovesho of 747, cans. xxvi-xxvii). The redemptions considered in the penitential books had only practical and not official value; however, they were officially adopted by several councils. Thus the Council of Tribur of 895 (can. lvi), in determining the penance for a homicide, authorizes the redemption (while travelling or at war) of the fast on Tuesday, Thursday, or Saturday by paying a denier, or by caring for three poor. Eventually these redemptions were offered indiscriminately to all, especially at the Council of Clermont of 1095 (can. ii), when the crusade was suggested as a ransom from all penance. This was the modern indulgence, save that in the case of an indulgence the penance to be redeemed has not been imposed on individuals, but to the proposed work is attached by ecclesiastical authority a reduction of penitential satisfaction. (See INDULGENCES.) WASSERSCHLEBEN, op. cit.; SCHMITZ, Die Bussbücher u. Bussdisciplin der Kirche, X (Mainz, 1883), 144 sq. See PENANCE; PENITENTIAL CANONS. A. BOUDINHON. Redemptoristines Redemptoristines The cradle of the Redemptoristines is Scala, not far from Amalfi, Italy. Father Thomas Falcoia, of the Congregation Pii Operarii, formed a community of nuns there and gave them a rule. Later he became Bishop of Castellammare. He was director of St. Alphonsus when a new rule was said to have been revealed to Sister Maria Celeste Crosterosa. The bishop favoured the rule and asked Alphonsus to give the nuns the spiritual exercises and to organize the community as he judged best for the glory of God. The saint disposed them for the observance of the new rule by meditation on the life and virtues of Christ. The details of their daily life were to commemorate phases of His life. Zeal was to be exercised by prayer, each day of the week being devoted to an object affecting the well-being of the Church, They were to pray in a special manner for the apostolic works of the Redemptorists. The habit is deep red, and the scapular and choir-mantle blue. The institute began on 23 May, 1731. A second monastery was founded by St. Alphonsus, when bishop, in his episcopal city, St. Agatha of the Goths. Nearly a hundred years after the foundation at Scala, the Ven. Joseph Passerat sent two ladies, Mlle. Eugénie Dijon and the Countess Welsersheim, to St. Agatha to learn the rule and spirit of the Redemptoristines. They received the habit at Rome from Cardinal Odescalchi. They founded houses at Vienna and Bruges. Convents of the institute now exist in Austria, Bavaria, Belgium, France, Holland, Ireland, England, the Tyrol, Spain, and Canada. The rule was approved by Benedict XIV in 1750. (See ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, SAINT; PASSERAT, VENERABLE JOSEPH.) DUMORTIER, Les premières rédemptoristines (Bruges, 1884) contains a notice on the institute; HUGUES, Vies de deux religieuses rédemptoristines (Tournai, 1884); DUMORTIER, Fleurs de l'institut des rédemptoristines (Tournai, 1910); Beat. et canoniz. S. D. Sororis Marioe Celeste Crosterosa. J. MAGNIER. Redemptorists Redemptorists (CONGREGATION OF THE MOST HOLY REDEEMER) A society of missionary priests founded by St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, 9 Nov., 1732, at Scala, near Amalfi, Italy, for the purpose of labouring among the neglected country people in the neighbourhood of Naples. The Redemptorists are essentially and by their specific vocation a missionary society. According to their rule they are "to strive to imitate the virtues and examples of Jesus Christ, Our Redeemer, consecrating themselves especially to the preaching of the word of God to the poor". They take the simple vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and by the vows of poverty they are bound to refuse all ecclesiastical dignities outside of the congregation. To these vows they add the vow and oath of perseverance to live in the congregation until death. Their labours consist principally in missions, retreats, and similar exercises. In order to render these labours most effective, all their sermons and instructions should be solid, simple, and persuasive. On all their missions they are obliged to preach a sermon on prayer and one on the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In order to secure the salutary effects of their missions, they should, after four or five months, return to the places where they have given missions, and preach another, shorter course of sermons. On missions proper the rule obliges them to hear all the confessions themselves. Wherever the Redemptorists have parishes they labour in the same spirit, both in the pulpit and in the confessional. One of the great means of preserving truly religious fervour among all classes of the faithful is the Archconfraternity of the Holy Family, which they establish in all their parishes. They are also most solicitous in providing well-equipped parochial schools, and they take special care of growing youth. Within ten years of the order's foundation, permanent establishments were made at Nocera, Ciorani, Iliceto, and Caposele. In 1749 Benedict XIV canonically approved the work, under the title of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. Royalism, however, caused the greatest obstacle to the development of the new congregation. An effort to obtain the royal exequatur to the papal approbation proved disastrous, and brought about a temporary separation of the Neapolitan houses and those which had been founded in the Papal States. In 1793 a reunion was at last effected under the new superior general, Pietro Paulo Blasucci, who governed the congregation until 1817. In the next six years several houses were opened in different parts of Southern Italy and Sicily, and the society flourished, though subjected to many grave trials. It was destined, however, to take on an international character. In 1785 a young Austrian, Clemens Maria Hofbauer, journeyed to Rome with a companion, Thaddeus Hübl. There they were deeply impressed by the fervour of the Fathers of the church of St. Julian, and applied for admission into the community. After profession and ordination, their chief desire was to transplant the congregation to northern countries. They received permission from the general to establish a house in Vienna or in any other Austrian city. But the Government was unfriendly, and Father Hofbauer offered his services to the Congregation of the Propaganda at Rome. He was sent to labour for a time in Courland Russia. In 1786, with his former companion, Father Hübl, he arrived at Warsaw, where the papal nuncio Saluzzo gave them charge of St. Benno's church, whence they were known in Poland as "Bennonites". Their apostolic zeal and untiring efforts procured the salvation of many souls, and effected the conversion of many heretics and Jews, while their church presented the spectacle of an uninterrupted mission. In 1793 Father Blasucci, the rector major, then residing at Nocera, appointed Father Hofbauer his vicar-general with all necessary authority. His first thoughts turned to Germany, though the time seemed inopportune, since Febronianism, Josephinism, Freemasonry, and infidelity held sway all over Europe. He succeeded, however, in establishing three foundations in Southern Germany, at Jestetten, Triberg, and Babenhausen, which he confided to the care of his favourite disciple, Father Passerat. These foundations were eventually suppressed, and the members banished. Father Passerat then betook himself to Switzerland, where in 1818 he organized a community at Valsainte in a dilapidated Carthusian monastery. In the meantime, owing to opposition, the house at Warsaw was suppressed. In 1808 the Fathers were expelled from St. Benno's and deported to the fortress of Küstrin Prussia, where they were disbanded. Father Hofbauer, after directing his companions to work for God's glory whenever and wherever they could, proceeded alone to Vienna, where he became an assistant chaplain and confessor of nuns. His influence was soon felt on all sides, even in the Congress of Vienna (1815), where the destinies of the Church in Germany were then being shaped. He was styled by Pius VII the "Apostle of Vienna". In the meantime he kept up a constant correspondence with his former companions, did all in his power to find for them suitable fields of labour, and predicted that after his death a brighter future was in store for the congregation, a prophecy that was soon fulfilled. He died 15 March, 1820. In accordance with the request of the Emperor Francis I, the first house of the Redemptorists was canonically established in Vienna on Christmas Day, 1820. In May several prominent young men, former disciples of Father Hofbauer, had already received the religious habit. Father Passerat succeeded Hofbauer as vicar-general; the onerous and trying duties of his office were rendered more difficult by the prevalent spirit of Josephinism. The years intervening between 1815 and 1821 found some of the Fathers labouring in Bulgaria, but, owing to the hostility of the schismatics, they were compelled to abandon this field. A number of flourishing foundations were established between 1820 and 1848. In 1826, at the request of the Austrian Government, a foundation was started at Lisbon, Portugal, for the benefit of German Catholics, but it did not last long. In 1820 the Redemptorists acquired the convent of Bischenberg, Alsace. The new community was sent from Valsainte. In 1828 the Fathers exchanged their poorly furnished home at Valsainte for the commodious Convent of Fribourg, which proved to be a fruitful nursery for the congregation until the Revolution of 1848. Prior to 1848 six houses had been established in Austria: Frohnleiten in 1826; Mautern in 1827, the present house of studies; Innsbruck in 1828; Marburg and Eggenburg in 1833; and Leoben in 1834. During Passerat's administration the congregation was introduced into Belgium by Father de Held, and in the course of the next ten years four houses were established: Tournai in 1831, St-Trond in 1833, Liège in 1833, and Brussels in 1849. A foundation was also opened at Wittem, Holland, where, in 1836, an old Capuchin monastery became the house of studies. During the same period another important mission was begun in North America. In 1828 Mgr Résé, Vicar-General of Cincinnati, visited Europe to solicit pecuniary aid and to obtain evangelical labourers. While at Vienna he applied to Passerat, from whom he secured three priests and three lay brothers; they arrived in New York 20 June, 1832. Two other Fathers followed in 1835. For seven years they laboured heroically among the whites and the Indians of northern Michigan and northern Ohio. Though they took charge of many stations in both states, they did not secure a permanent footing in any of these places, with the exception of Detroit. In 1839 the Fathers were called to Pittsburg to assume charge of the German congregation, which was then without a priest, and torn with party strife. In a short time they made it a model congregation. Scattered throughout the surrounding country were many Catholic settlers, to whom they preached the Word of God and administered the sacraments. This species of mission inaugurated by them wherever they were established was the beginning of many a well-organized parish of to-day. From this time the care of German congregations, often in a deplorable condition on account of factions, became a prominent element of the apostolate of the Redemptorists in North America. Their first concern, however, was to establish, wherever feasible, parochial schools, which are in a flourishing condition to this day. When the success of the Fathers at Pittsburg became known, applications were made to them for other foundations. They were called to Baltimore in 1840; to New York in 1842; to Philadelphia in 1843; to Buffalo in 1845; to Detroit and New Orleans in 1847; and to Cumberland in 1849. In 1837 a German congregation had been organized at Rochester by Father Prost, but the Fathers did not take permanent charge until 1841. Meanwhile the congregation gained a permanent footing in new countries of Europe. In 1841 King Louis I of Bavaria invited the Fathers to the celebrated shrine of Our Lady at Altötting. During this period four houses were founded in France: Landser in Alsace, in 1842; St-Nicolas-du-Port, in 1845; Teterchen in Lorraine and Contamine in Savoy, in 1847. The congregation suffered great losses through the revolution that swept over Europe in 1848. In 1847 the Fathers were expelled from Switzerland and in 1848 from Austria, to which, however, they returned. Important developments were now taking place within the congregation itself. Although the Transalpine portion of the congregation was subject to the rector major at Nocera in Italy, this superior left its government almost exclusively in the hands of a vicar-general resident at Vienna. As the congregation had spread far beyond its original boundaries, it was deemed necessary to create the office of provincial between the rector major and the local superiors. Father Passerat, weighed down by age and infirmities, resigned his office in 1848. After a series of deliberations conducted by the Holy See with the superior general and the Fathers of the Transalpine provinces, Father Rudolph Smetana was appointed vicar-general in 1850. Pius IX was now persuaded that it would be advantageous to have the superior general resident in Rome. Fearing the opposition of the King of Naples, he did all in his power to convince him of the benefits arising from this step, but in vain; thereupon he decided. that the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, to the exclusion of the Neapolitan and the Sicilian houses, should be placed under a general superior, who was henceforth to reside at Rome. At the same time he made special regulations for the Redemptorists in the Kingdom of Naples. On the disappearance of the latter, the Neapolitan houses were united to the body of the congregation in 1869. In pursuance of orders from the Holy See, Father Smetana convoked a general chapter. It was opened 26 April, 1855. The result of this chapter was the election of Father Nicholas Mauron, a native of Switzerland, as superior general. He was the first rector major to take up his abode at Rome. During Smetana's administration, and particularly during that of Mauron, the congregation made rapid progress. The number of provinces in 1852 -- not including Naples and Sicily -- was four; in 1890 they had increased to twelve. The French-Swiss province, presided over by Father Desurmont for twenty-two years (1865-87), gained admission into Spain and South America. During the presidency of Garcia Moreno two houses were established in the Republic of Ecuador. A few years later the congregation gained a foothold in Peru, Chile, and Colombia. The original Belgian province, having grown very rapidly, was divided into the provinces of Belgium and Holland. The Lower German province found a new field of labour in the eastern part of South America. The province of Holland received charge of the mission at Surinam; South America, a settlement colonized partly by lepers. The American province of the congregation, erected in 1850, has had a striking development. Its first provincial was the Rev. Bernard Hafkenscheid, a fellow-student of Leo XIII. One of his first cares was the establishment of a seminary and the selection of a suitable place for a novitiate. He chose Cumberland, Maryland, for the future house of studies. From this nursery of study and piety many able and zealous missionaries went forth. In 1853 the novitiate, which had been located since 1849 at Baltimore, was removed to Annapolis, Maryland. Here the heirs of Charles Carroll of Carrollton had donated their entire estate to the Redemptorist Fathers. This house remained the novitiate until 1907, with the exception of the years 1862-66, when it was at Cumberland, and the students at Annapolis. In 1858-59 the present church and convent were built at Annapolis. In 1868 the students were transferred to the new house of studies at Ilchester, Maryland, which remained the Alma Mater of the Redemptorists until 1907. In that year the faculty and the students, forty-eight in number, took up their abode at Esopus, on the Hudson, where a more spacious scholasticate had been erected. From the first house of St. Alphonsus in Baltimore sprang other communities: St. Michael's in 1859, St. James's in 1867, and the Sacred Heart in 1878. In 1882, owing to difficulties in the Bohemian parish, the Fathers, at the earnest request of Cardinal, then Archbishop, Gibbons, assumed charge of the Bohemians. In this diocese five other parishes, one in the city of Washington, were originally founded by the Redemptorists. In 1861 the congregation was called to Chicago, Illinois, to take charge of St. Michael's parish. It was not long before a large church and a commodious school and convent were built. The great fire of 1871 destroyed all these structures, but, thanks to the faith and generosity of the people, they were rebuilt. The many successful missions which the Redemptorists had given in the Diocese of St. Louis induced Archbishop Kenrick to ask for a foundation of the congregation in his episcopal city, and in 1866 a mission house was opened at St. Louis. In the same year (1866) another mission house was established in New York, near the little church of St. Alphonsus, which had been erected in 1845 for the convenience of the Germans in that section of the city; it had been served by Fathers of the Third Street community. Though now a mission church, St. Alphonsus's continued to be a parish church for the Germans. Subsequently, two more foundations were made in New York, one for Bohemian Catholics, and the other for the German Catholics in the northern part of the city. In 1871 an important mission house was opened at Roxbury, Boston. It was dedicated to Our Lady of Perpetual Help. Its first rector, the Rev. William H. Gross, was succeeded by the Rev. Leopold Petsch, when the former became Bishop of Savannah in 1873. In 1883, when a new parish was formed in that district, the Fathers of the mission church took charge of it. As early as 1874 the Redemptorists of the American province were called to St. Patrick's Church, Quebec, Canada, the only parish church in that city for English-speaking Catholics. Four years later the American Fathers became the custodians of the miraculous shrine of Ste-Anne de Beaupré, near Quebec; it was eventually transferred to the Fathers of the Belgian province. The same Fathers assumed charge of St. Anne's, Montreal, a large parish in a very poor district of the city. The Baltimore province in the meantime established two other foundations in Canada: St. Patrick's, Toronto, in 1881, and St. Peter's, St. John, N. B., in 1884. In 1876 the congregation was invited to take a second church in Philadelphia, that of St. Boniface. Besides these houses the province of Baltimore founded in 1881 a separate house for its juvenate, or junior house of studies, at Northeast, Pennsylvania. Another house, to be used as a primary juvenate, was purchased in 1886 at Saratoga, New York; this is at present a mission house. In 1893 a new house was opened at Brooklyn, New York. In 1875 the original American province was divided, the eastern under the name of the province of Baltimore, and the western as the province of St. Louis. This latter province embraced the houses of St. Louis, New Orleans, Chicago, and Chatawa. This last-named place was selected for the novitiate and house of studies for the province of St. Louis, but was subsequently abandoned. Since 1875 several new foundations have been established. In 1878 Kansas City, Missouri, was selected for an educational institution. The old house of St. Mary's at Detroit was abandoned in 1872, but in 1880 another house was established in the suburbs of the same city; this is now a flourishing mission and parish church. Two years later the Redemptorists began a second foundation at Chicago. In 1887 a juvenate was erected at Kirkwood, near St. Louis, and in 1888 the Fathers settled at Grand Rapids, Michigan. In 1891 a foundation was made at Seattle, Washington, in 1897 a new house of studies was erected at De Soto, Missouri. In 1894 the Fathers went to Denver, Colorado, and took charge of St. Joseph's Church; in 1906 to Portland, Oregon; in 1908 to Davenport, Iowa, and to Fresno, California. In 1910 a new house was founded at Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, which will be the future house of studies of the province of St. Louis. Despite the manifold labours and the limited number of Fathers, the preaching of missions, the special work of the sons of St. Alphonsus, was never neglected. In 1850, however, it received a powerful impetus under the first provincial, Father Bernard. Shortly after his arrival in America he organized and trained what may be called the first band of regular missionaries, among whom were the eminent converts, Fathers Hecker, Hewit, and Walworth; these distinguished missionaries afterwards established the Congregation of the Paulists. Since then the work of the missions has increased rapidly from year to year; thus a double activity, parish work and mission work, has become a special feature of the congregation in North America. Some idea of the work of the Baltimore province during the ten years from 1890 to 1899 is conveyed by the following figures: missions and renewals, 1889; retreats, 1071; other exercises, 75; confessions, 2,418,758; converts, 1252. Parish work: baptisms, 54,608; communions, 6,827,000; first communions, 19,077; marriages, 8311; average number of school children, 13,000; converts, 1922. The administration of Father Mauron was rendered memorable by several important events. In 1866 Pius IX caused the miraculous picture of Our Lady of Perpetual Help to be placed in the Redemptorist Church at Rome. The devotion to the Blessed Virgin under this attractive title has since then spread far and wide. In 1871 the pope, moved by the urgent and repeated petitions of bishops and heads of religious orders, bestowed the title of Doctor of the Universal Church upon St. Alphonsus, known the world over by his theological and devotional writings. Father Hofbauer, the Apostle of Vienna, was beatified in 1889, and Brother Gerard Majella, the thaumaturgus of the congregation, in 1893. The latter was canonized by Pius X, 11 Dec., 1904. The eventful administration of Father Mauron ended in 1893. In 1882 he was stricken with apoplexy, and, though he rallied from the shock, a slow decline set in, and he died 13 July, 1893. On 1 March, 1894, Very Rev. Mathias Raus was elected superior general. He was born 9 Aug., 1829, in the Duchy of Luxemburg; made his profession 1 Nov., 1853, and was ordained priest 8 Aug., 1858. After filling various important offices in the order, he was called to Rome by his predecessor to be one of the general consultors. Father Raus's administration is remarkable for the number of Redemptorist causes of beatification introduced, or about to be introduced, in Rome, thirteen in all. Among them are: Ven. John Nepomucene Neumann, superior of the American Province, who died as Bishop of Philadelphia, 5 Jan., 1860; Father Francis X. Seelos, of the American province, who died a victim of yellow fever at New Orleans, 4 Oct., 1867; and Father Peter Donders, the Apostle of the Lepers in Surinam, who died in the leper colony at Batavia, in Dutch Guiana, 14 Jan., 1887. To these may be added Father Alfred Pampelon, who died at Ste-Anne de Beaupré in Canada, 30 Sept., 1896. Father Raus's administration was closed by the happy issue of the cause of Blessed Clement M. Hofbauer's canonization, which took place on 20 May, 1909. In that year the venerable superior, having attained his eighty-second year, deemed it wise to resign his responsible office, and in the general chapter opened on 26 April, 1909, the Very Rev. Father Patrick Murray, superior of the Irish province, was elected superior general of the congregation. He was born 24 Nov., 1865, made his profession 23 Oct., 1889, and was ordained priest 10 Sept., 1890. During the past twelve years the development of the congregation has been very marked. The Roman province was particularly honoured by Leo XIII, when he confided to the Fathers the magnificent new church of St. Joachim in Rome. The French province was divided into three provinces and two vice-provinces in 1900. Spain became a province, having eight houses, to which recently two more communities were added. The French province proper was divided into two provinces, Lyons and Paris. To the former now belong the Southern Pacific vice-province, embracing Chile and Peru, and to the latter the Northern vice-province of Ecuador and Colombia. Since the suppression of the religious orders in France in 1904, some of the Redemptorist communities have undertaken new foundations in Belgium, and others in South America. In 1900 the Austrian province was also divided into two provinces, Vienna and Prague, with a Polish vice-province. The latter was made a province in 1909. Since the division the Viennese opened two houses in Denmark, one in Prussian Silesia, and a fourth at Linz. In 1899 the Belgian Fathers were requested by the Government to take charge of a number of missions in the Congo State; these missions have now increased to six, Matadi, Tumba, Kionzo, Kinkanda, Kimpesse, and Sonagongo. The Fathers are deeply indebted to the paternal Government of the Congo State for the progress they have made since their arrival in 1899. Several valuable missionaries have already fallen victims to the treacherous climate. In Canada, which was made a vice-province in 1894, four more houses were opened. This vice-province, depending on the Belgian province, numbers six houses. In the West Indies, which were also made a vice-province in 1904, there are now six houses. The province of Baltimore opened in 1902 a foundation at Mayagüez in Porto Rico. Before the occupation of the island by the United States the Spanish Redemptorists had settled at San Juan, but at the close of the Cuban War returned to Spain. The American Fathers are now there as missionaries and pastors. A parish comprising some 30,000 souls is confided to their care. Despite all their labours for the benefit of the natives their progress is very slow. On 26 July, 1911, the Belgian houses of Canada were erected into a new province. The Upper German or Bavarian province, which was under the ban of the Kulturkampf, has recovered some of its lost ground. Since its readmittance, it has added another very important foundation. But the historic convent of Altötting has passed into other hands. In 1894 this province opened in Brazil a mission of two houses forming a vice-province. The province of Holland has added to its mission in Surinam a mission in Brazil, forming another vice-province, having under its jurisdiction three houses. A more detailed account of the English and Irish provinces claims our attention. The English province, begun from Belgium in 1843, owes its great progress to the Rev. Robert A. Coffin, one of the band of converts associated with Newman, Manning, and Faber in the Oxford Movement. After his ordination to the priesthood he joined the Redemptorists, and gave missions throughout England and Ireland, until he was appointed first provincial of the English province in 1865. During his administration of seventeen years new houses were founded in various parts of the United Kingdom, the house at Perth being the first convent opened in Scotland since the Reformation. Leo XIII appointed the Rev. Robert A. Coffin Bishop of Southwark. His successor as provincial, the Rev. Hugh McDonald, died Bishop of Aberdeen, Scotland. The activity of the English Fathers is evidenced by their literary labours and their success on the missions, which resulted in more than 16,000 converts. At present the province has eight houses: Clapham, Bishop-Eton, Monkwearmouth, Bishop's Stortford, Kingswood, Edmonton, and the novitiate and house of studies at Perth, Scotland, with a total membership of one hundred and twenty-three. Besides the Rev. Robert A. Coffin, a number of noted converts have joined the congregation, among them Bridgett, Livius, and Douglas. In 1898 the houses in Ireland and Australia, hitherto subject to the English province, were constituted an Irish province, and Australia, a vice-province, as its dependency. The Rev. Andrew Boylan was appointed the first provincial, with his residence at Limerick. On 25 March, 1901, the foundation of the present new juvenate house at Limerick was laid. The province of Ireland comprises four houses: Limerick, Dundalk, Belfast, and Esker; the vice-province of Australia, three houses: Waratah in New South Wales, Ballarat in Victoria, and Perth in Western Australia. The total membership is one hundred and forty-seven. In 1906 the Rev. Andrew Boylan was commissioned to visit the Philippine Islands, and to establish there a colony of Irish Redemptorists. At present there are two Redemptorist Houses on these Islands and one in Wellington, New Zealand. The church at Limerick is celebrated for its Confraternity of the Holy Family for men and boys, founded by the Rev. Edward Bridgett, which the late Bishop of Limerick, Dr. Butler, called "the miracle wrought by the Mother of Perpetual Succour, a far greater miracle than the cure of a blind boy or the healing of a cripple". In 1903 it had the following membership: Monday, division of men, 2722; Tuesday, division of men, 2580, boys' division, 1226; total, 6528. Meetings are held every week, the average attendance being 3992, while the communions received in the confraternity during 1902 numbered: men, 39,860, boys, 8497; total 48,357. The following figures will exemplify the growth of the congregation. The number of subjects in 1852 (not including those of Italy) were: priests, 343; professed students, 75; priests novice, 12; choir novices, 45; professed lay brothers, 175; lay novices, 67; total, 715; houses, 45. In 1910 (including Italy) priests, 2085; professed students, 537; choir novices, 142; professed lay brothers, 962; lay novices, 343; total, 4069; houses, 218; provinces, 19; vice-provinces, 10. The constant and rapid growth of the congregation must be attributed chiefly to the erection of the so-called juvenates. Finding it difficult in some countries and impossible in others to secure a solid future for the different provinces, the Fathers deemed it expedient to receive boys who showed a disposition for the religious and priestly life, and to prepare them while still young for the higher studies. Father Hofbauer adopted this plan, and obtained thereby a number of excellent young men for the order. In the same way Father Passerat was equally successful in drawing young men to the congregation. It was in this manner that Father Mauron, the late superior general, was attracted to the order. But it was only after 1867 or 1868 that a definite scheme of preparing boys for the novitiate was followed. The idea was taken up simultaneously in the French and American provinces. Father Desurmont was the first to organize this preparatory institution in France. For many years it was customary for the American Fathers to select from their parochial schools boys who, in their opinion, would eventually become fit subjects for the novitiate. After having tested their ability, they instructed them personally in the rudiments of Latin, or sent them to a Catholic college until they reached their sixteenth year. At this age they were admitted to the novitiate, after which they completed their humanities. For the benefit of boys who did not belong to Redemptorist parishes or who lived in other cities the provincial, Father Helmpraecht (1865-77), secured a suitable place near his residence at Baltimore. One of the Fathers was appointed director. In 1869 a new method was followed. The young men were to finish their classical course before entering the novitiate. To accommodate the increasing number of pupils, provision was made at Baltimore, then at Ilchester, until finally, in 1881, a desirable college building was purchased at Northeast, Pennsylvania. Here a six years' classical course is pursued, while at the same time the moral and physical fitness of the young men may be easily ascertained. Similar preparatory colleges, with some slight differences, have been introduced into almost every province. After a novitiate of one year, the young members pass to the higher course of studies. This embraces two years' philosophy, two years' dogmatic, and two years' moral theology, with natural philosophy, church history, Sacred Scripture, canon law, pastoral theology, and homiletics. After the completion of their studies the young priests make what is called the "second novitiate" of six months, during which time they are trained theoretically and practically in the special work of the missions. Although the limited number of subjects and the manifold labours of the ministry do not permit the members of the congregation to make a specialty of it, still their literary work is not inconsiderable. Among Redemptorist authors the following may be mentioned: Italy: Januar. Sarnelli, Bl. Panzutti, Anton. Tannoia; France: Achilles Desurmont, Augustine Berthe, Leonard Gaudé; England: Thos. Livius, Thos. E. Bridgett, Cyril Ryder, Robert A. Coffin; Austria: Aug. Rösler, Karl Dilgskron, Gerard Diessel, Georg Freund, Franz Kayker; Bohemia: Emmanuel Kovar, Franc. Blatak, Franc. Sal. Blazek, Aloys. Polak, Theoph. Mateju, Wenc. Melichar; Germany: Michael Benger, Michael Haringer, Andreas Hugues; Belgium: Victor Cardinal Deschamps, Henri Saintrain, Ernest Dubois, Francis X. Godts; Holland: J. Aertnys, Frans Ter Haar, Willem van Rossum, Joh. L. Jansen, Aloys. Walter; Spain and South America: Tomas Ramos, Ramon Serabia; North America: Antony Konings, Joseph Putzer, Michael Müller, Ferreol Girardey, Peter Geiermann. CURRIER, History of Religious Orders (New York, 1894); HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen der katholischen Kirche (Paderborn, 1908), s. v. Redemptoristen; WUEST, Annales Provincioe Americanoe (Ilchester, 1888); History of the Redemptorists at Annapolis, Md. (Ilchester, 1904); BECK, Die Redemptoristen in Pittsburg (Pittsburg, 1889); ANON, Kurzer Ueberblick, appendix to GISSLER'S St. Alphonsus von Liguori (Einsiedeln, 1887); various lives of Father Hofbauer; various lives of St. Alphonsus, especially those of CAPECELATRO, DILGSKRON, and BERTHS; various lives of Fr. Passerat and Fr. Mauron; Servorum Dei C.SS.R. Album (Rome, 1903); ANON., Fifty Years at Limerick (1903); MADER, Die Kongregation des Allerheiligsten Erlösers in Oesterreich (Vienna, 1887); ANON., Lebensbilder verstorbener Redemptoristen in Nieder-Deutschland (Dülmen, 1896); RATTE, Der hl. Alphonsus und der Redemptoristen-Orden (Luxemburg, 1887); ZAPF, Die Redemptoristen (Erlangen, 1894); Ascetical Works of St. Alphonsus (centenary ed.), XVII, miscellany. JOSEPH WUEST. Sebastian Redford Sebastion Redford Sebastion Redford, born 27 April, 1701; died 2 January, 1763. Educated at St. Omer, Watten, and Liège, he became a Jesuit and lived as chaplain with the Wrights of Kelvedon, then with the Herberts of Powis (1733-48). Redford was much trusted by the second Marquess of Powis (died 1745), but the third was unfriendly. When he died (1748), a Protestant succeeded, the chaplaincy lapsed, and Redford had, as he says, "to rue the ruin" of his former flock. He was next stationed at Croxteth, the seat of Lord Molineux, where he published "An important Inquiry; or the Nature of Church Reformation fully considered" (1751). The book was a success, but the excise officers seized and destroyed 400 copies, the last half of the edition. A second and enlarged edition appeared in 1758. Redford's extant letters (preserved by the English Jesuits) show a strong and attractive personality, and throw some light on the period when most priests were chaplains in Catholic families. FOLEY, Records of the English Province, S. J., VII (1882), 640. J. H. POLLEN. Francesco Redi Francesco Redi Italian poet, b. at Arezzo, 18 February, 1626; d. at Pisa 1 March, 1698. After taking his degree in medicine, he entered the service of the Colonna family at Rome as a tutor, and held the position five years. In 1654 he went to Florence, where he acted as physician to the Grand dukes Ferdinand II and Cosimo III. He was constantly engaged in experiments intended to improve the practice of medicine and surgery, and yet found leisure for much literary work. He was an active member of several of the academies of the time, and, as an associate of the Crusca, aided in preparing its important Vocabolario. He taught in the Studio at Florence in 1666, as lettore publico di lingua toscana and was one of the first members of the Arcadia. His writings include a number of scientific documents, e.g. "Osservazioni intorno alle vipere", "Esperienze intorno alla generazione degl' insetti", "Consulti medici", etc. Other writings are his "Lettere"; the dithyrambs, "Bacco in Toscana" and "Arianna Inferma", besides a number of lyrics, some of which are Petrarchian and others burlesque in their tone; and an unedited Vocbolario aretino. The "Bacco in Toscana" is the best example of the dithyramb in Italian, and, although deformed occasionally by obscure imagery and diction, it remains one of the best works of the seventeenth century. Opere (Venice, 1712); Opusculi di storia naturale (Florence, 1858-63); Bacco in Toscana, with the author's notes (Florence, 1685); IMBERT, Il Bacco in Toscana (Città di Castello, 1890); IDEM, Francesco Redi in Nuova Antologia (October, 1895). J. D. M. FORD Augustine Reding Augustine Reding Augustine Reding, Prince-Abbot of Einsiedeln and theological writer, born at Lichtensteig, Switzerland, 10 August, 1625; died at Einsiedeln, 13 March, 1692. After completing the classics at the Benedictine College of Einsiedeln he there joined the Order of St. Benedict, 26 December, 1641, taught philosophy at the early age of twenty-four, was ordained priest and appointed master of novices in 1649, obtained the degrees of Doctor of Philosophy and Theology at the University of Freiburg im Breisgau in 1654, was professor of theology at the Benedictine University of Salzburg from 1648 to 1654, became dean (prior) at Einsiedeln in 1658, and was finally elected Prince-Abbot of Einsiedeln on 17 July, 1670. At Einsiedeln he built the still existing choir, the confession-church, and St. Magdalene's chapel (1674-84). In 1675 his monastery took charge of the college at Bellinzona, which was conducted by the monks of Einsiedeln until its suppression in 1852. He watched carefully over the monastic discipline and insisted on a thorough intellectual training of his monks. During his time the conventuals of Einsiedeln increased from 53 to 100, many of whom gained renown as professors at various institutions of learning. As a temporal ruler he was beloved by his people and revered as a father by the poor. His numerous theological writings give evidence of great learning, though his style is dry and at times obscure. His chief work is "Theologia scholastica universa" (13 vols., Einsiedeln, 1687), based on the "Summa" of St. Thomas. Other important works are: "Veritas inextincta concilii Tridentini" (5 vols., ib., 1677-84), a defence of the Council of Trent against Heidegger; "Vindex veritatis centuriæ primæ annalium ecclesiasticorum Baronii" (ib., 1680), a justification of the first century of the "Annales" of Baronius; " OEcumenicæ cathedræ apostolicæ authoritas" (ib., 1669), a defence of papal supremacy against the Gallican Liberties; and other works of less importance. MOREL, Augustin Reding, Fürstabt von Einsiedeln, als Gelehrter u. Schulmann (Einsiedeln, 1861); HURTER, Nomenclator, IV (Innsbruck, 1910), 332-5. MICHAEL OTT. Red Sea Red Sea (Heb. Yâm-Sûph; Sept. e 'eruthrà thálassa; Greek writings of the Old and New Testaments e 'eruthrà thálasse; Vulg. Mare rubrum). The name of Red (or Erythræan) Sea was used by classical historians and geographers to designate the waters of the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf. In modern geography, it is applied to the north-west arm of the Indian Ocean, some 1400 miles long and lying between Arabia on the east and Africa on the west. Understood in this latter sense, the Red Sea stretches from the Strait of Babel-Mandeb, in lat. 12° 40´ N., to the modern head of the Gulf of Suez, lat. 30° N. Its greatest width is 205 miles, and its greatest depth about 1200 fathoms. At Ras Mohammed, in lat. 27° 45´ N., the Red Sea is divided by the Peninsula of Sinai into two gulfs: that of Suez (anciently Heroopoliticus sinus) on the west, now about 130 miles in length with an average width of about 18, and that of Akabah (anciently Ælaniticus sinus) on the east, narrower and only about ninety miles long. The Red Sea receives no river of importance, and is noted for its heat. Formerly its commerce was great, and it has much increased since the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869. The derivation of the Hebrew name Yâm-Sûph is uncertain. The meaning of Sûph is probably "reeds", and the title Yâm-Sûph (Sea of Reeds) appears to have been given originally to the upper end of the Gulf of Suez, which was probably shallow and marshy, and abounding in reeds. More uncertain still is the derivation of the Græco-Roman name, Erythræan (or Red) Sea. It has been variously explained by the red corals it contains; by the colour of the Edomite and Arabian Mountains, bordering its coasts; by the glow of the sky reflected in its waters; by the word edom (red), which the Greeks may have rendered literally; by the name of King Erythras, who reigned in the adjacent country. The Scriptural references to the Red Sea are directly connected with its northern gulfs. Those which concern the Gulf of Akabah, on the north-west, are comparatively few and unimportant. In Ex., xxiii, 31, that gulf is simply given as the southern limit of the Holy Land; in III Kings, ix, 26; II Par., viii, 17, it is spoken of in connexion with Solomon's maritime commerce, and in III Kings, xxii, 48, in reference to Josaphat's unsuccessful attempt in the same direction; finally, in Jer., xlix, 21, it is mentioned in a prediction of the utter ruin of Edom. The Scriptural references to the Gulf of Suez, on the north-east, are on the contrary both numerous and important, for it is the miraculous passage of that arm of the Red Sea which is described in Ex., xiv, celebrated in Moses' Canticle (Ex., xv), and repeatedly referred to in other parts of Holy Writ, despite the recent theories framed to disprove the traditional identification of the Gulf of Suez with the Red Sea crossed by Israel, at the time of the Exodus. Brugsch and others have indeed argued that the water which was dried up to let Israel pass was the northern end of the Sirbonian Bog, on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, between Egypt and the south-west extremity of Chanaan, but this theory is untenable because contrary not only to the statements of the Biblical narratives but also to the recent discoveries which have settled the position of Gessen, whence the Israelites set out for Palestine. Again, Beke and others have advanced the view that the eastern arm of the Red Sea, i. e. the Gulf of Akabah, and not the Gulf of Suez, is that which the Hebrews crossed. But this view also is inconsistent with the most natural interpretation of the Biblical data concerning the Exodus. The traditional identification of the Gulf of Suez with the Red Sea crossed by Israel should therefore not be given up. It remains true, however, that the scholars who most readily admit this identification are still divided with rgard to the actual place of crossing. Their disagreement is chiefly due to the difficulty of ascertaining the exact extent of this western arm of the Red Sea at the time of the Exodus. On the supposition that at that time the Gulf of Suez estended northward through the large Bitter Lake to the Timsah Lake, many writers maintain that the crossing was effected at a point between these two lakes then joined only by a shallow connexion. To establish this position, they put forth various arguments (historical, geographical, geological) which, when closely examined, are found not to substantiate it. In fact, every attempt at proving that the Gulf of Suez extended in Moses' time as far as the Timsah Lake, or even as far as the great Bitter Lake, seems to be irreconcilable with the fact that Egyptian inscriptions of the Twelfth Dynasty speak of this latter body of water as an undrinkable "lake", so that, several centuries before the Exodus, the great Bitter Lake itself was no part of the Arabian "Gulf". Apparently, then, those scholars are in the right who think that in the time of Moses the northern limit of the Gulf of Suez diid not vary much, if at all, from what it is at the present day, and who maintain that Israel crossed "the sea" at some point in the vicinity of the present Suez. This point is, indeed, at a considerable distance from the place where Moses was bidden to change his eastern march and to "turn and encamp" (Ex., xiv, 2); but this very distance is required to give time to convey to Pharao the intelligence that the Israelites had fled, and to enable his army to overtake them at a spot whence, humanly speaking, they could not escape (Ex., xiv, 5 sqq.). The passage of the Red Sea was ever, and indeed rightly, considered by the Hebrews as a most important event in their national history, and also as one of the most wonderful miracles of the Almighty in behalf of His Chosen People. Endeavours to explain away the miraculous character of the event have signally failed, for none of the documents, regarded by criticism as embodied in Holy Writ and as describing this historical fact, treats it as the mere result of natural forces. In I Cor., x, 2, the passage of the Red Sea is referred to as a fitting type of Christian baptism. Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mt. Sinai and Arabia Petræa (Boston, 1841). Brugsch, L'exode et les monuments égyptiens (Leipzig, 1875); Beke, Discoveries of Sinai in Arabia and of Midian (London, 1878); de Saint- Martin, Dict. de géog. univ. (Paris, 1875-79), V, 245; Bartlett, From Egypt to Palestine (New York, 1879); Reclus, L'Asie antérieure (Paris, 1884); Naville, The Store-City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus (London, 1888); Vigouroux, La Bible et les découvertes modernes (Paris, 1896); LesÊtre, Le passage de la mer Rouge in Revue d'apologétique pratique (Paris, 1907); Mc Neile, The Book of the Exodus (New York, 1908); Toffteen, The Historic Exodus (Chicago, 1909). Francis E. Gigot Reductions of Paraguay Reductions of Paraguay The Jesuit Reductions of Paraguay, one of the most singular and beautiful creations of Catholic missionary activity, have contributed more than any other factor to fix the name of Paraguay in history. They have been the object alike of the most sincere admiration and the bitterest criticism. An exact account, based on the best sources, should be their best justification. I. PRELIMINARY NOTIONS The founding and the plan of the reductions cannot be understood except in the light of colonial and political conditions as they prevailed in the Spanish La Plata territory at the time of the arrival of the Jesuits. The country discovered in 1515 by Juan Diaz de Solis had gradually by slow stages been conquered in sanguinary, and in the beginning, disastrous battles with the warlike, liberty-loving tribes. Until 1590 the Spaniards had founded ten cities and forty colonies. The natives, subdued by force of arms or submitting voluntarily were brought under the yoke of the Spanish encomienda system which in its more severe application made them yanaconas, or slaves, in its milder form mitayas, or serfs, to the conquistadores and the white colonists. The Spanish kings sought to better the lot of the natives by wise and humane decrees for their protection, but the difficulty of exercising control over them, and the unreliability, weakness, or selfishness of many of the officials permitted the abuse of this system to flourish. This system resulted in frequent uprisings of the subjugated race, and an implacable hatred of the foreigners on the part of the numerous tribes still retaining their freedom, ompanied even the earliest expeditions to La Plata, and churches and parishes were founded in the new steppes and forests in the interior, harassed the colonies, still in their youth, with inroads, and frequently laid them waste. It was not until the Reductions were founded that conditions were essentially improved in this respect also. The kings of Spain having the conversion of the native peoples sincerely at heart, missionaries accompanied even the earliest expeditions to La Plata, and churches and parishes were founded in the new colony as soon as possible. Here, as elsewhere, the first pioneers of the Faith were sons of St. Francis. Besides them we find Dominicans, Mercedarians and, to conjecture from the oldest lists of bishops, also Augustinians and Hieronymites. The immense territory was divided into three dioceses: + Paraguay (see at Asunción), established in 1547; + Tucuman (see at Santiago del Estero, later at Córdoba), 1570; + Buenos Aires (see at Buenos Aires) 1582. But as late as 1559 the clergy in the colony numbered in all only twenty secular and regular priests. When the first Bishop of Tucuman, Don Francisco de Victoria, O.P., took charge of his diocese in 1581, he found in the entire diocese only five secular and a few regular priests, not one of whom could speak the language of the Indians. In 1586 the first Jesuits came to Tucuman at his request, and in 1587, at the request of the Bishop of Asunción, Don Alonso Guerra, O.S.F., also to Paraguay. In view of the fame acquired in Europe for the young order still in its first ardour, by Francis Xavier in Eastern India, Anchieta in Brazil, and others, it was hoped the Society would prove a great aid, as well towards improving the religious conditions in general, as towards pacifying and converting the numerous wild tribes. The colleges, seminaries, residences, and houses for spiritual retreats founded after 1593 in rapid succession at Santiago del Estero, Asunción, Córdoba (a university since 1621), Buenos Aires, Corrientes, Tarija, Salta, San Miguel de Tucuman, Santa Fé, La Rioja and elsewhere served to attain the first purpose; while the second purpose was fulfilled by the ministry among the Indians in the encomiendas, and by travelling missionaries who went out among the tribes still at liberty and covered the vast territory in all directions, very much as St. Francis Solanus did at about the same period. These mission excursions reflected honour upon the heroism of the missionaries, but achieved no lasting results. Therefore the general of the order, Aquaviva insisted on the concentration of effort and the founding of central points in the most advantageous localities, after the fashion of similar efforts in Brazil. The first superior of the province of Paraguay, founded in l606 (which numbered at its foundation seven Jesuits, but in 1613 no less than one hundred and thirteen), Father Diego de Torres Bollo, was commissioned to put these ideas into practice. II. FOUNDATION OF THE REDUCTIONS They did not, as has been asserted, owe their origin to a previously-outlined idea of a state after the pattern of Campanella's "Sun State", which should form the realization of the longing of the Jesuits for power; on the contrary they grew in the most natural manner out of the efforts to obviate the three principal difficulties in the way of the conversion of the heathen resulting from the prevailing encomienda system, namely: + the oppression of the natives by force, + the consequent aversion to the religion of the oppressors, + and the bad example of the colonists. The new watchword was: + liberty for the Indians, + emancipation from the servitium personale, + and the gathering and isolating of the natives won over by the conquista espiritual in separate mission colonies or "reductions" managed independently by the missionaries. The plan provoked a storm of animosity against the Jesuits among the colonists, which led to repeated expulsions of the members of the order from their colonies. Even a part of the clergy, looking on the encomienda system as a righteous institution, and who themselves lived upon its fruits, opposed the Jesuits. The Jesuits, however, had a powerful ally in Philip III of Spain, who very energetically espoused the cause of the oppressed Indians, and who not only sanctioned the plans of the Jesuits, but furthered them very effectively by a number of royal decrees and appropriations from the public treasury and placed them on a firm legal basis. The Cedula Real (Royal Ordinance) of 18 December, 1606, given at Valladolid, commanded the governor, Hernandarias de Saavedra that, "even if he could conquer the Indians on the Paraná by force of arms he must not do so, but must gain them over solely through the sermons and instructions of the religious who had been sent for that purpose." The Cedula Real of 30 January, 1607 provided that the Indians who were converted and became Christians could not be made serfs, and should be exempt from taxation for a period of ten years. The so-called Cedula magna of 6 March, 1609, declared briefly that "the Indian should be as free as the Spaniard." With these royal decrees (which were followed by a long list of others) as a basis, the Jesuits began, in explicit understanding with the highest ecclesiastical and civil authorities, who had been commanded by the Government to render efficient aid, to found Reductions, first of all, in the distant northeastern Province of Guayra (approximately the present Brazilian Province of Paraná), where, in 1609, the Loreto Reduction was founded on the Rio Paranápanema, which was followed in 1611 by the Reduction S. Ignacio Miri, and between then and 1630 by eleven others, altogether numbering about 10,000 Christians. The Indians hastened in entire bands to these places of refuge, where they found protection and safety from the robbers who harassed them. All ecclesiastical and civil decrees notwithstanding, the traffic in slaves had experienced an astounding development among the mixed population of the captaincies of São Vicente and Santo Amaro (in the present Province of São Paulo, Brazil) composed of adventurers and freebooters from all nations. Well-organized troops of man-hunters, the so-called Mamelucos, had in a short time depopulated the plateau of Sao Paulo, and from 1618 onwards threatened also the Reductions to which the startled Indians hastened from all sides. One by one the Reductions fell into the hands of the marauders. In 1630 alone no less than 30,000 Indians are said to have been murdered in Guayra or carried off from there by force as slaves. In vain the missionaries had appealed to the Spanish and Portuguese authorities for protection. They could not or would not help. As a last resort it was decided to take the remaining Christians and those still coming in to the Reductions founded on the Parana and Uruguay rivers, and in 1831 the exodus was accomplished under the leadership of the heroic Father Simon Maceta. Some scholars have called this exodus one of the greatest achievements of its kind in history. Scarcely 12,000 reached their destination. In similar manner also the nine Reductions which had been founded between 1614 and 1638 on the Rio Jacuhy and in the Sierra dos Tapes in the present Brasilian Province of Rio Grande do Sul, and which numbered in all some 30,000 souls, were soon after destroyed and partially transferred to other places. The neglect of the Spanish governors to come to the aid of the missions in their peril was bitterly avenged by the subsequent destruction of the Spanish colonies in Guayra, by the Portuguese, and the loss of the entire province. Cast upon their own resources, the Jesuits organized, with the king's consent, an Indian militia, equipped with firearms, so that, as early as 1640, they could place a well-disciplined army in the field against the Paulistas, and could effectively suppress robbery and pillage. Henceforth the Reductions continued to form strong bulwark against the inroads of the Portuguese. The main part of this "Christian Indian State", as the Reductions have been called, was formed by the 30 [32] Guaraní Reductions, which came into being during the period from 1609-1780 in the territory of the present country of Paraguay, the Argentine Provinces of Misiones and Corrientes, and the Brazilian Province of Rio Grande do Sul. Many of these Reductions repeatedly changed their location in consequence of the frequent inroads of the Mamelucos and savage Indian tribes, retaining, however, their former names a circumstance which has given rise to no little confusion in older charts. The growth of the Guaraní Mission can be seen from the annual statistical records. + In 1648 the Governor of Buenos Aires on a visit found a population of 30,548 souls in nineteen Reductions, and + in 1677 the Fiscal of the Audiencia of Charcas, Don Diego Ibañez da Faria, found 58,118 in twenty-two Reductions. + In 1702, 22 villages on the Paraná and Uruguay numbered 89,500 souls; + in 1717, 31 villages numbered 121,168; + in 1732, 141,242; + 1733 128,389; + 1734, 116,250; + 1735, 108,228; + 1736, 102,721; + 1737, 104,473; + 1738, 90,287; + 1739, 81,159; + 1740, 73,910; + 1741, 76,960; + 1742, 78,929; + 1743, 81,355; + 1750, 95,089. The remarkable fluctuations in the number of the inhabitants were due to repeated attacks of epidemic diseases (see below). Besides the Guaraní missions, the Chiquitos Mission was founded in 1892 to the northwest, in the present Bolivia; in 1765 this mission numbered 23,288 souls (4981 families) in ten Reductions. The connecting link between the Guaraní and the Chiquitos missions was formed by the Mission of Taruma with three Reductions: San Joaquin (1747); San Estsanislao (1747), and Belen (1760), to which 2597 souls (547 families) belonged in 1762, and 3777 souls (803 families) in 1766. Far greater difficulties than in the Guaraní missions were encountered among the numerous many-tongued "mounted tribes" of the Gran Chaco, whose depredations continually kept the Spanish colonies on the alert. At the urgent request of the Spanish authorities the Jesuits attempted to found Reductions among these tribes also. Fifteen Reductions came into existence between 1735 and 1767, which about 1767 harboured Indians of eleven different tribes, among them about 5000 Christians. Scattered Reductions were founded in Tucuman, particularly among the Chiriguanos and Mataguayos (1762: 1 Reduction, 268 Christians, 20 pagans) and in North Patagonia (Terra Magallonica) where the Reduction of Nuestra Señora del Pilar was established in 1745. Altogether the Jesuits founded approximately 100 Reductions, some of which were later destroyed; 46 were established between 1638 and 1768. Consequently, the accusation raised by Azara and others that their missionary activity had become stagnated is unfounded. Until 1767 new reductions were continually being formed, while a constant stream of converts gained by the missionaries on their extensive apostolic journeys kept pouring into the older Reductions. Between 1610 and 1768, 702,086 Indians of the Guaraní tribes alone were baptized. The founding and preservation of these Reductions were the fruit of a century and a half of toil and heroic sacrifice in the battle against the terrors of the wilderness and the indolence and fickleness of a primitive people, as well as against the reckless policy of exploitation followed by the Spaniards, to whom the Reductions were ever an eyesore. Down to 1764 twenty-nine Jesuits of Paraguay suffered death by martyrdom. III. ORGANIZATION OF THE REDUCTIONS A. Plan and Location of the Settlements The Reductions were almost always laid out in healthy, high locations, the great central stations, as for instance Candelaria and Yapeyu, on the large waterways (Paraná stnd Uruguay) of the country. The general plan was similar to that of the Spanish pueblos. The was square, all streets running in straight lines, the main streets frequently being paved. The latter gave upon the plaza the large square where the church was situated generally shaded by trees, and ornamented with a large cross, a statue of the Virgin and frequently also with a pretty village well; at the head of the plaza stood the church, and adjoining it, on one side, the residence of the Fathers, called the "College"; on the other, the cemetery, enclosed by a wall with a pillared hall. The dwellings of the Indians, until the end of the seventeenth century, were frequently plain huts; later solid, one-story houses, built of stone or adobe, and invariably covered with tiles because of the danger of fire, about fifteen by eighteen feet in size, and divided into various apartments by partitions of wicker-work; they formed comfortable quarters for families of from four to six members, and, at all events, were incomparably better than the dwellings of the Indians of the encomienda. A portico, resting on stone or wooden pillars, and extending the entire width of the building, projected from the front of each house, so that one could walk through the entire town in rainy weather without getting wet. The houses were arranged in separate groups (vici, insulae) of six to ten dwellings each, to diminish the danger of fire. The "college" was separated from the plaza by a wall and a small courtyard, and by another wall from the adjoining buildings, which contained the schools, workshops, store-houses etc. Behind lay the carefully-kept garden of the Fathers. The churches, mostly three-aisled, built of massive blocks of stone, with a richly-decorated façade, a main door, and several wide entrances, convey an impression of grandeur even as ruins. In the massive belfries, which mostly stood apart from the churches, hung six or even more bells, which latterly were cast in the Reductions. The rich interior furnishings would have graced any cathedral. Besides the church, each village had one or more chapels for the dead, in which the corpses were exposed and whence they were taken away, also a churchyard chapel. The cemetery, laid out alongside the church and enclosed by a wall with a pillared hall, was, with its rows of orange trees and its wealth of flowers, truly "a sacred garden of the dead." To the left of the cemetery, isolated and surrounded by a wall, stood the cotiguazu (the big house), which served as an asylum for the widows, who lived there in common; as a reformatory for women; as a home for cripples; and as a common spinning-room. Beyond the village, just at the village limits, stood the chapel of St. Isidore, the ramada or lodging-house for travelling Spaniards, and farther off the tile-kilns, mills, stamping-mills, tanneries, and other buildings devoted to industry. The villages mostly lay open; only the Reductions more exposed to the inroads of bands of savages, and the estancias or farms, and the cattle-corrals were protected by moats, palisades, walls, or thorn hedges. To facilitate communication and traffic between the various villages, serviceable roads were laid out, often to great distances. Besides, the splendid network of rivers served as an excellent waterway, the mission operating no less than 2000 boats of various kinds on the Paraná alone and approximately as many on the Uruguay with its own wharves, as, for example, at Yapeyu. The population varied widely in the different villages, ranging between 350 and 7000 souls. B. The Economic System of the Reductions The plan of the Jesuits of forming, with rude tribes of nomads, large commonwealth, separate from the Spanish colonies, and far in the interior of a country but little explored placed before them the difficult problem of making the commonwealth economically independent and self-sustaining. If the Indians were obliged, day by day, to gather their means of sustenance in the forest and on the plain, they would never have heen lifted out of their nomad life and would have remained half-heathens. The financial support of the Crown consisted, for the first reductions, of a moderate appropriation out of the state treasury and of bells and articles for use in the church, and later were reduced to a temporary tax exemption, and a small salary for the missionaries doing parish duty. In the eighteenth century this salary amounted to 300 pesos annually for the cura and his assistant. Consequently the natural resources of the fertile soil had to be exploited, and the Indians, lazy and careless by disposition, had to be trained to regular work. (1) Conditions of Property The economic basis was a sort of communism, which, however differed materially from the modern system which bears the same name, and was essentially theocratic. "The Jesuits", writes Gelpi y Ferro, "realized in their Christian commonwealth all that is good and nothing that is bad in the plans of modern Socialists and Communists." The land and all that stood upon it was the property of the community. The land was apportioned among the caciques, who allotted it to the families under them. Agricultural instruments and draught-cattle were loaned from the common supply. No one was permitted to sell his plot of land or his house, called abamba, i.e. "own possession." The individual efforts of the Indians, owing to their indolence, soon proved to be inadequate, whereupon separate plots were set aside as common fields, called Tupamba, i. e. "God's property" which were cultivated by common labour under the guidance of the Padres. The products of these fields were placed in the common storehouse, and were used partly for the support of the poor, the sick, widows, orphans, Church Indians, etc., partly as seed for the next year, partly as reserve supply for unforeseen contingencies, and also as a medium of exchange for European goods and for taxes (see below). The yield of the private fields and of private effort became the absolute property of the Indians, and was credited to them individually in the common barter transactions, so that each received in exchange the goods he desired. Those abamba plots which gave a smaller yield because of faulty individual management were exchanged from time to time. The herds of livestock were also common property. The caballos del Santo, which were used in processions on festal occasions, were especially reserved. Thus the Reduction Los Santos Apostoles at one time owned 599 of these. (2) Products The Indians themselves were content for their needs, with the cultivation of maLe, manioc, various indigenous tuberous plants and vegetables, and a little cotton. But the work conducted by the communities continued constantly to assume larger proportions, and surpassed by far the work of the Spanish colonies, both in regard to the variety of the products and to rational cultivation. Besides the common cereals (wheat and rice were grown scarcely anywhere outside of the Reductions) and field produce, tobacco, indigo, sugarcane, and above all, cotton were cultivated. Much care was devoted also to fruit culture, and that successfully. Even today one may find in the wilderness traces of former splendid orchards, particularly orange groves. Vine culture was attempted, but with only moderate success. One of the most important products of the territory comprised by the Reductions was the so-called Paraguay tea (herba), which is still the largest article of export of the country. It consisted of dried leaves of the maté tree (Ilex Paraguayensis), crushed and slightly roasted, and drawn in boiling water; it was then, as it is now, the favourite beverage of the country and almost entirely displaced the intoxicating drinks to which the Indians had been addicted to a deplorable extent. Because the herba forests (herbales) frequently lay hundreds of miles distant, and the Indians there employed had to be deprived of regular pastoral care for too long a period, the Jesuits attempted to transplant the tree into the Reductions; their endeavours were successful here and there, but the jealous Spanish colonists used every means to frustrate their endeavours. The other abundant natural resources, choice sorts of wood, aromatic resins, honey bees, and the like, were converted to useful purposes, and attempts were even made, on a small scale, to produce pig-iron. Cattle-raising attained a magnificent development, the entire country being rich in grass, and some estancias numbered as many as 30,000 sheep and more than 100,000 head of cattle, numbers which were not unusual in some of the Spanish haciendas. The herds were increased from time to time by the capture of wild cattle, and the breed improved by careful selection and breeding. Horses, mules, donkeys, and poultry were also raised on a large scale. In addition, hunting and fishing aided in providing support; these forms of sport were, however, restricted in the Guaraní Reduction for reasons of discipline. The individual Reductions devoted themselves more or less to one or the other branch of production, and supplied their wants by exchange with other Reductions. A written almanac of 1765, which the Salesian Fathers of Don Bosco discovered about 1890 at Asunción, contains on its parchment leaves, besides the calendar, an adviser for agriculturists, with particular reference to the climate of the country; the manuscript shows what knowledge and solicitude the apostolic missionaries devoted to agriculture. (3) Industries The vast needs of such an enormous establishment and the difficulties and expense of import necessitated the foundation of domestic industries. Thanks to the exceptional native gifts of the Guaranís, the abilities necessary for almost all the trades and crafts were soon developed in these people. Some were carpenters, joiners, wood-turners, builders; others blacksmiths, goldsmiths, armourers, bellfounders, masons, sculptors, stone-cutters, tilemakers, house-painters, painters and gilders, shoemakers, tailors, bookbinders, weavers, dyers, bakers, butchers, tanners, instrument-makers, organ-builders, copyists, calligraphers etc. Others again were employed in the powder-mills, tea-mills, corn-mills etc. Each man remained true to the craft once adopted, and provided for the transmission of his trade by teaching it to apprentices. The wonderful quality of the products of the workshops in the Reductions is shown by the beautiful cut-stone work of the churches. In some of the Reductions there were printing establishments, as for instance in Corpus, San Miguel, San Xavier, Loreto, Santa Maria la Mayor, where principally books of a liturgical and an ascetic nature were printed. It should be noted particularly that the remarkably high industrial development was not reached until after the end of the seventeenth century, when Jesuits from Germany and the Netherlands came to Paraguay in larger numbers. In 1726 a Spanish procurator of the missions admitted that "Artes plerasque [missionarii] erexerunt, sed eas omnes Germanis debent." Arts and the crafts were completely neglected in the Spanish colony at that time, the houses in Buenos Aires being built of clay and covered with rushes. A German lay brother of the Society of Jesus, Joh. Kraus, erected the first larger brick buildings (college and novitiate) in Buenos Aires and Córdoba; Brother Joseph Klausner of Munich introduced the first tin-foundry in the Province of Tucuman; while Indians from the Reductions, under the direction of the missionaries, built the fortifications and ramparts of Buenos Aires, Tobati, San Gabriel, Arecutagui, and other public works. (4) Distribution of Labour and Manner of Control The economic machinery of the Reductions could be kept in motion, and the Indians, naturally averse to work and thoughtless, brought up to systematic labour only by a well-regulated direction and control. Even the children were taught to work, and day by day some of them were occupied in the workshops and spinning-rooms under special overseers, while others were led out into the fields and plantations, to the joyous strains of music, following a statue of St. Isidore carried before them, and employed there for a few hours.The women were obliged, in addition to the performance of their household duties, to spin a certain amount weekly for the use of the community, to help during the sowing and harvesting of cottonand the like. Men who followed no particular trade were obliged to work at least two days weekly at communal undertakings, in the fields, or at public buildings, etc. All had to work during harvest time. Relaxation and recreation were provided in the hours set aside for leisure, which were passed in arranging common games, military drill-horse races, and so on, by the many feast-days and the days set aside for hunting trips and other expeditions. Cards and dice, however, were strictly forbidden. The heads of each community were entrusted with the direction of their communities (see below). Besides, each branch of trade had its own superintendents and guild-masters, who constantly remained in touch with the missionaries, who watched over all and whose presence and authority formed the driving-wheel of the whole community. All officials were obliged to give exact account of their administration, and it is a matter of fact that the accounts and administration reports were in exemplary order, according to the testimony of the government inspectors. The superiors of the order also conducted an exact inspection every year. Labourers and such public employees as hospital attendants, sextons, and others were kept at public cost, and the private fields of draymen and ferrymen, shepherds and others, who were engaged in public service, were tilled by others for their benefit. (5) Distribution of Rations Food and dress were the same for all, with some slight concessions in favour of the caciques and public officials. The produce of the private fields provided the secondary dishes for the daily table. Whatever was missing was provided out of the common storehouse in equal measure. The principal article of diet of the Indians was meat, mhich they obtained from the common slaughterhouses at regular intervals. Ordinarily, animals were slaughtered three times a week; in Yapeyu, with about 7000 inhabitants, about forty beeves were killed each day. In order to prevent the Indians from consuming their entire rations of meat in one day, they were induced to make charqui (meat dried in the sun and pulverized) of a portion of it. The sick were given special food prepared in the parsonage; the children received their morning and evening meal in common in the courtyard of the parsonage also. On high feast-days public banquets were held in common. The common storehouses also furnished additional provisions of a special nature for wedding feasts and the like. Strong liquors were almost entirely replaced by maté in the Guaraní Reductions. Twice a year each family received the necessary woven woollen and cotton goods, of which the women made clothing. In addition, each family could bring its private cotton crop to the parish mills. Only a coarse, plain cloth was woven. Goods of better quality, for the altar linens vestments, and garments of state had to be imported. The dress of the natives was plain but decent; the attire of the men consisted of short, loose breeches, a cotton shirt, and two woollen ponchos, one for everyday wear, the other for holidays; the women wore long, loose, shirt-like gowns, with many folds. Ordinarily all went barefoot. The official garments and uniforms for festive occasions, neat and made of fine, coloured materials, were kept in separate chests in the "college," as also the banners, theatrical costumes, insignia, and so on. C. Commerce and Wealth of the Jesuits The accusation that the Jesuits acquired immense wealth in the Reductions is a fable, spread broadcast by their enemies and those jealous of their success, but long since disproved. "I dare to maintain", the Bishop of Buenos Aires, Dom Pedro Taxardo, wrote to Philip V of Spain in 1721, "that if the Jesuits were less virtuous, they would have fewer enemies. I have visited their missions frequently, and I can assure Your Majesty, that I have nowhere found greater order and more perfect unselfishness than among these religious, who take nothing that belongs to their converts, whether it be for their own attire or for their sustenance". The fact is that the Fathers bore the expense of their own sustenance, as far as possible out of the salary appropriated by the king for them (about 250 pesos) although it was smaller than the salary of the other priests, both secular and religious (600 pesos). In compensation for the provisions taken by the Fathers from the common stores, such as fish, milk, eggs, vegetables, the procurator sent each missionary a supply of salt, soap, knives, shears, glass beads, fish-hooks, pins, medals, and the like for distribution among the Indians, who were very fond of these things. Southey, himself a Protestant, published as the result of his investigation covering this question, that nothing can be more certain, than that the Jesuits have not amassed any treasures in Paraguay. The myth concerning their vast trade transactions must be classed with that of the gold mines in the Reductions, which never existed, notwithstanding the fact that hatred and envy have so persistently clung to this assertion, that the Government was forced more than once to institute investigations. Thus an investigation was conducted in 1640 by Don André" de León Gacavita, and another, still more searching, in 1657 by Don J. Blasquez Valverde. In both cases the inquiries led to a clear demonstration of the untruth of the accusations, and to the severe punishment of the accusers. The gold mines have never been found, even after the expulsion of the Jesuits. The estimates that have been made of the alleged vast income and trade profit are founded upon purely arbitrary or false suppositions. The vast herds of cattle, for example, were not representative of wealth, because of the great numbers of ownerless cattle in which the land abounded, the price of a healthy steer in consequence being half a peso in Dobrizhoffer's time, while later the price rose to one and two pesos in consequence of the reckless destruction of these animals by the Spaniards. The single carved high altar in the Church of San Borja was valued at the price of 30,000 steers. In addition, the expense of keeping up such a vast community should be borne in mind; the high prices of the new products and iron goods that had to be imported (a Spanish hundredweight, about 102 lbs. of iron from Buenos Aires cost 16 aurei, 1 ell of linen cloth 4 old rix-dollars, and even more, a fine lace alb about 120 rix-dollars); the tribute to the crown, which according to experts, amounted to 24,000 pesos; the building and decorating of the numerous churches far in the interior; the equipment of Indian auxiliary troops in the service of the king (see below); all of which, "taken together, alone required the expenditure of almost the entire income. As a matter of fact, the entire commerce was confined to the exchange, justified by canon law, of such products as cotton, tobacco, hides, various kinds of timber, horse-hair, honey, and in particular of the highly-prized mission herba, for goods which the Reductions themselves either could not produce or at least not in sufficient quantities, such as fine cloths, silks, linen for vestments and altar use, instruments, iron and glassware, books, paper salt, wine, vinegar dyes, etc. The trade by barter netted an average annual income of 100,000 pesos, according to the report of the royal investigating commission, or 7 reals per capita of the population. One instance may illustrate how arbitrarily the calumniators of the Jesuits juggle with figures. Some scholars assert that the Jesuits sold 4,000,000 pounds of herba annually, while the amount officially certified is only about 6000 arrobas (150,000 lbs.); he also places the number of Indians employed in its cultivation and production at 300,000, or twice the total number of men, women, and children living at any one time in all the Reductions. How purely imaginary the wealth of the Jesuits had been was proved by the inventories taken of their houses and colleges at the time of their expulsion in 1787. These buildings mere seized suddenly, without previous warning, so that the Jesuits might not be able to conceal anything. But the only treasures found were the precious church articles. Only a trifling amount of money was found. The college that was most prominent, that of Córdoba, was barely self-supporting, according to the documents. "The Jesuits," writes one scholar, "strange as it may appear, did not conduct the missions after the fashion of a business concern, but rather as the rulers of some Utopia -- those foolish beings who think happiness is preferable to wealth." D. Form of Government The local administration of the Reductions was arranged according to the provisions of the lex indica, after the Spanish pattern, and was composed of the corregidor or burgomaster (in the Guaraní language poro puaitara, i. e. one who gives commands); the teniente, or deputy; three alcaldes, i. e. bailiffs or inspectors, two for the work in the town and one (alcalde de la hermandad) for the work in the rural districts; four regidores or councilmen (Guaraní icabildo iguata, i. e. one belonging to the council); one alguazil mayor, a sort of prefect of police (Guaraní ibirararuzu, i. e. "the chief of those who carry the stick">); one procurador or steward, and one escribano or writer (Guaraní quatiaapobara, i. e. "one who draws or writes"). Besides these there were the alferez real or standard-bearer (Guaraní, aobebe rerequara, i. e. "he to whom the care of the banner is entrusted," and a number of subaltern officials and assistants. The annual election took place at the end of December. The list of new candidates was drawn up by the retiring officials and submitted to the cura for approval, who had the jus indicum of challenging the nominations. On the first of January the installation of the new officials and the investiture with the insignia of office took place in very solemn fashion at the entrance to the church. Besides their insignia, the public officials had a place of honour in the church. Their final confirmation was obtained in each instance from the Spanish governor. On 1 January also the sextons, superintendents of works, the boys' directors, and others were elected. Each day after Mass the corregidor gave the cura a report of all current affairs and received from him the necessary directions, which he transmitted to those concerned. It should be noted that the old hereditary caciqueship, and also the hereditary Indian nobility retained their rights and were honoured in the Reductions, and, it appears, were especially considered in the allotment of higher offices and military charges. The plan of Philip V to make the five hundred caciques of the Guaraní Reductions Knights of Santiago was not carried out, owing to the fact that the caciques attached no value to such a distinction. E. Military Power The organization for armed self-defense against the frequent inroads of hordes of savages and of the Portuguese neighbours was not only permitted by repeated royal decrees, but was carried out in accordance with the declared wishes of the king. In conformity with these decrees arsenals were erected in all the Reductions, in which weapons of the best quality, principally firearms, were stored, together with ammunition. The king repeatedly sent new supplies of arms, among them some 800 guns, about 1730. Later gunpowder was produced in the Reductions themselves. Each Reduction was divided into eight companies, with a maestro de cumpo, generally a cacique, a sergeante mayor, eight capitanes, and other officers at their head. Regularly arranged military exercises and armed drills, together with sham battles, preserved and increased the military efficiency of the people. The governors repeatedly sent Spanish officers into the Reductions, to instruct the Indians in the use of firearms. The main strength of the Reductions, however, lay in their cavalry. This force had already proved itself very efficient in the defence against the Paulistas; from 1841 onwards it was called into service by the governors almost year after year to help in the wars with the savage tribes, with the Portuguese, the English who threatened Buenos Aires, and, last but not least, rebellious colonists and encomienda Indians, and rendered splendid service. Time and again kings and governors expressed their sincerest gratitude for these services, which were all the more valuable because they cost the Crown nothing. The Reduction Indians between 1637 and 1735 entered the field no less than fifty times for the cause of the king, repeatedly with a large force and under considerable sacrifice of time and life. F. Church and Religious Life The Reductions of Paraguay are justly called a model of a theocratic commonwealth. Religion ruled the entire public and private life. The entire community attended Holy Mass and the evening devotions daily. Prayers and religious songs accompanied and encompassed work and recreation alike. Religious instruction was given daily for the children, on several days each week for catechumens, and every Sunday for the entire parish. Through the medium of easily sung catechismal hymns the doctrines and the principal events of the life of Christ and those of the saints were impressed upon the minds of the people. A sort of religious handbook bearing the title "Ara poru aguiyey haba yacoa ymomoeoinda" (On the Proper Use of Time) writton by P. Jos. de Insauralde (born at Asunción; d. 1730), printed at Madrid in 1759-84 in two volumes, and which was very popular, gave directions concerning the performance of various acts at home and in church in a holy and meritorious manner. Public religious life in the splendid churches found its expression in an exceedingly brilliant manner, particularly on feast-days. Church music was carefully cultivated, especially under the direction of Italian and German Fathers, and its production would have been, according to the testimony of Don Franc. Xarque, a credit to any Spanish cathedral. In consequence, the church choirs of the Reductions were frequently invited to the Spanish cities. The reports of the celebration of the Feast of Corpus Christ, the patronal feasts, the Rogation and penitential processions, the devotion to the saints (particularly to the Blessed Virgin), the representations of the Crib and the Passion, mystery-plays, sacramental dances, and so on, convey a charming picture of the religious life in the Reductions. Religious societies also, especially the Sodalities of the Blessed Virgin, attained to a remarkable growth. The reception of the sacraments, after the Reductions had become firmly grounded, and a solid body of older Christians had been obtained, was, according to the annual reports, and in accordance with ecclesiastical practice of the times, very good. The members of the religious societies received Communion monthly, many of them weekly. The early marriages (boys were obliged to marry at 17, girls at 15), strict discipline, and surveillance fostered chastity among the natives, which aided the natural increase of the race, ordinarily not very fruitful (the average number of children in was four). Careful control and strict segregation of all objectionable elements did the rest. "Such innocence prevails among these people," Bishop Faxardo wrote, 20 May 1720, from Buenos Aires to Philip V, "who are composed exclusively of Indians naturally inclined to all kinds of vices, that I believe no mortal sin is ever committed there, the vigilance of the shepherds foreseeing and preventing even the slightest fault." A number of authentic testimonials of bishops and royal visiting inspectors speak with the greatest admiration of the religious zeal, the devotion, purity of morals, Christian brotherly love, and conscientiousness of the Indians, as well as the unshirking devotion and the edifying lives of the priests. G. Schools and Education Each Reduction had, at least during the later period, an elementary school with Indian teachers educated by the Fathers; there at least the boys, above all the sons of the caciques and the more prominent Indians, from whose ranks the heads of the villages and other officials were mostly taken, could learn reading, writing, and arithmetic. In this respect also the Reductions were in advance of the Spanish colony. Even Bucareli, who later carried out the decree of expulsion in such relentless fashion, acknowledged the work of the Reduction schools. Boys who were especially gifted also received instruction in Latin sufficient to enable them to perform sexton's duties and to read at table in the college. The schools for singing and music were conducted very successfully, so that each Reduction had a capable church choir and orchestra. The accusation that the Jesuits studiously prevented the Indians from learning Spanish, in order to preserve their secrets the more securely and to prevent intercourse with the colonists, is untrue, as Bucareli attests, and is, besides, altogether absurd, since the Guaraní language, then as now, was the common language of the Spaniards also. The women knew no Spanish. The fathers surely sought to introduce the Spanish language in their own interest, although it was very difficult for the Indians to learn and very unpopular with them; still they followed the jus indicum (Tit. I, c. vi, leg. 18) which did not oblige the natives to learn Spanish. H. Discipline and Penal Regulations It was necessary to accustom the Indians to Christian morals and love of work by mildness linked with severity. The daily routine, marked by the ringing of the bell, the strict segregation of the sexes in public community life demanded by the jus indicum, together with a prudent system of surveillance demanded by the commingling of older Christians, neophytes, and the new arrivals constantly coming in from the wilderness, helped to achieve this result. Another precaution was the segregation, as far as possible, of the Indians from the Spaniards, and from the encomienda Indians, who were mostly of questionable moral character, a measure which some, referring to the sad experience in Peru, consider entirely appropriate, and the observance of which the missionaries of the Gran Chaco even today deem necessary. Regarding the penal discipline, even Asara, who is so averse to the Jesuits, admits "that they exercised their authority with a mildness and moderation [suavidad y moderación] which one must admire." Minor offences, such as laziness, public disturbances etc., were punished by sentences of fasting or a few blows with a whip, transgressions of a more serious character by arrest and confinement in jail on small rations. Refractory women were confined for a time in the cotiguazu, or house for the women. To prevent abuse of authority on the part of the Indian officials, they were not permitted to inflict punishment of any kind without having previously reported the case in question to the Fathers. Capital punishment was never inflicted. Crimes deserving capital punishment, which occurred but rarely, were punished by expulsion from the Reduction and surrender of the perpetrator to the Spanish authorities. The fact that these tribes, so enamoured of liberty, did not undertake a single uprising against the missionaries, while on the other hand revolts among the encomienda Indians were very frequent, and the additional circumstance that two or three Fathers were sufficient to keep a population of 1000 to 2000 souls in order and discipline, surely speaks very strongly in favour of the system and proves the untruth of the accusation of Jesuit despotism. J. The Care of the Sick The care of the sick was well organized in all the Reductions. In each village there were four to eight nurses, well-instructed in the use of medicines, and devoted absolutely to their profession; they were called curuzuya, or cross-bearers, from the shape of their staffs which terminated in a cross at the top. They made a round of the village each day, and were obliged to give the Fathers an exact report of the condition of the sick, so that as a consequence scarcely an Indian died without the last sacraments. The remedies principally used were the indigenous medicinal herbs. In addition, each "college" had a pharmacy. Some Fathers and Brothers who possessed a knowledge of medicine compiled special medicinal handbooks for use in the Reductions. Several German Fathers and a few lay-brothers, the latter having been apothecaries before entering the order, deserved particularly well of the Reductions in this respect; pre-eminent in this regard was the Tyrolese Father Sigismund Aperger. Usually a healthy race, the Guaraní showed absolutely no power of resistance to certain contagious diseases, such as measles and smallpox. Repeated severe epidemics of these diseases, such as occurred in 1618, 1619, 1635, 1636, 1692, 1718, 1733, 1739, and 1764, decimated the population of the Reductions in a frightful manner. Thus in the one year 1735 measles brought death to 18,773 persons, and in 1737 smallpox claimed more than 30,000 victims. In 1733 12,933 children died of smallpox. Were it not for these epidemics, the population of the Guaraní missions would heve been twice or three times as large. These epidemics demanded heroic efforts on the part of the Fathers. K. Relations belween the Reductions and the Spanish Government Nothing can be more absurd than the myth of the "Independent Jesuit State of Paraguay," mendaciously constructed by Ibañez and other writers. The entire foundation and development of the Reductions took place with the consent of the Spanish kings and on the strength of the royal decrees and privileges, which were summarized, confirmed and enlarged in the famous decree of Philip V of 28 December, 1743. As late as 1774 the Hieronymite P. Cevallos could truly maintain that all that the Jesuits had done in Paraguay "era todo probado por reales cédulas ó procedia de ordenes expresas." The territory covered by the Reductions was under the direct jurisdiction of the crown, in such a manner, however, that part of the sovereign rights were exercised by the governor in the name of the king (from 1736 onwards all the Reductions were under the authority of the Governor of Buenos Aires). All royal commands and decrees were announced and executed in the Reductions also, unless the latter were expressly excepted. The governors confirmed the new officials in the Reductions after the annual elections, as also the newly appointed curas belonging to the Society of Jesus; they made regular official visits to the Reductions, and sent reports to the king regarding their visitations. The Reductions were ready for war at the call of the governors and the latter could always depend absolutely upon their loyalty, a fact which they acknowledged frequently and in glowing terms in their reports to the king. Further, the Reductions paid the taxes imposed and tithes laid upon them, faithfully and punctually, and moulded their conduct in accordance with all the laws of the Spanish crown, inasmuch as they were not suspended or modified in their application to that territory by special royal privileges (Decr. Phil. V., art. 5). Controversies with the governors arising in consequence of unjust encroachment were always adjusted through the royal audiencia in Charcas, by royal inspectors or by investigating committees, especially named and appointed by the king himself. Loyalty to the king and enthusiasm for his cause and person were instilled deeply by the fathers in the hearts of the Reduction Indians, Philip V himself declaring in his famous decree of 28 December, 1743 that in his entire colonial possessions in America he had no more faithful subjects. On all patronal feasts the royal standard was borne to the church with great ceremony, and the alferez real, who carried it, received with regal honours at the church door. Thereupon the banner was planted on the plaza, with a picture of the king, and the entire militia with their officers renewed their oath of homage before it in a solemn manner amid shouts of: " Mburu bicha guazu: toi cobengatu ñande Tey marangatu: toi cobengatu ñande Rey N." (Long live our King, the great Caciquel! Long live our good King; long live our King N.). Indians took pride in calling themselves "Soldiers of the King." How they risked and sacrificed life and property on many occasions, under the leadership of the Fathers, for the cause of the crown, has been told already. The loyalty of these Indians to the king is characterized by their conduct during the time of the Antequera disorders, and the so-called Comuneros revolt, that troublesome period (1721-1735) which composed the first attempt, on a large scale, of the colony to secede from Spain. The usurper Antequera as well as the Comuneros vented their rage first and above all on the Jesuits and the Reduction Indians, who proved themselves the strongest bulwark of the Spanish rule. Their destruction was consequently soon followed by the revolution and secession from Spain. L. Exclusion of the Spaniards from the Territory of the Reductions The isolation of the Indians and the exclusion of the Spaniards from the territory of the Reductions, prompted by reasons of principle and strictly enforced, have given the opponents of the Jesuits ample material for sinister insinuations. These measures, however, were sanctioned by royal decrees and were necessary for the attainment of the purpose of the mission. "Nothing can justify this procedure better," writes Ulloa, "than the sad example of the decline of the doctrinas in Peru." It is surely a significant fact that even Governor Bucareli after the expulsion of the Jesuits strongly urged the continuance of this system of isolation in the interest of the Indians in his instructions to his successor, written in 1768. Moreover, officials of the crown always had free access to the Reductions, and where no danger was to be feared, friendly relations were maintained with the neighbouring Spanish colonists, and the latter were frequently invited to festivities, asked to act as sponsors in baptism etc. Further, the villages nearest to Asunción: Santa Maria, San Ignacio Guazu, Santa Rosa, Santiago, San Cosme, and Itapua were at the king's request opened on certain days of each month to Spanish merchants for the purpose of selling their goods. A number of trustworthy Spaniards in the service of the missions lived in the Reductions, and each Reduction had a separate lodging-house for travelling strangers. M. Relations of the Reductions to Ecclesiastical Authorities A portion of the Guaraní Reductions was under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Asunción (erected 1647), another under the authority of the Bishop of Buenos Aires (1582), while the Reductions of the Chiquitos belonged to the Diocese of Santa Cruz de Ia Sierra (1605), and the colleges and missions of Tucuman to the See of Cordóba (1570). The jurisdiction of the bishops was limited only by the exemptions of the Society of Jesus, which it held in common with the other orders and which were clearly determined by papal bulls. For the rest, the bishops exercised their episcopal authority and functions freely in the territory of the Reductions, confirmed the curas proposed by the superior of the order, drew their tithes, performed their pastoral and confirmation visits regularly and sent reports to the king and to Rome. The visits to the distant Reductions being attended by great difficulties, the bishops conferred extensive rights and powers upon the superiors of the missions; the relations between the Jesuits and the bishops, although the latter mostly belonged to other orders, were very good throughout. One single exception is found in the case of the Bishop of Asunción, D. Bernardino de Cardenas, O.S.F. (1642-49), whose actions brought confusion upon the entire country, and whose antipathy to the Jesuits threatened to ruin the Reductions. In 1649 he was removed to Santa Cruz de la Sierra, and later became sincerely reconciled to the Jesuits. The Cardenas affair was eagerly taken advantage of by the anti-Jesuit party particularly under Pombal. There can be no doubt on which side right and wrong were, the representation of Marcellino da Civesas to the contrary notwithstanding. From 1654 onwards the name Reductions was officially altered to Doctrinas and the mission stations treated as parishes, a procedure which, in missionary lands, was by no means contrary to the rules of the order, as the apostate Ibañez maintains. Each parish had a cura (pastor) and a vicario, in larger towns several. The entire territory of the Reductions was under the authority of a superior, who resided at Candelaria and had, in order to lighten his burden, a vice-superior in the Paraná and one in the Uruguay territory. The Doctrinas together formed a collegium, according to the rule of the order; the superior missionis acted as rector and as representative of the mission in relation to the ecclesiastical and secular authorities. He was surrounded by a council of eight consultors, chosen from among the oldest and most experienced fathers. Every three or four years the territory of the Reductions was visited once or twice by the Provincial of Paraguay. The discipline of the order was strictly enforced, and the good religious spirit of the members is confirmed by the official testimony of the bishops, governors, and royal inspectors. A document written in Cuaraní, which was found during the forcible occupation of San Lorenzo, and in which the Indian Neenguiru describes the life and activity of the father, is touchingly beautiful. N. How the System Has Been Judged The singular nature of the Reductions has roused the interest and admiration of numerous thinkers, philosophers, historians, economists, and explorers to an exceptional degree. Men of the most divergent callings and denominations have expressed their warmest appreciation. These opinions, in conjunction with the brilliant testimonials of the Spanish kings, of governors, inspectors, bishops and others should be sufficiently weighty to characterize as lies and slanderous accusations the spiteful attacks of professed enemies of the Church and the Jesuits. It is to be regretted that prejudice against the Jesuit Order still spreads these lies of history. The Reduction system undoubtedly had its weak points and imperfections; they may be advanced against the system, but this should be done in a manner consistent with objective historical research. It is certainly inconsistent to bestow immoderate praise upon the system of the Incas, and at the same time to find fault with the Reduction system, which adopted and Christianized all the good features of that system. An objection frequently advanced against the Reductions, even by well-meaning writers, was that the Reduction system did not educate the Indians up to autonomy but allowed them to remain in a state of tutelage. This policy, they maintain, explains the decline of the Reductions after the expulsion of the Jesuits. In answer it may be briefly stated that + The work of the Jesuits was destroyed before it had reached its highest development. + As a matter of fact, the Jesuits used every effort to educate the Indians up to autonomy. Their efforts were frustrated by the deep-rooted indolence of the race. Proof of this is found in the fact that the Indians who left the Reductions and emigrated to the Spanish colonies failed to rise to independent positions, even among the most favourable conditions. + The Reduction system must not be measured by European standards but according to the conditions prevailing at the time in Spanish colonies. "That it was not only suitable, but perhaps the best that under all the circumstances could have been devised for Indian tribes two hundred years ago, and then just emerged from semi-nomadism, is, I think, clear, when one remembers in what a state of misery and despair the Indians of the encomiendas and the unitas passed their lives." + The system employed was, in fact, the only means adopted to save the Indians. "Whatever one may say of the Jesuit Missions," Dr. K. Haebler writes ("Jahrbuch d. Geschichtwissenschaft", 1895), they absolutely merit the praise that theirs were the only settlements in which the Indians did not die out, but rather increased in number." Of the 80,000 Indians living in the Province of Santiago del Estero in the seventeenth century, only 80 remained about 1750; of of 40,000 in the Cordóba territory only 40. + To what extent the self-reliance of the Reduction Indians and their appreciation of the unencumbered right of property was actually developed under Jesuit training was proved by their conduct during the war of the seven Reductions (see below), which, as is well known, was occasioned by the refusal of the Indians to surrender their land to the Portuguese, and by the fact that, for the first time in this matter, they rebelled even against the will of the Fathers. The dissolution of the Reductions after the departure of the Jesuits was not the result of their system, but of that which succeeded it. IV. DECLINE OF THE REDUCTIONS The tragic decline of the Reductions is but an episode in the war against the Jesuit Order, which was begun about the middle of the eighteenth century, of which the trio of free-thinking ministers of France, Portugal, and Spain (namely, Choiseul, Pombal, and Aranda), were the principal leaders, and which ended with the dissolution of the order in 1773. The principal factors can be enumerated only briefly here. A. The Treaty of 1750 The difficulties existing between Spain and Portugal because of the boundaries of their American possessions supplied the all-powerful Minister of State, Pombal, the mortal enemy of the Jesuits, with the longed-for opportunity of perfecting a clever diplomatic coup, and which simultaneously furthered the interests of Portugal and his hatred of the Society of Jesus. The treaty, secretly entered upon in Madrid on 15 January, 1750, contained among its provisions the agreement that Spain retain the long-contested colony San Sacramento at the mouth of the Uruguay, and transfer to Portugal, in exchange, the seven Reductions lying on the left bank of the Uruguay, i.e. about two-thirds of the present Brazilian province of Rio Grande do Sul and one of the most valuable sections of the territory of La Plata. The treaty further provided (article 16) that the missionaries and their thirty thousand Indians leave their home, founded during a hundred and fifty years of patient toil, with bag and baggage and without delay, and settle on the opposite bank of the Uruguay. This change of location was, even from the viewpoint of colonial policy and political economy an incomprehensible micarriage of justice towards the missionaries and the Indians alike, whose wishes had not been consultedin any manner; it was "one of the most tyrannical commands that was ever issued in the recklessness of unfeeling power" (Southey, loc. cit., III, 449). Southey correctly adds that the weak Ferdinand VI had no idea of the importance of the treaty. B. The War of the Seven Reductions The treaty caused surprise and indignation in the Spanish colony of La Plata. The Viceroy of Peru, the royal Audiencia of Charcas, and the secular and ecclesiastical authorities unanimously sent protests of the most emphatic nature to the Spanish Cabinet. They were as unsuccessful as the earnest petitions of the Jesuits, who declared that it was impossible to approach the Indians with the cruel demand to give up their home and their possessions, solemnly granted them by so many royal decrees, and to surrender them without any cause or provocation to their enemies and oppressors, the Portuguese. It was all of no avail. Ignazio Visconti, the General of the Society, over-compliant to the wishes of the king, issued a strict command to the members of the order to yield to thc inevitable and to prevail upon the exiled Indians to submit, a task which they performed, at first indeed without success. In begging earnestly for a respite and in making every effort to have the cruel measure revoked they merely performed their duty; to present their conduct as insubordination, as has been done, is unjust. Their position was infinitely aggravated by the imprudent and domineering behaviour of the Spanish and Portuguese plenipotentiaries, and especially by the impassioned attitude of the commissary of the order, P. Luis Altamirano, S.J., who was appointed by the general and the king, and who treated as rebels his own brethren, who advised him to proceed with care and moderation. In spite of all the appeals of the Fathers, the Indians, goaded beyond bearing, rose in arms, but having no leader and lacking unity, were defeated in battle in February, 1758. Those who did not submit fled into the forests, where some of them carried on an unsuccessful guerilla warfare. The greater part of the Indians, following the advice of the Fathers, emigrated and settled in the Reductions on the Rivers Paraná and Uruguay (right bank). In 1762 there were still 2497 families, numbering 11,084 souls, scattered there in 17 Reductions; 3052 families, numbering 14,018 souls, had returned to their old home in 1781. For in that year Spain had cancelled the unfortunate treaty of 1750, acknowledging thereby the mistake that had been made. This War of the Seven Reductions was made to serve as one of the principal points of accusation advanced by the enemies of the Jesuits. A flood of defamatory pamphlets, falsified documents, and ridiculous fables, as, for instance, the tale of a king, Nicholas I of Paraguay, went out from an unscrupulous press which Pombal controlled, and was spread broadcast over Europe by the anti-Jesuit faction. Although their absolutely unhistoric character has long been clearly proven, these publications continue even now to vitiate the historical presentation of this period. The rest is known. On 2 April, 1767, Charles III of Spain, weak and duped, signed the edict which decreed the exile of the Jesuits from the Spanish possessions in America. It was the death-warrant of the Reductions of Paraguay. The expulsion was carried out by force by the Governor of La Plata, Marquess of Bucareli, in the most brutal manner. "The Jesuits in Psraguay, at least, by their conduct in their last public act, most amply vindicated their loyalty to the Spanish crown.... Nothing would have been easier, depleted as the viceroyalty was at the time of troops, than to have defied the forces which Bucareli had at his disposal and to have set up a Jesuit State, which would have taxed the utmost resources of the Spanish crown to overcome" . . . [but] "they made no fight, nor offered any resistance, allowing themselves to be taken as the sheep is seized by the butcher" (Cunninghame Graham, loc. cit., 267). The Jesuit Province of Paraguay numbered at that time 564 members, 12 colleges, 1 university, 1 novitiate, 3 houses for conducting retreats, 2 residences, 57 Reductions, and 113,716 Christian Indians. The leave-taking from the Indians was heart-rending. In vain they pleaded in the most fervent manner to be allowed to keep their Fathers or to be assured that they would return. They never returned. V. THE REDUCTIONS AFTER THE EXPULSION OF THE JESUITS The first fruits of the expulsion was the keenest disappointment. Except the splendid decorations of the churches, of which entire wagonloads were carried away, none of the hoped-for treasures were found. The spiritual administration of the Reductions was transferred to the Franciscans and others, the public administration to Spanish civil officials. Attempts were made to retain most of the institutions introduced by the Jesuits, which had previously been so severely censured -- a fact which sheds a characteristic light upon them -- but the rapid decline of the Reductions (in 1772 the Guaraní Reduction numbered 80,881 souls; in 1796 only 45,000; soon after there were only a few remnants left) showed that their vitality had been destroyed. The beautiful churches fell to pieces; the magnificent economic institutions stood forsaken. Terrific uprisings, the revolution, and its accompanying battles, and finally the despotic rule of the first republican presidents, Francia and Lopez, destroyed in less than fifty years what the spirit of Christian sacrifice had laboriously built up during a period of one hundred and fifty years. Today only beautiful ruins mark the place where once this great Christian commonwealth stood. But "the memory of the missionaries still continues to live in blessing among the Indians, who talk of the rule of the Padres as of their Golden Age" (Stein-Wappaeus, loc. cit., 1013). "The fact is," says the famous German traveller and ethnographer, Dr. Karl von der Steinen, "that the expulsion of the Jesuits was a severe blow for the native inhabitants of La Plata and the Amazon territories, from which it has never recovered." A. HUONDER Referendarii Referendarii The papal office of the referendarii (from refero, to inform) existed at the Byzantine Court. They were officials who reported to the emperor on the memorials of petitioners, and conveyed to the judges the orders of the emperor in connexion with such memorials. During the Merovingian period of the Frankish Empire, the official later known as chancellor (cancellarius) is called "referendarius". In the Papal Curia the office of "referendarii Apostolici" originated in the Middle Ages; their duty was to receive all petitions directed to the Holy See, to report on them to the pope, and to tender him advice. The treatment and decision varied according to the nature of the question. If a favour was concerned, it might be either granted or refused; if some dispute, the pope decided whether it should be referred to a judge. The referendarii were entrusted with all arrangements for these papal decisions, which they had to prepare for the pope's signature (signatura). From these referendarii developed the court of the Signatura (Collegium referendariorum Signaturæ votantium), concerning which there are various papal constitutions. Innocent VIII (1484-92) introduced a distinction between the referendarii on questions of favours and of justice, whence developed the "Signatura gratiæ" and the "Signatura justitiæ", each competent to give final decision within its sphere. In the court of the "Signatura justitiæ" developed a distinction between the prelates entitled to vote (proelati votantes) and those whose duties were confined to reporting on individual cases (proelati referendarii). The whole body gradually lost all practical importance, especially after the loss of the papal States, and was entirely abolished at the reorganization of the Curia by Pius X. BANGEN, Die röm. Kurie (Münster, 1864), 370 sqq. (Signatura justitioe), 391 sqq. (Sign. gaatioe); THOMASSINUS, Vetus et nova ecclesioe disciplina, III (Lyons, 1705), 546 sqq.; Die kathol. Kirche unserer Zeit, I (Berlin, 1899), 464-6. J. P. KIRSCH. The Reformation The Reformation The usual term for the religious movement which made its appearance in Western Europe in the sixteenth century, and which, while ostensibly aiming at an internal renewal of the Church, really led to a great revolt against it, and an abandonment of the principal Christian beliefs. We shall review the general characteristics of this movement from the following standpoints: I. Causes of the Reformation; II. Original Ideas and Purposes of the Reformers; III. Methods of Spreading the Reformation; IV. Spread of the Reformation in the Various Countries; V. Different Forms of the Reformation; VI. Results and Consequences of the Reformation. CAUSES OF THE REFORMATION The causes of the great religious revolt of the sixteenth century must be sought as far back as the fourteenth. The doctrine of the Church, it is true, had remained pure; saintly lives were yet frequent in all parts of Europe, and the numerous beneficient medieval institutions of the Church continued their course uninterruptedly. Whatever unhappy conditions existed were largely due to civil and profane influences or to the exercise of authority by ecclesiastics in civil spheres; they did not obtain everywhere with equal intensity, nor did they always occur simultaneous in the same country. Ecclesiastical and religious life exhibited in many places vigour and variety; works of education and charity abounded; religious art in all its forms had a living force; domestic missionaries were many and influential; pious and edifying literature was common and appreciated. Gradually, however, and largely owing to the variously hostile spirit of the civil powers, fostered and heightened by several elements of the new order, there grew up in many parts of Europe political and social conditions which hampered the free reformatory activities of the Church, and favoured the bold and unscrupulous, who seized a unique opportunity to let loose all the forces of heresy and schism so long held in check by the harmonious action of the ecclesiastical and civil authorities. A. Since the barbarian invasions the Church had effected a complete transformation and revival of the races of Western Europe, and a glorious development of religious and intellectual life. The papacy had become the powerful centre of the family of Christian nations, and as such had for centuries, in union with the episcopate and the clergy, displayed a most beneficent activity. With the ecclesiastical organization fully developed, it came to pass that the activities of the governing ecclesiastical bodies were no longer confined to the ecclesiastical domain, but affected almost every sphere of popular life. Gradually a regrettable worldliness manifested itself in many high ecclesiastics. Their chief object -- to guide man to his eternal goal -- claimed too seldom their attention, and worldly activities became in too many cases the chief interest. Political power, material possessions, privileged position in public life, the defence of ancient historical rights, earthly interests of various kinds were only too often the chief aim of many of the higher clergy. Pastoral solicitude, the specifically religious and ecclesiastical aim, fell largely into the background, notwithstanding various spirited and successful attempts to rectify the existing evils. B. Closely connected with the above were various abuses in the lives of the clergy and the people. In the Papal Curia political interests and a worldly life were often prominent. Many bishops and abbots (especially in countries where they were also territorial princes) bore themselves as secular rulers rather than as servants of the Church. Many members of cathedral chapters and other beneficed ecclesiastics were chiefly concerned with their income and how to increase it, especially by uniting several prebends (even episcopal sees) in the hands of one person, who thus enjoyed a larger income and greater power. Luxury prevailed widely among the higher clergy, while the lower clergy were often oppressed. The scientific and ascetic training of the clergy left much to be desired, the moral standard of many being very low, and the practice of celibacy not everywhere observed. Not less serious was the condition of many monasteries of men, and even of women (which were often homes for the unmarried daughters of the nobility). The former prestige of the clergy had thus suffered greatly, and its members were in many places regarded with scorn. As to the Christian people itself, in numerous districts ignorance, superstition, religious indifference, and immorality were rife. Nevertheless, vigorous efforts to revive life were made in most lands, and side by side with this moral decay appear numerous examples of sincere and upright Christian life. Such efforts, however, were too often confined to limited circles. From the fourteenth century the demand for "reform of head and members" (reformatio in capite et in membris) had been voiced with ever-increasing energy by serious and discerning men, but the same cry was taken up also by many who had no real desire for a religious renewal, wishing merely to reform others but not themselves, and seeking only their own interests. This call for reformation of head and members, discussed in many writings and in conversation with insistence on existing and often exaggerated abuses, tended necessarily to lower the clergy still more in the eyes of the people, especially as the councils of the fifteenth century, though largely occupied with attempts at reformation, did not succeed in accomplishing it extensively or permanently. C. The authority of the Holy See had also been seriously impaired, partly through the fault of some of its occupants and partly through that of the secular princes. The pope's removal to Avignon in the fourteenth century was a grievous error, since the universal character of the papacy was thus obscured in the minds of the Christian people. Certain phases of the quarrel with Louis the Bavarian and with the Franciscan Spirituals clearly indicate a decline of the papal power. The severest blow was dealt by the disastrous papal schism (1378-1418) which familiarized Western Christians with the idea that war might be made, with all spiritual and material weapons, against one whom many other Christians regarded as the only lawful pope. After the restoration of unity, the attempted reforms of the Papal Curia were not thorough. Humanism and the ideals of the Renaissance were zealously cultivated in Rome, and unfortunately the heathen tendencies of this movement, so opposed to the Christian moral law, affected too profoundly the life of many higher ecclesiastics, so that worldly ideas, luxury, and immorality rapidly gained ground at the centre of ecclesiastical life. When ecclesiastical authority grew weak at the fountain-head, it necessarily decayed elsewhere. There were also serious administrative abuses in the Papal Curia. The ever-increasing centralization of ecclesiastical administration had brought it about that far too many ecclesiastical benefices in all parts of Christendom were conferred at Rome, while in the granting of them the personal interests of the petitioner, rather than the spiritual needs of the faithful, were too often considered. The various kinds of reservation had also become a grievous abuse. Dissatisfaction was felt widely among the clergy at the many taxes imposed by the Curia on the incumbents of ecclesiastical benefices. From the fourteenth century these taxes called forth loud complaints. In proportion as the papal authority lost the respect of many, resentment grew against both the Curia and the Papacy. The reform councils of the fifteenth century, instead of improving the situation, weakened still more the highest ecclesiastical authority by reason of their anti-papal tendencies and measures. D. In princes and governments there had meanwhile developed a national consciousness, purely temporal and to a great extent hostile to the Church; the evil powers interfered more frequently in ecclesiastical matters, and the direct influence exercised by laymen on the domestic administration of the Church rapidly increased. In the course of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries arose the modern concept of the State. During the preceding period many matters of a secular or mixed nature had been regulated or managed by the Church, in keeping with the historical development of European society. With the growing self-consciousness of the State, the secular governments sought to control all matters that fell within their competence, which course, although in large measure justifiable, was new and offensive, and thus led to frequent collisions between Church and State. The State, moreover, owing to the close historical connection between the ecclesiastical and secular orders, encroached on the ecclesiastical domain. During the course of the Western Schism (1378-1418) opposing popes sought the support of the civil powers, and thus gave the latter abundant occasion to interfere in purely ecclesiastical affairs. Again, to strengthen their authority in the face of anti-papal tendencies, the popes of the fifteenth century made at various times certain concessions to the civil authorities, so that the latter came to regard ecclesiastical affairs as within their domain. For the future the Church was to be, not superordinate, but subordinate to the civil power, and was increasingly menaced with complete subjection. According as national self-consciousness developed in the various countries of Europe, the sense of the unity and interpendence of the Christian family of nations grew weaker. Jealousy between nations increased, selfishness gained ground, the rift between politics and Christian morality and religion grew wider, and discontent and perilous revolutionary tendencies spread rapidly among the people. Love of wealth was meanwhile given a great incentive by the discovery of the New World, the rapid development of commerce, and the new prosperity of the cities. In public life a many-sided and intense activity revealed itself, foreshadowing a new era and inclining the popular mind to changes in the hitherto undivided province of religion. E. The Renaissance and Humanism partly introduced and greatly fostered these conditions. Love of luxury was soon associated with the revival of the art and literature of Graeco-Roman paganism. The Christian religious ideal was to a great extent lost sight of; higher intellectual culture, previously confined in great measure to the clergy, but now common among the laity, assumed a secular character, and in only too many cases fostered actively and practically a pagan spirit, pagan morality and views. A crude materialism obtained among the higher classes of society and in the educated world, characterized by a gross love of pleasure, a desire for gain, and a voluptuousness of life diametrically opposed to Christian morality. Only a faint interest in the supernatural life survived. The new art of printing made it possible to disseminate widely the works of pagan authors and of their humanistic imitators. Immoral poems and romances, biting satires on ecclesiastical persons and institutions, revolutionary works and songs, were circulated in all directions and wrought immense harm. As Humanism grew, it waged violent war against the Scholasticism of the time. The traditional theological method had greatly degenerated owing to the finical, hair-splitting manner of treating theological questions, and a solid and thorough treatment of theology had unhappily disappeared from many schools and writings. The Humanists cultivated new methods, and based theology on the Bible and the study of the Fathers, an essentially good movement which might have renewed the study of theology, if properly developed. But the violence of the Humanists, their exaggerated attacks on Scholasticism, and the frequent obscurity of their teaching aroused strong opposition from the representative Scholastics. The new movement, however, had won the sympathy of the lay world and of the section of the clergy devoted to Humanism. The danger was only too imminent that the reform would not be confined to theological methods but would reach the content of ecclesiastical dogma, and would find widespread support in humanistic circles. The soil was thus ready for the growth of revolutionary movements in the religious sphere. Many grave warnings were indeed uttered, indicating the approaching danger and urging a fundamental reform of the actual evil conditions. Much had been effected in this direction by the reform movement in various religious orders and by the apostolic efforts of zealous individuals. But a general renewal of ecclesiastical life and a uniform improvement of evil conditions, beginning with Rome itself, the centre of the Church, were not promptly undertaken, and soon it needed only an external impulse to precipitate a revolution, which was to cut off from the unity of the Church great territories of Central and almost all Northern Europe. II. ORIGINAL IDEAS AND PURPOSES OF THE REFORMERS The first impulse to secession was supplied by the opposition of Luther in Germany and of Zwingli in German Switzerland to the promulgation by Leo X of an indulgence for contributions towards the building of the new St. Peter's at Rome. For a long time it had been customary for the popes to grant indulgences for buildings of public utility (e.g. bridges). In such cases the true doctrine of indulgences as a remission of the punishment due to sin (not of guilt of sin) had been always upheld, and the necessary conditions (especially the obligation of a contrite confession to obtain absolution from sin) always inculcated. But the almsgiving for a good object, prescribed only as a good work supplementary to the chief conditions for the gaining of the indulgence, was often prominently emphasized. The indulgence commissaries sought to collect as much money as possible in connexion with the indulgence. Indeed, frequently since the Western Schism the spiritual needs of the people did not receive as much consideration as a motive for promulgating an indulgence, as the need of the good object by promoting which the indulgence was to be gained, and the consequent need of obtaining alms for this purpose. The war against the Turks and other crises, the erection of churches and monasteries, and numerous other causes led to the granting of indulgences in the fifteenth century. The consequent abuses were heightened by the fact that secular rulers frequently forbade the promulgation of indulgences within their territories, consenting only on condition that a portion of the receipts should be given to them. In practice, therefore, and in the public mind the promulgation of indulgences took on an economic aspect, and, as they were frequent, many came to regard them as an oppressive tax. Vainly did earnest men raise their voices against this abuse, which aroused no little bitterness against the ecclesiastical order and particularly the Papal Curia. The promulgation of indulgences for the new St. Peter's furnished Luther with an opportunity to attack indulgences in general, and this attack was the immediate occasion of the Reformation in Germany. A little later the same motive led Zwingli to put forth his erroneous teachings, thereby inaugurating the Reformation in German Switzerland. Both declared that they were attacking only the abuses of indulgences; however, they soon taught doctrine in many ways contrary to the teaching of the Church. The great applause which Luther received on his first appearance, both in humanistic circles and among some theologians and some of the earnest-minded laity, was due to the dissatisfaction with the existing abuses. His own erroneous views and the influence of a portion ofhis followers very soon drove Luther into rebellion against ecclesiastical authority as such, and eventually led him into open apostasy and schism. His chief original supporters were among the Humanists, the immoral clergy, and the lower grades of the landed nobility imbued with revolutionary tendencies. It was soon evident that he meant to subvert all the fundamental institutions of the Church. Beginning by proclaiming the false doctrine of "justification by faith alone", he later rejected all supernatural remedies (especially the sacraments and the Mass), denied the meritoriousness of good works (thus condemning monastic vows and Christian asceticism in general), and finally rejected the institution of a genuine hierarchical priesthood (especially the papacy) in the Church. His doctrine of the Bible as the sole rule of faith, with rejection of all ecclesiastical authority, established subjectivism in matters of faith. By this revolutionary assault Luther forfeited the support of many serious persons indisposed to break with the Church but on the other hand won over all the anti-ecclesiastical elements, including numerous monks and nuns who left the monasteries to break their vows, and many priests who espoused his cause with the intention of marrying. The support of his sovereign, Frederick of Saxony, was of great importance. Very soon secular princes and municipal magistrates made the Reformation a pretext for arbitrary interference in purely ecclesiastical and religious affairs, for appropriating ecclesiastical property and disposing of it at pleasure, and for deciding what faith their subjects should accept. Some followers of Luther went to even greater extremes. The Anabaptists and the "Iconoclasts" revealed the extremest possibilities of the principles advocated by Luther, while in the Peasants' War the most oppressed elements of German society put into practice the doctrine of the reformer. Ecclesiastical affairs were now reorganized on the basis of the new teachings; henceforth the secular power is ever more clearly the supreme judge in purely religious matters, and completely disregards any independent ecclesiastical authority. A second centre of the Reformation was established by Zwingli at Zurich. Though he differed in many particulars from Luther, and was much more radical than the latter in his transformation of the ceremonial of the Mass, the aims of his followers were identical with those of the Lutherans. Political considerations played a great role in the development of Zwinglianism, and the magistracy of Zurich, after a majority of its members had declared for Zwingli, became a zealous promoter of the Reformation. Arbitrary decrees were issued by the magistrates concerning ecclesiastical organization; the councillors who remained true to the Catholic Faith were expelled from the council, and Catholic services were forbidden in the city. The city and the canton of Zurich were reformed by the civil authorities according to the ideas of Zwingli. Other parts of German Switzerland experienced a similar fate. French Switzerland developed later its own peculiar Reformation; this was organized at Geneva by Calvin. Calvinism is distinguished from Lutheranism and Zwinglianism by a more rigid and consistent form of doctrine and by the strictness of its moral precepts, which regulate the whole domestic and public life of the citizen. The ecclesiastical organization of Calvin was declared a fundamental law of the Republic of Geneva, and the authorities gave their entire support to the reformer in the establishment of his new court of morals. Calvin's word was the highest authority, and he tolerated no contradiction of his views or regulations. Calvinism was introduced into Geneva and the surrounding country by violence. Catholic priests were banished, and the people oppressed and compelled to attend Calvinistic sermons. In England the origin of the Reformation was entirely different. Here the sensual and tyrannical Henry VIII, with the support of Thomas Cranmer, whom the king made the Archbishop of Canterbury, severed his country from ecclesiastical unity because the pope, as the true guardian of the Divine law, refused to recognize the invalid marriage of the king with Anne Boleyn during the lifetime of his lawful wife. Renouncing obedience to the pope, the despotic monarch constituted himself supreme judge even in ecclesiastical affairs; the opposition of such good men as Thomas More and John Fisher was overcome in blood. The king wished, however, to retain unchanged both the doctrines of the Church and the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and caused a series of doctrines and institutions rejected by Luther and his followers to be strictly prescribed by Act of Parliament (Six Articles) under the pain of death. In England also the civil power constituted itself supreme judge in matters of faith, and laid the foundation for further arbitrary religious innovations. Under the following sovereign, Edward VI (1547-53), the Protestant party gained the upped hand, and thenceforth began to promote the Reformation in England according to the principles of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. Here also force was employed to spread the new doctrines. This last effort of the Reformation movement was practically confined to England (see ANGLICANISM). III. METHOD OF SPREADING THE REFORMATION In the choice of means for extending the Reformation its founders and supporters were not fastidious, availing themselves of any factor which could further their movement. A. Denunciation of real and supposed abuses in religious and ecclesiastical life was, especially at the beginning, one of the chief methods employed by the reformers to promote their designs. By this means they won over many who were dissatisfied with existing conditions, and were ready to support any movement that promised a change. But it was especially the widespread hatred of Rome and of the members of the hierarchy, fostered by the incessantly repeated and only too often justifiable complaints about abuses, that most efficiently favoured the reformers, who very soon violently attacked the papal authority, recognizing in it the supreme guardian of the Catholic Faith. Hence the multitude of lampoons, often most vulgar, against the pope, the bishops, and in general against all representatives of ecclesiastical authority. These pamphlets were circulated everywhere among the people, and thereby respect for authority was still more violently shaken. Painters prepared shameless and degrading caricatures of the pope, the clergy, and the monks, to illustrate the text of hostile pamphlets. Waged with every possible weapon (even the most reprehensible), this warfare against the representatives of the Church, as the supposed originators of all ecclesiastical abuses, prepared the way for the reception of the Reformation. A distinction was no longer drawn between temporary and corrigible abuses and fundamental supernatural Christian truths; together with the abuses, important ecclesiastical institutions, resting on Divine foundation were simultaneously abolished. B. Advantage was also taken of the divisions existing in many places between the ecclesiastical and civil authorities. The development of the State, in its modern form, among the Christian peoples of the West gave rise to many disputes between the clergy and laity, between bishops and the cities, between monasteries and the territorial lords. When the reformers withdrew from the clergy all authority, especially all influence in civil affairs, they enabled the princes and municipal authorities to end these long-pending strifes to their own advantage by arbitrarily arrogating to themselves all disputed rights, banishing the hierarchy whose rights they usurped, and then establishing by their own authority a completely new ecclesiastical organization. The Reformed clergy thus possessed from the beginning only such rights as the civil authorities were pleased to assign them. Consequently the Reformed national Churches were completely subject to the civil authorities, and the Reformers, who had entrusted to the civil power the actual execution of their principles, had now no means of ridding themselves of this servitude. C. In the course of centuries an immense number of foundations had been made for religious, charitable, and educational objects, and had been provided with rich material resources. Churches, monasteries, hospitals, and schools had often great incomes and extensive possessions, which aroused the envy of secular rulers. The Reformation enabled the latter to secularize this vast ecclesiastical wealth, since the leaders of the Reformation constantly inveighed against the centralization of such riches in the hands of the clergy. The princes and municipal authorities were thus invited to seize ecclesiastical property, and employ it for their own purposes. Ecclesiastical principalities, which were entrusted to the incumbents only as ecclesiastical persons for administration and usufruct, were, in defiance of actual law, by exclusion of the incumbents, transformed into secular principalities. In this way the Reformers succeeded in depriving the Church of the temporal wealth provided for its many needs, and in diverting the same to their own advantage. D. Human emotions, to which the Reformers appealed in the most various ways, were another means of spreading the Reformation. The very ideas which these innovators defended -- Christian freedom, license of thought, the right and capacity of each individual to found his own faith on the Bible, and other similar principles -- were very seductive for many. The abolition of religious institutions which acted as a curb on sinful human nature (confession, penance, fasting, abstinence, vows) attracted the lascivious and frivolous. The warfare against the religious orders, against virginity and celibacy, against the practices of a higher Christian life, won for the Reformation a great number of those who, without a serious vocation, had embraced the religious life from purely human and worldly motives, and who wished to be rid of obligations towards God which had grown burdensome, and to be free to gratify their sensual cravings. This they could do the more easily, as the confiscation of the property of the Churches and monasteries rendered it possible to provide for the material advancement of ex-monks and ex-nuns, and of priests who apostasized. In the innumerable writings and pamphlets intended for the people the Reformers made it their frequent endeavour to excite the basest human instincts. Against the pope, the Roman Curia, and the bishops, priests, monks, and nuns who had remained true to their Catholic convictions, the most incredible lampoons and libels were disseminated. In language of the utmost coarseness Catholic doctrines and institutions were distorted and ridiculed. Among the lower, mostly uneducated, and abandoned elements of the population, the baser passions and instincts were stimulated and pressed into the service of the Reformation. E. At first many bishops displayed great apathy towards the Reformers, attaching to the new movement no importance; its chiefs were thus given a longer time to spread their doctrines. Even later, many worldly-inclined bishops, though remaining true to the Church, were very lax in combating heresy and in employing the proper means to prevent its further advance. The same might be said of the parochial clergy, who were to a great extent ignorant and indifferent, and looked on idly at the defection of the people. The Reformers, on the other hand, displayed the greatest zeal for their cause. Leaving no means unused by word and pen, by constant intercourse with similarly minded persons, by popular eloquence, which the leaders of the Reformation were especially skilled in employing, by sermons and popular writings appealing to the weaknesses of the popular character, by inciting the fanaticism of the masses, in short by clever and zealous utilization of every opportunity and opening that presented itself, they proved their ardour for the spread of their doctrines. Meanwhile they proceeded with great astuteness, purported to adhere strictly to the essential truths of the Catholic Faith, retained at first many of the external ceremonies of Catholic worship, and declared their intention of abolishing only things resting on human invention, seeking thus to deceive the people concerning the real objects of their activity. They found indeed many pious and zealous opponents in the ranks of the regular and secular clergy, but the great need, especially at the beginning, was a universally organized and systematically conducted resistance to this false reformation. F. Many new institutions introduced by the Reformers flattered the multitude -- e.g. the reception of the chalice by the whole people, the use of the vernacular at Divine service, the popular religious hymns used during services, the reading of the Bible, the denial of the essential difference between clergy and laity. In this category may be included doctrines which had an attraction for many -- e.g. justification by faith alone without reference to good works, the denial of freedom of will, which furnished an excuse for moral lapses, personal certainty of salvation in faith (i.e. subjective confidence in the merits of Christ), the universal priesthood, which seemed to give all a direct share in sacerdotal functions and ecclesiastical administration. G. Finally, one of the chief means employed in promoting the spread of the Reformation was the use of violence by the princes and the municipal authorities. Priests who remained Catholic were expelled and replaced by adherents of the new doctrine, and the people were compelled to attend the new services. The faithful adherents of the Church were variously persecuted, and the civil authorities saw to it that the faith of the descendants of those who had strongly opposed the Reformation was gradually sapped. In many places the people were severed from the Church by brutal violence; elsewhere to deceive the people the ruse was employed of retaining the Catholic rite outwardly for a long time, and prescribing for the reformed clergy the ecclesiastical vestments of the Catholic worship. The history of the Reformation shows incontestably that the civil power was the chief factor in spreading it in all lands, and that in the last analysis it was not religious, but dynastic, political, and social interests which proved decisive. Add to this that the princes and municipal magistrates who had joined the Reformers tyrannized grossly over the consciences of their subjects and burghers. All must accept the religion prescribed by the civil ruler. The principle "Cuius regio, illius et religio" (Religion goes with the land) is an outgrowth of the Reformation, and was by it and its adherents, wherever they possessed the necessary power, put into practice. IV. SPREAD OF THE REFORMATION IN THE VARIOUS COUNTRIES A. Germany and German Switzerland The Reformation was inaugurated in Germany when Luther affixed his celebrated theses to the doors of the church at Wittenberg, 31 October, 1517. From the consequences of papal excommunication and the imperial ban Luther was protected by Elector Frederick of Saxony, his territorial sovereign. While outwardly adopting a neutral attitude, the latter encouraged the formation of Lutheran communities within his domains, after Luther had returned to Wittenberg and resumed there the leadership of the reform movement, in opposition to the Anabaptists. It was Luther who introduced the arbitrary regulations for Divine worship and religious functions; in accordance with these, Lutheran communities were established, whereby an organized heretical body was opposed to the Catholic Church. Among the other German princes who early associated themselves with Luther and seconded his efforts were: + John of Saxony (the brother of Frederick); + Grand-Master Albet of Prussia, who converted the lands of his order into a secular duchy, becoming its hereditary lord on accepting Lutheranism; + Dukes Henry and Albert of Mecklenburg; + Count Albert of Mansfield; + Count Edzard of East Friesland; + Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who declared definitively for the Reformation after 1524. Meanwhile in several German imperial cities the reform movement was initiated by followers of Luther -- especially in Ulm, Augsburg, Nuremburg, Nördlingen, Strasburg, Constance, Mainz, Erfurt, Zwickau, Magdeburg, Frankfort-on-the-Main, and Bremen. The Lutheran princes formed the Alliance of Torgau on 4 May, 1526, for their common defence. By their appearance at the Diet of Speyer in 1526 they secured the adoption of the resolution that, with respect to the Edict of Worms against Luther and his erroneous doctrine, each might adopt such attitude as he could answer for before God and emperor. Liberty to introduce the Reformation into their territories was thus granted to the territorial rulers. The Catholic estates became discouraged, while the Lutheran princes grew ever more extravagant in their demands. Even the entirely moderate decrees of the Diet of Speyer (1529) drew a protest from the Lutheran and Reformed estates. The negotiations at the Diet of Augsburg (1530), at which the estates rejecting the Catholic faith elaborated their creed (Augsburg Confession), showed that the restoration of religious unity was not to be effected. The Reformation extended wider and wider, both Lutheranism and Zwinglianism being introduced into other German territories. Besides the above-mentioned principalities and cities, it had made its way by 1530 into the principalities of Bayreuth, Ansbach, Anhalt, and Brunswick-Lunenburg, and in the next few years into Pomerania, Jülich-Cleve, and Wurtemberg. In Silesia and the duchy of Liegnitz the Reformation also made great strides. In 1531 the Smalkaldic League, an ofensive and defensive alliance, was concluded between the Protestant princes and cities. Especially after its renewal (1535) this league was joined by other cities and princes who had espoused the Reformation, e.g. Count Palatine Rupert of Zweibrücken, Count William of Nassau, the cities of Augsburg, Kempten, Hamburg, and others. Further negotiations and discussions between the religious parties were instituted with a view to ending the schism, but without success. Among the methods adopted by the Protestants in spreading the Reformation force was ever more freely employed. The Diocese of Naumburg-Zeitz becoming vacant, Elector John Frederick of Saxony installed by force in the see the Lutheran preacher Nicholas Amsdorf (instead of the cathedral provost, Julius von Pflug, chosen by the chapter) and himself undertook the secular government. Duke Henry of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel was exiled in 1542, and the Reformation introduced into his domains by force. In Cologne itself the Reformation was very nearly established by force. Some ecclesiastical princes proved delinquent, taking no measures against the innovations that spread daily in widening circles. Into Pfalz-Neuburg and the towns of Halberstadt, Halle, etc., the Reformation found entrance. The collapse of the Smalkaldic League (1547) somewhat stemmed the progress of the Reformation: Julius von Pflug was installed in his diocese of Naumburg, Duke Henry of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel recovered his lands, and Hermann von Wied had to resign the Diocese of Cologne, where the Catholic Faith was thus maintained. The formula of union established by the Diet of Augsburg in 1547-48 (Augsburg Interim) did not succeed in its object, although introduced into many Protestant territories. Meanwhile the treachery of Prince Moritz of Saxony, who made a secret treaty with Henry II of France, Germany's enemy, and formed a confederation with the Protestant princes William of Hesse, John Albert of Mecklenburg, and Albert of Brandenburg, to make war on the emperor and empire, broke the power of the emperor. At the suggestion of Charles, King Ferdinand convened the Diet of Augsburg in 1555, at which, after long negotiations, the compact known as the Religious Peace of Augsburg was concluded. This pact contained the following provisions in its twenty-two paragraphs: + between the Catholic imperial estates and those of the Augsburg Confession (the Zwinglians were not considered in the treaty) peace and harmony was to be observed; + no estate of the empire was to compel another estate or its subjects to change religion, nor was it to make war on such on account of religion; + should an ecclesiastical dignitary espouse the Augsburg Confession, he was to lose his ecclesiastical dignity with all offices and emoluments connected with it, without prejudice, however, to his honour and private possession. Against this eccclesiastical proviso the Lutheran estates protested: + the holders of the Augsburg Confession were to be left in possession of all ecclesiastical property which they had held since the beginning of the Reformation; after 1555 neither party might seize anything from the other; + until the conclusion of peace between the contending religious bodies (to be effected at the approaching Diet of Ratisbon) the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Catholic hierarchy was suspended in the territories of the Augsburg Confession; + should any conflict arise between the parties concerning land or rights, an attempt must first be made to settle such disputes by arbitration; + no imperial estate might protect the subjects of another estate from the authorities; + every citizen of the Empire had the right of choosing either of the two recognized religions and of practising it in another territory without loss of rights, honour, or property (without prejudice, however, to the rights of the territorial lord over his peasantry); + this peace was to include the free knights and the free cities of the empire, and the imperial courts had to be guided exactly by its provisions; + oaths might be administered either in the name of God or of His Holy Gospel. By this peace the religious schism in the German Empire was definitively established; henceforth the Catholic and Protestant estates are opposing camps. Almost all Germany, from the Netherlands frontier in the west to the Polish frontier in the east, the territory of the Teutonic Order in Prussia, Central Germany with the exception of the greater part of the western portion, and (in South Germany) Wurtemburg, Ansbach, Pfalz-Zweibrucken, and other small domains, with numerous free cities, had espoused the Lutheran. Moreover, in the south and southeast, which remained prevailingly Catholic, it found more or less numerous supporters. Calvinism also spread fairly widely. But the Peace of Augsburg failed to secure the harmony hoped for. In defiance of its express provisions, A series of ecclesiastical principalities (2 archbishoprics, 12 bishoprics, and numerous abbeys) were reformed and secularized before the beginning of the seventeenth century. The Catholic League was formed for the protection of Catholic interests, and to offset the Protestant Union. The Thirty Years' War soon followed, a struggle most ominous for Germany, since it surrendered the country to its enemies from the west and north, and destroyed the power, wealth, and influence of the German Empire. The Peace of Westphalia, concluded in 1648 with France at Munster and with Sweden at Osnabruck, confirmed definitely the status of religious schism in Germany, placed both the Cavinists and the Reformed on the same footing as the Lutherans, and granted the estates immediately subject to the emperor the right of introducing the Reformation. Henceforth territorial sovereigns could compel their subjects to adopt a given religion, subject to the recognition of the independence of those who in 1624 enjoyed the right to hold their own religious services. State Absolutism in religious matters had now attained its highest development in Germany. In German Switzerland a similar course was pursued. After Zurich had accepted and forcibly introduced the Reformation, Basle followed its example. In Basle John Oecolampadius and Wolfgang Capito associated themselves with Zwingli, spread his teaching, and won a victory for the new faith. The Catholic members of the Great Council were expelled. Similar results followed in Appenzell Outer Rhodes, Schaffhausen, and Glarus. After long hesitation, the Reformation was accepted also at Berne, where an apostate Carthusian, Franz Kolb, with Johann and Berthold Haller, preached Zwinglianism; all the monasteries were suppressed, and great violence was exercised to force Zwinglianism upon the people of the territory. St. Gall, where Joachim Vadianus preached, and a great portion of Graubunden also adopted the innovations. Throughout the empire Zwinglianism was a strong rival of Lutheranism, and a violent conflict between the two confessions began, despite constant negotiations for union. Attempts were not wanting in Switzerland to terminate the unhappy religious division. In May, 1526, a great religious disputation was held at Baden, the Catholics being represented by Eck, Johann Faber, and Murner, and the Reformed by Oecolampadius and Berthold Haller. The result was favourable to the Catholics; most of the representatives of the estates present declared against the Reformation, and writings of Luther and Zwingli were prohibited. This aroused the opposition of the Reformed estates. In 1527 Zurich formed an alliance with Constance; Basle, Bern, and other Reformed estates joined the Confederacy in 1528. In self-defence the Catholic estates formed an alliance in 1529 for the protection of the true faith within their territories. In the resulting war the Catholic estates gained a victory at Kappel, and Zwingli was slain on the battlefield. Zurich and Berne were granted peace on condition that no place should disturb another on account of religion, and that Catholic services might be freely held in the common territories. The Catholic Faith was restored in certain districts of Glarus and Appenzell; the Abbey of St. Gall was restored to the abbot, though the town remained Reformed. In Zurich, Basle, Berne, and Schaffhausen, however, the Catholics were unable to secure their rights. The Swiss Reformers soon composed formal statements of their beliefs; especially noteworthy were the First Helvetic Confession (Confessio Helvetica I), composed by Bullinger, Myconius, Grynaeus, and others (1536), and the Second Confession composed by Bullinger in 1564 (Confessio Helvetica II); the latter was adopted in most Reformed territories of the Zwinglian type. B. The Northern Kingdoms: Denmark, Norway and Sweden The Lutheran Reformation found an early entrance into Denmark, Norway (then united to Denmark), and Sweden. Its introduction was primarily due to royal influence. King Christian II of Denmark (1513-23) welcomed the Reformation as a means of weakening the nobility and especially the clergy (who possessed extensive property) and thereby extending the power of the throne. His first attempt to spread the teaching of Master Martin Luther in 1520 met with little success: the barons and prelates soon deposed him for tyranny, and in his place elected his uncle Duke Frederick of Schleswig and Holstein. The latter, who was a secret follower of Lutheranism, deceived the bishops and nobility, and swore at his coronation in 1523 to maintain the Catholic Religion. Seated on the throne, however, he favoured the Reformers, especially the preacher Hans Tausen. At the Diet of Odensee in 1527 he granted freedom of religion to the Reformers, permitted the clergy to marry, and reserved to the king the confirmation of ll episcopal appointments. Lutheranism was spread by violent means, and the faithful adherents of the Catholic religion were oppressed. His son, Christian III who had already "reformed" Holstein, threw into prison the Danish bishops who protested against his succession, and courted the support of the barons. With the exception of Bishop Ronow of Roskilde, who died in prison (1544), all the bishops agreed to resign and to refrain from opposing the new doctrine, whereupon they were set at liberty and their property was restored to them. All the priests who opposed the Reformation were expelled, the monasteries suppressed, and the Reformation introduced everywhere by force. In 1537 Luther's companion Johann Bugenhagen (Pomeranus) was summoned from Wittenberg to Denmark to establish the Reformation in accordance with the ideas of Luther. At the Diet of Copenhagen in 1546 the last rights of the Catholics were withdrawn; right of inheritance and eligibility for any office were denied them, and Catholic priests were forbidden to reside in the country under penalty of death. In Norway Archbishop Olaus of Trondhjem apostatized to Lutheranism, but was compelled to leave the country, as a supporter of the deposed king, Christian II. With the aid of the Danish nobility Christian III introduced the Reformation into Norway by force. Iceland resisted longer royal absolutism and the religious innovations. The unflinching Bishop of Holum, Jon Arason, was beheaded, and the Reformation spread rapidly after 1551. Some externals of the Catholic period were retained -- the title of bishop and to some extent the liturgical vestments and forms of worship. Into Sweden also the Reformation was introduced for political reasons by the secular ruler. Gustavus Vasa, who had been given to Christian II of Denmark in 1520 as a hostage and had escaped to Lubeck, there became acquainted with the Lutheran teaching and recognized the services it could render him. Returning to Sweden, he became the first imperial chancellor, and, after being elected king on the deposition of Christian II in Denmark, attempted to convert Sweden into a hereditary monarchy, but had to yield to the opposition of the clergy and nobility. The Reformation helped him to attain his desire, although its introduction was difficult on account of the great fidelity of the people to the Catholic Faith. He appointed to high positions two Swedes, the brothers Olaf and Lorenz Peterson, who had studied at Wittenberg and had accepted Luther's teaching; one was appointed court chaplain at Stockholm and the other professor at Upsala. Both laboured in secret for the spread of Lutheranism, and won many adherents, including the archdeacon Lorenz Anderson, whom the king thereupon named his chancellor. In his dealings with Pope Adrian VI and his legates the king simulated the greatest fidelity to the Church, while he was giving ever-increased support to religious innovations. The Dominicans, who offered a strong opposition to his designs, were banished from the kingdom, and the bishops who resisted were subjected to all kinds of oppression. After a religious disputation at the University of Upsala the king assigned the victory to Olaf Peterson and proceeded to Lutheranize the university, to confiscate ecclesiastical property, and to employ every means to compel the clergy to accept the new doctrine. A popular rebellion gave him an opportunity of accusing the Catholic bishops of high treason, and in 1527 the Archbishop of Upsala and the Bishop of Westraes were executed. Many ecclesiastics acceded to the wishes of the king; others resisted and had to endure violent persecution, an heroic resistance being offered by the nuns of Wadstena. After the Diet of Westraes in 1527 great concessions were made to the king through fear of fresh subjection to the Danes, especially the right of confiscating church property, of ecclesiastical appointments and removals, etc. Some of the nobles were soon won over to the king's side, when it was made optional to take back all the goods donated to the Church by one's ancestors sine 1453. Clerical celibacy was abolished, and the vernacular introduced into Divine service. The king constituted himself supreme authority in religious matters, and severed the country from Catholic unity. The Synod of Orebro (1529) completed the Reformation, although most of the external rites, the images in the churches, the liturgical vestments, and the titles of archbishop and bishop were retained. Later (1544) Gustavus Vasa made the title to the throne hereditary in his family. The numerous risings directed against him and his innovations were put down with bloody violence. At a later period arose other great religious contests, likewise of a political character. Calvinism also spread to some extent, and Eric XIV (1560-68) endeavoured to promote it. He was, however, dethroned by the nobility for his tyranny, and his brother John III (1568-92) named king. The latter restored the Catholic Faith and tried to restore the land to the unity of the Church. But on the death of his first wife, the zealous Catholic Princess Katherina, his ardour declined in the face of numerous difficulties, and his second wife favoured Lutheranism. On John's death his son Sigismund, already King of Poland and thoroughly Catholic in sentiment, became King of Sweden. However, his uncle Duke Charles, the chancellor of the kingdom, gave energetic support to the Reformation, and the Augsburg Confession was introduced at the National Synod of Upsala in 1593. Against the chancellor and the Swedish nobility Sigismund found himself powerless; finally (1600) he was deposed as an apostate from the "true doctrine", and Charles was appointed king. Gustavus Adolphus (1611-32), Charles' son, used the Reformation to increase the power of Sweden by his campaigns. The Reformation was then successfully enforced throughout Sweden. C. France and French Switzerland In certain humanistic circles in France there originated at an early date a movement favourable to the Reformation. The centre of this movement was Meaux, where Bishop Guillaume Briconnet favoured the humanistic and mystic ideas, and where Professor Lefevre d'Etaples, W. Farel, and J. de Clerc, humanists with Lutheran tendencies, taught. However, the Court, the university, and the Parlement opposed the religious innovations, and the Lutheran community of Meaux was dissolved. More important centres of the Reformation were found in the South, where the Waldensians had prepared the soil. Here public riots occurred during which images of Christ and the saints were destroyed. The parlements in most cases took energetic measures against the innovators, although in certain quarters the latter found protectors -- especially Margaret of Valois, sister of King Francis I and wife of Henry d'Albret, King of Navarre. The leaders of the Reformation in Germany sought to win over King Francis I, for political reasons an ally of the Protestant German princes; the king, however, remained true to the Church, and suppressed the reform movements throughout his land. In the southeast districts, especially in Provence and Dauphine, the supporters of the new doctrines increased through the efforts of Reformers from Switzerland and Strasburg, until finally the desecration and plundering of churches compelled the king to take energetic steps against them. After Calvinism had established itself in Geneva, its influence grew rapidly in French reform circles. Calvin appeared at Paris as defender of the new religious movement in 1533, dedicated to the French king in 1536 his "Institutiones Christianae Religionis", and went to Geneva in the same year. Expelled from Geneva, he returned in 1541, and began there the final establishment of his religious organization. Geneva, with its academy inaugurated by Calvin, was a leading centre of the Reformation and affected principally France. Pierre le Clerc established the first Calvinistic community at Paris; other communities were established at Lyons, Orléans, Angers, and Rouen, repressive measures proving of little avail. Bishop Jacques Spifamius of Nevers lapsed into Calvinism, and in 1559 Paris witnessed the assembly of a general synod of French Reformers, which adopted a Calvinistic creed and introduced the Swiss presbyteral constitution for the Reformed communities. Owing to the support of the Waldensians, to the dissemination of reform literature from Geneva, Basle, and Strasburg, and to the steady influx of preachers from these cities, the adherents of the Reformation increased in France. On the death of King Henry II (1559) the Calvinist Huguenots wished to take advantage of the weakness of the government to increase their power. The queen-dowager, Catherine de Medici, was an ambitious intriguer, and pursued a time-serving policy. Political aspirations soon became entangled with the religious movement, which thereby assumed wider proportions and a greater importance. From opposition to the ruling line and to the powerful and zealously Catholic dukes of Guise, the princes of the Bourbon line became the protectors of the Calvinists; these were Antoine de Vendôme, King of Navarre, and his brothers, especially Louis de Condé. They were joined by the Constable de Montmorency, Admiral Coligny and his brother d'Andelot, and Cardinal Odet de Châtillon, Bishop of Beauvais. In spite of anti-heretical laws, Calvinism was making steady progress in the South of France, when on 17 January, 1562, the queen-dowager, regent for the young Charles IX, issued an edict of toleration, allowing the Huguenots the free practice of their religion outside the towns and without weapons, but forbidding all interference with and acts of violence against Catholic institutions, and ordering the restitution of all churches and all ecclesiastical property taken from the Catholics. Rendered thereby only more audacious, the Calvinists committed, especially in the South, revolting acts of violence against the Catholics, putting to death Catholic priests even in the suburbs of Paris. The occurrence at Vassy in Champagne on 1 March, 1562, where the retinue of the Duke of Guise came into conflict with the Huguenots, inaugurated the first religious and civil war in France. Although this ended with the defeat of the Huguenots, it occasioned great losses to the Catholics of France. Relics of saints were burned and scattered, magnificent churches reduced to ashes, and numerous priests murdered. The Edict of Amboise granted new favours to the Calvinistic nobles, although the earlier edict of tolerance was withdrawn. Five other civil wars followed, during which occurred the massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day (24 August, 1572). It was not until the line of Valois had become extinct with Henry III (1589), and Henry of Navarre (who embraced Catholicism in 1593) of the Bourbon line had ascended the throne, that the religious wars were brought to an end by the Edict of Nantes (13 April, 1598); this granted the Calvinists not only full religious freedom and admission to all public offices, but even a privileged position in the State. Ever-increasing difficulties of a political nature arose, and Cardinal Richelieu aimed at ending the influential position of the Huguenots. The capture of their chief fortress, La Rochelle (28 October, 1628), finally broke the power of the French Calvinists as a political entity. Later, many of their number returned to Catholicism, although there still remained numerous adherents of Calvinism in France. D. Italy and Spain While in both these lands there appeared isolated supporters of the Reformation, no strong or extensive organization arose. Here and there in Italy influential individuals (e.g. Vittoria Colonna and her circle) favoured the reform movement, but they desired such to occur within, not as a rebellion against the Church. A few Italians embraced Lutheranism or Calvinism, e.g. John Valdez, secretary of the Viceroy of Naples. In the cities of Turin, Pavia, Venice, Ferrara (where Duchess Renata favoured the Reformation), and Florence might be found adherents of the German and Swiss Reformers, although not so extreme as their prototypes. The more prominent had to leave the country -- thus Pietro Paolo Vergerio, who fled to Switzerland and thence to Wittenberg; Bernardino Ochino, who fled to Geneva and was later professor at Oxford; Petrus Martyr Vermigli, who fled to Zurich, and was subsequently active at Oxford, Strasburg, and again at Zurich. By the vigorous inauguration of true ecclesiastical reform in the spirit of the Council of Trent, through the activity of numerous saintly men (such as St. Charles Borromeo and Philip Neri), through the vigilance of the bishops and the diligence of the Inquisition, the Reformation was excluded from Italy. In some circles rationalistic and anti-trinitarian tendencies showed themselves, and Italy was the birthplace of the two heresiarchs, Laelius Socinus and his nephew Faustus Socinus, the founders of Socinianism. The course of events was the same in Spain as in Italy. Despite some attempts to disseminate anti-ecclesiastical writings in the country, the Reformation won no success, thanks to the zeal displayed by the ecclesiastical and public authorities in counter-acting its efforts. The few Spaniards who accepted the new doctrines were unable to develop any reforming activity at home, and lived abroad - e.g. Francisco Enzinas (Dryander), who made a translation of the Bible for Spaniards, Juan Diaz, Gonsalvo Montano, Miguel Servede (Servetus), who was condemned by Calvin at Geneva for his doctrine against the Trinity and burnt at the stake. E. Hungary and Transylvania The Reformation was spread in Hungary by Hungarians who had studied at Wittenberg and had there embraced Lutheranism. In 1525 stringent laws were passed agsinst the adherents of the heretical doctrines, but their numbers continued to increase, especially among the nobility, who wished to confiscate the ecclesiastical property, and in the free cities of the kingdom. Turkish victories and conquest and the war between Ferdinand of Austria and John Zapolya favoured the reformers. In addition to the Lutherans there were soon followers of Zwingli and Calvin in the country. Five Lutheran towns in Upper Hungary accepted the Augsburg Confession. Calvinism, however, gradually won the upper hand, although the domestic disputes between the reforming sects by no means ceased. In Transylvania merchants from Hermannstadt, who had become acquainted with Luther's heresy at Peipzig, spread the Reformation after 1521. Notwithstanding the persecution of the Reformers, a Lutheran school was started at Hermannstadt, and the nobility endeavoured to use the Reformation as a means of confiscating the property of the clergy. In 1529 the regular orders and the most vigorous champions of the Church were driven from the town. At Kronstadt the Lutheran preacher Johann Honter gained the ascendency in 1534, the Mass being abolished and Divine service organized after the Lutheran model. At a synod held iin 1544 the Saxon nation in Transylvania decided in favour of the Augsburg Confession, while the rural Magyars accepted Calvinism. At the Diet of Klausenburg in 1556 general religious freedom was granted and the ecclesiastical property confiscated for the defence of the country and the erection of Lutheran schools. Among the supporters of the Reformation far-reaching divisions prevailed. Besides the Lutherans, there were Unitarians (Socinians) and Anabaptists, and each of these sects waged war against the others. A Catholic minority survived among the Greek Walachians. F. Poland, Livonia, and Courland Poles learned of the Reformation through some young students from Wittenberg and through the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren. Archbishop Laski of Gnesen and King Sigismund I (1501-48) energetically opposed the spread of heretical doctrines. However, the supporters of the Reformation succeeded in winning recruits at the University of Cracow, at Posen, and at Dantzig. From Dantzig the Reformation spread to Thorn and Elbing, and certain nobles favoured the new doctrines. Under the rule of the weak Sigismund II (1548-72) there were in Poland, besides the Lutherans and the Bohemian Brethren, Zwinglians, Calvinists, and Socinians. Prince Radziwill and John Laski favoured Calvinism, and the Bible was translated into Polish in accordance with the views of this party in 1563. Despite the efforts of the papal nuncio, Aloisius Lippomano (1556-58) free practice of religion was secretly granted in the aforementioned three cities, and the nobility were allowed to hold private religious services in their houses. The different Reformed sects fought among one another, the formula of faith introduced at the General Synod of Sandomir in 1570 by the Reformed, the Lutherans, and the Bohemian Brethren producing no unity. In 1573 the heretical parties secured the religious peace of Warsaw, which granted equal rights to Catholics and "Dissidents", and established permanent peace between the two sections. By the zealous inauguration of true ecclesiastical reform, the diligent activity of the papal legates and able bishops, and the labours of the Jesuits, further progress of the Reformation was prevented. In Livonia and Courland, the territories of the Teutonic Order, the course of the Reformation was the same as in the other territory of the Order, Prussia. Commander Gotthard Kettler of Courland embraced the Augsburg Confession, and converted the land into a secular hereditary duchy, tributary to Poland. In Livonia Commander Walter of Plettenberg strove to foster Lutheranism, which had been accepted at Riga, Dorpat, and Reval since 1523, hoping thus to make himself independent of the Archbishop of Riga. When Margrave William of Brandenburg became Archbishop of Riga in 1539, Lutheranism rapidly obtained exclusive sway in Livonia. G. Netherlands During the reign of Charles V the seventeen provinces of the Netherlands remained fairly immune from the infection of the new doctrine. Several followers of Luther had indeed appeared there, and endeavoured to disseminate the Lutheran writings and doctrines. Charles V, however, issued strict edicts against the Lutherans and against the printing and spreading of the writings of the Reformer. The excesses of the Anabaptists evoked the forcible suppression of their movement, and until 1555 the Reformation found little root in the country. In this year Charles V granted the Netherlands to his son Philip II, who resided in the country until 1559. During this period Calvinism made rapid strides, especially in the northern provinces. Many of the great nobles and the much impoverished lower nobility used the Reformation to incite the liberty-loving people against the king's administration, the Spanish officials and troops, and the strictness of the government. Disaffection continued to increase, owing chiefly to the severe ordinances of the Duke of Alva and the bloody persecution conducted by him. William of Orange-Nassau, governor of the Province of Holland, aimed for political reasons at securing the victory for Calvinism, and succeeded in several of the northern districts. He then placed himself at the head of the rebellion against the Spanish rule. In the ensuing war the northern provinces (Niederlande) asserted their independence, whereupon Calvinism gained in them the ascendancy. In 1581 every public exercise of the Catholic Faith was forbidden. The "Belgian Confession" of 1562 had already a Calvinistic foundation; by the synods of Dordrecht in 1574 and 1618 Calvinism received a fixed form. The Catholics of the country (about two-fifths of the population) were subjected to violent suppression. Among the Calvinists of Holland violent conflicts arose concerning the doctrine of predestination. H. England and Scotland The Reformation received its final form in England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603). On the basis of the liturgy established in the "Book of Common Prayer" under Edward VI (1547-53) and the confession of Forty-two Articles composed by Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop Ridley in 1552, and after Queen Mary (1553-58) had failed to restore her country to union with Rome and the Catholic Faith, the ascendancy of Anglicanism was established in England by Elizabeth. The Forty-two Articles were revised, and, as the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church, became in 1562 the norm of its religious creed. The ecclesiastical supremacy of the queen was recognized, an oath to this effect (Oath of Supremacy) being required under penalty of removal from office and loss of property. Several prelates and the universities offered resistance, which was overcome by force. The majority of the lower clergy took the oath, which was demanded with ever-increasing severity from all members of the House of Commons, all ecclesiastics, barristers, and teachers. In externals much of the old Catholic form of worship was retained. After the failure of the movement in favour of Mary Stuart of Scotland, who had fled to England in 1568, the oppression of the English Catholics was continued with increasing violence. Besides the Anglican Established Church there were in England the Calvinistic Nonconformists, who opposed a presbyterian popular organization to the episcopal hierarchy; like the Catholics, they were much oppressed by the rulers of England. In Scotland the social and political situation gave a great impetus to the Reformation, aided by the ignorance and rudeness of the clergy (to a great extent the result of the constant feuds). The nobility used the Reformation as a weapon in their war against the royal house, which was supported by the higher clergy. Already under James V (1524-42) supporters of the Lutheran doctrines e.g. Patrick Hamilton, Henry Forest, and Alexander Seton, the king's confessor, came forward as Reformers. The first two were executed, while the last fled to the Continent. However, the heretical doctrines continued to find fresh adherents. On the death of James V his daughter and heiress was only eight days old. The office of regent fell to James Hamilton, who, though previously of Protestant sentiments, returned to the Catholic Church and supported Archbishop David Beaton in his energetic measures against the innovators. After the execution of the Reformer George Wishart, the Protestants formed a conspiracy against the archbishop, attacked him in his castle in 1545, and put him to death. The rebels (among them John Knox), joined by 140 nobles, then fortified themselves in the castle. Knox went to Geneva in 1546, there embraced Calvinism, and from 1555 was the leader of the Reformation in Scotland, where it won the ascendancy in the form of Calvinism. The political confusion prevailing in Scotland from the death of James V facilitated the introduction of the Reformation. V. DIFFERENT FORMS OF THE REFORMATION The fundamental forms of the Reformation were Lutheranism, Zwinglianism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism. Within each of these branches, however, conflicts arose in consequence of the diverse views of individual representatives. By negotiations, compromises, and formulae of union it was sought, usually without lasting success, to establish unity. The whole Reformation, resting on human authority, presented from the beginning, in the face of Catholic unity of faith, an aspect of dreary dissension. Besides these chief branches appeared numerous other forms, which deviated from them in essential points, and gradually rise to the countless divisions of Protestantism. The chief of these forms may be shortly reviewed. + The Anabaptists, who appeared in Germany and German Switzerland shortly after the appearance of Luther and Zwingli, wished to trace back their conception of the Church to Apostolic times. They denied the validity of the baptism of children, saw in the Blessed Eucharist merely a memorial ceremony, and wished to restore the Kingdom of God according to their own heretical and mystical views. Though attacked by the other Reformers, they won supporters in many lands. From them also issued the Mennonites, founded by Menno Simonis (d. 1561). + The Schwenkfeldians were founded by Kaspar of Schwenkfeld, aulic councillor of Duke Frederick of Liegnitz and canon. At first he associated himself with Luther, but from 1525 he opposed the latter in his Christology, as well as in his conception of the Eucharist, and his doctrine of justification. Attacked by the German reformers, his followers were able to form but a few communities. The Schwenkfeldians still maintain themselves in North America. + Sebastian Franck (1499-1542), a pure spiritualist, rejected every external form of ecclesiastical organization, and favoured a spiritual, invisible Church. He thus abstained from founding a separate community, and sought only to disseminate his ideas. + The Socinians and other Anti-Trinitarians. Some individual members of the early Reformers attacked the fundamental doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, especially the Spaniard Miguel Servede (Servetus), whose writing, "De Trinitatis erroribus", printed in 1531, was burned by Calvin in Geneva in 1553. The chief founders of Anti-Trinitarianism were Laelius Socinus, teacher of jurisprudence at Siena, and his nephew, Faustus Socinus. Compelled to fly from their home, they maintained themselves in various parts, and founded special Socinian communities. Faustus disseminated his doctrine especially in Poland and Transylvania. + Valentine Weigel (1533-1588) and Jacob Böhme (d. 1624), a shoemaker from Gorlitz, represented a mystical pantheism, teaching that the external revelation of God in the Bible could be recognized only through an internal light. Both found numerous disciples. Böhme's followers later received ther name of Rosenkreuzer, because it was widely supposed that they stood under the direction of a hidden guide named Rozenkreuz. + The Pietists in Germany had as their leader Philip Jacob Spener (1635-1705). Pietism was primarily a reaction against the barren Lutheran orthodoxy, and regarded religion mainly a thing of the heart. + The Inspiration Communities originated in Germany during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with various apocalyptic visionaries. They regarded the kingdom of the Holy Ghost as arrived, and believed in the universal gift of prophecy and in the millennium. Among the founders of such visionary societies were Johann Wilhelm Petersen (d. 1727), superintendent at Luneberg, and Johann Konrad Duppel (b. 1734), a physician at Leiden. + The Herrnhuter were founded by Count Nicholas of Zinzendorf (b. 1700; d. 1760). On the Hutberg, as it was called, he established the community of Herrnhut, consisting of Moravian Brethren and Protestants, with a special constitution. Stress was laid on the doctrine of the Redemption, and strict moral discipline was inculcated. This community of Brethren spread in many lands. + The Quakers were founded by John George Fox of Drayton in Leicestershire (1624-1691). He favoured a visionary spiritualism, and found in the soul of each man a portion of the Divine intelligence. All are allowed to preach, according as the spirit incites them. The moral precepts of this sect were very strict. + The Methodists were founded by John Wesley. In 1729 Wesley instituted, with his brother Charles and his friends Morgan and Kirkham, an association at Oxford for the cultivation of the religious and ascetic life, and from this society Methodism developed. + The Baptists originated in England in 1608. They maintained that baptism was necessary only for adults, upheld Calvinism in its essentials, and observed the Sabbath on Saturday instead of Sunday. + The Swedenborgians are named after their founder Emmanuel Swedenborg (d. 1772), son of a Swedish Protestant bishop. Believing in his power to communicate with the spirit-world and that he had Divine revelations, he proceeded on the basis of the latter to found a community with a special liturgy, the "New Jerusalem". He won numerous followers, and his community spread in many lands. + The Irvingites are called after their founder, Edward Irving, a native of Scotland and from 1822 preacher in a Presbyterian chapel in London. + The Mormons were founded by Joseph Smith, who made his appearance with supposed revelations in 1822. Besides these best-known secondary branches of the Reformation movement, there are many different denominations; for from the Reformation the evolution of new forms has always proceeded, and must always proceed, inasmuch as subjective arbitrariness was made a principle by the heretical teaching of the sixteenth century. VI. RESULTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE REFORMATION The Reformation destroyed the unity of faith and ecclesiastical organization of the Christian peoples of Europe, cut many millions off from the true Catholic Church, and robbed them of the greatest portion of the salutary means for the cultivation and maintenance of the supernatural life. Incalculable harm was thereby wrought from the religious standpoint. The false fundamental doctrine of justification by faith alone, taught by the Reformers, produced a lamentable shallowness in religious life. Zeal for good works disappeared, the asceticism which the Church had practised from her foundation was despised, charitable and ecclesiastical objects were no longer properly cultivated, supernatural interests fell into the background, and naturalistic aspirations aiming at the purely mundane, became widespread. The denial of the Divinely instituted authority of the Church, both as regards doctrine and ecclesiastical government, opened wide the door to every eccentricity, gave rise to the endless division into sects and the never-ending disputes characteristic of Protestantism, and could not but lead to the complete unbelief which necessarily arises from the Protestant principles. Of real freedom of belief among the Reformers of the sixteenth century there was not a trace; on the contrary, the greatest tyranny in matters of conscience was displayed by the representatives of the Reformation. The most baneful Caesaropapism was meanwhile fostered, since the Reformation recognized the secular authorities as supreme also in religious matters. Thus arose from the very beginning the various Protestant "national Churches", which are entirely discordant with the Christian universalism of the Catholic Church, and depend, alike for their faith and organization, on the will of the secular ruler. In this way the Reformation was a chief factor in the evolution of royal absolutism. In every land in which it found ingress, the Reformation was the cause of indescribable suffering among the people; it occasioned civil wars which lasted decades with all their horrors and devastations; the people were oppressed and enslaved; countless treasures of art and priceless manuscripts were destroyed; between members of the same land and race the seed of discord was sown. Germany in particular, the original home of the Reformation, was reduced to a state of piteous distress by the Thirty Years' War, and the German Empire was thereby dislodged from the leading position which it had for centuries occupied in Europe. Only gradually, and owing to forces which did not essentially spring from the Reformation, but were conditioned by other historical factors, did the social wounds heal, but the religious corrosion still continues despite the earnest religious sentiments which have at all times characterized many individual followers of the Reformation. J.P. KIRSCH Reformed Churches Reformed Churches The name given to Protestant bodies which adopted the tenets of Zwingli and, later, the doctrinal principles of Calvin. This distinctive title originated in 1561 at the colloquy of Poissy. Initiated in Switzerland, the movement from which the Churches sprang gained ground at an early date in France, some German states, the Netherlands, England, Scotland, Hungary, and Poland. Later, emigration and colonization secured a still wider diffusion of the Calvinistic system. Some of the denominations which adopted it go to-day under a special name, e.g. Presbyterianism: they receive separate treatment in this work. Others became national churches and are mentioned under the name of the country in which they exist. (See Zwinglianism; Calvinism; Reformation; Arminianism; Holland; Netherlands; Huguenots; Scotland; etc.). The following bodies are here considered: I. THE REFORMED (DUTCH) CHURCH IN AMERICA (1) Name, Doctrinal Standards, and Organization The denomination known as "The Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in North America" until 1867, when the present name was adopted, asserts with Protestants generally the sole sufficiency of the Scriptures as a rule of faith. Its recognized theological standards are the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of the Synod of Dort. It believes in the spiritual reception of Jesus Christ by the believer in the Lord's Supper, and also accepts the distinctively Calvinistic doctrine of a limited election to salvation. The liturgy is characterized by great simplicity; its forms are optional, except in the administration of the sacraments. In policy, the Church is Presbyterian; the constitution recognizes four kinds of officers: ministers of the word, professors of theology, elders, and deacons. The elders exerecise spiritual functions and the deacons are in charge of temporal interests. At the head of individual congregations is the Consistory, which is composed of minister, elders, and deacons. The authority over a district is vested in the Classis which is itself under the jurisdiction of the Particular Synod. The General Synod exercises supreme control in the Church. The elders and deacons are elected to office for two years, after which they may be re-elected. Former elders and deacons may be called together for consultation in what is known as the "Great Consistory". The other Reformed Churches especially treated in this article are similarly constituted and organized. (2) History The Dutch Reformed Church was organized among settlers from Holland in New York City in 1628 by Rev. Jonas Michaelius. Fifty communicants were present at the first celebration of the Lord's Supper. When, in 1664, the colony passed from Dutch into English hands, 11 Reformed churches, with an approximate membership of 10,000 souls, existed in the country; they were all situated in New York and neighbouring states. By the terms of surrender the Dutch were granted "the liberty of their consciences in divine worship and in church discipline". During the first decade of English occupation this provision was faithfully observed. Later, however, the governors sought to impose English ecclesiastical customs upon their Dutch subjects, in consequence of which much bitterness was engendered, and a prolonged struggle ensued. In spite of this unfavourable circumstance and the cessation of Dutch immigration, the number of churches, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, had increased to thirty-four. They were under the jurisdiction of the Classis of Amsterdam. In 1738 a petition for the authorization of a coe;tus, or ecclesiastical assembly, was sent to that body. But it was only after nine years that a favourable reply was received. This was the first step towards independence, which was completely realized in 1755 by the authorized formation of a classis. This action of some members of the coe;tus led to protracted strife, which was to be healed by the plan of union submitted by the Rev. J. H. Livingston in 1771 and accepted by the Amsterdam Dutch churches and the Classis of Amsterdam. After the troublous times of the Revolution, the internal organization was further perfected in 1792 by the adoption of a constitution, which provided for a General Synod. In 1794, this synod met for the first time; it held triennial sessions until 1812, and then became an annual and representative body. A period of increased prosperity opened for the denomination in 1846, when numerous Hollanders settled in the Middle West and connected themselves with the church. In 1910 the Dutch Reformed Church numbered 728 ministers, 684 churches, and 116,815 communicants (statistics of Dr. Carroll in the "Christian Advocate", New York, 26 Jan., 1911; this statistical authority is cited throughout for the United States). Through the emigration just referred to, the Christian Reformed Church was also transplanted to America. This denomination was organized in Holland (1835) as a protest against the rationalistic tendencies of the State Church. To it were joined in the United States in 1890 the diminishing members of the True Reformed Church, a body organized in 1822 by several clergymen. It numbers today 138 ministers, 189 churches, 29,006 communicants. (3) Educational Institutions and Missionary Activity Some of the educational institutions controlled by the Church were established at a very early date. Rutgers College was founded in 1770 under the name of Queen's College at New Brunswick, New Jersey, where a theological seminary was also established in 1784. At Holland, Michigan, Hope College was founded in 1866, and the Western Theological Seminary in 1867. A board of education organized by private persons in 1828 was taken over by the General Synod in 1831; it extends financial assistance to needy students for the ministry. A "Disabled Ministers' Fund" grants similar aid to clergymen, and a "Widows' Fund" to their wives. A Board of Publication has been in operation since 1855. The proselytizing activity of the Church is not confined to America; a Board of Foreign Missions established in 1832 was supplemented in 1875 by a Woman's Auxiliary Board. The Church maintains stations at Amoy, China, in the districts of Arcot and Madura, India, in Japan, and Arabia. II. THE REFORMED (GERMAN) CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES This church was founded by immigrants from the Palatinate and other German districts of the Reformed faith. Its history begins with the German immigration of the last quarter of the seventeenth century. Among its early ministers were Philip Boehm and George M. Weiss, whose fame is eclipsed, however, by that of the real organizer of the Church, Michael Schlatter. The latter visited most of the German Reformed settlements, instituted pastors, established schools, and, in 1747, formed the first coetus. On a subsequent journey through Europe he obtained financial aid for the destitute churches by pledging the submission of the coetus to the Classis of Amsterdam. Six young ministers accompanied him to America in 1752; the supply of clergymen, however, was insufficient for many years and resulted in some defections. In 1793 the synod replaced the coetus and assumed supreme authority in the church, which now comprised approximately 180 congregations and 15,000 communicants. The process of organization was completed in 1819 by the division of the synod into districts or classes. About 1835 the "Mercersburg controversy", concerning certain theological questions, agitated the Church; in 1863 the tercentenary of the adoption of the Heidelberg Catechism was celebrated. From this time dates the foundation of orphans' homes in the denomination. Foreign mission work was inaugurated in 1879 by the sending of missionaries to Japan. The first theological seminary was organized in 1825 at Carlisle, Pennsylvania; it was removed in 1836 to Mercersburg and in 1871 to Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The Church also controls Heidelberg University and Western Theological Seminary (both at Tiffin, Ohio), Ursinus College (Collegeville, Pa.), Catawba College (North Carolina), and several other educational institutions of advanced grade. Its present membership is 297,116 communicants with 1226 ministers and 1730 churches. The Hungarian Reformed Church, which numbers at present 5253 communicants, was organized in 1904 in New York City for the convenience of Hungarian-speaking immigrants. III. THE REFORMED CHURCHES IN THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA Dutch settlers transplanted the Reformed faith to South Africa as early as 1652. Churches 0f some importance at present exist in the country and are organized as the Reformed Churches of Cape Colony, of the Orange Free State, of the Transvaal, and of Natal. The progress in political union favourably influenced church affairs: in 1906 these separate bodies placed themselves under a federal council, and in 1909 under a general synod. Their collective membership amounts to about 220,000 communicants. The movement towards union had been preceded by secessions caused by liberal and conservative theological tendencies. As a representative of conservatism the "Reformed Church in South Africa" was organized in 1859 by the Rev. D. Postma. It has to-day an aggregate membership of about 16,000 communicants distributed through Cape Colony, the Orange Free State, and Transvaal. An offshoot of the liberal spirit is the separatist "Reformed Church of the Transvaal", which was organized by the Rev. Van der Hoff and has at present about 10,000 communicants. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I (New York, 1877), 354- 816; III, 191-597; Corion, History of the Reformed Church (Dutch) in Amer. Church Hist., Ser., viii; Dubbs, History of the Reformed Church, German, ibid. (both studies are preceded by extensive bibliographies); Corwin, Manual of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in America (4th ed., New York, 1902); Good, History of the Reformed Church in the U. S., 1725-92 (Reading, Pa., 1899); Zwierlein, Religion in New Netherland, 1629-1634 (Rochester, 1910). N.A. Weber Reform of a Religious Order Reform of a Religious Order Reform of a Religious Order, in the true sense of the word, is a return or bringing back of the order from a mitigated or relaxed observance to the rigour of its primitive rule. It must be premised that mitigations of the primitive rule may be made quite lawfully; + by the authority of the Holy See; + by decree of the superiors of the order itself, so far as they have power to modify its rule and observance; + by prescription or custom lawfully established, so long as such relaxations do not affect the vows of the religious. On the other hand, the obligations arising directly from the vows made by the religious cannot be modified by custom or prescription, and the abolition of abuses in such matters is not "reform" in the proper sense of the word. In cases where the mitigation or modification of the rule has been brought about by legitimate authority reform may be instituted either by the Holy See or by the general chapter (or other legislative body) of the order itself. All those who shall make their profession after the reform has been decreed are bound to submit to it. Those previously professed are held not to be bound to the reformed observance if the previous mitigations were introduced legitimately. If, however, the mitigations reformed have been caused by neglect on the part of the superiors of the order, or have been introduced with their connivance, then those professed before the reform are bound to observe it. In practice, the Holy See is wont to use great discretion in this matter and prefers to invite or recommend the older religious to adopt the stricter rule. The principle underlying this is that no religious can be held bound beyond the limits to which he may be presumed to have intended to bind himself when he made his vows. TAMBURINI, De jure abbatum (Lyons, 1640); DONATI, Rerum regularium praxis resolutoria (Cologne, 1675); PELLIZZARIO, Manuale Regul. (Venice, 1648); SCHMALZGRÜBER, Jus eccles. universum (Rome, 1843); BOUIX, Tract. de Jure regul. (Paris, 1857); BACHOFEN, Compend. juris regul. (New York, 1903); AICHNER, Compend. Juris eccles. (Brixen, 1900). G. ROGER HUDLESTON. Cities of Refuge Cities of Refuge Towns which according to the Jewish law enjoyed the right of asylum and to which anyone who had unintentionally slain another might flee and be protected from the "avenger of blood". The barbarous custom of blood-revenge still exists among the Arab tribes. In virtue of it the kinsman of anyone put to death considers it a duty to avenge him by killing the intentional or even unintentional slayer. The Biblical cities of refuge were six in number, viz., to the west, Cedes in Galilee, Sichem in Mount Ephraim, and Hebron in the south; to the east, beyond the Jordan, Bosor, which is in the plain of the tribe of Ruben, Ramoth in Galaad of the tribe of Gad, and Gaulon in Basan of the tribe of Manasses (Josue xx, 7-8). It appears from Deut., xix, 2, 7, and from other considerations that three cities were originally intended--those to the west--which were probably established in the time of Josias, when the boundaries and population of the Jewish state were comparatively small. When in post-Exilic times the Jews covered a wider area, the other three were doubtless added, as we find the number stated as six in Numbers (xxxv, 6) and Josue (xx, 7-8). The right of asylum was recognized in the Old Testament, but under conditions that are carefully laid down in the Jewish law. One who had treacherously and intentionally sullied his hands with blood was allowed to find no refuge at the altar of God. Indeed he might be taken away from it to death (Ex., xxi, 14). He might even be struck down at the altar, as in the case of Joab (III Kings, ii, 30, 31, 34). Protection was granted to those who had unintentionally taken the life of another (Deut., xix, 2-7). In order to justify his claim to immunity the fugitive had to prove to the authorities of the sanctuary or town that his deed was unpremeditated. After submitting his evidence he was allowed to remain within the prescribed precincts. He could not return to his old home, nor could he appease the avenger by money. Thus some expiation for his imprudence was exacted, and he became virtually a prisoner within the boundaries of the city to which he had fled. He could leave it only at the risk of his life at the hands of the avenger of blood. We are not informed by what means he was supported in the city of refuge, but probably he was obliged to work for his subsistence. Whether his family could join him in his exile is also a matter of mere conjecture. It is generally maintained that originally every altar or sanctuary in the land could extend its protection to anyone who had unintentionally taken the life of another. But with the suppression of the provincial high places and altars by Josiah (B.C. 621) the right of asylum naturally fell with them, and provision was made for a continuance of the ancient usage on a modified basis by the selection of certain cities of refuge. GIGOT, Outlines of Jewish History (New York, 1903), 143. JAMES F. DRISCOLL Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of the Refuge Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of the Refuge The Institute of Our Lady of Charity was founded (1641) by [St. Jean] Eudes, at Caen, Normandy, under the title of Our Lady of Refuge. Moved by pity for abandoned women living a life of sin, Père Eudes at first attempted to unite the penitent among them and place them under the care of good and zealous women, but he soon became convinced that the only way of dealing with them was to found a congregation of holy women, who would bind themselves by vow to work for the reformation of these unfortunate ones. Three Visitation nuns came to his aid temporarily, and, in 1644, a house was opened at Caen under the title of Our Lady of Charity. Other ladies joined them, and, in 1651, the Bishop of Bayeux gave the institute his approbation. In 1664 a Bull of approbation was obtained from Alexander VII. That same year a house was opened at Rennes, and the institute began to spread. When the French Revolution broke out there were seven communities of the order in France. From this parent-tree of Our Lady of Charity sprang the Order of the Good Shepherd (q.v.). The Sisters of Our Lady of Charity do no limit their work to reclaiming the fallen; they also receive girls who are in danger of being lost or who are being brought up immorally. These form what is called the class of preservation. Government reformatories are attached to some of the monasteries. All the houses of this order are independent of each other, and each has its own novitiate, but the mother-house is still at Caen. The nuns wear a white habit and a large silver cross on the breast. To the three ordinary religious vows they add a fourth, viz., to devote themselves to the reformation of the fallen. The novitiate lasts two years. These sisters came to England in 1863 and now have houses at Bartestree, Waterlooville, Monmouth, Southampton, Northfield (near Birmingham), and Mold; in Ireland they have two houses at Dublin; in France they have seventeen: one at Caen, St-Brieux, Rennes, La Rochelle, Paris, Versailles, Nantes, Lyons, Valence, Toulouse, Le Mans, Blois, Montauban, Besancon, Valognes, and two at Marseilles; in the United States they have two houses at both Buffalo and Pittsburg, and one at Green Bay (Wisconsin), Wheeling (W. Virginia), Hot Springs (Arkansas), San Antonio and Dallas (Texas); in Canada they have houses at Ottawa, Toronto, and Vancouver; in Mexico, two; in Italy, one at Loretto; in Spain, one at Bilboa, and in Austria, one at Salzburg. [ Note: Jean, or John Eudes, "the Venerable Pere Eudes," was beatified by St. Pius X in 1909, and canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1925. His feast day is 19 August.] PINAS, Venerable Pere Eudes and his Works (Edinburgh, 1903); STEELE, Covents of Great Britain; HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1907). FRANCESCA M. STEELE Droit de Regale Droit de Regale ( jus regalioe, jus regale, jus deportus; Germ. Regalienrecht) Droit de Regale originally denoted those rights that belonged exclusively to the king, either as essential to his sovereignty (jura majora, jura essentialia), such as royal authority; or accidental (jura minora, jura accidentalia), such as the right of the chase, of fishing, mining, etc. By abuse, many sovereigns in the Middle Ages and in later times claimed the right to seize the revenues of vacant sees or imperial abbeys, and gradually jus regalioe came to be applied almost exclusively to this assumed right, It is a matter of dispute on what ground the temporal rulers claimed these revenues. Some hold that it is an inherent right of sovereignty; others, that it is a necessary consequence of the right of investiture; others make it part of the feudal system; still others derive it from the advowson, or right which patrons or protectors had over their benefices. Ultimately, it had its origin in the assumption that bishoprics and imperial abbeys, with all their temporalities and privileges, were royal estates given as fiefs to the bishops or abbots, and subject to the feudal laws of the times. At first the right was exercised only during the actual vacancy of a see or abbey, but later it was extended over the whole year following the death of the bishop or abbot. Often the temporal rulers also claimed the right to collate all the benefices that became vacant during the vacancy of a diocese, with the exception of those to which the care of souls was attached. It is difficult to determine when and where the jus regale was first exercised. In the Western Frankish Empire it made its first appearance probably towards the end of the Carlovingian dynasty, that is, in the course of the tenth century. The first historical mention we find of it is in connexion with King William II (Rufus) of England, who, after the death of Lanfranc in 1089, kept the archiepiscopal See of Canterbury vacant for more than three years, during which period the king seized all the archiepiscopal revenues. During the reign of Henry II (1154-89) it had become an established practice for the King of England to take possession of the revenues of all vacant dioceses. That the pope did not recognize the right is manifest from the fact that Alexander III condemned article 12 of the Council of Clarendon (1164), which provided that the king was to receive, as of seigniorial right (sicut dominicos), all the income (omnes reditus et exitus) of a vacant archbishopric, bishopric, abbacy, or priory in his dominion (Mansi, XXI, 1195). In 1176 Henry II promised the papal Legate never to exercise the right of regalia beyond one year. With the exception of a few short periods, the right continued to be exercised by the English kings until the Reformation. Even at present the English Crown exercises it over the temporalities of vacant (Anglican) dioceses. In Germany Henry V (1106-25), Conrad III (1138-52), and Frederic I (1155-89) are known as the first to have claimed it. Frederic I exercised it in its utmost rigour and styles it "an ancient right of kings and emperors" (Lacomblet, "Urkundenbuch für die Geschichte des Niederrheins", I, 288). King Philip of Suabia reluctantly renounced it, together with the jus spolii to Innocent III in 1203 (Mon. Germ.: Const. II, 9). Otho IV did the same in 1209 (ibid., 37). King Frederic II renounced it to Innocent III, first at Eger, on 12 July, 1213 (ibid., 58, 60), then in the Privilege of Würzburg, in May, 1216 (ibid., 68), and again to Honorius III, at Hagenau, in September, 1219 (ibid., 78). In 1238 he began to exercise it anew (ibid., 285), but only during the actual vacancy of dioceses, not for a whole year, as he had done previously. After the death of Frederic II the claims of the German Emperors to this right gradually ceased. At present the revenues of vacant dioceses in Prussia go to the succeeding bishop; in Bavaria, to the cathedral church; in Austria, to the "Religionsfond". In France we find the first mention of it during the reign of Louis VII, when, in 1143, St. Bernard of Clairvaux complains, in a letter to the Bishop of Palestrina, that in the Church of Paris the king had extended the droit de régale over a whole year (ep. 224, P. L, CLXXXII, 392). Pope Boniface VIII, in his famous Bull, "Ausculta fili", of 5 December, 1301, urged Philip the Fair to renounce it, but without avail. In France the right did not belong exclusively to the king: it was also exercised by the Dukes of Normandy, Bretagne, and Burgundy, and by the Counts of Champagne and Anjou. Entirely exempt from it were the ecclesiastical provinces of Bordeaux, Auch, Narbonne, Aries, Aix, Embrun, and Vienne, The Second Council of Lyons (1274) forbade anyone, under pain of excommunication, to extend the jus regalioe over any diocese which was at that time exempt from it (Mansi, XXIV, 90), and in 1499 Louis XII gave strict orders to his officials not to exercise it over exempt dioceses. Towards the end of the sixteenth century the restriction of the Council of Lyons began to be disregarded, and on 24 April, 1608, the Parliament decided that the king had the droit de régale over all the dioceses of France; but Henry IV did not carry this parliamentary decision into effect. On 10 February, 1673, Louis XIV issued a declaration, extending the droit de régale over all France. The Parliament was pleased, and most bishops yielded without serious protest, only Pavilion, of Alet, and Caulet, of Pamiers, both Jansenists, resisting. These at first sought redress through their metropoiltans, but when the latter took the king's side they appealed, in 1677, to Innocent XI. In three successive Briefs the pope urged the king not to extend the right to dioceses that had previously been exempt. The General Assembly of the French clergy held at Paris in 1081-2 aided with the king, and, despite the protests of Innocent XI, Alexander VIII, and Innocent XII, the right was maintained until the Revolution. Napoleon I attempted to restore it in a decree dated 6 November, 1813, but his downfall in the following year frustrated his plan. In 1880 the Third Republic again asserted the right, overstepping even the limits of its former application. DU CANGE, Glossarium, s. v. Regalia; THOMASSINUS, Vetus ac nova ecclesioe disciplina circa beneficia, III, lib. II, liv; DE MARCA, De concordia sacerdotii et imperii, lib. VIII (1704); MAKOWER, Die Verfassung der Kirche von England (Berlin, 1894), 326 sq.; PHILLIPS, Das Regalienrecht in Frankreich (Halle, 1873); MICHELET, Du droit de régale (Ligugé, 1900); STUTZ, in Realencyclopädie für prot. Theologie und Kirche, XVI (Leipzig, 1905), 536-44; MENTION, Documents relatifs aux rapports du clergé avec la royauté de 1682 à 1702, I (Paris, 1893) 18 sq. (See also bibliographies to INNOCENT XI and LOUIS XIV.) MICHAEL OTT. Regalia Regalia According to the usage current in the British Isles the term regalia is almost always employed to denote the insignia of royalty or "crown jewels". The objects more immediately included under the collective term as commonly used are the following: the crown, the sceptre with the cross, the sceptre with the dove, the orb, the swords, the ring, the spurs, also the vestments in which the sovereign is arrayed after the unction, to wit the colobium sindonis, the dalmatic, the armill, and the royal robe, or pall, as well as a few other miscellaneous objects connected with the coronation ceremony, such as the ampulla for the oil, with the spoon, "St. Edward's staff", etc. All of these descend from pre-Reformation days, and many of them are directly religious in origin. Indeed there was a tendency not only in England, but also in Germany, France, and elsewhere, to connect these insignia with some saintly and sometimes legendary possessor of a former age, and to regard them strictly as relics. In point of fact all the English regalia were broken up and sold after the execution of Charles I, and the oldest of those now in existence had to be constructed anew at the Restoration in 1661; but it had always been the custom of old to regard them or most of them as connected with St. Edward the Confessor, to whose shrine in Westminster Abbey, where the coronation takes place, they were regarded as belonging. Even now the royal crown which the archbishop places on the king's head is still spoken of in a marginal note to the coronation service as "St. Edward's Crown", while we find in a chronicle of the fourteenth century, the "Annales Paulini", a vehement protest made in connection with the coronation of King Edward II that the unworthy favourite Piers Gaveston should have been suffered to carry the "Crown of St. Edward" with his "polluted hands" (inquinatis manibus). Most of the regalia enumerated above call for no special comment, but with regard to some few, the significance of which has been misrepresented by Anglican writers with a more or less controversial purpose, a few words are necessary. To begin with, it has been pretended that the vestures in which the king is arrayed are the vestments of a bishop, and indicate an intention to endow the monarch with an ecclesiastical character. This contention forms part of a theory propounded by a prominent Anglican liturgist, Dr. Wickham Legg, that the king according to the medieval view was mixta persona (i.e., both layman and ecclesiastic) and therefore spiritualis jurisdictionis capax (a fit subject for spiritual jurisdiction). The underlying and indeed the avowed purpose was to show that although it cannot be denied that the king is the official head of the Church of England, still there is nothing unbecoming in such a relation because the king is a minister of the Church and consecrated to this special office by the Church herself. But the various arguments by which this contention is supported, and notably that based upon the supposed ecclesiastical character of the coronation vestments, are wholly fallacious. The colobium sindonis (alleged to be the equivalent of the alb) and the dalmatic, or supertunica, are simply the ordinary dress of the later Roman Empire, and they did not acquire their liturgical charcater until after they had become the customary apparel of emperors on state occasions. This form of underclothing can be plainly traced in the consular diptychs upon which the consuls are represented as presiding at the games. In these same diptychs the most prominent feature in the official vesture is an elaborately embroidered scarf which hangs down perpendicularly in front, passes round the body, and falls over the left arm. This scarf is called the lorum. It is almost certainly the ancestor of the archiepiscopal pallium, but it remained for long centuries, as numberless Byzantine paintings and sculptures show, the most conspicuous element in the imperial state costume. There is serious reason to believe, though the details cannot be gone into here, that the lorum is represented by the "armill", though this is now a sort of stole which two or three centuries back was tied at the elbows. The address originally made at the delivery of the armill declared it to be a symbol of the "Divine enfolding" (divinae circumdationis), which agrees much better with a wrap like the lorum than with a stole or bracelet. Again "the Robe Royal or Pall of cloth of gold", which is embroidered with eagles, cannot with any reason be described as an ecclesiastical cope. It certainly represents the royal mantle which was originally a four- square garment fastened with a clasp over the right shoulder, such as is seen to recur several times in the carvings of the ivory book-cover of Queen Melisende now in the British Museum; such also as was found vesting the body of Edward I when his tomb was opened in 1774. Not less misleading is the interpretation recently attached to one of the three swords carried before the king and known as the "sword of the spirituality" or "the sword of the Church". This does not in any way represent, as contended, a claim to exercise jurisdiction over the Church, but it only symbolizes the solemn promise of the king to protect the Church. There were three such promises originally made by the king: the first to defend and secure peace for the Church; the second to punish wrong-doers; and the third to show justice and mercy in all his judgments. Now the three swords, now and anciently borne before the king at his coronation, were known as the sword of the clergy, the sword of the laity, and the third (curtana), which has no point, the sword of mercy. There is every reason to believe that these three swords typify the matter of the king's three ancient promises. As for the sword with which the king himself is girded in the coronation ceremony, this was originally in imperial coronations at Rome laid upon the tomb of Blessed Peter and, like the archbishop's pallium, presented as de corpore beati Petri sumptum and consequently as a kind of relic of the Prince of the Apostles, in whose name and to defend whose authority the power of the sword is given to rulers by the Church. A theory that the orb is only a variant of the sceptre with a cross is now generally rejected, and with reason. The questions here discussed are misleadingly treated in most manuals dealing with the coronation, e.g., LEGG, The Coronation Records (London, 1902); DAVENPORT, The English Regalia (London, 1897); JONES, Crown and Coronations (London, 1902). The reader may be referred for a fuller discussion to THURSTON, The Coronation Ceremonial (London, 1911); or IDEM, Is the Crowned King an Ecclesiastical Person? in Nineteenth Century and After (March, 1902), For the archaeological data regarding the regalia, the above works of DAVENPORT and LEGG are of value. For the German regalia see especially BOCK, Die Kleinodien des heil. Rom. Reiches (Vienna, 1864); and FRENSDORFF, Zur Geschichte der deutschen Reichsinsignien in the Nachrichten of the Gottingen Academy (1897). HERBERT THURSTON Regeneration Regeneration (Lat. regeneratio; Gr. anagennesis and paliggenesia). Regeneration is a Biblico-dogmatic term closely connected with the ideas of justification, Divine sonship, and the deification of the soul through grace. Confining ourselves first to the Biblical use of this term, we find regeneration from God used in indissoluble connection with baptism, which St. Paul expressly calls "the laver of regeneration" (Titus, iii, 5). In His discourse with Nicodemus (John, iii, 5), the Saviour declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." In this passage Christianity from its earliest days has found the proof that baptism may not be repeated, since a repeated regeneration from God is no less a contradiction than repeated physical birth from a mother. The idea of "birth from God" enjoys a special favour in the Joannine theology. Outside the Fourth Gospel (i, 12 sq.; iii, 5), the Apostle uses the term in a variety of ways, treating "birth of God" as synonymous now with the "doing of justice" (I John, v, 1, 4 sq.), and elsewhere deducing from it a certain "sinlessness" of the just (I John, iii, 9; v, 18), which, however, does not necessarily exclude from the state of justification the possibility of sinning (cf. Bellarmine, "De justificatione", III, xv). It is true that in all these passages there is no reference to baptism nor is there any reference to a real "regeneration"; nevertheless, "generation from God", like baptismal "regeneration", must be referred to justification as its cause. Both terms effectually refute the Protestant notion that there is in justification not a true annihilation, but merely a covering up of the sins which still continue (covering-up theory), or that the holiness won is simply the imputation of the external holiness of God or Christ (imputation theory). The very idea of spiritual palingenesis requires that the justified man receive through the Divine generation a quasi-Divine nature as his "second nature", which cannot be conceived as a state of sin, but only as a state of interior holiness and justice. Thus alone can we explain the statements that the just man is assured "participation in the divine nature" (cf. II Peter, i, 4: divinæ consortes naturæ), becomes "a new creature" (Gal., v, 6; vi, 15), effects which depend on justifying faith working by charity, not on "faith alone" (sola fides). When the Bible elsewhere refers regeneration to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (I Peter, i, 3) or to "the word of God who liveth and remaineth forever" (I Peter, i, 23), it indicates two important external factors for justification, which have nothing to do with its formal cause. The latter text shows that the preaching of the Word of God is for the sinner the introductory step towards justification, which is impossible without faith, whereas the former text mentions the meritorious cause of justification, inasmuch as, from the Biblical standpoint, the Resurrection was the final act in the work of redemption (cf. Luke, xxiv, 46 sq.; Rom., iv, 25; vi, 4; II Cor., v, 16). To the above-mentioned ideas of regeneration, generation out of God, participation in the Divine nature, and re-creation, a fifth, that of Divine sonship, must be added; this represents the formal effect of justification and is crowned by the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the justified soul (cf. Rom., v, 5; viii, 11; I Cor., iii, 16 sq.; vi, 19, etc.). Since, however, this Divine sonship is expressly described as a mere adoptive sonship (filiatio adoptiva, ouiothesis; cf. Rom., viii, 15 sqq.; Gal., iv, 5), it is evident that "regeneration from God" implies no substantial emerging of the soul from the nature of God as in the case of the eternal generation of the Son of God (Christ), but must be regarded as an analogical and accidental generation from God. As regards the use of the term in Catholic theology, no connected history of regeneration can be written, as neither Christian antiquity nor medieval Scholasticism worked consistently and regularly to develop this pregnant and fruitful idea. At every period, however, the Sacrament of Baptism was regarded as the specific sacrament of regeneration, a concept that was not extended to the Sacrament of Penance. Irenæus repeatedly interprets the Pauline term "re-creation" as the universal regeneration of mankind through the incarnation of the Son of God in the womb of the Blessed Virgin. The idea of regeneration in the sense of individual justification is most conspicuous in the writings of St. Augustine. With an unrivalled keenness, he evolved the essential distinction between the birth of the Son of God from the substance of the Father and the generation of the soul from God through grace, and brought together into an organic association regeneration, with its kindred ideas, and justification (cf. e.g. "Enarr. in Ps. xlix", n. 2 in "P.L.", XXXVI, 565). Like the Church, St. Augustine associates justification with faith working through charity, and refers its essence to the interior renewal and sanctification of the soul. Thus, St. Augustine is not only the precursor, but also the model of the Scholastics, who worked mainly on the ideas inherited from the great doctor, and contributed essentially to the speculative understanding of the mysterious process of justification. Adhering strictly to the Bible and tradition, the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, capp. iii-iv, in Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", 10th ed., 1908, nn. 795-6) regarded regeneration as fundamentally nothing else than another name for the justification acquired through the Sacrament of Baptism. A characteristic view was that of the German Mystics (Eckhart, Tauler, Suso), who prefer to speak of a "birth of God in the soul", meaning thereby the self-annihilation of the soul submerging itself in the Divinity, and the resulting mystical union with God through love. In Protestant theology, since the time of the Reformation, we meet great differences of opinion, which are of course to be referred to the various conceptions of the nature of justification. In entire accordance with his doctrine of justification by faith alone, Luther identified regeneration with the Divine "bestowal of faith" (donatio fidei), and placed the baptized infant on the same footing as the adult, although he could give no precise explanation as to the way in which the child at its regeneration in baptism could exercise justifying faith (cf. H. Cremer, "Taufe, Wiedergeburt und Kindertaufe", 2nd ed., 1901). Against the shallow and destructive efforts of Rationalism, which made its appearance among the Socinians about the end of the sixteenth century and later received a mighty impulse from English Deism, the German "Enlightenment", and French Encyclopedism, a salutary reaction was produced by the Pietists during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Leaving far behind the old Protestant view, the Pietists (Spener, A. H. Francke, Zinzendorf) referred regeneration to the personal experience of justification in union with a sincere conversion to a new life, consisting especially in charitable activity. German Pietism, systematically cultivated by the so-called Hernhuter, exercised a beneficial effect on English Methodism, which went about securing and strengthening regeneration in "methodical fashion", and which undoubtedly performed good service in the revival of Christian piety. Especially those sudden conversions--such as are even to-day striven for and highly prized in Methodist circles, the American revivals and camp meetings, the Salvation Army, and the German Gemeinschaftsbewegung, with all its excrescences and eccentricities--are preferentially given the title of regeneration (cf. E. Wacker, "Wiedergeburt und Bekehrung", 1893). Since Schleiermacher the variety and confusion of the views concerning the character of regeneration in learned literature have increased rather than diminished; it is indeed almost a case of everyone to his own liking. The greatest favour in Liberal and modern Positive theology is enjoyed by the theory of Albert Ritschl, according to which the two distinct moments of justification and reconciliation hold the same relation to each other as forgiveness and regeneration. As soon as resistance to God is done away with in justification, and lack of trust in God--or, in other words, sin--is overcome in the forgiveness of sin, reconciliation with God and regeneration enter into their rights, thus inaugurating a new life of Christian activity which reveals itself in the fulfilment of all the obligations of one's station. Turning finally to the non-Christian use of the term, we find "regeneration" in common use in many pagan religions. In Persian Mithraism, which spread widely in the West as a religion of the soldiers and officials under the Roman Empire, persons initiated into the mysteries were designated "regenerated" (renatus). While here the word retains its ethico-religious sense, there was a complete change of meaning in religions which taught metempsychosis or the transmigration of souls (Pythagoreans, Druids, Indians), in these the reincarnation of departed souls was termed "regeneration". This usage has not yet entirely disappeared, as it is current among the Theosophists (cf. E.R. Hull, "Theosophy and Christianity", Bombay, 1909; and in connection therewith "Stimmen aus Maria-Laach", 1910, 387 sqq., 479 sqq.). This view should not be confounded with the use dating from Christ Himself, who (Matt., xix, 18) speaks of the resurrection of the dead on the last day as a regeneration (regeneratio). J. POHLE Papal Regesta Papal Regesta Papal Regesta are the copies, generally entered in special registry volumes, of the papal letters and official documents that are kept in the papal archives; the name, further, is also used to indicate the modern publications containing such documents in chronological order with careful summaries of their essential contents. The beginnings of the papal regesta probably antedate Constantine. There is, it is true, no direct proof of the making and preservation of copies of the official documents of the Roman Church in this period. The growth of the correspondence of the papal see, however, is evident even by the end of the second century, from the controversy over the celebration of Easter, and is also shown about the middle of the third century by the disorders of the Decian persecution, by the dispute concerning heretical baptism, and by other occasions. Moreover, it was important for the officials of the Roman Church to have the opportunity to inspect its earlier correspondence and to be able to use it for similar cases. For these reasons there is hardly any doubt that from a very early date a copy was made of papal documents before their dispatch, and that the collection of these documents was preserved at the seat of the central administration of the Roman Church. This theory can all the more easily be accepted, as the highest officials of the Roman State administration, the imperial chancery, the Senate, the consuls, the provincial governments, had all official documents entered in such volumes and preserved in the archives. The books in which these documents were entered were called commentarii, regesta, the latter word from regerere, to inscribe. The existence of such papal regesta can be positively proved for the fourth century and the succeeding era. In his polemic with Rufinus ("Apolog. adv. Rufinum", III, xx), St. Jerome refers to the archives (chartarium) of the Roman Church, where the letter of Pope Anastasius (399-401) on the controversy over the doctrines of Origen was preserved. There are also notices concerning the registration of papal letters in the documents of several popes of the fifth century. Thus Pope Zosimus in his letter of 22 Sept., 417, to the bishops of Africa refers to the fact that all the earlier negotiations with Coelestius had been examined at Rome (Coustant, "Epist. Rom. Pontif.", 955). Consequently copies of the documents in question must have existed. From this time onwards it remained the fixed custom of the papal chancery to copy the official papers issued by it in registers. From the centuries previous to the pontificate of Innocent III (1199-1216) there remain only fragments of the registry volumes of the papal chancery and these in large part merely in later copies. Nearly all the volumes of the papal regesta up to the end of the twelfth century have disappeared. The frequent local warfare in Rome and the conflagrations from which the city suffered explained sufficiently the loss of the oldest records. The most important fragments of this period that have been preserved are the following: nearly 850 letters, in three groups, of the Regesta of Pope Gregory I (590-604). An investigation proved that the original Regesta consisted of fourteen papyrus volumes, corresponding to the number of years of the pontificate, which were arranged according to indictions; that each of these volumes was divided into twelve parts, before each of which the name of the corresponding month was written. In this way information is attained as to plan of the earliest volumes of the papal Regesta. A manuscript of the Vatican archives contains letters of John VIII (872-882). which begins with September, 876, and extend to the end of the pontificate. This is not an original register, but a copy of the eleventh century. Separate letters, fifty-five in number, belonging to the first four years of the pontificate of this pope, exist in a collection contained in a manuscript of the twelfth century in the British Museum, London (MSS. Add. 8874). The manuscript contains letters of Gelasius I (492-96), Pelagius I (556-561), Leo IV (847-55), John VIII (872-82), Stephen V (885-91), Alexander II (1061-73), and Urban II (1088-99). The study of the manuscript by Ewald ["Neues Archiv", V (1880), 275 sqq., 503 sqq.] led to important conclusions concerning the volumes of the Regesta. Another manuscript at Cambridge contains some seventy letters from the Regesta of Adrian IV (1154-59), Alexander III (1159-81), and Lucius III (1181-85) [see Löwenfeld in "Neues Archiv", X, 1885, 585 sqq.]. Again, large parts of the Regesta of Gregory VII (1073-85), namely 381 letters, are contained in a manuscript in the Vatican archives. This collection is also only an extract of the original Regesta. In it the letters are no longer arranged according to indictions, but according to the year of the pontificate. A fraction of the Regesta of the antipope Anacletus II (1130-38), containing thirty-eight letters of various contents, has been preserved in a manuscript of Monte Cassino (Ewald in "Neues Archiv", III, 164 sqq.). Besides these collections of letters which have preserved fragments of the earliest papal Regesta, rich material is also to be found in the canonical collections of the Middle Ages. In part these collections go back directly or indirectly to the volumes of the Regesta of the papal archives, from which the authors of these collections, as Anselm of Lucca, and above all Deusdedit, gathered the greater part of their material. From Innocent III onward the manuscript volumes of the papal Regesta still exist in the Vatican Archives. The Regesta of the thirteenth century are beautifully written parchment volumes. Yet the most of these in their present form have been made from older volumes. How these older volumes, the real original Regesta, were planned cannot be decided. From the fourteenth century onward, registry volumes of paper were used for the entering of the copies. However, when the popes returned from Avignon to Rome, these paper Regesta were left at Avignon, and copies of them were made in parchment registry volumes that were brought to Rome. At a later era, the original Regesta volumes were also brought to the Vatican Archives so that there are two series in existence for the Avignon epoch of the fourteen century. From the fourteenth century onwards the volumes of the Regesta were generally made of paper. Numerous investigations have been made by various scholars as to the arrangement of the volumes of the Regesta, the rules or customs observed in the entering of the separate pieces, as to the question of whether the draft or the finished letter was copied, and as to many other matters in diplomatics, without reaching very certain results. In the thirteenth century the letters were divided into "Litteræ communes" and "Litteræ de curia" or "Curiales", the latter dealing mostly with affairs of general importance. At a later date other headings (litteræ secretæ, litteræ de beneficiis) were also introduced. Besides the regular Regesta of the papal letters made in the papal chancery, there were similar Regesta of the papal letters executed since the fourteenth century in the Apostolic Camera. From about the middle of the fourteenth century the registers of petitions were also preserved, in which were entered, not the papal documents, but the memorials to the pope, in reply to which the papal documents were issued. As collections of the official documents of the papal chancery, the Regesta are a very important historical authority. For convenience in historical investigation various scholars have published in chronological order all known papal documents of large periods, with brief summaries of the contents of the letters. The three greatest collections of this kind are: Jaffé, "Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum p. Chr. n. 1198"; 2nd ed. by S. Löwenfeld, F. Kaltenbrunner, P. Ewald (2 vols., Leipzig, 1888). P. F. Kehr has undertaken a new edition of the Regesta for this period in topographical and at the same time chronological order: "Regesta Pontif. Roman.: Italia Pontifica" (Berlin, 1906--); "Germania Pontificia" (Berlin, 1910); with the cooperation of other scholars he is still carrying on his great undertaking. Jaffé's work was supplemented by Potthast, "Regesta Pontificum Romanorum inde ab an p. Chr. n. 1198 ad an. 1304 (2 vols., Berlin, 1874-75). Letters of several popes taken from the volumes of the Regesta have been published by: Löwenfeld: "Epistolæ Pontificum Romanorum ineditæ" (Leipzig, 1885) taken from the manuscript at Cambridge; Rodenberg, "Epistolæ sæc. XIII e Regestis Rom. Pont. selectæ" (Berlin, 1883 --), in "Mon. Germ. Hist." The Regesta of the letters of Gregory I were edited again by Ewald and Hartmann, "Gregorii I Registrum epistolarum" in "Mon. Germ. Hist." (Berlin, 1891 --). The letters of Gregory VII were edited by Jaffé, "Monumenta Gregoriana" in "Bibliotheca Rerum Germanicarum" (2 vols., Berlin, 1868). As early as 1591 the records of John VIII were published from the manuscript in the Vatican. Of the popes of the thirteenth century, Pressuti edited (Rome, 1888-96) the Regesta on Honorarius III (1216-27) from the volumes of the Regesta in the Vatican Archives; the Regesta of the succeeding popes to Boniface VII (d. 1303) were edited by the members of the Ecole Françoisaise of Rome, the publication of the Regesta of all the popes being yet incomplete; after a group of Benedictines had issued the Regesta of Clement V (1305-14), the members of the Ecole Françoisaise began again with John XXII (1316-34), with the intention of publishing the Regesta of the Avignon popes to Gregory XI (1370-78). In this later series, besides the documents of general interest, they kept in view particularly those documents that bore on the history of France. For the later eras only the first numbers were published of the Regesta of Leo X (1513-21), edited by Cardinal Hergenröther (see under the different popes). In addition a number of works have been issued or are in course of publication that contain Regesta from the Vatican Regesta of the fourteenth century, bearing on special questions or on the history of various countries and dioceses, e.g., Werunsky, "Excerpts ex registris Clementis VI et Innocenti VI (Innsbruck, 1885); Ruezler, "Vatikanische Akten zur deutschen Geschichte in der Zeit Ludwigs des Bayern" (Munich, 1890). BRESSLAU, Die Commentarii der römischen Kaiser und die Registerbücher der Päpste in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung Roman. Abteil. (1885), 242 sqq.; PITRA, De epistolis et regestis Romanorum Pontificium in Annalecta novissima Spicilegio Solesmensi comparata I (Tusculum, 1885); DIEKAMP, Die neure Literatur zur päpstlichen Diplomatique in Histor. Jahrbuch (1883), 210 sqq; numerous papers in the Mitteilungen des Institutes für oester Gesch., as by OTTENTHAL, in V, 128 sqq.; KALTENBRUNNER, ibid., V, 213 sqq.; VI, 79 sqq.; BRESLAU, ibid., IX, 1 sqq.; DONABAUM, ibid., XI, 101, sqq.; DENIFLE, Die päplischen Registerbände des Vatikanischen des XIII. Jahrhunderts und das Inventar vom Jahre 1339 in Archiv für Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters, II (1886), 1 sqq.; Idem, Specimena palæographica Regestorum Rom. Pont. (Rome, 1888); PALMIERI, Ad Archivi Rom. Pont. Regestorum manuductio (Rome, 1884); BROM, Guide aux archives du Vatican (Rome, 1910); HASKINS, The Vatican Archives in Cath. Univ. Bulletin, III (Washington, 1897), 179. J.P. KIRSCH Reggio di Calabria Reggio di Calabria ARCHDIOCESE OF REGGIO DI CALABRIA (RHEGIENSIS). Archdiocese in Calabria, southern Italy. The city is situated on the slope of the Aspromonte, at the extreme end of the peninsula, communicating with Messina by a line of ferries. Grain, olives, wine, fruit, fishing, the silk trade, and the manufacture of furniture have rendered Reggio an important trading port. The earthquakes of 1783 and 28 Dec., 1908, completely destroyed all the buildings, ancient and modern, and a town of wooden and corrugated iron huts now rises among the ruins. The city was founded by the Calchidians in the eighth century B.C.; in 723 it received from Messina fugitives who rose to supreme power. Inscriptions and coins show that it was a flourishing republic, and was governed by the laws given by Charondas to Catania (640). About the close of the sixth century B.C., Alcidamas became tyrant of the city, and his son Anaxilas planned to obtain control of all Graecia Magna, but was unsuccessful. He was more fortunate in his attack on Zancle in Sicily, which he named Messana (Messina). His sons were expelled (461) from the city, which again became a republic. Dionysius of Syracuse captured it in 389 after a siege of eleven months. On his fall, it became subject to Agathocles and later joined Pyrrhus against the Romans. When Pyrrhus abandoned Italy, a mercenary Campanian fleet captured the town, and established a military republic (270). This was overthrown and severely punished by the Romans, who incorporated it, with all Bruttium, under their rule as a federated city. It still preserved its Grecian character in the days of Augustus. Julius Caesar sent a colony thither and embellished the city, calling it Rhegium Julii. In the Gothic War it was attacked by the fleet of Belisarius, and despite the aid of Totila (549) was destroyed. It remained thenceforward in the hands of the Byzantines, though Authari claimed it as the furthest boundary of the Lombard Kingdom. In 918 it was captured by the Saracens, who were defeated and massacred by the Pisans (1005). It was again captured in 1080 by Robert Guiscard, and united to his Kingdom of the Two Scilies. In 1313 it was taken by Frederick II of Sicily, who was soon forced to abandon it. It was frequently sacked by the Turks and corsairs in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and especially in 1554 and 1595 by the Calabrian renegade Sina Pasha Cicala. In Aug., 1860, the treason of General Vial enabled Garibaldi to occupy the city without resistance, thus beginning the downfall of the Kingdom of Naples. Through a misinterpretation of Acts, xxvii, 13, St. Paul was said to have preached the Gospel there, and to have consecrated his companion, St. Stephen, bishop; it is probable, however, that it was evangelized at an early period. The first bishop known is Mark, legate of Pope Sylvester at the Council of Nicaea (325). Other bishops: St. Sisinnius (536), mentioned in the Acts of St. Placidus; John, legate of Pope Agathus at the Sixth Council (680); St. Cyrillus (749); Leontius, follower of Photius (869); St. Eusebius (d. 916). When all Southern Italy was united to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Reggio became a metropolitan see with thirteen suffragans, and followed the Greek Rite, which was changed to the Gallican after the Norman Conquest; Archbishop Ricciulli adopted the Roman Rite in 1580. The Greek Rite, however, remained in force in the church of Santissima Maria della Cattolica, built by King Roger, and governed by a protopope with a numerous Greek clergy. Questions of jurisdiction caused frequent controversies with the archbishop. About 1600 Archbishop Annibale degli Afflitti suppressed the Greek Rite in that church, and the entire diocese now follows the Roman Rite. Other bishops: Rangerio (1192); Fra Gentile (1279), Franciscan; Pietro Filomarino (1404); Antonio Ricci (1453), restorer of the cathedral; Gerolamo Centelles (1529), reformer of ecclesiastical discipline; Gaspare Ricciulli (1560), a distinguished theologian at the Council of Trent, rebuilt the cathedral which had been destroyed by the Turks, and established the seminary; Mariano Ricciardi (1855-71), exiled after the annexation of the Kingdom of Naples; Cardinal Gennaro Portanova (1888). The sees suffragan to Reggio are: Bova, Cassiano (in the Ionian islands), Cantanzaro, Cotrone, Gerace, Nicastro, Nicotera and Tropea, Opido, Squillace. The archdiocese contains 80 parishes, 200,000 inhabitants, 200 secular priests, 4 religious houses with 20 priests; 5 convents of nuns; 2 boys' and 5 girls' educational institutions. CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia, XXI; SPANO'-BOLANI, Storia di Reggio di Calabria (Naples, 1827); DE LORENZO, Cronache e documenti inediti da servire alla storia sacra e civile di Reggio di Calabria (Reggio, 1873-77); IDEM, Monografia di Storia Reggina (Reggio, 1888); MINASI, Le chiese di Calabria dal quinto al duodecimo secolo (Naples, 1896); GAY, Les dioceses de la Calabre a l'epoque byzantine (Macon, 1900); DUCHESNE, Les eveques de Calabre (Paris, 1902). U. BENIGNI Reggio Dell' Emilia Reggio dell' Emilia DIOCESE OF REGGIO DELL' EMILIA (REGINENSIS) Suffragan of Modena in central Italy. The city is situated just where the ancient Via Æmilia is crossed by the small River Crostolo, which flows into the River Po, through a very fertile territory. The principal industries are silk, straws, and osiers. The cathedral is Romanesque, of the twelfth century, restored in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and has some remains of thirteenth century frescoes. In the museum is the scientific collection of Abbate Spallanzani, an illustrious philosopher, prehistoric antiques, and an art collection. The library has about 1000 manuscripts. There are also the state archives. Near Reggio is the famous Castle of Canossa. Regium belonged to the Boii and was reduced into a colony by the consul Æmilius Lepidus (187 or 178) and was by him named Regium Lepidi. In the Treaty of Quiercy Reggio was included among the towns which Pepin had in mind to give to the Holy See, but it never came into possession of the latter, except later, and for a short time. In 962 it was given with Modena to Count Azzo of Canossa. After the death of Countess Matilda (1165) the popes claimed the town as a part of her inheritance, while the emperors claimed the same as a fief of the Empire. Pending these disputes the town was governed in a communal way; at first they had consuls and in 1156 they had a bailiff, named mostly by the emperor. Reggio took part in the wars between the Lombard cities, especially against Mantua and Milan. It was mostly on the side of the Ghibellines, although in 1167 it entered the Lombard League and in 1193 the league against Henry VI. After the misfortune of Frederick II, the powerful Pico, Fogliani, Carpineti, and Coreglio were disputing the mastery of the city, which fell into the hands of Obizzo d'Este, Lord of Ferrara, but revolted against his son Azzo VIII (1306), became again a commune, accepted the vicars of Henry VII and Louis the Bavarian; was subject to the pope under Cardinal Bertrand du Poyet (1322); and later (1331), John of Bohemia, who recognized the suzerainty of the pope over Reggio as well as over Parma and Modena, was made lord of the city, but sold it to the Fogliani, from whom it passed to the Gonzaga of Mantua (1335), who sold it to Galeazzo Visconti of Milan. In 1409 it returned again to the House of Este of the line of Modena, until 1859. The popes, however, always claimed to be its suzerains. After the Ferrara War, Reggio spontaneously submitted to Julius II (1512-15). By the Peace of Barcelona (1529) Charles V bound himself to give back Reggio to the popes, but he did not do so. In 1848 Reggio proclaimed its annexation to Piedmont, completed in 1859. Christianity entered Reggio probably from Ravenna; a local legend makes the first bishop St. Protasius, a disciple of St. Apollinaris, in the Apostolic age. Admitting his existence, also five or six historical bishops, predecessors of Faventius in 451, it would seem that the episcopal see dates from the first half of the fourth century. St. Prosper was the successor of Faventius; he died between 461 and 467. Among other bishops were: Thomas (c. 701), Nodoberto, ambassador of Louis the Pious at Constantinople (817); Azzo II, murdered during the Hungarian invasion in 900; Thenzo (978), who rebuilt the Basilica of St. Prosper and other churches; Nicolo Maltraversi (1211), much praised by the chronicler Salimbene and often ambassador to Frederick II; Enrico de Casalocci (1302); Battista Pallavicini (1445), the sacred poet; Marcello Cervini (1540), later Pope Marcellus II; Cardinal Alessandro d'Este (1621); Angelo M. Ficarelli (1821), who repaired the damages of the revolution. The diocese has 246 parishes, 531 secular priests, 175,600 inhabitants; 4 houses of monks with 29 priests; 11 houses of nuns, 5 educational institutions for boys and 13 for girls, and a Catholic weekly. UNIVERSITY OF REGGIO Reggio was recognized as a studium generale as early as 1210; and a doctoral diploma of 1276 has been preserved, showing that there were a regular College of Doctors, regular examinations, and a Universitas scholarium (Tacoli, "Memorie storiche di Reggio", pt. III, Carpi, 1769, 215-16). But at the beginning of the fourteenth century there was no longer a single doctor in the city; and the studium generale had evidently lapsed before this. CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XV; SACCANI, I Vescovi di Reggio (Reggio, 1902); Chronicon regiense in MURATORI, Rer. ital., XVIII. U. BENIGNI Regina Regina DIOCESE OF REGINA (REGINENSIS) A newly created (4 March, 1910) ecclesiastical division, comprising the southern part of the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, as far north as the 30th township, or about 51°30' lat. The Catholic population amounts to 58,771, of whom 19,563 are of French descent, 16,318 Germans, about 13,000 Galicians following the Ruthenian Rite, 4759 English-speaking, 2312 Poles, and 1819 Hungarians. The rest are of various nationalities, and comprise about 1000 Catholic Indians. Fifty-nine priests (43 French, 15 German and 1 Scotch) attend to their spiritual needs. The regular clergy is represented by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, the pioneers in the country, the Missionaries of La Sallette and those of Issoudun, France, the Redemptorists, and the Sons of Mary Immaculate. Nuns of five different orders either teach in the schools or serve the sick in the hospital founded last year at Regina. Besides its primary or parochial schools, there are five academies and three Indian boarding schools, the most important of which is that founded (1884) in the Qu'Appelle valley by the Rev. Jos. Hugonard, O.M.I., who still directs it. Six trades are taught, in addition to the curriculum of the schools. The same Qu'Appelle valley was the cradle of the new diocese, Fort Qu'Appelle beings its only settlement until Father J.N. Ritchot established (1865) a mission at what is now Lebret. Then followed a few other missionary stations for the Indians, around which the development of the country consequent on a Government system of intense immigration has clustered the numerous centres of white population now extant, chief among which are Regina, the capital of the province, Moosejaw, Swift Current, and Yorkton, the headquarters of a large Galician colony. Mgr. Oliver E. Matthieu, ex-rector of Laval University, Quebec, was appointed (14 July, 1911) first bishop. See archives of the Archdiocese of St. Boniface. A.G. MORICE Regina Coeli (Queen of Heaven) Regina Coeli (Queen of Heaven) The opening words of the Eastertide anthem of the Blessed Virgin, the recitation of which is prescribed in the Roman Breviary from Compline of Holy Saturday until None of the Saturday after Pentecost inclusively. In choro, the anthem is to be sung standing. In illustration of the view that the anthem forms a "syntonic strophe", that is, one depending on the accent of the word and not the quantity of the syllable, It goes as follows: Regina coeli laetare, Alleluia, Quia quem meruisti portare. Alleluia, Resurrexit, Sicut dixit, Alleluia. Ora pro nobis Deum. Alleluia. In the first two verses ("Regina" and "Quia") the accent falls on the second, fourth, and seventh syllables (the word quia being counted as a single syllable); in the second two verses ("Resurrexit", "Sicut dixit"), on the first and third syllables. The Alleluia serves as a refrain. Of unknown authorship, the anthem has been traced back to the twelfth century. It was in Franciscan use, after Compline, in the first half of the following century. Together with the other Marian anthems, it was incorporated in the Minorite-Roman Curia Office, which, by the activity of the Franciscans, was soon popularized everywhere, and which, by the order of Nicholas III (1277-80), replaced all the older Office-books in all the churches of Rome. Batiffol ("History of the Roman Breviary", tr., London, 1898, pp. 158-228) admits that "we owe a just debt of gratitude to those who gave us the antiphons of the Blessed Virgin" (p. 225), which he considers "four exquisite compositions, though in a style enfeebled by sentimentality" (p. 218). The anthems are indeed exquisite, although (as may appropriately be noted in the connection) they run through the gamut of medieval literary style, from the classical hexameters of the "Alma Redemptoris Mater" through the richly-rhymed accentual rhythm and regular strophes of the "Ave Regina Coelorum", the irregular syntonic strophe of the "Regina Coeli", down to the sonorous prose rhythms (with rhyming closes) of the Salve Regina. "In the 16th century, the antiphons of our Lady were employed to replace the little office at all the hours" (Baudot, "The Roman Breviary", London, 1909, p. 71). The "Regina Coeli" takes the place of the "Angelus" during the Paschal Time. The authorship of the "Regina Coeli" being unknown, legend says the St. Gregory the Great (d. 604) heard the first three lines chanted by angels on a certain Easter morning in Rome while he walked barefoot in a great religious procession and that the saint thereupon added the fourth line: "Ora pro nobis Deum. Alleluia." (See also SALVE REGINA for a similar attribution of authorship). The authorship has also been ascribed to Gregory V, but without good reason. The beautiful plainsong melodies (a simple and an ornate form) are variously given in the Ratisbon antiphonary and in the Solesmes "Liber Usualis" of 1908, the ornate form in the latter work, with rhythmical signs added, being very attractive. The official or "typical" melody will be found (p. 126) in the Vatican Antiphonary (1911). Only one form of melody is given. The different syllabic lengths of the lines make the anthem difficult to translate with fidelity into English verse. The anthem has often been treated musically by both polyphonic and modern composers. H.T. HENRY Reginald of Piperno Reginald of Piperno Dominican, theologian, companion of St. Thomas Aquinas, b. at Piperno about 1230; d. about 1290. He entered the Dominican Order at Naples. St. Thomas chose him as his socius and confessor at Rome about 1260. From that time Reginald was the constant and intimate companion of the saint, and his testimony is continually cited in the process of Thomas' canonization. To this disciple Thomas dedicated several of his works. In 1272 Reginald was cured of a fever by the prayers of the saint. The same year he began to teach with Thomas at Naples. He attended at the death-bed of the holy doctor, received his general confession, and pronounced the funeral oration (1274). He returned to Naples, and probably succeeded to the chair of his master. Reginald collected all the works of St. Thomas. Four of the "Opuscula" are reports he made of lectures delivered by the Saint, either taken down during the lecture or afterwards written out from memory. These are: "Postilla super Joannem" (corrected by St. Thomas), "Postillae super Epistolas S. Pauli", "Postilla super Tres Nocturnos Psalterii", "Lectura super Primum de Anima". Reginald is also considered by some as the compiler of the Supplement to the Summa Theologica. The funeral discourse published at Bologna in 1529 under the name of Reginald is the work of the Italian humanist Flaminius. QUÉTIF-ECHARD, Scriptores Ord. Praed. Paris 1721) I, 382; MANDONNET, Des écrits authentiques de S. Thomas D"Aquin (Fribourg, 1910) 37-41, 52-3, 153-4. J.A. McHUGH Regino of Prum Regino of Prüm Date of birth unknown; d. at Trier in 915. According to the statements of a later era Regino was the son of noble parents and was born at the stronghold of Altrip on the Rhine near Speyer. Nothing is known concerning his life until he was elected abbot of Prüm in 892. From his election as abbot and from his writings, it is evident that he had entered the Benedictine Order, probably at Prüm itself, and that he had been a diligent student. The rich and celebrated Abbey of Prüm suffered greatly during the ninth century from the marauding incursions of the Normans. It had been twice seized and ravaged, in 882 and 892. After its second devastation the Abbot Farabert resigned his office and Regino was elected his successor. His labours for the restoration of the devastated abbey were hampered by the struggle between contending parties in Lorraine. In 899 Regino was driven from his office by Richarius, later Bishop of Liège, the brother of Count Gerhard and count Mattfried of Hennegau. Richarius was made abbot; Regino resigned the position and retired to Trier, where he was honourably received by Archbishop Ratbod. He supported the archbishop in the latter's efforts to carry out ecclesiastical reforms in that troubled era, rebuilt the Abbey of St. Martin that had been laid waste by the Normans, accompanied the archbishop on visitations, and used his leisure for writing. At Ratbod's suggestion he wrote his work on ecclesiastical discipline for use in ecclesiastical visitations (see CANONS, COLLECTIONS OF ANCIENT, III, 286); he also wrote a treatise "De harmonica institutione" [ed. Coussemaker, "Scriptores de musica medii aevi", II (Paris, 1867), 1-73], for the improvement of liturgical singing; further, his great historical work, the chronicle (see ANNALS, I, 533). Regino was buried in the monastery of St. Maximin near Trier. MARX, Gesch. des Erzstiftes Trier, II, Pt. I (Trier, 1860), 296 sqq.; EBERT, Allgem. Gesch. der Lit. des Mittelalt. im Abendlande, III, 226 sqq.; WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalt. (7th ed.), I, 311. J.P. KIRSCH Regionarii Regionarii The name given in later antiquity and the early Middle Ages to those clerics and officials of the Church of Rome who were attached neither to the papal palace or patriarchium, nor to the titular churches of Rome, but to whom one of the city regions, or wards, was assigned as their official district. For internal administration the city of Rome was a divided by the Emperor Augustus into fourteen regions. From the fourth century developed (evidently in connection with the seven Roman deacons) an ecclesiastical division into seven regions, which gradually replaced the earlier civil divisions. Many branches of the ecclesiastical administration were arranged in accordance with the seven regions -- especially the care of the poor, provision for the maintenance of the churches, and whatever else pertained primarily to the office of the deacons, one of whom was appointed over each of the seven regions (diaconus regionarius). As the deacons were assisted by seven subdeacons, we also find the term subdeaconus regionarius. The notaries and defensores employed in the administration of the regions were also known as notarii regionarii and defensores regionarii. There is also occasional mention of acolyti regionarii. Little is known about the functions exercised by these regionarii, as in general concerning the ecclesiastical administration in ancient Rome, in as far as it affected the regions. DE ROSSI, Roma sotteranea cristiana, III (Rome, 1877), 514 sqq.: PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht, VI, 316 sqq.; HINSCHIUS, Kirchenrecht, I, 375, sqq. J.P. KIRSCH Jean-Baptiste Regis Jean-Baptiste Régis Born at Istres, Provence, 11 June, 1663, or 29 Jan., 1664; died at Peking, 24 Nov., 1738. He was received into the Society of Jesus, 14 Sept. 1683, or 13 Sept. 1679, and in 1698 went on the Chinese mission, where he served science and religion for forty years, and took the chief share in the making of the general map of the Chinese Empire. The early Jesuit missionaries had already endeavoured to make known to Europe the true geography of China, of which at the end of the sixteenth century even the best cartographers were utterly ignorant. Their achievements up to the middle of the seventeenth century are summed up in the "Novus Atlas Sinensis" published by Father Martin Martini (Amsterdam, 1655). He was greatly assisted in this work by Chinese books of geography, where he found a mass of descriptive information, the distances between important places, and even maps which, however, were very crude, the distances having been measured with little exactitude. These imperfect data he supplemented and completed by astronomical observations made in the chief towns by himself and his associates; hence the positions of his Atlas are remarkably accurate. The favour enjoyed by the missionaries with the emperor K'ang-hi (1662-1722) made it possible for them to improve on this. Fr. Ferdinand Verbiest collected the earliest ideas of Tatary during two journeys made to that country with the emperor (1682-3). The arrival in China (1687) of French Jesuits sent by Louis XIV gave to impetus to scholarly labours in the mission, especially to geography. Provided with perfected instruments and trained in the methods of the astronomers of the observatory of Paris the new missionaries were able to determine more correctly locations already calculated. The "Mémoires" and the "Histoire de l'Academie des Sciences" record their observations. Fr. Jean-Françoisois Gerbillion made eight journeys through Tatary and Mongolia (1688-98) acquiring more geographical information concerning them. In 1701 the great work of the general map of the empire, begun by the topographical drawing of the city of Peking and its environs, including the ancient summer residences of the emperors and 1700 towns or villages, was assigned to Father Antoine Thomas, a Belgian of Namur, and Joachim Bouvet, Jean Baptiste Régis, Dominique Parennin, all three French. K'ang-hi, who wished to take measures against the periodic overflow of the rivers of Chi-li, was satisfied. Fr. D. Parennin then induced him to consent to a map of the Great Wall of China. Frs. Bouvet, Régis, and Pierre Jartoux measured their route to the eastern extremity of the famous rampart by means of regularly divided cords, keeping track of directions with the assistance of a compass, and frequently observing the meridian of the sun in order to calculate latitudes. In four days they reached the Gulf of Chi-li (8 June, 1708) and began operations on the great Wall. On 16 October they estimated its extent to be 21° long., or almost half the widest breadth of the United States from east to west and had determined the positions of the fortified towns "by which it was flanked", according to Fr. Régis. At the end of two months, Bouvet, being ill, retired to Peking. Régis and Jartoux reached the western edge of the Greta Wall at Kia-yu-Koan, and completed their work buy the mensuration of an interior lateral wall which had brought them to Si-ning, on the frontier of Tibet, near the great Lake Kukunor. They returned to Peking, 10 Jan., 1709. Their map pleased the emperor and he requested the continuation of the work for the provinces outside the Great Wall and for China proper. Régis, Jartoux, and Fr. Ernbert Fridelli, from the Austrian Tyrol, set out for the northeast. In two expeditions, (8 May - 17 Dec., 1709; 22 July - 14 Dec., 1710), they made the map of Liao-tung and Manchuria, and during the interval drew the province of Chi-li, in which Peking is situated. In 1711 Fr. Francis Cardoso, Portuguese, and the Augustinian, Fr. Guillaume Bonjour, the only non-Jesuit, joined the geographers. Régis and Cardoso drew the map of Shang-tung; Jartoux, Fridelli, and Bonjour traversed Mongolia as far as Lake Baikal in the north and the entrance of eastern Turkistan to the west. The year 1712 brought a new reinforcement; Frs. Vincent de Tartre and Cardoso made the maps of Shan-si and Shen-si (1712-14), Kiang-si and Kwang-tung, and Kwang-si; Frs. Anne-Marie de Mailla, Roman Hinderer, an Alsatian, and Régis laboured (1712-15) on the maps of Hu-nan, Kiang-nan, Che-kiang, Fu-kien, and the Island of Formosa. Meanwhile Fridelli and Bonjour were at Sze-chuan, where Fr. Bonjour died, 23 December, 1714, and was replaced by Régis, 24 March, 1715. He assisted Fridelli with the maps of Yun-nan, Kwei-chow, and Hu-kwang. After ten years' labour the new map of China was completed, 1 Jan., 1717. The fundamental method employed was the exact measurement of distances from which was obtained the longitude and latitude of places; this, supplemented and controlled by the observations of the meridians of the sun and the polar stars, directly gave the latitude. The missionaries were sometimes assisted by the observation of eclipses of the moon and the satellites of Jupiter, of which more perfect process they desired to make use to obtain longitudes, but conditions did not permit. In reply to a criticism of Féret, the learned secretary of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Père Gaubil wrote (5 November, 1736): "When thinking of a map of China and Tatary, you had in mind such men as MM. Cassini, Maraldi, Chazelles, and others who worked at the meridian assisted by all the necessary instruments and having plenty of time at their disposals. Our Fathers made use of the avocation of map-makers to do missionary work, to procure assistance and protection for the missionaries of the provinces, and to establish new missions. The Chinese and Tartar mandarins who accompanied them hindered them exceedingly; they had orders not to let the Fathers go where they would, . . . and would never allow them sufficient time for observation of meridians, the measurement of roads, the variation of the needle (magnetic needle), the rhomb, and the estimation of positions from these elements. The work being finished the completed map had to be sent in haste to the emperor. . . . compared to what was done elsewhere for maps of countries smaller than China and Tartary this work can but do honour to the Tatar prince who commanded such a worthy undertaking and assuredly it did not discredit our Fathers." This appreciation has been fully justified by the best judges, among them Ferdinand de Richthofer, the famous geologist and explorer of China, who writes, "If we consider the time at which it was made, the map of the Jesuits, as a whole, may be called a masterpiece" (China, I, 686). Fr. Jartoux, who with Frs. Régis and Fridelli had the largest share in it, sent a copy to France, where it was published by Fr. du Halde with the assistance of the celebrated geographer d'Anville in the "Description de la Chine" (1735). Fr. Régis composed a short commentary on it under the name of "Nouvelle géographie de la Chine et de la Tartarie orientale", which is preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, fr. MS. 17, 242; Fr. Du Halde availed himself of the writing to a great extent but would have done better to publish it entire. Fr. Régis also turned his attention to the ancient Chinese books (king). Fr. Gaubil praises his "sane criticism" on the subject, and the English sinologist James Legge writes: "Régis is known as the interpreter of the Yih-king. His work was edited at Stuttgart, in 1864, by Julius Mol. One part of the first volume is occupied with Prologomena which contain the most valuable introduction to the Chinese higher classics that has yet been published" ("Notions of the Chinese concerning God and the spirits", 1852, 69). Father Gaubil describes his great virtue as humility and modesty, and says: "He was universally esteemed and loved by the missionaries of various bodies, Christians, and the people of the Court who associated with him". DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Bib. de la Comp. de Jésus, VI (1596-7); CORDIER, Bibliotheca Sinica (Paris, 1904), I, 183-7, 562; II, 1089, 1372; BRUCKER in Revue des questions historiques (1 April, 1881), 497; (1 April, 1885), 512; Idem in Revue du monde catholique (1 Dec., 1883), 711-2; for the map of China see Du Halde, Description géographique . . . de la Chine et la Tartarie, I, IV (Paris, 1835); Lettres édificantes (Paris, 1720), 14e Rec., 3e sq.; d'ANVILLE, Mémoire sur les Cartes géographiques inserées dans l'ouvrage composé par le P. du Halde sur le Chine (Peking and Paris, 1776); BRUCKER, Sur l'execution des cartes de la Chine par les missionaires du XVIIe siécle, d'après des documents inédits in IVe Congrès international des sciences géographiques tenu à Paris en 1889, I (Paris, 1890), 378-96. JOSEPH BRUCKER Pierre Sylvain Regis Pierre Sylvain Régis Born at La Salvetat de Blanquefort, near Agen, in 1632; died in Paris, in 1707. After his classical studies, he came to Paris, followed the lectures of Rohault at the Sorbonne and became a warm admirer and partisan of the philosophy of Descartes. He then, with great success, taught the principles of Cartesianism at Toulouse (1665), Aigues-Mortes, Montpellier (1671), and Paris (1680). The prohibition issued about that time against the teaching of Cartesianism (cf. Cousin, "Fragments philosophiques", 5th ed., Paris, 1866, III) put an end to his lectures. He was elected a member of the Academy of Sciences in 1699. His chief work is his "Cours entier de philosophie ou Système général selon les principles de Descartes" (3 vols., Paris, 1690), where he presented in a systematic way the principles of the Cartesian philosophy. Strongly opposed to Malebranche's idealism, against which he wrote several articles in the "Journal des Savants" (1693 and 1694), Régis modified the system of Descartes on various points in the direction of empiricism. He denied that the human soul has innate and eternal ideas, maintained that all our ideas are modifications of the soul united to the body and that we can know our body and extension as immediately as our soul and thought. His book having been criticized by Huet and Duhamel, he then wrote his "Réponse au livre quie a pour titre Censura philosophiæ Cartesianæ" (Paris, 1691), and "Répose aux reflexions critique de M. Duhamel sur le système cartésian de M. Régis" (Paris, 1692). Among his other works we may also mention his "Usage de la raison et de la foi, ou l'accord de la raison et de la foi", with a "Réfutation de l'opinion de Spinoza, touchant l'existence et la nature de Dieu". Fontenelle, Eloge de Régis in uvres, VI (Paris, 1790); Bordas-Dumoulin, Le Cartésianisme ou la véritable rénovation des sciences, I (Paris, 1843); Damiron, Essai sur l'historie de la philosophie cartésienne au XVIIe siècle, I (3rd ed., Paris, 1868); Frank in Dictionarre des sciences philosophiques, s.v., an extract from the preceding work. GEORGE M. SAUVAGE Parochial Registers Parochial Registers One having the cure of souls is commanded by Divine precept to know his subjects (Conc. Trid., sess. XXIII, c. i, "De Ref."). The better to fulfill this obligation, and because, moreover, of the historical importance and probatory force of public records, a pastor must have five distinct parish registers: one each of baptisms, confirmations, marriages, and deaths; and a fifth containing a census or general account of the state of souls in the parish. Definite forms for entries in these books are prescribed by the Ritual. Every public document should bear the place, date, and nature of the act inscribed, the name of the one officiating, the names of the parties concerned and the witnesses present, and the signature of the proper official. The Church prescribes that in her parochial registers all persons be designated not only by name, but likewise by parentage and parish; that the office, e.g. rector, curate, of the one officiating be mentioned; that the record be complete, i.e. giving every necessary detail to remove all doubt and uncertainty regarding the validity of the act in question, or the observance of prescribed formalities. A baptismal registry, consequently, will also record the fact of legitimacy, date of birth, and name or names imposed. If the sacrament is conferred privately, conditionally, or the ceremonies are merely supplied, such should appear in the record. The entry will show when, where, and by whom a foundling was discovered, and the age, presumably, of the child. The baptism of one born out of wedlock is recorded with the name of either known (not reputed) parent. In no public register however is any derogatory or defamatory note allowed. To safeguard reputation, records at times, particularly of certain marriages, are preserved in a secret register. A new feature ("Ne temere", can. ix, § 2) in baptismal records is a marginal note of the subsequent marriage of the baptized person. Future legislation may make this obligatory also, when one receives Holy Orders or enters religion. In the registration of confirmation, as well as of baptism, sponsors are to be carefully noted, owing to the spiritual relationship which arises. A matrimonial record should state whether the banns were published; what dispensation, if any, was obtained and applied; that the priest officiating was duly delegated, if such be the case; that the consent of the parties was asked and given ("Ne temere", can. iv, § 3). If later a recorded marriage is declared null by the Church, or, having been found to be invalid, has been rendered valid in the external forum, a marginal note, duly attested, will contain this information. Death records state what sacraments the deceased received in preparation for death, by whom they were administered, and place of burial. Lastly, an official registration of all parishioners is kept, giving name, family, age, residence, whether they have made their First Communion, been confirmed, made their Easter duty, etc. All entries in parochial registers are to be made in Latin and by the pastor, even though he may not have officiated. Practice however tolerates in the vernacular records of deaths (Conc. Balt. Plen., II, n. 233) and of the general state of the parish. To the pastor belongs the custody of these books; every possible care must be taken to preserve them from destruction, injury, or falsification. These records are public instruments, and as such constitute perfect proof of the fact, which they record. Such proof would naturally be sought in the parish; parochial registers consequently should record baptisms, marriages, etc. of parishioners, though the event chronicled take place elsewhere. Conc. Trid., sess. XXIV, c. 1, " De ref. Matr."; Rituale Romanum, tit. 10, cc. ii sq.; Gasparri, Tractatus Canonicus de matr., nn. 1276 sq. ANDREW B. MEEHAN Henri Victor Regnault Henri Victor Regnault Chemist and physicist, b. at Aachen, 21 July, 1810; d. in Paris, 19 Jan., 1878. Being left an orphan at the age of eight he was soon obliged to work in order to provide for himself and his sister. Up to the age of eighteen he worked as a clerk in a drapery establishment in Paris, but made use of all his spare time in studying, until he was received at the Ecole Polytechnique in 1830. In 1832 he entered the School of Mines, was graduated, and in 1835 he was attached to the chemical laboratory of the school, becoming professor and adjunct director in 1838, and remaining until his call to the chair of physics at the Collège de France. Up till then he had been working in the comparatively new field of organic chemistry, chiefly in producing new compounds by the method of substituting chlorine for hydrogen equivalents in hydro-carbons. The results were published in eighteen memoirs in the "Annales de Chimie et de Physique" and earned for him the election as member of the Chemical Section of the Academy of Sciences. In 1843 he was commissioned by the Government to investigate the properties of steam and to obtain numerical data that should be of value to the steam engineer. The results were published in 1847, as vol. XXI of the "Mémoires" of the Academy of Sciences. They obtained for him the Rumford Medal of the Royal Society of London, and the exceptional appointment as Chief Engineer of Mines. In 1852 he became the Director of the porcelain manufactory at Sèvres, where he continued his experiments until his laboratory, instruments and papers were destroyed during the Franco-German War, in 1871. This, together with the loss of his talented son, a well-known painter, broke his spirit, and a stroke of apoplexy in 1873 was followed by years of long, slow agony. Daubrée says of him, that "only his religious faith could console him, and this consolation was not wanting". His invaluable work was done as a skilful, thorough, patient experimenter in determining the specific heat of solids, liquids, gases, and the vapour-tensions of water and other volatile liquids, as well as their latent heat at different temperatures. He corrected Mariotte's law of gases concerning the variation of the density with the pressure, determined the coefficients of expansion of air and other gases, devised new methods of investigation and invented accurate instruments. Two laws governing the specific heat of gases are named after him. This mass of numerical data are recognized as standards by the engineer as well as by the physical chemist. He was a foreign member of the Royal Society of London, received its highest honour, the Copley Medal, in 1869, and in 1863 was made Commander of the Legion of Honour. "Cours élémentaire de Chimie" was published in 1849 at Paris, and received several later editions. "Premiers éléments de Chimie", Paris, 1850, 6th ed., 1874, is a shorter work. "Relations des expériences", etc., 1847-70, were collected in 3 vols., Paris, 1870. J. H. NORTON in Nature, XVII (London, 1878), 263; VOGT, Pop. Sc. My. 13, 20 (New York, 1878); DUMAS, Eloge historique de H. V. Regnault (Paris, 1881); DEBRAY, JAMIN, DAUBRÉE, AND LABOULAYE, Discours, etc., in Comptes Rendus, LXXXVI, 131-43 (Paris, 1878); BERTHELOT, Science et philos. (Paris, 1886), 218. WILLIAM FOX Regulae Juris Regulæ Juris ("Rules of Law") General rules or principles serving chiefly for the interpretation of laws. In a specific sense, however, regulæ juris are certain fundamental laws in the form of axioms found in the "Corpus Juris", eleven inserted by Gregory IX at the end of the fifth Book of Decretals, eighty-eight by Boniface VIII in the last title of Liber Sextus Decretalium. These rules are an exposition of several laws on the same subject, conclusions or deductions, rather than principles of law drawn from constitutions or decisions, and consequently reserved to the last title of the two books mentioned, in imitation of Justinian in the "Digest" (L, l, tit. 17). While these rules are of great importance, it must be stated that few general statements are without exception. Some of the axioms are applicable in all matters, others are confined to judicial trials, benefices, etc. As examples the following are taken from the Liber Sextus: No one can be held to the impossible (6); Time does not heal what was invalid from the beginning (18); What is not allowed to the defendant, is denied to the plaintiff (32); What one is not permitted to do in his own name, he may not do through another (47). REIFFENSTEUL, Jus. Canon. (Antwerp, 1755), tr. De Regulis Juris; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium, I (Rome, 1898), n. 140; TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906). ANDREW B. MEEHAN Regulars Regulars (Lat. regula, rule). The observance of the Rule of St. Benedict procured for the monks at an early period the name of "regulars". The Council of Verneuil (755) so refers to them in its third canon, and in its eleventh canon speaks of the "ordo regularis" as opposed to the "ordo canonicus", formed by the canons who lived under the bishop according to the canonical regulations. There was question also of a "regula canonicorum", or "regula canonica", especially after the extension of the rule which St. Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz, had drawn up from the sacred canons (766) [cf. capitularies (n. 69 circa 810, n. 138 of 818, 819, ed. Alf. Boretii)]. And when the canons were divided into two classes in the eleventh century, it was natural to call those who added religious poverty to their common life regulars, and those who gave up the common life, seculars. Before this we find mention of "sæculares canonici" in the Chronicle of St. Bertin (821) (Martène, Anecdot., III, 505). In fact as the monks were said to leave the world (St. Augustine, Serm. 40 de div.), sometimes those persons who were neither clerics nor monks were called seculars, as at times were clerics not bound by the rule. Sometimes also the name "regulars" was applied to the canons regular to distinguish them from monks. Thus the collection of Gratian (about 1139), C. xix, q. 2, c. 2 and q. 3, c. 1, speaks of canons regular, who make canonical profession, and live in a regular canonicate, in opposition to monks who wear the monastic habit, and live in a monastery. But the Decretals of Gregory IX, promulgated 5 Sept., 1234, use the word "regularis" in a more general sense, in book III, ch. xxxi, which is entitled "De regularibus et transeuntibus ad religionem". However in ch. xxxv "De statu monachorum et canonicorum regularium" the distinction returns, disappearing in the corresponding book and chapter of the Decretals of Boniface VIII (3 March, 1298), t. XVI, in 6, which is entitled merely "De statu regularium" and reappearing in the collection of Clementines (25 Oct., 1317) but with the conjunction vel, which indicates the resemblance between them. (Although another edition has et, the title of ch. x, c. 3 Clem. in the official edition reads "De statu monachorum, vel canonicorum regularium".) From that time, while the word "religious" is more generally used, the word "regular" is reserved for members of religious orders with solemn vows. It means strictly those religious who have made solemn profession. Those who have taken simple vows in the Society of Jesus are also regulars in the proper sense according to the Constitution "Ascendente" of Gregory XIII. Writers are not all agreed on the question whether the religious of other orders can properly be called regulars before solemn profession. The novices of religious orders are regulars only in the wider meaning of the word. A. VERMEERSCH Reichenau Reichenau Called Augia Dives in medieval Latin manuscripts and possessing a once celebrated Benedictine monastery, is an island upon the Gnadensee (Untersee) of the Lake of Constance, about one mile in breadth and about three and three-quarter miles long. It belongs to Baden, and has 1600 Catholic inhabitants, principally vintagers and fishermen, distributed among three villages, Oberzell, Mittelzell, and Unterzell (or Niederzell). Since 1838 the island has been connected with the mainland by a dam, one and a quarter miles in length, and with the railroad station of Reichenau (via Constance). There is a calling station for steamers on the southern shore. The word "Zell" (cell) in the names of the three villages of Reichenau indicates the existence of a monastery on the island, which was the "reiche Aue" (the fertile islet) of medieval culture. Under the protection and at the suggestion of Charles Martel, the Anglo-Saxon (?), Saint Pirmin founded, with the cooperation of Count Berthold and the Alemannian Duke Santfrid I (Nebi), the famous Benedictine monastery of Reichenau, which in earlier times, until the tenth century, bore the name of Sintleosesau (Sintlas Ow). Reichenau had attained its full glory when the Abbey of St. Gall was still comparatively unimportant. In spite of St. Pirmin's banishment from his monastery through the political machinations of the Alemannian prince, Reichenau soon recovered its importance. His immediate successor, Abbot Heddo (727-34), later Bishop of Strasburg, the fate of the founder. The growth of Reichenau was greatly fostered by its position on the highway to Italy, which was frequented by Greek and Italian, and even Irish and Icelandic pilgrims and wayfarers. These became guests at the monastery and enriched it with gifts of precious relics, some of which are still preserved in the church treasury. Among other relics was one of special value, a cross with the blood of Christ, which was said to have been brought by an Arabian named Hassan to Charlemagne, and to have been confided to the custody of Reichenau in 925. The monastery also glorified in the possession of relics of St. Mark, brought to Reichenau from Venice in 830. On his homeward journey from St. Maurice with the relics of St. Maurice and other saints, Bishop Ulrich of Augsburg stayed at Reichenau, and at the petition of Abbot Alewich (934-58), gave a large portion of the relics of Saint Maurice to the monastery. Bishop Egino of Verona resided in Reichenau, and built (799) the parish church of St. Peter at Niederzell, a small Roman basilica with two towers, whither he retired to lead the life of a hermit, dying in 802. His monument still exists. The property of the monastery was composed principally of donations made by Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Charles the Fat (who is interred at Reichenau in the monastery church of Mittelzell), and many other German kings and emperors, especially of the House of Otto. The consequence of these royal favours was the rapid growth of the monastery in importance, being granted successively immunity from secular authority, jurisdictio fori the status of a principality of the empire, and complete exemption from episcopal jurisdiction. Reichenau displayed its greatest lustre in the first centuries after its foundation (especially between the ninth and the middle of the thirteenth centuries), during which it discharged its great work of civilization. The men most prominent for scholarship and ability during this period laboured at Reichenau == e.g. Walafrid Strabo (839049); Hatto (891-913), from 891 Archbishop of Mainz; Berno (1008-48), appointed by Henry II successor of the uncultured Abbot Immo, who had been thrust upon the monastery by the same emperor; St. Meinrad (Meynrad), Count of Zollern (d. 861), the hermit and founder of Maria-Einsiedeln, who came from the monastery of Reichenau; moreover, Hermann Contractus (d. 1054), the acute scholar and historiographer, author of the Salve Regina. The last was a relative of St. Ulrich. These and other scholars laboured at Reichenau and formed the famous Reichenau library and school of painters (Codex Egberti). The Reichenau school of painting is seen at its best even today in the single extant work of the tenth century == the eight pictures on the upper part of the walls of the little Roman basilican parish church (St. Georgskirche) at Oberzell - and in the paintings on the walls of the church of St. Peter at Niederzell, which belong to the first half of the eleventh century, and were discovered by Künstle and Begerle in 1901. As a consequence of its prosperity, laxity and decay came upon the monastery, and caused its incorporation with the Diocese of Constance in 1541. The bishops of Constance thus became commendatory abbots, and the personnel of the monastery was reduced to twelve monks (inclusive of the prior) and a small number of novices. In 1757 the few remaining monks were forcibly removed to other monasteries, and the novitiate abolished. Members of neighbouring monasteries performed the religious services at Reichenau until the monastery was secularized in 1802. ULRICH SCHMID August Reichensberger August Reichensperger Politician and author, born at Coblenz, 22 March, 1808; died at Cologne, 16 July, 1895. He studied jurisprudence at Bonn, Heidelberg, and Berlin (1827-30), entered the Prussian civil service as ausculator (1830), travelled through France (1833) and Italy (1839-40), became counsel in the land court at Cologne (1841) and Trier (1844), visited England (1846), became chamber-president in the land court (1848) and counsel of appeal (1849) at Cologne until his retirement from civil service in 1875. Except for the interval 1863-70, he was actively engaged as a parliamentarian from 1848 to 1885, in the Frankfort Parliament, Prussian National Assembly, and Erfurt Volkshaus. From 1851 to 1863 he was a member of the Prussian Second Chamber, being one of the founders and influential leader of the Catholic party. Elected delegate to the Second Chamber for three districts, he chose Coblenz as his constituency (1870-3); he represented Cologne (1879-85) and was a member of the Reichstag (1871-84). Co-founder of the Centre, tireless in his attention to parliamentary duties, and exercising a beneficent influence over his party, though Windthorst was the actual leader, Reichensperger was highly esteemed as an orator even by his political opponents. Though a skeptic in his youth, he returned to the Faith, deeply impressed by the imprisonment of Archbishop Clemens August (1837). He took an active share in the Catholic movement, was one of the founders of the Borromaeus Society (1848), keenly interested in the budding Catholic press, presided at the Catholic Congress of Cologne (1858), and championed religious freedom at numerous other gatherings. He was an outspoken friend of art and praised Gothic in his writings. He was "not a real historian or archaeologist, nor a philosopher in the domain of art, but chiefly a practical apostle for the revival of a pure, German art incorporating Christian ideas" (Pastor). Until the end of his life he promoted the completion of the Cologne Cathedral, by word and pen, and founded (1841) at Coblenz the first Dombauverein (cathedral building society). The fresh, cheerful, amiable, and kindly personality of this versatile man exercised a powerful influence. Opposed to extreme theories, he maintained a temperate attitude in both secular and ecclesiastical politics. A list of his numerous literary productions covers twenty-five printed pages (Pastor, II, 449), and contains mainly occasional writings which appeared in newspapers and magazines. Most of his separately published works were concerned with art, history, and criticism: "Christliche germanische Baukunst" (1845); "Fingerzeige auf dem Gebiete der kirchlichen Kunst" (1854); "Vermischte Schriften über kirchliche Kunst" (1856); "Eine kurze Rede und eine lange Vorrede über kunst" (1863); works on Merian, G.G. Ungewitter, Pungin, etc. Of importance also were his political writings, "Die Wahlen zum Hause der Abgeordneten" (1858) the often reprinted "Büchlein Phrasen und Schlagwörter" (1862), etc., and his "Essay über Shakespere" (1871). His juridical studies are most poorly represented. PASTOR, A Reichensberger, sein leben u. sein Wirken auf dem Gebiete der Politik, der Kunst u. der Wissenschaft. Mit Benutzung seines ungedruckten Nachlasses (2 vols., Freiburg, 1899); KRAUS in Munchener Allgem. Zeitung (1900); GORRES in the Staatslexicon. HERMANN CARDAUNS Peter Reichensberger Peter Reichensperger Jurist and parliamentarian, b. at Coblenz, 28 May, 1810; d. at Berlin, 31 December, 1892. He studied at Bonn and Heidelberg, and was successively counsellor at Coblenz (1843), of the court of appeal at Cologne (1850), and of the supreme court of Berlin (1859) until its dissolution (1879). From 1848 he was active as a parliamentarian in the Prussian Diet, the Erfurt Volkshaus, the Prussian second chamber (1849), the constituent North-German Reichstag (1857), the Customs' Parliament (1868), and the German Reichstag, representing in the last-mentioned the same district from 1871 to his death. From the first we find him labouring in close connexion with his elder brother August, and, like the latter, he defended the Rhenish system of laws against the minister von Kamptz ("Oeffentlichkeit, Mündlichkeit und Schwurgerichte", 1834). Like his brother he collaborated with the author in de Failly's much-discussed book (De la Prusse, 1842), and they jointly drew up a petition for electoral reform (1847). In the same year was published one of his best works: "Die Agrarfrage aus dem Gesichtspunkt der Nationalökonomie, der Politik und des Rechts". In 1858, when a collection of their parliamentary speeches appeared, the brothers published their political programme in the pamphlet "Die Wahlen zum preussischen Abgeordnetenhause", and two years later "Deutschlands nächste Aufgaben für die Zukunft". Shoulder to shoulder the two Dioscuri toiled in the defence of constitutional monarchy against Radicalism and of religious autonomy against bureaucratic enslavement. Less versatile than his brother, Peter surpassed him in juristic keenness and intellectual depth. In special writings he combatted the income tax (1850), the abolition of the usury laws (1860), and the corn tax (1887). At the request of the ministry of justice he drafted a mortgage law (1851). Five years later he wrote on free agricultural laws, in 1872 on the relation between Church and State, in 1876 on the Kulturkampf and peace between Church and State. In 1882 appeared his experiences of an old parliamentarian in the revolutionary year 1848. Though co-founder and leader of the Centre, he followed in many individual questions his own views, e.g. in the extension of the socialist law and in the question of the septennate. GORRES in Staatslexikon der Gorresgesellschaft (3rd ed., 1911). HERMANN CARDAUNS Reifenstein Reifenstein A former Cistercian abbey in Eichsfeld, founded on 1 August, 1162 by Count Ernst of Tonna. It was first called Albolderode and belonged to the electorate of Mainz. The monks who came from the monastery of Volkerode near Mühlhausen, displayed a brisk economic activity, and in the thirteenth century acquired about fifty estates in the neighbourhood. Little is known of the domestic life of the abbey, even the sequence of the abbots being uncertain. A monk, Heinrich Pfeifer, left Reifenstein in 1521, became a Lutheran, preached rebellion in his native town Mühlhausen, shared the leadership with Thomas Münzer in the Thuringian Peasants' War, and in May, 1525, reduced Reifenstein to ashes. After the battle of Frankenhausen Pfeifer was seized near Eisenach and executed; he died impenitent. In 1524 only six monks were left in Reifenstein, which underwent a complete decline; in 1539 one remained, and the monastery was soon deserted. In 1575 there was a single monk, and in 1579, five or six, but they led so lawless a life that Reifenstein, according to a contemporary report, resembled a robbers' cave. The church was restored in 1582. The exemplary Abbot Philipp Busse (1589-1639) re-established discipline and order. During the Thirty Years' War the monastery was pillaged seven times and almost reduced to ashes, Abbot Philipp was carried off as a prisoner, and six or seven monks were murdered. The other monks sought shelter in caves, and begged bread from the peasants. The revival of the monastery was mainly due to the learned Abbot Wilhelm Streit (1690-1721). In 1738 it had twenty-four members, and survived the distress of the Seven years' War. In 1802 the abbey fell to Prussia, was abolished on 2 March, 1803, and became a royal domain. The last abbot was Antonius Loffler (d. 1823). At present, agriculture and a school of domestic science for young women are carried on at Reifenstein. The imposing church, built in 1743, is used as a shed. WOLF, Politische Gesch. des Eichsfeldes (Gottingen, 1793), passim; IDEM, Eichsfeldische Kirchengesch. (Gottingen, 1816), passim; DUVAL, Das Eichsfeld (Sondershausen, 1845), 19-120; STURZER, Reifenstein im Eichsfelde in Cistercienser-Chronik, VII (Bregenz, 1896), 1-10, 33-43, 65-74, 102-8; SCHNEIDERWIRTH, Das einstige Cistercienserkloster Reifenstein (Heiligenstadt, 1902); KNIEB, Gesch. der Reformation u. Gegenref. auf dem Eichsfelde (2nd ed., Heiligenstadt, 1909), passim. KLEMENS LÖFFLER Johann Georg Reiffenstuel Johann Georg Reiffenstuel In religion Anacletus Theologian and canonist; b. at Kaltenbrunn (Tegernsee) 2 July, 1641; d. at Freising, 5 Oct., 1703. He entered the Franciscan (Reformed) Order in the Province of Bavaria, 3 Nov., 1658, and taught philosophy at Freising (1665), Landshut (1667-68), and Munich. He taught theology at Munich from 1671 till 1680, when he became guardian of the convent of Weilheim (1680-83). Meanwhile he had been chosen (1677) definitor of his province. In 1683 he began to teach canon law at Freising to the members of his order and the seminarians of that town. Ill-health obliged him to discontinue this teaching. In 1692 the Bishop of Freising appointed him director of the episcopal educational establishments of the town, besides which he filled offices in his order. He also devoted himself to the organization and cataloguing of the episcopal and capitular library of Freising. It would be hard to praise unduly his learning, virtue, and regularity in his religious life; he enjoyed the confidence of everyone. He first published his "Theologia moralis" (Munich, 1692), which went through thirty editions, notably those of his fellow religious Massaeus Kresslinger (Modena, 1740; Munich, 1742), and Dalmatius Kickh (Augsburg, 1762), who appended "additions", and a treatise on the "Propositiones damnatae a summis pontificibus". An Antwerp edition (1743) includes the additions of Jacques Esteva on the Bull of the Crusades. The edition issued by Flavianus Ricci a Cimbria (Augsburg, 1777) modifies his doctrines: instead of the Probabilist which he was, he makes Reiffenstuel a Probabiliorist, in conformity with the official doctrine of his order. His "Jus canonicum universum" (Munich, 1700) accords Reiffenstuel first rank among canonists; he is equalled by none, and is highly esteemed even in modern times. Subsequent editions contain a "Tractatus de regulis juris", first published at Ingolstadt in 1733. The best editions are those of Venice (1730-1735), Rome (1831-32), Paris (1864). A three-volume editio compendiaria was published at Paris (1853). He is also the author of a "Vita S. Francisci Solani", and a work "De caeremoniis et ritibus ecclesiasticis". OBERMAYR, Die Pfarrei Gmund und die Reiffenstuel (Innsbruck, 1868); GREIDERER, Germania Franciscana (Innsbruck, 1777); II, 393; Hist.-politisch. Blatter, II, 897-900 (Munich, 1873), LXXII, 590-93; HURTER, Nomenclator; SCHULTE, Gesch. der Quellen und Lit. des canonischen Rechts (Stuttgart, 1880), III, 154-55. A. VAN HOVE Reims Reims ARCHDIOCESE OF REIMS (RHEMENSIS) The Archdiocese of Reims comprises the district of Reims in the Department of Marne (Châlons-sur-Marne) and the whole Department of Ardennes. It was suppressed by the Concordat of 1802, which put the district of Reims in the Diocese of Meaux, and the Department of Ardennes in that of Metz, while two episcopal councils were established at Reims and Charleville to assist the Bishops of Meaux and Metz in their administration. The archdiocese was re-established in theory by the Concordat of 1817, and in fact in 1821; it was given Amiens and Soissons as suffragans in 1821, and Châlons-sur-Marne and Beauvais in 1822. The Remi (as the Gauls of this region were called), whose capital was Durocortorum, the present Reims, were early reduced to submission by Caesar. In the third century Reims was the capital of Belgium Secundum: the Roman governors resided there, and there Valentinian sojourned in 367. As a centre of culture, it was then considered comparable to Athens, and a beautiful Gallo-Roman gate (the Porte Mars) is still to be seen there. When Christianity was introduced is not known; it may have developed locally, from the earliest centuries, by the coalition of different groups of Christians; but the true ecclesiastical organization and the succession of bishops began only with the mission of Sts. Sixtus and Sinicius, who established their see in the upper part of the city during the second half of the third century. Late traditions have represented St. Sixtus as a disciple of St. Peter, but Archbishop Hincmar, in the ninth century, considered him as a disciple of Pope St. Sixtus II. Tradition gives to the Church of Reims a certain number of martyrs during the persecution of Diocletian; among others, Timotheus, Appolinaris, the priest Maurus, and the virgin Macra, whose relics were gathered by the Roman Eusebius. The chapel erected over their tomb afterwards became a collegiate church under the invocation of St. Timotheus. Imbetausius, who assisted the Council of Arles (314), was the fourth Bishop of Reims; he transferred his cathedral to the centre of the city. It was much exposed to the barbarian invasions. Victoriously defended, about 366, by the consul Jovinus, a Christian, it had for bishops, St. Maternian (c. 349-70) and St. Donatian (379-89), the patron of Bruges and of West Flanders. It saw the Vandals behead the archbishop, St. Nicasius, on the threshold of his church, in 406 or 407, and at the same time kill his sister St. Eutropia, his deacon St. Florens, his lector St. Jucundus, and, a short time after, his disciple St. Oriculus, and Sts. Oricula and Basilica, the sisters of St. Oriculus. St. Remigius (Remi), b. about 440, of a distinguished Gallo-Roman family, and whom St. Sidonius Appolinaris appreciated very highly as a rhetorician, became Bishop of Reims at the age of twenty-two. His history is known through a short biography, falsely attributed to Fortunatus, and a longer one, of a legendary character, written by Hincmar in 878. St. Remigius directed the Christianization of the neighboring regions, sending Antimond into the country about Terouanne and Boulogne, St. Vaast into the Arras district, and creating the Bishopric of Laon; he brought about the marriage of Clovis with St. Clotilda, and baptized Clovis on 24 December, 496. His success had immense political and religious results; the Gallo-Roman populations would not have submitted to Clovis the Frank, had he remained a pagan, and his conversion made him the protector of the Catholics of Burgundy and Aquitaine, whose princes were Arians. The "Testament" of St. Remigius is apocryphal, as is the letter by which Pope Hormisdas was supposed to have appointed him Apostolic legate for the whole of Gaul. But it is true that St. Remigius laid the foundations of the political authority and religious power of the See of Reims, and that from his time the name of Reims was well esteemed and respected at Rome. He died 10 January, 535. Among the bishops of Reims who followed him were: St. Nivard (649-72), who caused the monastery of Hauvillers to be rebuilt and established St. Bercarius there; Sr. Rieul (672-98), who built the monastery of Orbais; St. Rigobert (698-743), who baptized Charles Martel, was afterwards brutally driven from the see and replaced by a certain Milo, the king's favourite, and took refuge first in Aquitaine and then at Gernicourt, in the Diocese of Soissons, where he died; Tilpin (or Turpin, 753-800), a friend of Charlemagne, whose name was afterwards, not later than the end of the eleventh century, forged to a chronicle of Charlemagne and Roland, very popular in the Middle Ages. The political importance of the See of Reims, situated geographically between France and Germany, was manifested in the ninth century during the episcopates of Ebbo (816-35), whose disagreements with Louis the Debonnaire are matters of history; of Hincmar (845-82), the most illustrious of the archbishops of Reims; of Fulk (883-900), chancellor of Charles the Simple, who maintained the rights of the Carlovingians against Eudes, Count of Paris, ancestor of the House of Capet; of Hervé (900-922), who laboured for the conversion of the Normans and, enentually rallying to the Capetians, crowned Robert king in 922. In 925 Count Herbert of Vermandois had his son Hugh, a boy of less than five years of age, consecrated Archbishop of Reims, but in 932 King Raoul caused Artaud (932-61) to be consecrated, and Hugh, who insisted upon his archepiscopal rights, was excommunicated by a council in 948 and by Pope Agapetus in 949. The decisive part taken by Archbishop Adalbero (969-88) in the elevation of the Capets to the throne, the political part played by Archbishop Arnould (988-91 and 995-1021), as a partisan of the Carlovingians, and the brief occupancy of the see by Gerbert (991-95), afterwards Sylvester II, are treated in the articles HUGH CAPET and SYLVESTER II, POPE. Manasses de Gournay (1069-80) was deposed for simony at the behest of Gregory VII in the Council of Lyons. Henry of France, second son of King Louis VI (1162-75), did much to secure the recognition in France of Pope Alexander III against the antipope Octavian, and resisted the attempts of the burghers to form themselves into a commune. William of the White Hands (1176-1202), uncle to Philip Augustus and cousin of Henry II of England, was made a cardinal in 1179, and was legate in France and Germany under Innocent III. It was he who granted to the burghers of Reims in 1182 the Wilhelmine Charter, a concession to the communal movement. Cardinal Gui de Paray (1204-06), formerly Abbot of Cîteaux, suppressed Manichaeism in his diocese. Albéric de Humbert (1206-18) took part in the Albigensian War and, in 1211, laid the first stone of the present cathedral. In 1250, Johel de Mathefelon (1244-50), conferred the office of Grand Archdeacon of Reims on Cardinal Ottoboni nephew of Innocent IV, who became pope under the name of Adrian V. Pierre Babette (1274-98) petitioned Gregory X in 1276 for the canonization of St. Louis, and obtained it from Boniface VIII in 1297. The Dominican Humbert, Dauphin of Viennois, occupied the see of Reims from 1352 to 1355. Guy de Roye (1390-1409), who was killed in Italy on his way to the Couicil of Pisa, was the author of the "Dortrinale Sapientiae". Simon de Cramaud (1409-13), created cardinal in 1413, had an important share in putting an end to the Great Schism. Renaud de Chartres (1414-44), made cardinal in 1439, chancellor to Charles VII, showed himself very unfavourable to the mission of Joan of Arc; when the heroine was captured (23 May, 1430) he wrote a letter to the inhabitants of Reims in a spirit hostile to her, and he took no steps to rescue Joan from his suffragan, Bishop Cauchon of Beauvais. Reynaud was one of the plenipotentiaries who signed the Treaty of Arras between Charles VII and the Duke of Burgundy. Jacques Juvenel des Ursins (1444-9) was commissioned by Charles VII, in 1447, to notify Amadeus of Savoy that he must abdicate the papal throne, and to treat with Nicholas V for the restoration of peace to the Church. Jean Juvenel des Ursins (1449-73) was ordered by Callistus III to revise the process of Blessed Joan of Arc; he also wrote a history of the reign of Charles VI. Guillaume Briconnet was created cardinal in 1493 and occupied the See of Reims from 1497 to 1507. His successor, Charles Dominique de Carrette (1507-8) was Cardinal of Final after 1505. Robert de Lenoncourt (1508-32) enriched the cathedral with sumptuous tapestries representing the life and death of the Blessed Virgin, and the Church of St. Remigius with tapestries on the life of its titular saint. In 1553 the House of Lorraine began to acquire a hold on the See of Reims, where it was first represented by John V of Lorraine (1533-8), next by Cardinal Charles of Lorraine (1538-74), and then by Cardinal Louis de Guise (1574-88). In 1585 Reims had taken sides with the League, and the Duke of Mayenne and the Maréchal de St. Paul ruled as masters in the city until 1594. The "Journalier" of Jean Pussot, the carpenter, is even now a capital source of information on the League spirit which animated the people of Reims, showing at the same time how they gradually rallied to Henry IV. Philippe du Bec, one of the prelates who had laboured most earnestly for Henry IV's conversion, was by him nominated Archbishop of Reims in January, 1595. The see was next occupied by another Guise, Louis of Lorraine, made a cardinal in 1615. At his death the see was given to William Gifford, an Englishman by origin. This personage, who had been successively canon-theologian of the cathedral of Milan under St. Charles Borromeo, dean of St. Peter's at Lille, rector of the University of Reims, a monk in the monastery of St-Benoît en Voivre, at Metz, and founder of two Benedictine houses at St. Malo and Paris, spent his whole life helping the expatriated English Catholics in France and the apostles who were going thence, with all caution, to strengthen persecuted Catholicism in England. He wrote a treatise on predestination and a work against the Calvinists entitled "Calvino-Furcismus". His successor, in 1629, Henry of Lorraine, the adventurous Guise who afterwards attempted an expedition against Naples, never received Holy Orders, and in 1641 Richelieu compelled him to give up the emoluments of the archbishopric. In the course of the seventeenth century two religious women who belonged to the House of Guise had also been abbesses at St-Pierre-les-Dames at Reims, and Mary Stuart, at the age of six, had spent some time and received a part of her education there. Among the later archbishops of Reims may be mentioned: Antonio Barberini (1657-71), cardinal in 1627; Charles-Maurice Le Tellier (1671-1710), who, unhappily, caused to be demolished the superb archepiscopal palace raised by men of preceding ages, distinguished himself by his hatred of the Jesuits and his antipathy to Roman doctrines, and bequeathed his magnificent library to the Abbey of Ste-Geneviêve at Paris; François de Mailly (1710-31), cardinal in 1698; Charles-Antoine de La Roche Aymon (1762-77), cardinal in 1771; Alexandre-Angélique de Tallyrand-Périgord (1777-1801), who was a deputy in the States-General of 1789, combated the project of the civil constitution of the clergy in several of his writings, emigrated under the Revolution, refused to resign after the Concordat, remained near Louis XVIII after 1803, returned with him to France in 1814, accepted his dismissal from the Archbishopric of Reims in 1816, and in 1817 was made a cardinal and Archbishop of Paris; Jean-Baptiste-Marie-Antoine de Latil (1824-39), chaplain to the future Charles X from 1804, cardinal in 1826, joined Charles X in England, and spent the last nine years of his life away from his diocese; the theologian Thomas Gousset (1840-66), cardinal in 1851; the writer and preacher Landriot (1867-74), famous during the Franco-German War through his protest against the military execution of Abbé Miroy, one of his parish priests, by the Germans in the middle of an armistice; Benoît-Marie Langénieux (1874-1905), one of the most illustrious prelates of the end of the nineteenth century, who took the initiative of leading pilgrimmages of Christian workmen to the Holy See, and thus played a part in the great social movement which culminated in the encyclical "Rerum Novarum". He presided in 1893, as papal legate, at the Eucharistic Congress in Jerusalem, when all the Eastern Churches, whether united with Rome or separated, bore testimony to their faith in the Eucharist. He was the first cardinal to visit the Holy Land since the Cuusades. In 1896 he organized the festival to celebrate the fourteenth centenary of the baptism of Clovis. In the Merovingian period, Reims apparently enjoyed ecclesiastical supremacy over the eleven cities of Soissons, Châlons, Vermand, Arras, Cambrai, Tournai, Senlis, Beauvais, Amiens, Terouanne, and Boulogne; and when St. Remigius detached a part of his own diocese to form that of Laon, it made one more suffragan for Reims. The erection of the Bishopric of Cambrai into an archepiscopal see by a Bull dated 12 May,1559, took from the metropolitan jurisdiction of Reims the Dioceses of Cambrai, Arras, and Tournai. At the same time the See of Terouanne was suppressed, and out of its territory three new dioceses were made: one of them, Boulogne, dependent on Reims; the other two, St. Omer and Ypres, dependent on Cambrai and Mechlin. The archbishops of Reims, legati nati of the Holy See, had, as primates, jurisdiction over the other metropolitans of Gaul. From the time of Louis IV D'Outre-Mer they had been counts. They were entitled to coin money, had their town guard, and levied armies. As soon as a new archbishop was elected he made a visitation of his suffragans; in each city, on the arrival of the metropolitan, business was suspended, the people and the clergy, magistrates, even princes, went to meet him, prisons were thrown open, and exiles were recalled from banishment. The inhabitants of Saint-Quentin and Saint-Valéry were under his judicial jurisdiction, and had to bring their pleas to the archepiscopal court of Reims. In 999 a Bull of Sylvester II recognized the right of the archbishops of Reims to crown the kings, and, at the coronation of Philip I, Archbishop Gervais took advantage of the presence of the papal legates to proclaim once more this right, which right Alexander III, by a Brief of 1179, prohibited any other archbishop from arrogating to himself. Louis VII, at his coronation, raised the Countship of Reims to the rank of a duchy and peerage of the kingdom. On the tomb of St. Remigius, as built by Archbishop Robert de Lenoncourt, there are niched figures representing the twelve peers who carry the symbols of the coronation: on the right, the six spiritual peers -- the Archbishop of Reims, who anointed the king; the Bishop-Duke of Laon, who held the sacred ampulla; the Bishop-Duke of Langres, with the sceptre; the Bishop-Count of Beauvais, with the emblazoned surcoat; the Bishop-Count of Châlons, with the royal ring; the Bishop-Count of Noyon, with the baldric -- and on the left the six temporal peers -- the Duke of Burgundy, holding the crown; the Dukes of Guyenne and Normandy, and the Counts of Champagne, Flanders, and Toulouse. The ceremonies of the coronation at Reims presented two characteristic features: the use of the sacred ampulla and the touching for scrofula (king's evil). According to the legend -- of which, however, St. Avitus, a witness of the baptism of Clovis, was ignorant in the fifth century, and the first trace of which appears in Hincmar -- the holy ampulla was brought by a dove to St. Remigius when he was in the act of crowning Clovis. This ampulla was a small crysral vial, two-thirds full of balm; its supurb ornamentation was added later. It was kept at Saint-Remi, in a reliquary which also contained a golden needle and a silver paten. When needed for a coronation, the Abbot of Saint-Remi brought it to the cathedral. The golden needle was used to mix the balm, taken from the ampulla, with charism on the silver paten. The holy ampulla left Reims only once, when Louis XI, being sick at Plessis-les-Tours in 1483, hoped that an unction from it would cure him. The authenticity of the sacred ampulla began to be questioned when Henry IV could not be crowned at Reims because the Guises occupied Champagne; on this occasion an ampulla was used which was preserved at the abbey of Marmoutiers, and which had cured St. Martin. Jean-Jacques Chifflet, first physician to Philip IV of Spain, in 1651 wrote a book expressly to disprove the authenticity of the Reims ampulla. In 1793 the vial was broken in the public square of Reims; but a few days before this was done, a Constitutional parish priest had taken out some of the balm and put it in a place of safety; it was from this portion that Charles X was anointed. The legendary privilege of healing scrofula on the day of the coronation was supposed to have been given by St. Remigius to the kings of France and confirmed to them by St. Marcoul, Abbot of Nanteuil (d. 552), whose remains rested after the ninth century at Corbeny, in the Diocese of Laon -- hence the pilgrimages made by several kings, after their concecration, to Corbeny. Louis XIII was the last king to make this pilgrimage (in 1610); Louis XVI had the relics of St. Marcoul brought to the Abbey of Saint-Remi, so as to avoid going out of Reims. Louis XVIII did not touch for the scrofula, but Charles X did, the day after his consecration, at the hospital of Saint-Marcoul, changing the formula, "Le roi te touche, Dieu te guérit" (The king touches thee, God heals thee), to "Le roi te touche, Dieu te guerisse" (The king touches thee, may God heal thee). Several of the popes visited Reims. In the early days of the Carlovingian dynasty it was the scene of two famous interviews: between Stephen III and Pepin the Short, and between Leo III and Charlemagne. In 816 Louis the Debonnaire was crowned by Stephen V in the cathedral of Reims, and the pope conferred the title of Augusta on Queen Ermengarde. Pope Leo IX came to Reims in September, 1049, during the episcopate of Guy de Chatillion; he consecrated the church of St. Remigius, and decreed that thenceforward the feast of that saint should be kept of the first day of October, throughout the whole kingdom. During the episcopate of Raoul de Verd, Pope Callistus II presided at a council held at Reims from 20 to 30 October, 1119. St. Norbert came thither barefoot and in penitential garb, and Callistus confirmed the authority granted to him by Pope Galasius, to preach the Gospel in all places. The council drew up a decree for the Truce of God, and excommunicated Bourdin, the antipope, and the Emporer Henry. Pope Innocent II, on 19 October, 1131, in the episcopate of Renard de Martigné, opened at Reims a council at which St. Bernard appeared, and the antipope Anacletus was excommunicated. While this council was sitting, the pope crowned (25 October) Louis the Younger, afterward Louis VII, in the presence of his father Louis VI. Lastly, at the request of Bernard, Bishop of Hildesheim, he canonized St. Godehard. Pope Eugene III, on 22 March, 1148, opened at reims a council at which St. Bernard forced Gilbert de La Porrée to retract his errors on the essence of God, and Samson de Mauvoisin, Archbishop of Reims, caused Eon de l'Etoile to be condemned. From the ninth century to the eleventh, the buildings of a monastery for women founded by St. Gombert were used by poor children who desired to learn, who lived on alms, prayed in the chapel of St. Patrick, and attended the chapter schools. This was the origin of the "Collège de Bons Enfants", the functions of which were regulated by Juhel's Charter, in 1245, and which prepared a certain number of boys for the priesthood. Between 1544 and 1546, Paul Grand Raoul, the scholasticus of Reims, had the college rebuilt, and it was in this building, by that time still further enlarged, that Cardinal Charles of Lorraine installed the university, for which he had obtained from Paul III a Bull of erection (5 January, 1548) and the foundation of which was sanctioned by Henry II in March, 1548. It was to comprise the four faculties of arts, theology, law, and medicine. The faculty of theology was completed through the liberality of Antoine Fournier (b. at Reims, 1532), who administered the Diocese of Metz for another Charles of Lorraine. The university was the stronghold of the League in Champagne, and in 1588 it adhered to the solemn declaration by which the Sorbonne declared the French people to be absolved from their oath of allegance to Henry III after the assassination of the Duke of Guise. But when Henry IV had had himself crowned at Chartres, and the most fiery Leaguers of Reims were contemplating going into exile, the faculty of theology gave the signal for submission. In 1606, when, through the favour of Archdeacon François Brulart, the Jesuits set up a college at Reims, they asked to be incorporated in the university, and in 1609 they obtained their request. Repeated conflicts, however, arose between the Jesuits and the university, first in 1617, then in 1660 and 1664, again in 1722 on the question of Jansenism, and again in 1752. In 1682 the theological faculty of Reims adhered to the Four Articles, and in 1688, when Innocent excommunicated Lavardin, Louis XIV's ambassador, it voted by acclamation in favour of an appeal to a council. Until 1723 it refused to submit to the Bull "Unigenitus", and one of its doctors, Jean Lacourt, was even sent to the Bastille at this time for six months. (On the foundations at the University of Reims made in the sixteenth century with a view to the Catholic apostolate in England, see ALLEN, WILLIAM.) The chapter of Reims possessed rights over 150 villages of the diocese. History records as having been members of that chapter 5 popes, 23 archbishops, 53 cardinals, and a considerable number of bishops; pursuant to what was known as the "Jouanine privilege". Obtained under Jean de Craon, its members were exempt from all jurisdiction except the pope's. Among them may be mentioned: St. Bruno, founder of the Carthusians ((1030-1101), who was at one time scholasticus of Reims; Otton of Châtillon, who became pope in 1088 under the name of Urban II; Guillaume Coquillart, who died about 1490, in his younger days, as a law student, the author of celebrated jocose poems; Maucroix (1619-95), the friend of Boileau and La Fontaine. A very curious festival which the chapter used to hold in the Middle Ages was the procession of the herrings. At the beginning of Lent, they went in Indian file from the cathedral to St-Remi, each dragging a herring after him by a thread -- a symbol of the Lenten abstinence -- and each trying to put his foot on the herring dragged by the next canon ahead of him. The celebrated cathedral of Reims is dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. The edifice raised by Hincmar having been destroyed by a fire in 1211, Bishop Albéric de Humbert undertook to build the present cathedral in its place. It was completed in 100 years -- from 1211 to 1311 -- and hence the admirable unity of design and execution which characterize it as an example of Gothic architecture. Jean d'Orbais seems to have been the first architect, originating the plan and building the apse; the great doorway, crowned with the famous gallery containing forty-two statues of kings of France, is chiefly the work of Robert de Coucy, in the beginning of the fourteenth century. In the treasury of the cathedral is preserved the chalice of St. Remigius (see illustration to CHALICE), from which the kings of France used to communicate under the species of wine at the end of the coronation ceremonies, and which, according to tradition, was cut from the gold of the celebrated vase of Soissons broken by one of Clovis's soldiers. On 1 Feb., 1886, the Cathedral of Reims was affiliated to the illustrious Lateran Basilica, thereby participating in the privilege of all the indulgences and spiritual favours attached to the cathedral of Rome. In 1891 the canons of St. Peter at Rome presented to the chapter at Reims a portion of the relics of St. Petronilla; the translation of these sacred bones to Reims took place on Whitsunday, 1892. The Benedictine monastery of St-Remi was long independent of the archbishops. The present church of St-Remi was begun in 1005 by Airard, abbot of the monastery, and some of the capitals date from that period. The work was resumed on a simpler plan by Abbot Thierry in 1039, when the south transept was built; the apse dates from 1170, in the time of Abbot de Celles. Carloman, Louis IV D'Outre-Mer, Lothair, and Hincmar wished to be buried in this church. Its treasure, made up of the offerings of kings and princes who visited the tomb of St. Remigius, would be of considerable value if it had not been brought into requisition on several occasions of public necessity -- now to ransom a royal prisoner, now to supply money for the purposes of war. Then, acting at the king's behest, the archbishop issued an order that the gold and silver reliquaries (chasses) should be sent to the mint; the abbey received specie to the amount of one-fourth the value of the metal coined, and the balance in promissory notes which were rarely redeemed. The church of St-Remi has been a "minor basilica" since 28 June, 1870. The church of Ste-Clotilde, the foundation stone of which was laid on 26 June, 1898, on the centenary of the baptism of Clovis, was opened in March, 1901, and raised to the rank of a basilica by Leo XIII on 5 March, 1902. At present it possesses 70 chasses and nearly 1000 relics. The centenary celebration drew together an attendance of 77 prelates and 69 pilgrimages, and was the occasion of seven congresses. Leo XIII sent Mgr. Ciocci, pontifical master of ceremonies, to preside at the solemn recognition of the relics of St. Remigius and their transfer to a new chasse. The same pope granted to France the privilege of a national jubilee, and wrote a Latin "Ode to France", which was the inspiration of Theodore Dubois's oratorio "The Baptism of Clovis". The hospital of Saint-Marcoul was founded in 1645 by Marguerite Rousselet for cases of contagious scrofula -- i.e. tuberculosis. It was the first institution to practise isolation of tuberculosis patients. The coronation of Charles VII at Reims (17 July, 1429), brought about by Joan of Arc, is an historical event of especial importance. Joan's father was present at the ceremony, and had his lodgings at Reims in the "Hôtel de l'Ane Rayé"; the archives of the city still preserve the accounts of expenses incurred for his entertainment. Joan wrote from Reims (17 July) a letter to Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, inviting him to make peace; in August, 1429, and March, 1430, she wrote from Bray-sur-Seine and from Sully three letters to her "very dear and good friends and loyal Frenchmen, dwelling in the city of Reims", exhorting them not to lose heart under the renewed menaces of the Duke of Burgundy and the English. The Abbey of Hautvilliers, in the Diocese of Reims, was the original home of the heretic Gottschalk. Besides the saints already mentioned, the following are especially honoured in the diocese: St. Gertrude, virgin and martyr (d.362); St. Paul of Reims, solitary at Glanum (now Saint-Remy) in Provence, then Bishop of Trois Châteaux (second half of the fourth century); St. Victor of Mouzon and his sister Suzanne, martyrs in 420; St. Emilius, father of St. Remigius; St. Celina, his mother; St. Principius, his brother; St. Balsamia, his nurse; St. Celsinus, his foster brother; Sts. Lupus, Bishop of Soissons, and Genebald, Bishop of Laon, his nephews; St. Latrow, his grandnephew (all sixth-century); the saints of the little Irish colony which St. Remigius established in the valley of the Marne; St. Gibrien, his brothers Sts. Hélan, Trésain, Germanus, Véran, Abran, and Pétran, and his sisters Sts. Francle, Prompta, and Posenna (sixth century); St. Thierry, St. Remigius's deacon, and Abbot of Mount d'Hor near Reims (d.c. 533); St. Rogatian, Count of Réthel, converted by St. Remigius, and his son St. Arnould, who was perhaps Bishop of Tours, and was assassinated at Reims; St. Leonard, a disciple of St. Remigius, who refused a bishopric offered to him by Clovis and died a solitary in the Diocese of Limoges (sixth century; St. Bertaud (472-545), a Scotchman (Scotus) by origin, solitary at Chaumont -- Porcien, his friend St. Aumond, Bishop of Térouane, and his disciples Sts. Olive and Libérète (sixth century); St. Attolus, disciple of St. Remigius, founder of twelve hospitals, his son St. Elan, and his daughter St. Euphrasia (sixth century); St. Theodulph (d. 590), Abbot of Mont d'Hor, who left among the neighboring populations such a reputation as a ploughman that his plough was preserved as a relic; St. Basle the hermit, a great protector of animals, and his disciple St. Sindulph (sixth century); St. Wolfroy, monk at Ivois (sixth century); St. Baudry and his sister St. Bode, children of Sigebert, King of Austrasia, founders of the monastery of Saint-Pierre-les-Dames at Reims, and their niece St. Dode, abbess of the monastery (seventh century); St. Gombert, missionary in Scotland and martyr, and his wife St. Bertha, foundress of the Abbey of Avenay, who was assassinated (seventh century); St. Mérolilain, Irish priest, killed near Reims (eighth or ninth century); the shepherd of St. Juvinus, solitary (d. 961); St. Flotilda, ecstatic (tenth century); Blessed Odo, Canon of Reims, b. 1042, at Châtillon sur Marne, prior of Binson (a priory the chapel of which still exists and was restored by Cardinal Langénieux), afterwards pope under the name Urban II, whose cultus, existing from time immemorial, was recognized by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 July, 1881, at the petition of Cardinal Langénieux; St. Maurilis of Reims, Archbishop of Rouen (1055-67); St. Gervinus, Canon of Reims, Abbot of S. Riquier (d. 1073); Ven. Richard (d. 1046), Canon of Reims, Abbot of Saint Vanne at Verdun, ambassador from the Emperor Henry to King Robert, and to whom, in concert with St. Odilo, Abbot of Cluny, is due the adoption in Neustria of the "Peace of God"; St. Albert, Bishop of Liège, assassinated at Reims in 1192 by partisans of the Emperor Henry Vi; St. Gerard, Canon of Reims, Bishop of Cambria (d. 1048); Blessed Roger, an Englishman by origin, first abbot of the Cistercian Abbey of Elan (d. 1175); Bllessed Roland, Cistercian monk of Chéhéry (d. 1160); Blessed Humbert (d. 1148), Guerric (d. 1157), and Minoculus (d. 1186), abbots of the Cistercian Abbey of Igny, the last-named of whom was sent by Pope Lucian as ambassador to the Emporer of Germany and died Abbot of Clairveaux; St. John Baptist de La Salle (1651-1719), b. at Reims, Canon of Reims, founder of the Institute of Christian Brothers; Ven. Jacques Lion (1671-1738), a native of Fumay, Hieronymite monk. Among the distinguished persons connected with this diocese may also be mentioned: Dom Marlot (1596-1667), the Benedictine, b. at Reims, and the author of a history of the city which is still authoritative: Pétau (1583-1652), the first to be honoured with a professorship of rhetoric in the Jesuit college at Reims; Colbert (1619-83), the famous minister, b. at Reims; Mabillon (1632-1707), b. at St. Pierremont; Ruinart (1657-1709), author of the "Acta Martyrum", b. at Reims; the Abbé Pluche (1688-1761), b. at Reims, professor in the college of Reims, author of the "Spectacle de la Nature" and the "Histoire du Ciel"; Tronson Ducoudray (1750-98), who defended Marie Antoinette; Linguet (1736-94), the controversialist who publicly defended the Jesuits after their expulsion from France; Anquetil, director of the Seminary of Reims, and author of a history of the city (1756). Besides the tomb of St. Remigius, the principal pilgrimages of the diocese are: Our Lady of Hope, or of Mercy, at Mézières, dating back to 930; Our Lady Help of Christians (Notre Dame de Bon Secours), at Neuvizy, dating from 1752; the Virgin at the Oak, a pilgrimage organized by Archbishop Langénieux, in 1880, to a little image which had been venerated by pious souls since the fourteenth century; the pilgrimage to the relics of St. Helena, the empress, at Hautevilliers. Before the Law of Congregations of 1901 was put into effect, there were in the Diocese of Reims Capuchins, Jesuits, Sulpicians, and various orders of teaching brothers; there are still Trappists, White Fathers of Our Lady of Africa, and Lazarists. Many orders of women have had their origin in the diocese; the Canonesses of the Hôtel Dieu, dating from the sixth century; the Sisters of the Holy Infant Jesus, founded in 1670 by Canon Roland for the gratuitous instruction of poor girls, with the mother-house at Reims, a foundation which suggested to St. John Baptist de La Salle, a friend of Canon Roland, the idea of accomplishing a similar work for boys; the Sisters of the Divine Providence, a nursing and teaching institute, founded in 1850, with mother-house at Reims; the Sisters of St-Marcoul, who care for patients afflicted with cancer, paralysis, and scrofula, in the hospital of St-Marcoul at Reims. At the close of the nineteenth century the religious congregations in the diocese had the direction of 3 crèches, 52 nurseries, 14 orphanages, 2 workshops, 2 professional schools, 14 hospitals or hospices, 11 houses of religious women devoted to the care of the sick in their own homes, 2 houses of retreat. At the end of 1909 the Diocese of Reims contained 520,650 Catholics, 47 parishes, 545 succursal parishes, and 67 curacies, (of which, under the Concordat, the salaries of 9 had been paid by the State). Gallia christiana (nova, 1751), IX, 1-332, instrum., 1-94, FISQUET, La France pontificale (Reims, Paris, 1864); FLODOARD, Histoire de l'eglise de Reims, Fr. tr. (3 vols., Reims, 1854-55); MARLOT, Histoire de la ville, cite et universite de Reims, Fr. tr. (4 vols., Reims, 1843-6); Polyptique de l'abbaye S. Remi de Reims, ed. GUERARD (Paris, 1853); PUSSOT, Journalier ou Memoires, ed. HENRY AND LORIQUET (Reims, 1858); CERF, Vie des saintes du diocese de Reims (2 vols., Reims, 1898); DEMAISON AND JADART, Apercu de l'histoire de Reims (Reims, 1907); CAULY, Histoire du college des Bons Enfants (Reims, 1885); IDEM, Etudes sur la faculte de theologie de l'universite de Reims (Reims, 1898); LANDOUZY, Le toucher des ecrouelles, l'hopital S. Marcoul (Paris, 1907); BAZIN, Une vieille cite de France, Reims, monuments et histoire (Reims, 1900); GOSSET, La cathedrale de Reims (Reims, 1894). GEORGES GOYAU Synods of Reims Synods of Reims The first synod said to have been held at Reims by Archbishop Sonnatius between 624 and 630 is probably identical with that held at Clichy (Clippiacum) in 626 or 627. In 813 Archbishop Wulfar presided at a synod of reform (Werminghoff in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Concilia aevi Carol. I", I, Hanover, 1904, 253 sq.). On 17 June, 991, Abp. Siguin of Sens presided in the basilica of St. Basle, near Reims, over the synod which deposed Abp. Arnulf of Reims (Schlockwerder, "Das Konzil zu St. Basle", Magdeburg, 1906). In 1049, Leo IX presided at a reformatory synod (Drehmann, "Papst Leo IX u. die Simonie", Leipzig, 1908). In 1115 a synod was held at which the cardinal legate Cuno of Praeneste excommunicated King Henry. In 1119 Calistus II convened a synod for the purpose of concluding peace with Henry V. There were present 15 archbishops, over 200 bishops, and as many abbots. In 1148 Eugene III was present at a synod against Gilbert de la Porée and the fanatic Eon de l'Estoile. In 1164 Alexander III presided at a synod which urged the crusade against Emperor Frederick I. In 1407 Abp. Guido III convened a synod to abolish the abuses that had crept into the Church of Reims during the Western Schism. In 1528 Abp. Robert III held a synod against Luther. In 1564 Cardinal Charles of Lorraine convened a reformatory synod to enforce the Tridentine decrees. In 1583 Cardinal Francis of Guise held a synod at which 27 reformatory decrees were enacted. After a lapse of almost three centuries Cardinal Gousset of Reims convoked a synod at Soissons in 1849; another, at Amiens in 1853; a third, at Reims in 1857. The acts of the last three synods are printed in "Collectio Lacensis", IV, 91-246. For the acts of the preceding and many other synods of minor importance, see GOUSSET, Actes de la province ecclesiastique de Reims (Reims, 1841); HEFELE, Conciliengesch. MICHAEL OTT Reinmar of Hagenau Reinmar of Hagenau A German minnesinger of the twelfth century, surnamed in the MSS. der Alte (the old) to distinguish him from later poets of that name. He is undoubtedly identical with the Reinmar referred to by Gottfried von Strasburg in his "Tristan" as the nightingale of Hagenau, the leader of the choir of nightingales, whose voice had just been hushed by death and who was to be succeeded by Walther von der Vogelweide. From this it may be inferred that the poet or his family came from Hagenau in Alsace (though there is also a place of that name in Austria), and that he died shortly before 1210, when Gottfried's "Tristan" was written. Otherwise we know nothing of Reinmar's life except what may be gathered from his verses. He certainly was in Vienna in 1195 at the Austrian court; he also participated in a crusade, presumably that undertaken by Duke Leopold in 1190. It seems that he lived for a long time at the Austrian court, where he enjoyed a high reputation and was much admired, even by the greatest of all minnesingers, Walther von der Vogelweide, who acknowledges himself as Reinmar's pupil, though this must not be taken in a literal sense. Reinmar's lyrics show the Romance influence that had been predominant since Veldeke and Hausen. They are perfect in form and thoroughly "courtly" in sentiment. Passion and natural feeling are repressed, maze, correctness and propriety, reign supreme. General reflections are common, concrete images and situations few. When, however, Reinmar breaks through the bounds of convention and allows his heart to speak, as in the lament for the death of the duke, which is put into the mouth of the duchess herself, he shows lyric gifts of a high order. But this does not often happen, and most of Reinmar's poems show more elegance of form than beauty of sentiment. In a society, however, where form was valued more than contents, such poetry was bound to meet with favour. Reinmar's poems are edited in Lachmann and Haupt, "Minnesangs Fruhling", XX (4th edition, Leipzig, 1888). SCHMIDT, R. v. H. und Heinrich von Rugge in Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach- und Culturgesch. der germanischen Volker (Strasburg, 1874), 4; PAUL in PAUL AND BRAUNES, Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache- und Literature, 2487 sq.; BURDACH, R. der Alte und Walther von der Vogelweide (Leipzig, 1880). ARTHUR F.J. REMY Carl von Reisach Carl von Reisach Born at Roth, Bavaria, 7 July, 1800; died in the Redemptorist monastery of Contamine, France, 22 December, 1869. On the completion of his secular studies in Neuburg on the Danube, he studied philosophy at Munich (1816), and jurisprudence at Heidelberg, Göttingen, and Landshut, securing at the last (1821) the Degree of Doctor Juris Utriusque. Devoting himself a little later to the study of theology, he received minor orders at Innsbruck in 1824, was ordained in 1828 after philosophical and theological studies in the German College at Rome, and in the following year graduated Doctor of Theology. Pius VII soon appointed him rector of studies at the College of the Propaganda, an office which brought him into close relations with the succeeding pope, Gregory XVI. Urged by this pontiff to devote special attention to the affairs of the Catholic Church in Germany, he attacked the current anti-ecclesiastical views and tendencies, especially with regard to mixed marriages, in his work "Was haben wir von den Reformatoren und Stimmführen des katholischen Deutschland unserer Tage zu halten?", which appeared at Mainz in 1835 under the pseudonym Athanasius Sincerus Philalethes. In 1836 he became Bishop of Eichstatt (Bavaria) and, by the foundation of the boys' seminary (1838) and the erection of the lyceum (1843), rendered the greatest services to the ecclesiastical life of the diocese. As delegate of the pope and the Kings of Prussia and Bavaria, he mediated in the Prussian ecclesiastical dispute, and the rapid settlement of the "Cologne muddle" (Kölner Wirren) was due primarily to him. In recognition of his services, he was named in 1841 Coadjutor, and in 1847 Archbishop of Munich-Freising. His zeal on behalf of the Church having rendered him unpleasing to the Government, he was, at the request of King Maximilian II of Bavaria, summoned to Rome by Pius IX as cardinal-priest, with the title of St. Anastasia. He conducted the concordat negotiations with Würtemberg and Baden, took a prominent part in the preparations for the council, became in 1867 President of the Congregation of Ecclesiastico-political Affairs, in 1869 first legate of the council, was consultor of the Congregation for the Index, for the publication of the ecclesiastical canons of the Eastern Churches, for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, for the Examination of Bishop, member of the Congregation of the Propaganda and of Sacred Rites, Minister of Education for the Papal States, and in 1868 Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia. Katholik, I (Mainz, 1870), 129 sqq.; MOLITOR, Cardinal Reisach (Wurzburg, 1874); Allgem. deutsche Biogr., XXVIII (Leipzig, 1889), 114. PATRICIUS SCHLAGER Gregor Reisch Gregor Reisch Born at Balingen in Wurtemberg, about 1467; died at Freiburg, Baden, 9 May, 1525. In 1487 he became a student at the University of Freiburg, Baden, and received the degree of magister in 1489. He then entered the Carthusian Order. During the years 1500-1502 he was prior at Klein-Basel; from 1503 to shortly before his death he was prior at Freiburg. He was also visitor for the Rhenish province of his order. As visitor he made very exertion to combat Lutheranism. He was a friend of the most celebrated Humanists of the era, e.g., Erasmus, Wimpfeling, Beatus, Rheananus, Udalricus Zasius, and the celebrated preacher, Geiler of Kaisersberg. John Eck was his pupil. Reisch had a great reputation for adaptability and was regarded as an "oracle". He was one of the most conspicuous, if not the most conspicuous, of the intellectual men at the commencement of the new era who sought to prepare encyclopedia works of knowledge. His chief work is the "Margarita philosophica", which first appeared at Freiburg in 1503 (not as early as 1496). It is an encyclopedia of knowledge intended as a text-book for youthful students, and contains in twelve books Latin grammar, dialectics, rhetoric, arithmetic, music, geometry, astronomy, physics, natural history, physiology, psychology, and ethics. The usefulness of the work was increased by numerous woodcuts and a full index. The form is catechetical: the scholar questions and the teacher answers. The book was very popular on account of its comparative brevity and popular form, and was for a long time a customary textbook of the higher schools. Alexander von Humboldt said of it that it had "for a half-century, aided in a remarkable manner the spread of knowledge". In 1510 Reisch also published the statutes and privileges of the Carthusian Order, and assisted Erasmus of Rotterdam in his edition of Jerome. PETREIUS, Bibliotheca Carthusiana (Cologne, 1609), 109-112; HURTER, Nomenclator, II (3rd ed. Innsbruck, 1906), 1278-79; HARTFELDER, Gregor Reisch, in Zeitschrift fur die Geschichte des Oberrheins, New Series, V (Freiburg, 1890), 170-200. KLEMENS LÖFFLER Relationship Relationship (CARNAL AND SPIRITUAL) The theologians understand by relationship in general a certain connexion of persons established either by nature or by the civil or canon law. Hence they distinguish three kinds, natural, legal and spiritual. With legal relationship we are not here concerned. Natural or carnal relationship originates in carnal intercourse of man and woman, whether marital or not. It is twofold: consanguinity and affinity. Spiritual relationship has been introduced by ecclesiastical law. It is associated with the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. It runs in each case between the minister and the recipient of the sacrament and also between the sponsors on the one hand and the recipient and his parents on the other. According to the existing discipline it operates as a diriment impediment of marriage between the persons named. (See AFFINITY; CONSANGUINITY; MARRIAGE.) SLATER, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); D'ANNIBALE, Summula Theologioe Moralis (Rome, 1908); BALLERINI, Opus Theologicum Morale (Prato, 1900). JOSEPH F. DELANY. Duties of Relatives Duties of Relatives The general precept of charity obliging us to love our neighbour as ourselves is of course applicable to our relatives. The tie of kinship, particularly in the nearer degrees, confers upon the command a special emphasis. Thus, there is established an order of preference in favour of relatives in the observance of the law. St. Thomas teaches that the strength of the affection we have for another is contingent upon the intimacy of the bonds that unite us. No set of relations antedates that of the family, nor is there any more lasting. Ordinarily, therefore, we are to love those of our own kindred more than mere friends, and that notwithstanding whatever excellences these latter may happen to possess. This is true not only of natural affection, but also of the supernatural act of charity. Theologians have endeavoured to determine what is the respective rank enjoyed by relatives as claimants for our attachment. They seem to be pretty well agreed that husband or wife hold the first place; then follow children, next parents, brothers, and sisters. It is obvious however that; the succession here indicated, valid as it may be in the abstract, is often for good reasons subject to change. In any case its inversion would not be a grievous sin. There is no doubt but that we are bound to succour relatives in distress. All that is usually laid down in general about the duty of almsgiving both corporal and spiritual, holds good with added force when our kinsfolk are to be the recipients. Other things being equal, they are to be aided if need be to the exclusion of any one else. A disposition to set no store by this obligation would seem to deserve the condemnation of St. Paul in the First Epistle of Timothy (v, 8): "It any man have not care of his own, and especially those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel." SLATER, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); RICKABY, Moral Teaching of St. Thomas (London, 1896); D'ANNIBALE, Summula Theologioe Moralis (Rome, 1908). JOSEPH F. DELANY. Relativism Relativism Any doctrine which denies, universally or in regard to some restricted sphere of being, the existence of absolute values, may be termed Relativism. Thus one form of Relativism asserts that we are conscious only of difference or change (Hobbes, Bain, Höffding, Wundt. Cf. Maher, "Psychology", 6th ed., p. 91). Another asserts that truth is relative, either (a) because judgments are held (i) to have no meaning in isolation and (ii) to be subject to indefinite modification before they can become embodied in the one coherent system of ideal truth (Joachim and Hegelians generally), or else (b) because truth is conceived as a peculiar property of ideas whereby they enable us to deal with our environment more or less successfully (Pragmatists). A third affirms moral worth to be essentially relative and to emerge only when motives are in conflict (Martineau). (See Ethics, Pragmatism, Truth.) The term Relativism, however, is more commonly applied to theories which treat of the nature of knowledge and reality, and it is in this sense that we shall discuss it here. The Relativity of Knowledge Whatever may be the real and primary significance of Protagoras's famous dictum, "Man is the measure of all things" (anthropos metron panton kai ton syton kai ton me onton, Plato, "Theæt.", 152 A; in "Mind", XIX, 473, Mr. Gillespie maintains that the dictum has an ethical significance), it has ordinarily been understood in an epistemological sense, and a statement of the relativity of all human knowledge, of the impossibility of penetrating beyond the appearances of things. And this interpretation is in conformity with the general tendency of the age in which Protagoras lived. Heraclitus's doctrine of a perpetual and universal flux, Parmedides's view that plurality and change are but the semblance of reality, futile attempts to explain the nature of sense-perception and to account for illusion and false judgment, together with a dawning consciousness (evident in Democritus) of a subjective factor in the perceptual process -- all this tended to make philosophers distrust the deliverances of their senses and rely solely upon reason or intelligence. Reflection, however, soon made it clear that rational theories were no more consistent than the data of perceptional experience, and the inevitable result of this was that the Relativism of Protagoras and his followers eventually passed into the Scepticism of the Middle Academy (see Scepticism). Modern Relativism, on the other hand, though it too tends to pass into Scepticism, was in its origin a reaction against Scepticism. To dispel the doubt which Hume had cast on the validity of universal judgments of a synthetic character, Kant proposed that we should regard them as arising not from any apprehension of the nature of real things, but from the constitution of our won minds. He maintained that the mental factor in experience, hitherto neglected, is really of paramount importance: to it are due space, time, the categories, and every form of synthesis. It is the formal element arising from the structure of the mind itself that constitutes knowledge and makes it what it is. Hume erred in supposing that knowledge is an attempt to copy reality. It is nothing of the kind. The world as we know it, the world of experience, is essentially relative to the human mind, whence it derives all that it has of unity, order and form. The obvious objection to a Relativism of this kind is the outstanding thing-in-itself, which is not, and can never become, and object of knowledge. We are thus shut up with a world of appearances, the nature of which is constituted by our minds. What reality is in itself we can never know. Yet this is, as Kant admitted, precisely what we wish to know. The fascination of Kant's philosophy lay in the fact that it gave full value to the activity, as opposed to the passivity or receptivity of mind; but the unknowable Ding-an-sich was an abomination, fatal alike to its consistency and to its power to solve the problem of human cognition. It must be got rid of at all costs; and the simplest plan was to abolish it altogether, thus leaving us with a reality knowable because knowledge and reality are one, and in the making of it mind, human or absolute, plays an overwhelmingly important part. The Relativity of Reality The relativity of reality, which thus took the place of the relativity of knowledge, has been variously conceived. Sometimes, as with Fichte and Hegel, Nature is opposed to Mind or Spirit as a twofold aspect of one and the same ground -- of Intelligence, of Will, or even of unconscious Mind. Sometimes, as with Green and Bradley, Reality is conceived as one organic whole that somehow manifests itself in finite centers of experience, which strive to reproduce in themselves Reality as it is, but fail so utterly that what they assert, even when contradictory, must be held somehow to be true -- true like other truths in that they attempt to express Reality, but are subject to indefinite reinterpretation before they can become identical with the real to which they refer. Still more modern Absolutists (e.g., Mackenzie and Taylor), appreciating to some extent the inadequacy of this view, have restored some sort of independence to the physical order, which, says Taylor (Elem. of Metaph., 198), "does not depend for its existence upon the fact of my actually perceiving it," but "does depend upon my perception for all the qualities and relations which I find in it". In other words, the "what" of the real world is relative to our perceiving organs (ibid.); or, as a recent writer (Murray in "Mind", new series, XIX, 232) puts it, Reality, anterior to being known, is mere hyle (raw material), while what we call the "thing" or the object of knowledge is this hyle as transformed by an appropriate mental process, and thus endowed with the attributes of spatiality and the like. Knowing is, therefore, "superinducing form upon the matter of knowledge" (J. Grote, "Explor. Phil.", I, 13). Riehl, though usually classed as a Realist, holds a similar view. He distinguishes the being of an object (das Sein der Objekte) from its being as an object (Objektsein). The former is the real being of the object and is independent of consciousness; the latter is its being or nature as conceived by us, and is something wholly relative to our faculties (cf. Rickert, "Der Gegenstand der Erkenntnis", 2nd ed., pp. 17 sq., where the inconsistency of this view is clearly indicated). The relativity of Reality as thus conceived really involves a return to the position of Kant, except that for the thing-in-itself with its unknowable character and properties is substituted a kind of materia prima, without qualities, attributes, or determinations, and therefore as unknowable as the thing-in-itself, but unknowable now because there is nothing to be known. On this point modern Idealism is at one with Pragmatism or Humanism, which also insist that reality must be regarded epistemologically as raw material, wholly propertyless and wholly indeterminate. The difference between the two views lies in this, that for the Idealist, form is imposed upon matter by the very act by which we know it, while for the Pragmatist, it is imposed only after a long process of postulation and experiment. Criticism M. Fonsegrive in his "Essais sur la connaissance" has discussed the question of Relativism at considerable length, and is opinion that we must in some sense grant that knowledge is relative to our faculties. But, while in principle he grants this universally, as a matter of fact in his own theory it is only our knowledge of corporeal objects that is regarded as strictly relative. We can know other minds as they really are, because we ourselves are thinking beings, and the external manifestation of our mentality and theirs is similar in character. But "we do not know the essence of things, but the essence of our relations with things; of the laws of nature in themselves we know much less than we do of our dealings with nature" (pp. 85, 86). "Whatever we know, is known in terms of the self" (p. 125; cf. pp. 184 sq.). The principal argument upon which this Relativism rests, is fundamentally the same as that used by Berkeley in his famous "Dialogue between Hylas and Philonus". As stated by Fonsegrive, it si as follows: "the concept of an object which should be at the same time in-itself and an object of knowledge is clearly contradictory. . . For 'object of knowledge' means 'known',. . . but it is quite evident that the known, qua known, is not in-itself, since it is qua known" (p. 186). Hence what we know is never the object as it is in itself, but only as it is in our knowledge of it. Of course, if the notions "being in itself" and "being as known" are mutually exclusive, the above argument is valid; but as conceived by the Realist or the anti-Relativist, this is not so. Being in-itself merely means being as it exists, whether it be known or not. It implies therefore that the nature and existence of being is prior to our knowledge of it (a fact which, by the way, Fonsegrive stoutly maintains); but it does not imply that being as it exists cannot be known. Forsegrive's argument proves nothing against the view that the real nature of objects is knowable; for, though in the abstract the thing qua existent is not the thing qua known, in the concrete there is no reason why its really existing nature cannot become known, or, in other words, why it cannot be known as it is. The argument by which absolutists seek to prove the relativity of Reality is precisely similar to the above. We cannot thing of real things, says Taylor ("elem. of Metaph.", 23, 69, 70; cf. Bradley, "Appearance and Reality", 144-45), except as objects of experience; hence it is in connection with mind that their reality lies. Surely this argument is fallacious. All that it proves is that things must either be or else become objects of experience in order to be thought of by mind, not that they must be of their very essence objects of experience. Unless reality is intelligible and can enter into experience, it cannot become the object of thought; but in no other sense does the possibility of knowing it suppose its "connection with mind". True, to conceive anything is " eo ipso to bring it into consciousness", but from this it follows merely that to be conceivable things must be capable of becoming objects of consciousness. Psychological considerations force us to admit that Reality, when it enters experience, becomes, or better is reproduced as psychical fact; but we cannot conclude from this that Reality itself, the reality which is the object of experience and to which our experience refers as to something other than itself, is of necessity psychical fact. Experience or perception is doubtless a condition without which we could not think of things at all, still less think of them as existing, but it is not a condition without which things could not exist. Nor again, when we think, do we ordinarily think of things as objects of experience; we think of them simply as "things", real or imaginary, and the properties which we predicate of them we think of as belonging to them, not as "superinduced by our minds". Our natural way of thinking may, however, conceivably be wrong. Granted that what "appears" is reality, appearances may none the less be fallacious. It is possible that they are due wholly or in part to our minds, and so do not reveal to us the nature of reality, but rather its relation to our perceiving selves, our faculties and our organs. Most of the arguments advanced in support of this view are based on psychology, and though the psychology is good enough, the arguments are hardly conclusive. It is urged, for instance, that abstraction and generalization are subjective processes which enter into every act of knowledge, and essentially modify its content. Yet abstraction is not falsification, unless we assume that what we are considering in the abstract exists as such in the concrete -- that is, exists not in connection with and in mutual dependence upon other things, but in isolation and independence just as we conceive it. Nor is generalization fallacious, unless we assume, without proof, that the particulars to which our concept potentially applies actually exist. In a word, neither these nor any other of the subjective processes and forms of thought destroy the validity of knowledge, provided what is purely formal and subjective be distinguished, as it should be, from what pertains to objective content and refers to the real order of causes and purposes. A further argument is derived from the alleged relativity of sensation, whence in the Scholastic theory all knowledge is derived. The quality of sensation, it is said, is determined largely by the character of our nervous system, and in particular by the end-organs of the different senses. It is at least equally probable, however, that the quality of sensation is determined by the stimulus; and in any case the objection is beside the point, for we do not in judgment refer our sensation as such to the object, but rather as qualities, the nature of which we do not know, though we do know that they differ from one another in varying degrees. Even granted then that sensation is relative to our specialized organs of sense, it by no means follows that the knowledge which comes through sensation in any way involves subjective determination. Secondly, sense-data do not give us merely qualitative differences, but also spatial forms and magnitudes, distance, motion, velocity, direction; and upon these data are based not only mathematics but also physical science, in so far as the latter is concerned with quantitative, in distinction from qualitative, variations. Thirdly, sense-data, even if they be in part subjective, suppose as their condition an objective cause. Hence, a theory which explains sense-data satisfactorily assigns to them conditions which are no less real than the effects to which in part at least they give rise. Lastly, if knowledge really is relative in the sense above explained, though it may satisfy our practical, it can never satisfy our speculative strivings. The aim of speculative research is to know Reality as it is. But knowledge, if it be of appearances only, is without real meaning and significance, and as conceived in an Idealism of the a priori type, also it would seem without purpose. Experience as a System of Relations It is commonly taught by neo-Kantians that relation is the Category of categories (cf. Renouvier, "Le perdisguise (Caird, "The Phil. of Kant", 329; Green, Prolegom.", 20). Matter and motion "consist of" relations (Prolegom., 9). In fact Reality, as we know it, is nothing but a system of relations, for "the nature of mind is such that no knowledge can be acquired or expressed, and consequently no real existence conceived, except by means of relation and as a system of relations" (Renouvier, "Les dilemmes de la metaph.", 11). This form of Relativism may be called objective to distinguish it from the Relativism which we have been discussing above, and with which, as a matter of fact, it is generally combined. Primarily it is a theory of the nature of knowledge, but with Green and others (e.g., Abel Rey, "La théorie de la physique", VI, 2), who identify knowledge and reality, it is also a metaphysic. Such a view supposes a theory of the nature of relation very different from that of the Scholastics. For the latter relation is essentially a pros ti schesis, an ordo ad, which implies (1) a subject to which it belongs, (23) a special something in that subject on account of which it is predicated, and (3) a term, other than itself, to which it refers. A relation, in other words, as the moderns would put it, presupposes its "terms". It is not a mysterious and invisible link which somehow joins up two aspects of a thing and makes them one. A relation may be mutual; but if so, there are really two relations (e.g., paternity and sonship) belonging to different subjects, or, if to the same subject, arising from different fundamentals. True, in science as in other matters, we may know a relation without being able to discover the nature of the entities it relates. We may know, for instance, that pressure and temperature vary proportionately in a given mass of gas and which the volume is kept constant, without knowing precisely and for certain the ultimate nature of either pressure or temperature. Nevertheless we do know something about them. We know that they exist, that they each have a certain nature, and that it is on account of this nature that the relation between them arises. We cannot know a relation, therefore, without knowing something of the things which it relates, for a relation presupposes its "terms". Hence the universe cannot consist of relations only, but must be composed of things in relation. NOTES Epistemological and Metaphysical -- Caird, The Critical Philosophy of Kant (Glasgow, 1889); Fonsegrive, Essais sur la connaissance (Paris, 1909); Green, Prolegomena to Ethics (3rd ed., Oxford, 1890); Grote, Exploratio philosophica (Cambridge, 1900); Hamilton, Discussions (London, 1854); Idem, Metaphysics (London, 1871); Herbart, Metaphysics (Leipzig, 1850); Hobhouse, The Theory of Knowledge (London, 1896); Mill, Examination of Hamilton (4th ed., London, 1872); Prichard, Kant's Theory of Knowledge (Oxford, 1910); Renouvier, Les dilemmes de la metaph. pure (Paris, 1891); Idem, Le personnalisme (1903); Ray, La Théorie de la physique (Paris, 1907); Rickert Der Gegenstand der Erkenntnis (2nd ed., Tübingen, and Leipzig 1904); Riehl, Der philosoph. Kriticismus (Leipzig, 1887); Schiller, Humanism (London, 1903); Idem, Studies in Humanism (1907); Seth, Scottish Philosophy (London, 1885); Simmel, Philosophie des Geldes (Leipzig, 1890); Spencer, First Principles (6th ed., London, 1900); Veitch, Knowing and Being (Edinburgh, 1889); Walker, Theories of Knowledge (London, 1910). Psychological -- Bain, Mental and Moral Science (3rd ed., London, 1884); Höffding, Outlines of Psychology (London, 1891); Maher, Psychology (6th ed., London, 1905); Wundt, Human and Animal Psychology, tr. (London, 1894); Idem, Grundzüge d. physiologischen Psychologie (5th ed., Leipzig, 1903). LESLIE J. WALKER Relics Relics The word relics comes from the Latin reliquiae (the counterpart of the Greek leipsana) which already before the propagation of Christianity was used in its modern sense, viz., of some object, notably part of the body or clothes, remaining as a memorial of a departed saint. The veneration of relics, in fact, is to some extent a primitive instinct, and it is associated with many other religious systems besides that of Christianity. At Athens the supposed remains of Oedipus and Theseus enjoyed an honour which it is very difficult to distinguish from a religious cult (see for all this Pfister, "Reliquienkult in Altertum", I, 1909), while Plutarch gives an account of the translation of the bodies of Demetrius (Demetr. iii) and Phocion (Phoc. xxxvii) which in many details anticipates the Christian practice of the Middle Ages. The bones or ashes of Aesculapius at Epidaurus, of Perdiccas I at Macedon, and even--if we may trust the statement of the Chronicon Paschale (Dindorf, p. 67)--of the Persian Zoroaster (Zarathustra), were treated with the deepest veneration. As for the Far East, the famous story of the distribution of the relics of Buddha, an incident which is believed to have taken place immediately after his death, seems to have found remarkable confirmation in certain modern archaeological discoveries. (See "Journ. of R. Asiatic Society", 1909, pp. 1056 sqq.). In any case the extreme development of relic-worship amongst the Buddhists of every sect is a fact beyond dispute I. DOCTRINE REGARDING RELICS The teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to the veneration of relics is summed up in a decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV), which enjoins on bishops and other pastors to instruct their flocks that "the holy bodies of holy martyrs and of others now living with Christ--which bodies were the living members of Christ and 'the temple of the Holy Ghost' (I Cor., vi, 19) and which are by Him to be raised to eternal life and to be glorified are to be venerated by the faithful, for through these [bodies] many benefits are bestowed by God on men, so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of the saints, or that these and other sacred monuments are uselessly honoured by the faithful, and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid, are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and also now condemns them." Further, the council insists that "in the invocation of saints the veneration of relics and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed and all filthy lucre abolished." Again, "the visitation of relics must not be by any perverted into revellings and drunkenness." To secure a proper cheek upon abuses of this kind, "no new miracles are to be acknowledged or new relics recognized unless the bishop of the diocese has taken cognizance and approved thereof." Moreover, the bishop, in all these matters, is directed to obtain accurate information to take council with theologians and pious men, and in cases of doubt or exceptional difficulty to submit the matter to the sentence of the metropolitan and other bishops of the province, "yet so that nothing new, or that previously has not been usual in the Church, shall be resolved on, without having first consulted the Holy See." The justification of Catholic practice, which is indirectly suggested here by the reference to the bodies of the saints as formerly temples of the Holy Ghost and as destined hereafter to be eternally glorified, is further developed in the authoritative "Roman Catechism" drawn up at the instance of the same council. Recalling the marvels witnessed at the tombs of the martyrs, where "the blind and cripples are restored to health, the dead recalled to life, and *devils?* expelled from the bodies of men" the Catechism points out that these are facts which "St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, most unexceptionable witnesses, declare in their writings that they have not merely heard and read about, as many did but have seen with their own eyes ', (Ambrose Epist. xxii, nn. 2 and 17, Augustine, Serm. cclxxxvi, c.v.; "De Civ. Dei", xxii, S, "Confess.", ix). And from thence, turning to Scriptural analogies, the compilers further argue: "If the clothes, the kerchiefs (Acts, .xix, 12), if the shadow of the saints (Acts, v, 15), before they departed from this life, banished diseases and restored strength, who will have the hardihood to deny that God wonderfully works the same by the sacred ashes, the bones, and other relics of the saints ? This is the lesson we have to learn from that dead body which, having been accidentally let down into the sepulchre of Eliseus, "when it had touched the bones of the Prophet, instantly came to life" (4 Kings xiii, 21, and cf. Ecclus., xlviii, 14). We may add that this miracle as well as the veneration shown to the bones of Moses (See Ex., xiii, 19 and Jos., xxiv, 32) only gain additional force from their apparent contradiction to the ceremonial laws against defilement, of which we read in Num., xix, 11-22. The influence of this Jewish shrinking from contact with the dead so far lingered on that it was found necessary in the "Apostolical Constitutions" (vi, 30) to issue a strong warning against it and to argue in favour of the Christian cult of relics. According to the more common opinion of theologians, relics are to be honoured; St. Thomas, in Summa, III:38:6, does not seem to consider even the word adorare inappropriate-- cultu duliae relativae, that is to say with a veneration which is not that of latria (divine worship) and which though directed primarily to the material objects of the cult--i. e., the bones, ashes, garments, etc.--does not rest in them, but looks beyond to the saints they commemorate as to its formal term. Hauck, Kattenbusch, and other non-Catholic writers have striven to show that the utterances of the Council of Trent are in contradiction to what they admit to be the "very cautious" language of the medieval scholastics, and notably St. Thomas. The latter urges that those who have an affection to any person hold in honour all that was intimately connected with him. Hence, while we love and venerate the saints who were so dear to God, we also venerate all that belonged to them, and particularly their bodies, which were once the temples of the Holy Spirit, and which are some day to be conformed to the glorious body of Jesus Christ. "whence also", adds St. Thomas, "God fittingly does honour to such relics by performing miracles in their presence [in earum praesentia]." It will be seen that this closely accords with the terms used by the Council of Trent and that the difference consists only in this, that the Council says per quae--"through which many benefits are bestowed on mankind"--while St. Thomas speaks of miracles worked "in their presence". But it is quite unnecessary to attach to the words per quae the idea of physical causality. We have no reason to suppose that the council meant more than that the relics of the saints were the occasion of God's working miracles. When we read in the Acts of the Apostles, xix, 11, 12, "And God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles. So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out from them" there can be no inexactitude in saying that these also were the things by which (per quae) God wrought the cure. There is nothing, therefore, in Catholic teaching to justify the statement that the Church encourages belief in a magical virtue, or physical curative efficacy residing in the relic itself . It may be admitted that St. Cyril of Jerusalem (A. D. 347), and a few other patristic and medieval writers, apparently speak of some power inherent in the relic. For example, St. Cyril, after referring to the miracle wrought by the body of Eliseus, declares that the restoration to life of the corpse with which it was in contact took place: "to show that even though the soul is not present a virtue resides in the body of the saints, because of the righteous soul which has for so many years tenanted it and used it as its minister". And he adds, "Let us not be foolishly incredulous as though the thing had not happened, for if handkerchiefs and aprons which are from without, touching the body of the diseased, have raised up the sick, how much more should the body itself of the Prophet raise the dead?" (Cat., xviii, 16.) But this seems rather to belong to the personal view or manner of speech of St. Cyril. He regards the chrism after its consecration "as no longer simple ointment but the gift of Christ and by the presence of His Godhead it causes in us the Holy Ghost" (Cat., xxi, 3); and, what is more striking, he also declares that the meats consecrated to idols, "though in their own nature plain and simple become profane by the invocation of the evil spirit" (Cat., xix, 7)--all of which must leave us very doubtful as to his real belief in any physical virtue inherent in relics. Be this as it may, it is certain that the Church, with regard to the veneration of relics has defined nothing, more than what was stated above. Neither has the Church ever pronounced that any particular relic, not even that commonly venerated as the wood of the Cross, as authentic; but she approves of honour being paid to those relics which with reasonable probability are believed to be genuine and which are invested with due ecclesiastical sanctions. II. EARLY HISTORY Few points of faith can be more satisfactorily traced back to the earliest ages of Christianity than the veneration of relics. The classical instance is to be found in the letter written by the inhabitants of Smyrna, about 156, describing the death of St. Polycarp. After he had been burnt at the stake, we are told that his faithful disciples wished to carry off his remains, but the Jews urged the Roman officer to refuse his consent for fear that the Christians "would only abandon the Crucified One and begin to worship this man". Eventually, however, as the Smyrnaeans say, "we took up his bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place, where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom." This is the keynote which is echoed in a multitude of similar passages found a little later in the patristic writers of both East and West. Harnack's tone in referring to this development is that of an unwilling witness overwhelmed by evidence which it is useless to resist. "Most offensive", he writes, "was the worship of relics. It flourished to its greatest extent as early as the fourth century and no Church doctor of repute restricted it. All of them rather, even the Cappadocians, countenanced it. The numerous miracles which were wrought by bones and relics seemed to confirm their worship. The Church therefore, would not give up the practice, although a violent attack was made upon it by a few cultured heathens and besides by the Manichaeans" (Harnack, "Hist. of Dog.", tr., IV, 313). From the Catholic standpoint there was no extravagance or abuse in this cult as it was recommended and indeed taken for granted, by writers like St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and by all the other great doctors without exception. To give detailed references besides those already cited from the Roman Catechism would be superfluous. Suffice it to point out that the inferior and relative nature of the honour due to relics was always kept in view. Thus St. Jerome says ("Ad Riparium", i, P. L., XXII, 907): "We do not worship, we do not adore [non colimus, non adoramus], for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate [honoramus] the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are." And St. Cyril of Alexandria writes ("Adv. Julian.", vi, P. G. LXXVI, 812): "We by no means consider the holy martyrs to be gods, nor are we wont to bow down before them adoringly, but only relatively and reverentially [ou latreutikos alla schetikos kai timetikos]." Perhaps no single writing supplies a more striking illustration of the importance attached to the veneration of relics in the Christian practice of the fourth century than the panegyric of the martyr St. Theodore by St. Gregory of Nyssa (P. G., XLVI, 735-48). Contrasting the horror produced by an ordinary corpse with the veneration paid to the body of a saint the preacher expatiates upon the adornment lavished upon the building which had been erected over the martyr's resting place, and he describes how the worshipper is led to approach the tomb "believing that to touch it is itself a sanctification and a blessing and if it be permitted to carry off any of the dust which has settled upon the martyr's resting place, the dust is accounted as a great gift and the mould as a precious treasure. And as for touching the relics themselves, if that should ever be our happiness, only those who have experienced it and who have had their wish gratified can know how much this is desirable and how worthy a recompense it is of aspiring prayer" (col. 740). This passage, like many others that might be quoted, dwells rather upon the sanctity of the martyr's resting place and upon that of his mortal remains collected as a whole and honourably entombed. Neither is it quite easy to determine the period at which the practice of venerating minute fragments of bone or cloth, small parcels of dust, etc., first became common. We can only say that it was widespread early in the fourth century, and that dated inscriptions upon blocks of stone, which were probably altar slabs, afford evidence upon the point which is quite conclusive. One such, found of late years in Northern Africa and now preserved in the Christian Museum of the Louvre, bears a list of the relics probably once cemented into a shallow circular cavity excavated in its surface. Omitting one or two words not adequately explained, the inscription runs: "A holy memorial [memoria sancta] of the wood of the Cross, of the land of Promise where Christ was born, the Apostles Peter and Paul, the names of the martyrs Datian, Donatian, Cyprian, Nemesianus, Citinus, and Victoria. In the year of the Province 320 [i. e. A. D. 359] Benenatus and Pequaria set this up" ("Corp. Inscr. Lat.", VIII, n. 20600). We learn from St. Cyril of Jerusalem (before 350) that the wood of the Cross, discovered c. 318, was already distributed throughout the world; and St. Gregory of Nyssa in his sermons on the forty martyrs, after describing how their bodies were burned by command of the persecutors, explains that "their ashes and all that the fire had spared have been so distributed throughout the world that almost every province has had its share of the blessing. I also myself have a portion of this holy gift and I have laid the bodies of my parents beside the ashes of these warriors, that in the hour of the resurrection they may be awakened together with these highly privileged comrades" (P. G., XLVI, 764). We have here also a hint of the explanation of the widespread practice of seeking burial near the tombs of the martyrs. It seems to have been felt that when the souls of the blessed martyrs on the day of general were once more united to their bodies, they would be accompanied in their passage to heaven by those who lay around them and that these last might on their account find more ready acceptance with God. We may note also that, while this and other passages suggest that no great repugnance was felt in the East to the division and dismemberment of the bodies of the saints, in the West, on the other hand, particularly at Rome, the greatest respect was shown to the holy dead. The mere unwrapping or touching of the body of a martyr was considered to be a terribly perilous enterprise, which could only be set about by the holiest of ecclesiastics, and that after prayer and fasting. This belief lasted until the late Middle Ages and is illustrated, for example, in the life of St. Hugh of Lincoln, who excited the surprise of his episcopal contemporaries by his audacity in examining and translating relics which his colleagues dared not disturb. In the Theodosian Code the translation, division, or dismemberment of the remains of martyrs was expressly forbidden ("Nemo martyrem distrahat", Cod. Theod., IX, xvii, 7); and somewhat later Gregory the Great seems in very emphatic terms to attest the continuance of the same tradition. He professed himself sceptical regarding the alleged "customs of the Greeks" of readily transferring the bodies of martyrs from place to place, declaring that throughout the West any interference with these honoured remains was looked upon as a sacrilegious act and that numerous prodigies had struck terror into the hearts of even well meaning men who had attempted anything of the sort. Hence, though it was the Empress Constantina herself who had asked him for the head or some portion of the body of St. Paul, he treated the request as an impossible one, explaining that, to obtain the supply of relics needful in the consecration of churches, it was customary to lower into the Confession of the Apostles as far as the second "cataract"--so we learn from a letter to Pope Hermisdas in 519 (Thiel, "Epist. gen.", I, 873) ] a box containing portions of silk or cloth, known as brandea, and these brandea, after lying for a time in contact with the remains of the holy Apostles, were henceforth treated as relics. Gregory further offers to send Constantina some filings from St. Peter's chains, a form of present of which we find frequent mention in his correspondence (St. Gregory, "Epist.", Mon. Germ. Hist., I, 264 -66). It is certain that long before this time an extended conception of the nature of a relic, such as this important letter reveals, had gradually grown up. Already when Eusebius wrote (c. 325) such objects as the hair of St. James or the oil multiplied by Bishop Narcissus (Hist. Eccl., VII, xxxix, and VI, ix) were clearly venerated as relics, and St. Augustine, in his "De Civit. Dei" (xxii, 8), gives numerous instances of miracles wrought by soil from the Holy Land flowers which had touched a reliquary or had been laid upon a particular altar, oil from the lamps of the church of a martyr, or by other things not less remotely connected with the saints themselves. Further. it is noteworthy that the Roman prejudice against translating and dividing seems only to have applied to the actual bodies of the martyrs reposing in their tombs. It is St. Gregory himself who enriches a little cross, destined to hang round the neck as an encolpion, with filings both from St. Peter's chains and from the gridiron of St. Laurence ("Epist.", Mon. Germ. Hist., I, 192). Before the year 350, St. Cyril of Jerusalem three times over informs us that the fragments of the wood of the Cross found by St. Helen had been distributed piecemeal and had filled the whole world (Cat., iv, 10; x, 19; xiii, 4). This implies that Western pilgrims felt no more impropriety in receiving than the Eastern bishops in giving, During the Merovingian and Carlovingian period the cultus of relics increased rather than diminished. Gregory of Tours abounds in stories of the marvels wrought by them, as well as of the practices used in their honour, some of which have been thought to be analogous to those of the pagan "incubations" (De Glor. Conf., xx); neither does he omit to mention the frauds occasionally perpetrated by scoundrels through motives of greed. Very significant, as Hauck (Kirchengesch. Deutschl., I 185) has noticed is the prologue to the text of the Salic Laws, probably written, by a contemporary of Gregory of Tours in the sixth century. "That nation", it says, "which has undoubtedly in battle shaken off the hard yoke of the Romans, now that it has been illuminated through Baptism, has adorned the bodies of the holy martyrs with gold and precious stones, those same bodies which the Romans burnt with fire, and pierced with the sword, or threw to wild beasts to be torn to pieces." In England we find from the first a strong tradition in the same sense derived from St. Gregory himself. Bede records (Hist. Eccl., I, xxix) how the pope "forwarded to Augustine all the things needful for the worship and service of the church, namely, sacred vessels, altar linen, church ornaments, priestly and clerical vestments, relics of the holy Apostles and martyrs and also many books". The Penitential ascribed to St. Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, which certainly was known in England at an early date, declares that "the relics of the saints are to be venerated", and it adds, seemingly in connexion with the same idea, that "If possible a candle is to burn there every night" (Haddan and Stubbs, "Councils", III, 191). When we remember the candles which King Alfred constantly kept burning before his relics, the authenticity of this clause in Theodore's Penitential seems the more probable. Again the relics of English saints, for example those of St. Cuthbert and St. Oswald, soon became famous, while in the case of the latter we hear of them all over the continent. Mr. Plummer (Bede, II, 159-61) has made a short list of them and shows that they must have been transported into the remotest part of Germany. After the Second Council of Nicaea, in 7 87, had insisted with special urgency that relics were to be used in the consecration of churches and that the omission was to be supplied if any church had been consecrated without them the English Council of Celchyth (probably Chelsea) commanded that relics were to be used, and in default of them the Blessed Eucharist. But the developments of the veneration of relics in the Middle Ages were far too vast to be pursued further. Not a few of the most famous of the early medieval inscriptions are connected with the same matter. It must suffice to mention the famous Clematius inscription at Cologne, recording the translation of the remains of the so called Eleven thousand Virgins (see Krause, "Inscrip d. Rheinlande", no. 294, and, for a discussion of the legend, the admirable essay on the subject by Cardinal Wiseman. III. ABUSES Naturally it was impossible for popular enthusiasm to be roused to so high a pitch in a matter which easily lent itself to error, fraud and greed of gain, without at least the occasional occurrence of many grave abuses. As early as the end of the fourth century, St. Augustine denouncing certain impostors wandering about in the habit of monks, describes them as making profit by the sale of spurious relics ("De op. monach.", xxviii and cf. Isidore, "De. div. off.", ii, 16). In the Theodosian Code the sale of relics is forbidden ("Nemo martyrem mercetur", VII, ix, 17), but numerous stories, of which it would be easy to collect a long series, beginning with the writings of St. Gregory the Great and St. Gregory of Tours, prove to us that many unprincipled persons found a means of enriching themselves by a sort of trade in these objects of devotion, the majority of which no doubt were fraudulent. At the beginning of the ninth century, as M. Jean Guiraud had shown (Mélanges G. B. de Rossi, 73-95), the exportation of the bodies of martyrs from Rome had assumed the dimensions of a regular commerce, and a certain deacon, Deusdona, acquired an unenviable notoriety in these transactions (see Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XV, passim). What was perhaps in the long run hardly less disastrous than fraud or avarice was the keen rivalry between religious centres, and the eager credulity fostered by the desire to be known as the possessors of some unusually startling relic. We learn from Cassian, in the fifth century, that there were monks who seized upon certain martyrs' bodies by force of arms, defying the authority of the bishops, and this was a story which we find many times repeated in the Western chronicles of a later date. In such an atmosphere of lawlessness doubtful relics came to abound. There was always a disposition to regard any human remains accidentally discovered near a church or in the catacombs as the body of a martyr. Hence, though men like St. Athanasius and St. Martin of Tours set a good example of caution in such cases, it is to be feared that in the majority of instances only a very narrow interval of time intervened between the suggestion that a particular object might be, or ought to be, an important relic, and the conviction that tradition attested it actually to be such. There is no reason in most cases for supposing the existence of deliberate fraud. The persuasion that a benevolent Providence was likely to send the most precious pignora sanctorum to deserving clients, the practice already noticed of attributing the same sanctity to objects which had touched the shrine as attached to the contents of the shrine itself, the custom of making facsimiles and imitations, a custom which persists to our own day in the replicas of the Vatican statue of St. Peter or of the Grotto of Lourdes, all these are causes adequate to account for the multitude of unquestionably spurious relics with which the treasuries of great medieval churches were crowded. In the case of the Nails with which Jesus Christ was crucified, we can point to definite instances in which that which was at first venerated as having touched the original came later to be honoured as the original itself. Join to this the large license given to the occasional unscrupulous rogue in an age not only utterly uncritical but often curiously morbid in its realism, and it becomes easy to understand the multiplicity and extravagance of the entries in the relic inventories of Rome and other countries. On the other hand it must not be supposed that nothing was done by ecclesiastical authority to secure the faithful against deception. Such tests were applied as the historical and antiquarian science of that day was capable of devising. Very often however, this test took the form of an appeal to some miraculous sanction, as in the well known story repeated by St. Ambrose, according to which, when doubt arose which of the three crosses discovered by St. Helena was that of Christ, the healing of a sick man by one of them dispelled all further hesitation. Similarly Egbert, Bishop of Trier, in 979, doubting as to the authenticity of what purported to be the body of St. Celsus, "lest any suspicion of the sanctity of the holy relics should arise, during Mass after the offertory had been sung, threw a joint of the finger of St. Celsus wrapped in a cloth into a thurible full of burning coals, which remained unhurt and untouched by the fire the whole time of the Canon" (Mabillon "Acta SS. Ord. Ben.", III, 658). The decrees of synods upon this subject are generally practical and sensible, as when, for example, Bishop Quivil of Exeter, in 1287 after recalling the prohibition of the General Council of Lyons against venerating recently found relics unless they were first of all approved by the Roman Pontiff, adds: "We command the above prohibition to be carefully observed by all and decree that no person shall expose relics for sale, and that neither stones, nor fountains, trees, wood, or garments shall in any way be venerated on account of dreams or on fictitious grounds." So, again, the whole procedure before Clement VII (the antipope) in 1359, recently brought to light by Canon Chevalier, in connexion with the alleged Holy Shroud of Lirey, proves that some check at least was exercised upon the excesses of the unscrupulous or the mercenary. Nevertheless it remains true that many of the more ancient relics duly exhibited for veneration in the great sanctuaries of Christendom or even at Rome itself must now be pronounced to be either certainty spurious or open to grave suspicion. To take one example of the latter class, the boards of the Crib (Praesaepe)-- a name which for much more than a thousand years has been associated, as now, with the basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore--can only be considered to be of doubtful. In his monograph "Le memorie Liberiane dell' Infanzia di N. S. Gesù Cristo" (Rome, 1894), Mgr. Cozza Luzi frankly avows that all positive evidence for the authenticity of the relics of the Crib etc., is wanting before the eleventh century. Strangely enough, an inscription in Greek uncials of the eighth century is found on one of the boards, the inscription having nothing to do with the Crib but being apparently concerned with some commercial transaction. It is hard to explain its presence on the supposition that the relic is authentic. Similar difficulties might he urged against the supposed "column of the flagellation" venerated at Rome in the Church of Santa Prassede and against many other famous relics. Still, it would be presumptuous in such cases to blame the action of ecclesiastical authority in permitting the continuance of a cult which extends back into remote antiquity. On the one hand no one is constrained to pay homage to the relic, and supposing it to be in fact spurious, no dishonour is done to God by the continuance of an error which has been handed down in perfect good faith for many centuries. On the other hand the practical difficulty of pronouncing a final verdict upon the authenticity of these and similar relics must be patent to all. Each investigation would be an affair of much time and expense, while new discoveries might at any moment reverse the conclusions arrived at. Further, devotions of ancient date deeply rooted in the heart of the peasantry cannot be swept away without some measure of scandal and popular disturbance. To create this sensation seems unwise unless the proof of spuriousness is so overwhelming as to amount to certainty. Hence there is justification for the practice of the Holy See in allowing the cult of certain doubtful ancient relics to continue. Meanwhile, much has been done by quietly allowing many items in some of the most famous collections of relics to drop out of sight or by gradually omitting much of the solemnity which formerly surrounded the exposition of these doubtful treasures. Many of the inventories of the great collections of Rome, or of Aachen, Cologne, Naples, Salzburg, Antwerp, Constantinople, of the Sainte Chapelle at Paris etc., have been published. For illustration's sake reference may be made to the Count de Riant's work "Exuviae Constantinopolitanae" or to the many documents printed by Mgr. Barbier de Monault regarding Rome, particularly in vol. VII of his "Oeuvres complètes". In most of these ancient inventories, the extravagance and utter improbability of many of the entries can not escape the most uncritical. Moreover though some sort of verification seems often to be traceable even in Merovingian times, still the so called authentications which have been printed of this early date (seventh century) are of a most primitive kind. They consist in fact of mere labels, strips of parchment with just the name of the relic to which each strip was attached, barbarously written in Latin. For example "Hic sunt reliquas sancti Victuriepiscopi, Festivitate Kalendis Septembris", "Hic sunt patrocina sancti Petri et Paullo Roma civio", etc. It would probably be true to say that in no part of the world was the veneration of relics carried to greater lengths with no doubt proportionate danger of abuse, than among Celtic peoples. The honour paid to the handbells of such saints as St. Patrick, St. Senan, and St. Mura the strange adventures of sacred remains carried about with them in their wanderings by the Armorican people under stress of invasion by Teutons and Northmen the prominence given to the taking of oaths upon relics in the various Welsh codes founded upon the laws of Howell the Good, the expedients used for gaining possession of these treasures, and the numerous accounts of translations and miracles, all help to illustrate the importance of this aspect of the ecclesiastical life of the Celtic races. IV. TRANSLATIONS At the same time the solemnity attached to translations was by no means a peculiarity of the Celts. The story of the translation of St. Cuthbert's remains is almost as marvellous as any in Celtic hagiography. The forms observed of all-night vigils, and the carrying of the precious remains in "feretories" of gold or silver, overshadowed with silken canopies and surrounded with lights and incense, extended to every part of Christendom during the Middle Ages. Indeed this kind of solemn translation (elevatio corporis) was treated as the outward recognition of heroic sanctity, the equivalent of canonization, in the period before the Holy See reserved to itself the passing of a final judgment upon the merits of deceased servants of God, and on the other hand in the earlier forms of canonization Bulls it was customary to add a clause directing that the remains of those whose sanctity was thus proclaimed by the head of the Church should be "elevated", or translated, to some shrine above ground where fitting honour could be paid them. This was not always carried at once. Thus St. Hugh of Lincoln, who died in 1200, was canonized in 1220, but it was not until 1280 that his remains were translated to the beautiful "Angel Choir" which had been constructed expressly to receive them. This translation is noteworthy not only because King Edward I himself helped to carry the bier, but because it provides a typical example of the separation of the head and body of the saint which was a peculiar feature of so many English translations. The earliest example of this separation was probably that of St. Edwin, king and martyr; but we have also the cases of St. Oswald, St. Chad, St. Richard of Chichester (translated in 1276), and St. William of York (translated 1284). It is probable that the ceremonial observed in these solemn translations closely imitated that used in the enshrining of the relics in the sepulcrum of the altar at the consecration of a church while this in turn, as Mgr Duchesne has shown, is nothing but the development of the primitive burial service the martyr or saint being laid to rest in the church dedicated to his honour. But the carrying of relics is not peculiar to the procession which takes place at the dedications of a church. Their presence is recognized as a fitting adjunct to the solemnities of almost every kind of precession, except perhaps those of the Blessed Sacrament, and in medieval times no exception was made even for these latter. V. FEAST OF RELICS It has long been customary especially in churches which possessed large collections of relics, to keep one general feast in commemoration of all the saints whose memorials are there preserved. An Office and Mass for this purpose will be found in the Roman Missal and Breviary, and though they occur only in the supplement Pro aliquibus locis and are not obligatory upon the Church at large, still this celebration is now kept almost universally. The office is generally assigned to the fourth Sunday in October. In England before the Reformation, as we may learn from a rubric in the Sarum Breviary, the Festum Reliquiarum was celebrated on the Sunday after the feast of the Translation of St. Thomas of Canterbury (7 July), and it was to be kept as a greater double "wherever relics are preserved or where the bodies of dead persons are buried, for although Holy Church and her ministers observe no solemnities in their honour, the glory they enjoy with God is known to Him alone." HERBERT THURSTON Religion Religion + I. Derivation, Analysis, and Definition. + II. Subjective Religion. + III. Objective Religion. + IV. The Origin of Religion. + V. The Universality of Religion. + VI. The Civilizing Influence of Religion. + VII. The Modern Scientific Study of Religion. I. DERIVATION, ANALYSIS, AND DEFINITION The derivation of the word "religion" has been a matter of dispute from ancient times. Not even today is it a closed question. Cicero, in his "De natura deorum", II, xxviii, derives religion from relegere (to treat carefully): "Those who carefully took in hand all things pertaining to the gods were called religiosi, from relegere." Max Muller favoured this view. But as religion is an elementary notion long antedating the time of complicated ritual presupposed in this explanation, we must seek elsewhere for its etymology. A far more likely derivation, one that suits the idea of religion in its simple beginning, is that given by Lactantius, in his "Divine Institutes", IV, xxviii. He derives religion from religare (to bind): "We are tied to God and bound to Him [religati] by the bond of piety, and it is from this, and not, as Cicero holds, from careful consideration [relegendo], that religion has received its name." The objection that religio could not be derived from religare, a verb of the first conjugation, is not of great weight, when we call to mind that opinio omes from opinari, and rebellio from rebellare. St. Augustine, in his "City of God", X, iii, derives religio from religere in the sense of recovering: "having lost God through neglect [negligentes], we recover Him [religentes] and are drawn to Him." This explanation, implying the notion of the Redemption, is not suited to the primary idea of religion. St. Augustine himself was not satisfied with it, for in his "Retractions", I, xiii, he abandoned it in favour of the derivation given by Lactantius. He employs the latter meaning in his treatise "On the True Religion", where he says: "Religion binds us [religat] to the one Almighty God." St. Thomas, in his "Summa", II-II, Q. lxxxi, a. 1, gives all three derivations without pronouncing in favour of any. The correct one seems to be that offered by Lactantius. Religion in its simplest form implies the notion of being bound to God; the same notion is uppermost in the word religion in its most specific sense, as applied to the life of poverty, chastity, and obedience to which individuals voluntarily bind themselves by vows more or less solemn. Hence those who are thus bound are known as religious. Religion, broadly speaking, means the voluntary subjection of oneself to God. It exists in its highest perfection in heaven, where the angels and saints love, praise, and adore God, and live in absolute conformity to His holy will. It does not exist at all in hell, where the subordination of rational creatures to their Creator is one not of free will, but of physical necessity. On earth it is practically coextensive with the human race, though, where it has not been elevated to the supernatural plane through Divine revelation, it labours under serious defects. It is with religion as affecting the life of man on earth that this article deals. The analysis of the idea of religion shows that it is very complex, and rests on several fundamental conceptions. It implies first of all the recognition of a Divine personality in and behind the forces of nature, the Lord and Ruler of the world, God. In the highest religions, this supernatural Being is conceived as a spirit, one and indivisible, everywhere present in nature, but distinct from it. In the lower religions, the various phenomena of nature are associated with a number of distinct personalities, though it is rare that among these numerous nature-deities one is not honoured as supreme. Ethical qualities corresponding to the prevailing ethical standards, are attributed by the different peoples to their respective deities. In every form of religion is implied the conviction that the mysterious, supernatural Being (or beings) has control over the lives and destinies of men. Especially in lower grades of culture, where the nature and utilization of physical laws is but feebly understood, man feels in many ways his helplessness in the presence of the forces of nature: it is the Divine Being that controls them; He it is that can direct them for man's weal or woe. There thus arises in the natural order a sense of dependence on the Deity, deeply felt need of Divine help. This lies at the basis of religion. Still it is not the recognition of dependence on God that constitutes the very essence of religion, indispensable as it is. The damned recognize their dependence on God, but, being without hope of Divine help, are turned from, rather than towards, Him. Coupled with the sense of need is the persuasion on the part of man that he can bring himself into friendly, beneficent communion with the Deity or deities on whom he feels he depends. He is a creature of hope. Feeling his helplessness and need of Divine assistance, pressed down, perhaps, by sickness, loss, and defeat, recognizing that in friendly communion with the Deity he can find aid, peace, and happiness, he is led voluntarily to perform certain acts of homage meant to bring about this desired result. What man aims at in religion is communion with the Deity, in which he hopes to attain his happiness and perfection. This perfection is but crudely conceived in lower religions. Conformity to the recognized moral standard, which is generally low, is not wholly neglected, but it is less an object of solicitude than material welfare. The sum of happiness looked for is prosperity in the present life and a continuation of the same bodily comforts in the life to come. In the higher religions, the perfection sought in religion becomes more intimately associated with moral goodness. In Christianity, the highest of religions, communion with God implies spiritual perfection of the highest possible kind, the participation in the supernatural life of grace as the children of God. This spiritual perfection, bringing with it perfect happiness, is realized in part at least in the present life of pain and disappointment, but is to be found fully attained in the life to come. The desire of happiness and perfection is not the only motive that prompts man to do homage to God. In the higher religions there is also the sense of duty arising from the recognition of God's sovereignty, and consequently of His strict right to the subjection and worship of man. To this must also be added the love of God for His own sake, inasmuch as He is the infinitely perfect Being, in whom truth, beauty, and goodness are realized in their highest possible degree. While the prevailing motive in all lower religions is one of self-interest, the desire of happiness, it generally implies to some extent an affectionate as well as reverent attitude towards the deities that are the object of worship. From what has been said it is plain that the concept of deity required for religion is that of a free personality. The error of mistaking many nature-deities for the one true God vitiates, but does not destroy, religion. But religion ceases to exist where, as in Pantheism, the deity is pronounced to be devoid of all consciousness. A deity without personality is no more capable of awakening the sense of religion in the heart of man than is the all-pervading ether or the universal force of gravitation. Religion is essentially a personal relation, the relation of the subject and creature, man, to his Lord and Creator, God. Religion may thus be defined as the voluntary subjection of oneself to God, that is to the free, supernatural Being (or beings) on whom man is conscious of being dependent, of whose powerful help he feels the need, and in whom he recognizes the source of his perfection and happiness. It is a voluntary turning to God. In the last analysis it is an act of the will. In other words it is a virtue, since it is an act of the will inclining man to observe the right order, springing from his dependence on God. Hence St. Thomas (II-II, Q. lxxxi, a. 1) defines religion as "virtus per quam homines Deo debitum cultum et reverentiam exhibent" (the virtue which prompts man to render to God the worship and reverence that is His by right). The end of religion is filial communion with God, in which we honour and revere Him as our supreme Lord, love Him as our Father, and find in that reverent service of filial love our true perfection and happiness. Bliss-giving communion with the sovereign Deity is, as has been pointed out, the end of all religions. Primitive Buddhism (q.v.), with its aim to secure unconscious repose (Nirvana) through personal effort independently of Divine aid, seems to be an exception. But even in primitive Buddhism communion with the gods of India was retained as an element of lay belief and aspiration, and it was only by substituting the ideal of Divine communion for that of Nirvana that Buddhism became a popular religion. Thus, in its strictest sense, religion on its subjective side is the disposition to acknowledge our dependence on God, and on the objective side it is the voluntary acknowledgement of that dependence through acts of homage. It calls into play not simply the will, but the intellect, the imagination, and the emotions. Without the conception of personal deity, religion would not exist. The recognition of the unseen world stirs the imagination. The emotions, too, are called into exercise. The need of Divine help gives rise to the longing for communion with God. The recognized possibility of attaining this end engenders hope. The consciousness of acquired friendship with a protector so good and powerful excites joy. The obtaining of benefits in answer to prayer prompts to thankfulness. The immensity of God's power and wisdom calls up feelings of awe. The consciousness of having offended and estranged Him, and of thus deserving punishment, leads to fear and sorrow and the desire of reconciliation. Crowning all is the emotion of love springing from the contemplation of God's wonderful goodness and excellence. Hence we see how wide of the mark are the attempts to limit religion to the exercise of a particular faculty, or to identify it with ritual or with ethical conduct. Religion is not adequately described as "the knowledge acquired by the finite spirit of its essence as absolute spirit" (Hegel), nor as "the perception of the infinite" (Max Muller), nor as "a determination of man's feeling of absolute dependence" (Schleiermacher), nor as "the recognition of all our duties as divine commands" (Kant), nor as morality touched by emotion" (Mathew Arnold), nor as "the earnest direction of the emotions and desires towards an ideal object recognized as of the highest excellence and as rightly paramount over selfish objects of desire" (J. S. Mill). These definitions, in so far as they are true, are only partial characterizations of religion. Religion answers to a deeply felt need in the heart of man. Above the needs of the individual are the needs of the family, and higher still are the needs of the clan and people. On the welfare of the people depends that of the individual. Hence we find that religion in its outward worship is to a large extent a social function. The chief rites are public rites, performed in the name, and for the benefit, of the whole community. It is by social action that religious worship is maintained and preserved. Only in the society of one's fellow-men does one develop one's mental and moral faculties, and acquire religion. Religion is distinguished into natural and supernatural. By natural religion is meant the subjection of oneself to God, based on such knowledge of God and of man's moral and religious duties as the human mind can acquire by its own unaided powers. It does not, however, exclude theophanies and Divine revelations made with the view to confirm religion in the natural order. Supernatural religion implies a supernatural end, gratuitously bestowed on man, namely a lively union with God through sanctifying grace, begun and imperfectly attained here, but completed in heaven, where the beatific vision of God will be its eternal reward. It also implies a special Divine revelation, through which man comes to know this end as well as the Divinely appointed means for its attainment. Subjection of oneself to God, based on this knowledge of faith and kept fruitful by grace, is supernatural religion. II. SUBJECTIVE RELIGION Religion on its subjective side is essentially, but not exclusively, an affair of the will, the will to acknowledge by acts of homage man's dependence on God. We have already seen that the imagination and the emotions are important factors in subjective religion. The emotions, elicited by the recognition of dependence on God and by the deeply felt need of Divine help, give greater efficacy to the deliberate exercise of the virtue of religion. It is worthy of note that the emotions awakened by the religious consciousness are such as make for a healthy optimism. The predominant tones of religion are those of hope, joy, confidence, love, patience, humility, the purpose of amendment, and aspiration towards high ideals. All these are the natural accompaniments of the persuasion that through religion man is living in friendly communion with God. The view that fear is in most instances the spring of religious action is untenable. In subjective religion several virtues must be included, most of them being of an emotional character. The proper exercise of the virtue of religion involves three cooperant virtues having God as their direct object, and hence known as the "theological virtues". First there is faith. Strictly speaking, faith as a virtue is the reverent disposition to submit the human mind to the Divine, to accept on Divine authority what has been revealed by God. In the wide sense, as applying to all religions, it is the pious acceptance of the fundamental notions of Deity and of man's relation to Deity contained in the religious traditions of the community. In practically all religions there is an exercise of authoritative teaching in regard to the intellectual basis of religion, the things to be believed. These things individuals do not acquire independently, through direct intuition or discursive reasoning. They come to know them from the teaching of parents and elders, and from the observance of sacred rites and customs. They take these teachings on authority, made venerable by immemorial usage, so that to reject them would be reprobated as an act of impiety. Thus, while man has the capacity to arrive at a knowledge of the fundamentals of religion by the independent exercise of his reason, he regularly comes to know them through the authoritative teaching of his elders. Faith of this kind is practically an indispensable basis of religion. In the supernatural order, faith is absolutely indispensable. If man has been raised to a special supernatural end, it is only by revelation that he can come to know that end and the Divinely appointed means for its attainment. Such a revelation necessarily implies faith. For the exercise of the virtue of religion hope is absolutely indispensable. Hope is the expectation of securing and maintaining bliss-bringing communion with the Deity. In the natural order it rests on the conception of Deity as a morally good personality, inviting confidence. It is also sustained by the recognized instances of Divine providence. In the Christian religion hope is raised to the supernatural plane, being based on the promises of God made known through the revelation of Christ. The absence of hope paralyzes the virtue of religion. For this reason the damned are no longer capable of religion. Thirdly, the love of God for His own sake is a concomitant of the virtue of religion, being needed for its perfection. In some lower forms of religion, it is largely, if not wholly, absent. The Deity is honoured chiefly for the sake of personal advantage. Still, in perhaps the majority of religions, at least the beginnings of a filial affection for the Deity are felt. Such affection seems to be implied in generous offerings and in expressions of thankfulness so common in religious rites. Closely associated with the virtues of hope and love, and hence intimately connected with religion as exercised by man in his frailty, is the virtue of repentance. With all his zeal for religion, man is constantly lapsing into offences against the Deity. These offences, whether ritual or moral, deliberate or involuntary, present themselves as obstacles more or less fatal to the bliss-bringing communion with the Deity which is the end of religion. The fear of forfeiting the good will and help of the Deity, and of incurring His punishment, gives rise to regret, which in higher religions is made more meritorious by the sorrow felt for having offended so good a God. Hence the offender is prompted to acknowledge his fault and to seek reconciliation, so as to restore to its integrity the ruptured union of friendship with God. III. OBJECTIVE RELIGION Objective religion comprises the acts of homage that are the effects of subjective religion, and also the various phenomena which are viewed as the manifestations of good will by the Deity. We may distinguish in objective religion a speculative and a practical part. A. Speculative The speculative part embraces the intellectual basis of religion, those concepts of God and man, and of man's relation to God, which are the object of faith, whether natural or supernatural. Of vital importance to right religion are correct views concerning the existence of a personal God, Divine providence and retribution, the immortality of the soul, free will, and moral responsibility. Hence the need is recognized of firmly establishing the grounds of theistic belief, and of refuting the errors that weaken or destroy the virtue of religion. Polytheism vitiates religion, in so far as it confounds the one true God with a number of fictitious beings, and distributes among these the reverent service that belongs to God alone. Religion is absolutely quenched in Atheism, which tries to substitute for the personal Deity blind physical forces. Equally destructive is Pantheism, which views all things as emanations of an impersonal, unconscious world-ground. Agnosticism, in declaring that we have not sufficient grounds for asserting the existence of God, also makes religion impossible. Scarcely less fatal is Deism, which, putting God far from the visible world, denies Divine providence and the efficacy of prayer. Wherever religion has flourished, we find a deeply rooted belief in Divine providence. Free will -- with its necessary implication, moral responsibility -- is taken for granted in the creeds of most religions. It is only in grades of higher culture, where philosophic speculation has given occasion to the denial of free will, that this important truth is emphasized. Belief in the immortality of the soul is to be found in practically all religions, though the nature of the soul and the character of the future life are in most religions crudely conceived. Divine retribution is also an element of religious belief throughout the world. One of the common errors fostered in recent works on anthropology and the history of religions is that only in the higher religions is moral conduct found to rest on religious sanction. While the standard of right and wrong in lower religions is often grossly defective, allowing the existence of impure and cruel rites, it is nevertheless true that what is reprobated as morally evil is very generally viewed as an offence against the Deity, entailing punishment in some form unless expiated. Many religions, even those of savage and barbarous tribes, distinguish between the fate of the good and that of the bad after death. The bad go to a place of suffering, or they perish utterly, or they are reborn in vile animal forms. Practically all give evidence of belief in retribution in the present life, as may be seen from the universal use of ordeals, oaths, and the widespread recourse to penitential rites in times of great distress. These fundamental elements of belief have their legitimate place in the Christian religion, in which they are found corrected, supplemented, and completed by a larger knowledge of God and of His purposes in regard to man. God, having destined man for filial communion with Himself in the life of grace, has through the Incarnation and Redemption of Christ brought within the reach of man the truths and practices needed for the attainment of this end. Thus, in Christianity the things to be believed and the things to be done in order to obtain salvation have the guarantee of Divine authority. Right belief is thus essential to religion, if man is to do justice to his moral and religious duties and thereby secure his perfection. The popular cry of today for religion without dogma comes from the failure to recognize the supreme importance of right belief. The dogmatic teachings of Christianity, supplementing and perfecting the intellectual basis of natural religion, are not to be looked on as a mere series of intellectual puzzles. They have a practical purpose. They serve to enlighten man on the whole range of his religious and ethical duties, on the proper fulfilment of which depends his supernatural perfection. Closely allied with the data of revelation are the attempts to determine their mutual relations, to explain them as far as possible in terms of sound science and philosophy, and to draw from them their legitimate deductions. Out of this field of religious study has arisen the science of theology. Corresponding with this in function, but the very opposite of it in worth, is the mythology of pagan religions. Mythology is the product partly of the tendency of the human mind to realize and partly of man's attempts to account for the origins of such factors in life as fire, disease, death, and to explain the succession of natural phenomena in an age of ignorance when a fanciful personification of nature's forces occupied the place of scientific knowledge. Hence arose the mythical stories of the gods both great and small, many of which in later generations gave scandal because of their absurdity and immorality. Mythology, being born of ignorance and unbridled fancy, has no legitimate place in sound religious belief. B. Practical The practical part comprises (1) the acts of homage whereby man acknowledges God's dominion and seeks His help and friendship, and (2) the extraordinary religious experiences viewed by the worshippers as manifestations of Divine good will. (1) The acts of homage may be distinguished into three classes: (a) the direct acts of worship; (b) the regulation of conduct outside the sphere of moral obligation; (c) the regulation of conduct within the recognized sphere of moral obligation. (a) Acts of Worship. The acts of worship proper consist of those which directly express adoration, thanksgiving, petition, and propitiation. In these are included acts of faith, hope, love, humility, and repentance. They take the external form of prayer and sacrifice. Prayer, as an outward act, is the verbal communication of man's thoughts and needs to God. In the lower religions petitions for earthly favours are the chief objects of prayer. Expressions of thanks, too, are not unknown. Besides these there are in the higher religions prayers of adoration, of petition for moral improvement, also penitential prayers. Sacrifice is equally common with prayer. Scholars are not all agreed as to the primary idea underlying the use of sacrifice. The most likely view is that sacrifice is primarily a token of respect in the form of a gift. It is often called a gift or offering, even in Holy Scripture (cf. Gen., iv, 3-5; Matt., v, 23). Among the nations of antiquity, as well as most peoples of today, no inferior would think of approaching his superior without bringing a gift. It is a token of respect and good will. It is not a bribe, as some have objected, though it may degenerate into such. In like manner, man from the earliest times, in doing homage to the Deity, came into His presence with a gift. Besides being a visible proof of man's respect, the gift also signified that all things were God's. The giving over of the object to the Deity implied that it no longer belonged to the worshipper, but was made the sacred property of the Deity (sacrificium). Being thus removed from ordinary use, it was passed over to the Deity by a total or partial destruction. Liquid offerings were poured out on the ground. Food offerings were generally burned. Others were cast into rivers or the sea. Very frequently, in the food offerings, only part was destroyed by fire, the rest being eaten by the worshippers. In this way was symbolized the friendly union of the Deity and the worshippers. In some eases the underlying idea was that man was the privileged guest at the Divine banquet, partaking of the sacred food consecrated to the Deity. It thus had a quasi-sacramental significance. In the ancient Hebrew religion there were food offerings, including bloody sacrifices of animal victims. These were types of the great atoning sacrifice of Christ. In the Catholic religion, the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is perpetuated by the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, in which the eternal Lamb of God is offered under the appearance of bread and wine and is devoutly consumed by priest and faithful. The use of sacrifice has led to the office of priest. In the beginning, sacrifice, like prayer, was of the simplest kind and was offered by the individual for his personal needs, by the head of the family or clan for its members collectively, and by the chief or king for the whole people. With the growth of ceremonial prayers and rites, the office of sacrifice gave rise to the class of priests whose duty it was to make the offerings in strict conformity with the complicated ritual. The institution of the office of priest is thus later than that of sacrifice. Sacrifices were first made under the open sky on raised hearths of earth or stone, which became altars. For the protection of permanent altars temples came to be built. The most solemn sacrifices were those offered in behalf of the people for the obtaining of public benefits. To accommodate the large concourse of worshippers, the temples were often built on a grand scale, surpassing in magnificence the palaces of the kings. From the earliest times religion was thus the great inspiring influence in the development of architecture and the decorative arts. The arts of sculpture and painting owe much to the religious use of images and pictures, which from time immemorial have been associated with worship. In acquiring notions of invisible, intangible beings, man has generally made large use of the imagination, which, while it often misrepresents, serves to concretize and make real the things he recognizes but only vaguely grasps. This has led to the fashioning of forms in wood and stone to represent the mysterious beings to whom man looks for aid. These forms are apt to be repulsive where the art of sculpture is rudimentary. In the higher nations of antiquity, the making of sacred images in wood, stone, and metal was carried to a high degree of perfection. Their use degenerated into idolatry where Polytheism prevailed. The Christian religion has allowed the use of statues and paintings to represent the Incarnate Son of God, the saints, and angels, and these images are a legitimate aid to devotion, since the honour that is given them is but relative, being directed through them to the beings they represent. It is like the relative honour given to the flag of the nation. The times and places of external worship deserve passing notice. In most religions we find certain days of the year set apart for the more solemn acts of sacrificial worship: some of these are suggested by recurring phenomena of nature (the new and full moon, spring-time with its awakening vegetation, autumn with its ripened harvests, the two solstices); others commemorate historic events of great importance for the religious life of the people. Hence the widespread observance of religious festivals, when public sacrifices are offered with elaborate ritual and are accompanied with feasting and rest from ordinary business. In like manner certain places, made venerable by immemorial worship or by association with reputed visions, oracles, and miraculous cures, come to be singled out as the spots most suitable for public worship. Shrines and temples are built, to which a peculiar sanctity attaches, and annual pilgrimages are made to them from distant places. The emotional element in external worship is a feature that cannot be overlooked. The solemn prayers and sacrifices to the Deity in behalf of the community are embellished with ritual acts expressive of the emotions brought into play in religious worship. The desire and hope of Divine help, joy at its possession, gratitude for favours received, distress at the temporary estrangement of the offended Deity -- all these emotions quicken the acts of worship and find expression in chants, instrumental music, dances, processions, and stately ceremonial. These expressions of feeling are also powerful means of arousing feeling, and thus give an intense earnestness to religion. This emotional element enters into the external worship of every religion, but its extent and character vary considerably, being determined by the particular standard of propriety prevailing in a given grade of culture. Uncultured peoples, as a rule, are more emotional and more impulsive in expressing their emotions than are peoples of a high grade of culture. Hence the worship in lower religions is generally characterized by noisy, extravagant action and spectacular display. This is especially shown in their sacred dances, which are for the most part violent, and from our point of view fantastic, but which are executed in a spirit of great earnestness. The early Hebrew religion, like most of the religions of antiquity, had its sacred dances. They are a popular feature of Islamism today. They have been wisely set aside in Christian worship, though in a very few places, as at Echternach in Luxemburg, and in the Seville cathedral, religious dancing gives a local colour to the celebration of certain festivals. Instrumental and vocal music is a most fitting framework for liturgical prayers and solemn sacrifices. The beginnings of music were necessarily rude. Under the influence of religion, the rhythmic chants grew into inspiring hymns and psalms, giving rise to the sacred poetic literature of many nations. In the Christian religion sacred poetry, melody, and polyphonic music have been carried to the height of perfection. Closely allied with the religious dance, yet, when duly circumscribed, not objectionable to refined taste, is the pageantry of religious ceremonial -- the employment of numerous officiating ministers dressed in striking costumes to perform a solemn, complicated function, or the religious procession, in which the ministers, bearing sacred objects, are accompanied by a long line of worshippers, marching to the sound of soul stirring hymns and instrumental music. All this makes a profound impression on the spectators. The Catholic Church has shown her wisdom by taking into her liturgy such of these elements as are the legitimate and dignified expression of religious feeling. (b) Regulation of Conduct outside the Sphere of Moral Obligation. This element is common to all religions. It is exemplified in the purifications, fasts, privation of certain kinds of food, abstinence at times from conjugal intercourse, cessation on certain days from ordinary occupations, mutilations, and self-inflicted pains. Most of these serve as preparations, immediate or remote, for the solemn acts of worship for which ceremonial purity is generally required. Hence many of them are embodied in rites closely associated with Divine worship. Most of these practices rest on a sense of fitness strengthened by immemorial custom. To neglect or disregard them is thought to entail calamities. Thus they have a quasi-religious sanction. In the Hebrew religion practices of this kind rested for the most part on express Divine commands. This was even true of circumcision, which, while being a mutilation of a minor sort (the only form of mutilation tolerated in the Old Law), was given a highly moral signification, and made to serve as the token of God's covenant with Abraham and his descendants. The Sabbath rest, transferred in Christianity to Sunday, is likewise based on an express Divine command. To this class of external acts of homage belong also the various forms of asceticism that prevail in many religions. Such are the restrictive works of piety involving inconvenience, pain, and abstinence from legitimate enjoyments, voluntarily undertaken with the view to merit a larger share of Divine favour and to secure more than ordinary sanctity and perfection. In the lower religions the ascetic tendency has often degenerated into repulsive forms of mortification based on purely selfish ends. In Christianity the various forms of self-denial, particularly the counsels of perfection (poverty, chastity, and obedience) cultivated in the spirit of Divine love, have led to the flourishing of the ascetic life within the limits of true religious propriety. (c) Regulation of Conduct within the Recognized Sphere of Moral Obligation. The class of acts which fall within its sphere implies that the sovereign Deity is the guardian of the moral law. Moral duties, to the extent that they are recognized, are viewed as Divine commands. Their fulfilment merits Divine approval and reward; their violation entails Divine punishment. Unfortunately the moral standard of peoples in lower grades of culture has been as a rule grossly defective. Many things shocking to our moral sense have been done by them without the consciousness of wrong-doing. Being generally given to incontinence, polygamy, deeds of violence, and even to cannibalism, they have naturally attributed the same sentiments and practices to their gods. The religious sanction thus conceived lends strength to both the good and the evil side of their imperfect standard of conduct. While it helps them to avoid certain gross forms of wrong-doing, patent even to minds of low intelligence, it encourages the continued practice of vicious indulgences that otherwise might be more easily outgrown. This is particularly the case where these excesses have been woven into the myths of the gods and the legends of deified heroes, or have been incorporated into the religious rites and become, as it were, inviolable. This explains how, for example, among peoples so highly civilized as the Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans, certain lascivious rites could hold their own in the sacred liturgy, and also how, in the worship of the Aztec god of war, human sacrifices with cannibal feasts could prevail to so shocking a degree. In this respect the religious systems of lower grades of culture have tended to retard reform and progress towards higher standards of conduct. It has been the glory of the religion of Christ that, starting with the highest ethical principles, it has pointed out to men the true path to moral and spiritual perfection, and given the most powerful aids to the successful pursuit of this lofty ideal. (2) Manifestations of Divine Good Will Religion is something more than the attempt of man to secure communion with God. It is also an experience sometimes real and sometimes fancied, of the supernatural. Corresponding to the deeply felt need of Divine help is the conviction that in numerous instances this help has been given in answer to prayer. Sensible tokens of Divine good will are piously thought to reward the earnest efforts of man to secure bliss bringing communion with the Deity. Prominent among these are alleged instances of Divine communications to man, revelation. (a) Revelation. Revelation (or God speaking to man) is the complement of prayer (man speaking to God). It is instinctively felt to be needed for the perfection of religion, which is a personal relation of love and friendship. There is scarcely a religion which has not its accepted instances of Divine visions and communications. To the Theist this offers a strong presumptive argument in favour of Divine revelation, for God would hardly leave this legitimate craving of the human heart unsatisfied. It has, indeed, been fully met in the religion of Christ, in which man has been Divinely enlightened in regard to his religious duties, and has been given the supernatural power to fulfil them and thereby secure his perfection. In lower religions, where temporal welfare is chiefly kept in view, on the eve of every important undertaking Divine assurance of success is eagerly sought through ritual forms of divination and through the use of prophecy. The office of prophet, the recognized spokesman of the Deity, is generally but not always distinct from that of priest. It had its legitimate place in the Old Law, in which the Divinely chosen Prophets not only told of things to come, but also brought to their contemporaries God's messages of warning and of moral and spiritual awakening. In Christ the office of prophet was perfected and completed for all time. In lower religions the office of prophet is almost invariably characterized by extraordinary mental excitement, taken by the worshippers as the sign of the inspiring presence of the Deity. In this state of religious frenzy, brought on as a rule by narcotics, dances, and noisy music, the prophet utters oracles. Sometimes the prophecy is made after emerging from a trance, in which the prophet is thought to be favoured with Divine visions and communications. In their ignorance, the worshippers mistake these pathological states for the signs of indwelling Deity. Their counterparts may be seen today in the wild scenes of excitement so common in the religious revivals of certain sects, where the believers, under the influence of noisy, soul-stirring exhortations, become seized with religious frenzy, dance, shout, fall into cataleptic fits, and think they see visions and hear Divine assurances of being saved. Quite different from these violent mental disturbances are the peaceful, but no less extraordinary ecstasies of many saints, in which wonderful visions and Divine colloquies are experienced, while the body lies motionless and insensible. The supernatural character of these experiences is not a matter of faith, but is vouched for by the careful investigation and judgment of the ecclesiastical authorities and pronounced worthy of pious acceptance. (b) Extraordinary Healing. There are few religions in which recourse is not had to supernatural aid for miraculous cures. The testimony of reliable witnesses and the numerous ex-votos that have come down to us from antiquity leave no doubt as to the reality of many of these cures. It was natural that they should be viewed as miraculous in an age when the remarkable power of suggestion to effect cures was not understood. Modern science recognizes that strong mental impressions can powerfully influence the nervous system and through this the bodily organs, leading in some instances to sudden illness or death, in others to remarkable cures. Such is the so-called mind-cure, or cure by suggestion. It explains naturally many extraordinary cures recorded in the annals of different religions. Still it has its recognized limits. It cannot restore of a sudden a half-decayed organ, or heal instantly a gaping wound caused by a cancer. Yet cures like these and others equally defying natural explanation have taken place at Lourdes and elsewhere, and are authenticated by the highest medical testimony. (c) Sudden Conversions. In the Christian religion there are numerous instances of sudden conversions from a life of vice to one of virtue, from a state of spiritual depression to one of enthusiastic zeal. The latter kind are not infrequent in Calvinistic forms of Protestantism, where the fear of being outside the elect, heightened by lapses into sin, leads to spiritual depression and misery with a corresponding yearning for a Divine assurance of salvation. Such conversions, coming unexpectedly and transforming the individual into a new man, happy in the consciousness of Divine love and active in works of piety, have been popularly viewed as miraculous in every instance. That many of these conversions may be of a purely natural order seems to be shown by modern psychology, which offers the plausible theory of the sudden uprush into consciousness of subliminal activities set unconsciously in operation by intense, persistent longings for a change to a better, more spiritual life. But it must be recognized that this theory has its limitations. The grace of God may be working in many conversions that allow of a natural explanation. Moreover, there are conversions that defy any such natural explanation as the working of subliminal consciousness. It cannot, for instance, explain the conversion of St. Paul, who, from a rabid hater of Christianity, was suddenly turned into one of its most ardent champions, a result that was the very antithesis of his previous conscientious belief and aspirations. That his vision of Christ was real and objective is proved by the wonderful accession of knowledge that it brought to his mind, fitting him to stand forth unchallenged as one of Christ's Apostles. There is no natural explanation for a conversion such as this. C. Sacred Books There remains a word to be said, by way of supplement, of the sacred literature characteristic of most higher religions. Both the speculative and the practical side of religion contribute to its formation. Many elements, accumulated through a long series of generations, go to compose the sacred books of the great religions of antiquity -- the traditional myths and legends; the stories of the providential dealing of the Deity with His people; the sacred chants, hymns and prayers; the great epic poems; the laws governing social and domestic activity; the texts of the sacred rites and the prescriptions regulating their exact performance; speculations on the nature of the Deity, the soul, retribution, and the future life. In some of the ancient religions this enormous mass of sacred lore was transmitted orally from generation to generation till finally it was put in writing. Th every religion possessing sacred books, there is a tendency to give them a much greater antiquity than they actually enjoy, and to view them as the infallible expression of Divine wisdom. This latter claim vanishes quickly when they are compared with the inspired books of the Bible, which in spiritual and literary worth stand immeasurably above them. IV. THE ORIGIN OF RELIGION The beginnings of religion go back to remote prehistoric time. In the absence of positive, historic data, the question of the origin of religion admits only of a speculative answer. It is Catholic teaching that primitive religion was a Divinely revealed Monotheism. This was an anticipation and a perfection of the notion of religion, which man from the beginning was naturally capable of acquiring. Religion, like morality, has apart from revelation a natural basis or origin. It is the outcome of the use of reason, though, without the corrective influence of revelation, it is very apt to be misconceived and distorted. A. Modern Application of the Principle of Causality Religion, in its last analysis, rests on a theistic interpretation of nature. The Christian philosopher arrives at this by a process of discursive reasoning, making use of arguments drawn from external nature and from his inner consciousness (see article GOD). This, however, is a highly philosophic process of reasoning, the result of the accumulated contributions of many generations of thinkers. It presupposes a mind trained to abstract reasoning, and hence is by no means easy for the average individual It can hardly have been the method followed by savage man, whose mind was not trained to philosophy and science. The process by which he arrived naturally at a theistic interpretation of the world seems to have been a simple, spontaneous application of the principle of causality. B. Primitive Application of the Principle of Causality There is every reason to think that primitive man's view of nature was, to a large extent, similar to that held by peoples generally who have not risen to a scientific knowledge of the laws of nature. They recognize in all the striking phenomena of earth, air, and sky the immediate agency of intelligent volition. Untutored man does not understand the secondary, mechanical causes of natural events. The cause best known to him are living, personal causes, himself and his fellow-men. Familiarity with lifeless objects, as stocks and stones, weapons and utensils, shows that even these things exhibit only such movement and force as he and his fellows choose to impart to them. Living agency is behind their movements. The natural result is that, whenever he sees a phenomenon showing movement and energy outside his limited experience of mechanical causation, he is led spontaneously to attribute it to some mysterious form of living agency. The thunder suggests the thunderer. The sun and moon are taken to be either living things or the instruments of an invisible living agency. Personality is also associated with them, particularly where the phenomena are suggestive of intelligent purpose. To recognize in and behind the phenomena of nature the agency of mind and will was thus easy for primitive man. But it was not an equally simple matter to discern in the great diversity of these phenomena the action of but one supreme personality. The possibility of such an inference cannot be denied. But its likelihood is not great when we consider how hard it would have been for primitive man in his inexperience to coordinate the varied effects of nature and derive them from one and the same source of power. The more likely tendency would have been to recognize in the diverse phenomena the agency of distinct personalities, as was indeed done by the peoples of antiquity, and as is done today by uncultured peoples everywhere. Peoples, whose ignorance of the physical laws of nature has not been compensated by revealed teaching, have invariably personalized the forces of nature, and, feeling that their welfare depended on the beneficent exercise of these powers, have come to divinize them. From this danger of falling into a polytheistic interpretation of nature, primitive man was saved by Divine Revelation. Such, it would seem, was the simple philosophy forming the natural basis of religion in primitive times. It was theoretically capable of leading to a Monotheism like that of the ancient Hebrews, who viewed clouds, rain, lightning, and tempest as the signs of God's immediate activity. But, apart from revelation, it was very liable to degenerate into polytheistic nature-worship. Its defect was primarily scientific, ignorance of the secondary causes of natural events; but it rested on a sound principle, namely, that the phenomena ef nature are in some way the outcome of intelligent volition. This principle commends itself to the Christian philosopher and scientist. C. Intuition Theory Other theories have been suggested to account for the origin of religion. We shall briefly review the more common ones. According to the intuition theory, man has instinctively an intuition of God and of his dependence on Him. To this theory there are several serious objections. We ought to be conscious of this intuition if we possessed it. Again, as a result of such intuition, man should be found everywhere with a monotheistic religion. The widespread existence of Polytheism and the religious apathy of many individuals are inconsistent with such an intuition of God. D. Max Muller'sPerception Theory This is but a slight modification of the intuition theory. Muller thought the perception of the infinite was the source of religion, being acquired by "a mental faculty which independent of, nay in spite of, sense and reason, enables man to apprehend the infinite under different names and under varying disguises" ("Origin and Growth of Religion", London, 188O, p. 23). But apprehension of the infinite or even of the indefinite is suited rather to philosophic than to simple minds, and is not to be found in the generality of religions. It is the apprehension of sovereign personality that gives rise to religion, not the mere apprehension of the infinite. How man arrives at the notion of such personality, this theory does not explain. E. Fear Theory A common theory with the Greek and Roman philosophers, favoured by a few writers of modern times, is that religion had its origin in fear, particularly fear of lightning, tempests, and other dangerous features of nature. But fear is a feeling, and no mere feeling can account for the idea of personality, which may or may not be associated with a dangerous or terrifying object. Fear, like hope, may be one of the motives prompting man to the worship of the Deity, but such worship presupposes the recognition of Deity, and fear cannot account for this recognition. We have already seen that fear is not the predominating tone even in lower religions, as is shown by the universal use of rites expressing joy, hope, and gratitude. F. Animist Theory A favourite theory of modern times is the animist theory. It has been set forth with great erudition by E.B. Tylor. According to this theory, in consequence of a strong tendency to personify, primitive peoples come to view everything as alive, even stocks and stones. They also have a crude notion of the soul, derived from dreams and Visions experienced in sleep and swoons. Applying this soul idea to inanimate things, which they take to be alive, they have come to associate mighty spirits with the great phenomena of nature and have given them worship. The defects of this theory are such as to discredit it in the eyes of most scholars. In the first place, it is not true that uncultured peoples confound the living with the non-living to the extent that they take the very stones to be alive. It would, indeed, be strange if uncultured man were not at least the equal of the beast in ability to distinguish between familiar objects that are lifeless and those that show life and movement. Again, while men of lower grades of culture have a crude notion of souls, they do not need that concept to arrive at the idea of personal agency in nature. All they need is the notion of personal cause, which they get from the consciousness of themselves as sources of power and purposive action. There is every reason to think that this idea is prior to the soul concept. (See ANIMISM.) G. Ghost Theory This theory, whose prominent English champion was Herbert Spencer, identifies the primitive notion of religion with the service and propitiation of departed relatives, and attributes the worship of the great deities of nature to the mistaken applications of ancestor-worship. The first religious offerings are said to have been offerings of food, weapons, and utensils made to the souls of the dead, whose occupations, needs, and tastes in the next life were thought to be similar to those of earthly existence. In return for this much-needed service, the dead gave the living aid and protection. A series of blunders led to the recognition and worship of the great nature-deities. Migrating peoples from beyond the sea or the mountain became known as children of the sea or of the mountain. Later generations, mistaking the meaning of the term, were led to view the sea or the mountain as their living ancestor and to give it worship. Again, departed heroes named Sun, Thunder, Rain-Cloud, came after a lapse of time to be confounded with the real sun and other natural phenomena, thus giving rise to the conception of nature-deities and to nature-worship. The defects of this theory are manifest. Mistakes like these might be made by some stupid individual of the tribe, but not by all the members of the tribe, still less by tribes over all the earth. A series of trivial and fortuitous blunders cannot account for so world-wide a fact as the recognition of nature-deities. If the ghost-theory were true, we should find the religions of savages consisting exclusively of ancestor-worship. This is not the case. In all lower religions, where we find food-offerings to the dead, we also find recognized, and carefully distinguished from dead heroes, nature deities. Among the pygmies of the Northern Congo, accounted one of the lowest of races, there is a reverent recognition of a supreme Deity, but no trace of ancestor-worship. There is thus no good ground for asserting ancestor-worship to have been the earliest form of religion, nor do we need it to account for religion, strictly speaking, in any of its forms. It is a parallel growth that has sprung up and become entwined with religion proper. The latter is of independent origin. H. Fetish Theory This derives religion from the use and veneration of fetishes. A fetish is an object (generally small enough to be easily carried) in which a spirit is thought to reside, acting as a protective genius for the owner who wears it, and who venerates it because of its indwelling spirit. Generally, it is the medicine-man or wizard who makes the fetish, and charges it with the spirit. It is used till its inefficiency becomes apparent, when it is cast aside as worthless, in the belief that the indwelling spirit has departed from it. Now the use of such objects cannot be the primary form of religion. In the first place, there is no existing form of religion known in which Fetishism is the sole constituent element. Among the negroes of West Africa, where it first attracted attention, the fetish spirits are at best but inferior beings, generally distinct from the supreme heaven-god and from the powerful nature-deities associated with the sea and thunder. Again, the notion of persuading spirits to lodge themselves in stocks and stones and become the property of the wearers, is the very antithesis of religion, which implies the sense of pendence on the Deity. Far from the latter notion bring derived from the former, there is every reason to see in Fetishism a perverted notion of religion. (See FETISHISM.) I. Totem Theory This puts the origin of religion in Totemism, a semi-religious, semi-social institution prevailing chiefly among savage tribes. In certain tribes, every one of the component clans has a tutelary deity intimately associated with a particular species of animal or plant, which species is venerated by the clan as sacred and inviolable. It is called the ancestor of the clan. The individuals of the species are often viewed as particularly sacred because of the indwelling deity. Hence the totem animal or plant is ordinarily not used for food by the clan that bears its name. The union of clans into tribes under the leadership of one superior clan is said to have led to the absorption of the weaker totem deities into that of the ruling clan, with the result that powerful tribal deities arose. It was but a step further to the recognition of a supreme deity. Totemism labours under many of the difficulties of Fetishism. Nowhere do we find religion of pure Totemism. Among the North American Indians, where Totemism has flourished with the greatest vigour, the totems are absolutely overshadowed by the great deities of the sky, air, and water. The distinction between them and the totem spirits is absolute. Nowhere do the great deities bear the names of animals or plants as a mark of totem origin. In the majority of the religions of the world, there is no trace of Totemism, vestiges of which ought to be widespread if it had been the source of all other forms of religion. The totem, Iike the fetish, presupposes the very thing that needs to be accounted for, belief in the existence of unseen personal agents. V. THE UNIVERSALITY OF RELIGION A. Historical Survey From what has already been said, it is plain that religion, though often imperfectly conceived, is in normal conditions of human existence the inevitable outcome of the use of reason. It is but natural, then, that religion, at least in some crude form, should be a characteristic feature in the life of all peoples. This truth was widely questioned during the last few centuries, when the extension of travel to unexplored lands gave rise to reports asserting the absence of religion among many native tribes of Asia, Africa, America, and the islands of the Pacific Ocean. One by one these reports have been nullified by the contrary statements of travellers and missionaries better qualified as witnesses, so that today there remain but very few peoples of whom it cannot be said with certainty that they possess some form, however degraded, of religion. These rare exceptions do but prove the rule, for they are insignificant tribes which, in the struggle for existence, have been driven by their enemies to inhospitable regions where the conditions of life are so wretched as to cause them to degenerate almost to a state of brutalization. A degradation of this sort can prove fatal to the sentiment of religion. A notable instance is the Indian tribe in Southern California among whom Father Baegert, a Jesuit missionary, laboured for many years. In the account which he gave of his experiences, a translation of which was published in the "Smithsonian Report" of 1864, he testified to their stupidity and utter lack of religion. Yet their descent from Indian stocks that had well defined religious notions is practically certain. Father Baegert observed a few vestiges of an ancestral belief in a future life for example the custom of putting sandals on the feet of the dead, the significance of which the Indians could not explain. Mental degradation like this may thus involve the loss of religion. But such degradation is extremely rare. On the other hand, wherever tribes exist in normal conditions, they are found to possess some sort of religion. The erroneous reports of earlier travellers asserting a lack of religion where religion actually exists, have been due either to superficial observation or to a misunderstanding as to what should be called religion. Some have accepted as religion only an exalted notion of the Deity coupled with well-organized rites of public worship. The absence of these has often been set down as an absence of religion. Again, unfavourable verdicts have not infrequently been based on a stay of but one or two days with tribes speaking an unknown tongue, as for example was the case with Verrazano and Amerigo Vespucci. But, even where observers have stayed for months among rude peoples, they have sometimes found it extremely difficult to obtain information in regard to religious beliefs and practices; a suspicion that the white man was seeking to obtain some advantage over them has more than once led savages to resort to deceit to conceal their religion. It is the ca]m, impartial judgment of anthropologists today that there is no people of note that is absolutely devoid of religion. B. Outlook But the further question may be asked: If religion has been universal in the past, have we any assurance that it will persist in time to come? Has not the advance of modern science been marked by a progressive substitution of mechanical for personal agency in nature, with the inevitable result, as a writer has expressed it, that God will one day be bowed out of His universe as no longer needed? To this we may reply: The advance of modern scientific culture is fatal to all polytheistic forms of religion, in which the recognized secondary causes are, through ignorance, mistaken for personal causes. The well-established scientific truth of the unity of nature's forces is in harmony only with the monotheistic interpretation of nature. Christian Monotheism, far from being inconsistent with true science, is necessary to supplement and complete the limited interpretation of nature afforded by science. The latter, being based on observation and experiment, has for its legitimate sphere of study only secondary causes of nature. It can tell nothing of origins, nothing of the great First Cause, from which the orderly universe has proceeded. In substituting physical laws for what was formerly thought to be the direct action of Divine agency, it has not accounted for the intelligent, purposive direction of nature. It has simply pushed the question somewhat further back, but left it with its religious answer as importunate as ever. It is true that in modern civilized nations there has asserted itself a notable tendency to religious scepticism and indifference. It is a symptom of unrest, of an unhealthy, excessive reaction from the simple view of nature that prevailed in both science and religion in former times. In the material order, ignorance of the natural causes of lightning, tempests, comets, earthquakes, droughts, and pests, has led less cultured peoples to see direct supernatural agency in their production. For them nature in its seemingly capricious moods has had the aspect rather of master than of servant. Their sense of dependence has thus been keen and constant; their need of Divine help urgent to a high degree. On the other hand, the widespread recognition among cultured peoples of the reign of law leads man to seek natural remedies in times of distress, and only where these fail to turn to God for aid. Modern civilization, in removing many scourges of ancient times that were viewed as supernatural, in greatly lessening the range of the miraculous, in binding nature in a thousand ways to beneficent service, has tended to create in the heart of man a feeling of self-sufficiency that tends to enfeeble the virtue of religion. That this tendency, however, is an abnormal, passing distemper rather than a permanent, characteristic feature of modern civilizations, may be seen from the unshaken Christian faith of many of the greatest exponents of scientific culture (e.g. Clerk-Maxwell, Sir John Herschell, Lord Kelvin in England; Faye, Lapparent, Pasteur in France). It is still more strikingly shown by the conversion from scepticism to Christian faith of distinguished scholars such as Littré, Romanes, Brunetière, Bourget, Coppée, and von Ruville. It was recognized by these and other profound thinkers that the deeply seated craving in the human heart for bliss-giving communion with God can never be stilled by science or by any other proposed substitute for religion. VI. THE CIVILIZING INFLUENCE OF RELIGION Religion in its highest forms has exercised a profound influence on the development of human culture. In the recognized sphere of morality, it has offered powerful motives to right conduct; it has been the chief inspiration of music, poetry, architecture, sculpture, and painting; it has been the dominant influence in the formation of a permanent literature. In all the early civilizations, the chief representatives and transmitters of the highest known culture have been the officials in charge of religious rites. Religion has been a mighty force in the life of nations, cultivating in the hearts of men a striving for better things, a healthy tone of cheerfulness, hope, joy, resignation under calamities, perseverance in the face of difficulties, a readiness for generous service, in short a spirit of highminded optimism, without which no nation can rise to greatness. Most noteworthy has been the influence of Christianity in transforming and elevating society. Its lofty ethical teachings, the peerless example of its Divine Founder, the fundamental principle that we are all children of the same heavenly Father and hence bound to treat our fellow-men not only with justice but with mercy and charity, the spirit of generous, self-sacrificing service, springing from personal devotion to the Divine Saviour and prompting to the practice of heroic virtues -- all this, having for its end the spiritual perfection of the individual and the union of all men through a common bond of faith and worship in a Divinely constituted Church, has exercised a mighty influence in softening and refining the rude peoples of early Europe, in breaking down the barriers of race prejudice, and in forming common society of many nations, in which the idea recognized, though not yet fully attained, is a universal reign of peace, justice, chastity, charity reverence for authority, sympathy for the afflicted, a general diffusion of useful knowledge, and in short a common participation in everything that makes for true culture. Nowhere have the works of charity flourished in such variety and vigour as in Christian lands. The Christian religion has ever been the great conservative force, favouring established order and law, and opposed to hasty innovations calculated to cause a profound disturbance in existing religious or political institutions. The value of such a force in human affairs is incalculable, even though it may occasionally retard for a while the general recognition of some principle of permanent value in science economics, or politics. While, in modern civilization, state institutions are sharing with Christian hospitals, asylums, and scbools the work of charitable ministration which in former times depended exclusively on the Church while the sciences and arts no longer need the fostering influence of religion, it is nevertheless true that, in the social and moral order, the need of right religion is as urgent as ever. It has not ceased to be the mighty social power working for the highest good of the nation. Religion alone can keep alive in a people devotion to high ideals, respect for established authority, preference for peaceful measures to secure political and industrial reforms, and a cheerful spirit of perseverance despite powerful opposition. Religion means generous optimism; irreligion means sordid pessimism. It is religion, too, that presents the highest and most efficacious motives for the upbuilding of character in the individual, for the conscientious fulfilment of his moral duties. Christianity does not disdain the purely secular grounds of morality, such as the love of virtue and hatred of vice, self-respect, regard for public opinion, fear of legal sanctions; but it reinforces and completes these by the powerful motives that are the fruit of the teaching of Christ, the greatest ethical teacher the world has ever seen -- love of God, personal devotion to Jesus, the sense of God's presence, and the thought of Divine retribution. These motives, supernaturalized by grace, exercise a powerful influence in developing an interior conformity to the rule of right conduct, which distinguishes genuine moral worth from the mere outward show of respectability. Right religion both indicates and makes possible of fulfilment man's duties to himself, his family, his neighbour, and the State. In the measure that he conforms to the teaching of religion will he be found to be a zealous promoter and observer of civic virtue. In short, wherever we find the practical observance of right religion, there we find social order to a high degree. The nation that designedly and systematically repudiates religion is depriving itself of the most powerful factor operative in the upbuilding and maintaining of true public welfare. It is on the steep incline to social and political ruin. VII. THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION Modern scholarship has given much attention to the study of religion. Out of this many-sided study have grown the modern branches known as the history of religion, comparative religion, and the psychology of religion, all of which are supplemented and completed by the older discipline, the philosophy of religion. A. History of Religion This has for its scope the accurate and systematic exposition of the positive data that go to make up the different external religions of the world -- the rites, customs, restrictions, concepts of deity, sacred books, etc. Its point of view is purely historic. It studies each religion apart from the question of its spiritual worth and possible supernatural origin, simply as an external expression of religious belief. A sympathetic interest attaches to this study, for there are few religions, however crude, that do not represent the sincere effort of man to bring himself into communion with God. The work accomplished in this field has been immense. Religious data have been accumulated from hundreds of different sources, and the sacred books of the great Oriental religions have been carefully translated, so that today there is within easy reach of the scholar a very reliable survey of the chief religions of the world. B. Comparative Religion Closely allied to the history of religions, out of which it has grown, is comparative religion. The scope of this discipline is the comparative study of the many elements common to different religions with the view to ascertain their underlying thought and purpose, and thus to discover if possible the causes of their genesis and persistence. In some instances, where resemblances of a striking kind are found in two or more religions, it seeks to determine whether these resemblances imply dependence. It also admits a more extensive comparison of religion with religion in order to estimate their relative value. But like the history of religions, the data of which it uses, it does not concern itself as a science with the question whether any given religion be true. Comparative religion has helped to a better understanding of many phases of external religion, It has shown how certain widespread rites and customs have been the natural product of human thought in lower grades of culture. It has enabled us to recognize in higher religions elements that are survivals of earlier stages of thought. But its principles of comparison have to be used with great care, for they can easily be made to do service for contradictory and visionary theories. The writings of authors such as Frazer and Reinach offer many examples of unwarranted conclusions supported by far-fetched comparisons. C. Psychology of Religion This discipline studies the different psychical states implied in, and associated with, the religious consciousness. It concerns itself with the extraordinary and abnormal, as well as with the normal exercise of the intellectual, volitional, emotional, and imaginative activities set in motion by religion. It does not attempt to vindicate the supernatural character of these psychical experiences or to show their conformity to objective truth. Viewing them simply as mental states, it seeks to find out how far they may be explained by natural causes. In the short period of its existence it has given much consideration to the phenomena of sudden conversions, religious frenzy, the sense of God's presence experienced by pious Christians, and the extraordinary experiences of mystics, Catholic and non-Catholic. In seeking the natural explanation of some of these experiences it has been successful; but, as has already been pointed out, it has its limitations. D. Philosophy of Religion The philosophy of religion is the crown and completion of the several disciplines already mentioned. It carries the inquiring mind beyond the sphere of natural causation to the recognition of the great personal First Cause and Source of all things, and shows that only in the recognition of God is a satisfactory interpretation of the universe attainable. It is the science which examines the value of religion, and investigates with careful scrutiny the grounds of theistic belief. In its method of procedure and choice of arguments, it shows considerable variation, due in large measure to the different theories of knowledge that obtain in the world of philosophers. Since Kant's criticism of the Scholastic arguments for the existence of God, there has been a strong tendency in many schools to neglect the cosmological and teleological arguments, and to see the evidence of Divine wisdom and goodness rather in the human mind than in external nature. A reaction is now setting in. Some of the leading exponents of biological science now recognize that evolution, as an adequate explanation of the variety of organic life, is necessarily teleological, and do not hesitate to declare that the universe is the manifestation of a creative, controlling mind. Besides the Latin works of ST. THOMAS, SUAREZ, LUGO, MAZZELLA, etc., the following authors may be consulted: VAN DEN GHEYN, La Religion, son origine et sa définition (Paris, 1891); HETTINGER, Natural Religion (New York, 1893); JASTROW, The Study of Religion (New York, 1902); BOWNE, The Essence of Religion (Boston, 1910); LILLY, The Great Enigma (New York, 1892); LANG, The Making of Religion (New York, 1898); IDEM. Myth, Ritual and Religion (London, 1899); MILL, Three Essays on Religion (London, 1874); KELLOGG, The Genesis and Growth of Religion (New York, 1892); MARTINEAU, A Study of Religion (2 vols., London, 1888); BRINTON, The Reliqious Sentiment (New York, 1876); DE BROGLIE, Problèmes et conclusions de l'histoire des religions (Paris, 1886); VERNES, Hist. des religions, son esprit, sa méthode, et ses divisions (Paris, 1887); JORDAN, Comparative Religion; its Genesis and Growth (New York, 1905); FOUCART, La méthode comparative dans l'histoire des religions (Paris, 1909); JAMES, The Varieties of Religious Experience (London, 1903); PRATT, The Psychology of Religious Belief (New York, 1907); AMES, The Psychology of Religious Experience (Boston, 1910); WUNDT, Völkerpsychologie (Leipzig, 1904-07); CAIRD, Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Glasgow, 1901); CALDECOTT, The Philosophy of Religion in England and America (New York, 1901); LADD, The Philosophy of Religion (New York, 1905); PFLEIDERER, The Philosophy and Development of Religion (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1894); EUCKEN, Christianity and the New Idealism (New York, 1909). See also bibliographies to PRIESTHOOD and SACRIFICE. CHARLES F. AIKEN Virtue of Religion Virtue of Religion Of the three proposed derivations of the word "religion", that suggested by Lactantius and endorsed by St. Augustine seems perhaps to accord better with the idea than the others. He says it comes from religare, to bind. Thus it would mean the bond uniting man to God. The notion of it commonly accepted among theologians is that which is found in St. Thomas's "Summa Theologica", II-II, Q. lxxxi. According to him it is a virtue whose purpose is to render God the worship due to Him as the source of all being and the principle of all government of things. There can be no doubt that it is a distinct virtue, not merely a phase of another. It is differentiated from others by its object, which is to offer to Almighty God the homage demanded by His entirely singular excellence. In a loose construction it may be considered a general virtue in so far as it prescribes the acts of other virtues or requires them for the performance of its own functions. It is not a theological virtue, because its immediate object is not God, but rather the reverence to be paid to Him. Its practice is indeed often associated with the virtues of faith and charity. Still the concordant judgment of theologians puts it among the moral virtues, as a part of the cardinal virtue justice, since by it we give God what is due to Him. St. Thomas teaches that it ranks first among moral virtues. A religious attitude towards God is essentially the product of our recognition, not only of His sovereign majesty, but also of our absolute dependence on Him. Thus, as Father Rickaby says, He is not merely "the Great Stranger", our behaviour towards whom must be invested with awe and admiration; He is besides our Creator and Master and, in virtue of our supernatural filiation in the present order of things, our Father. Hence we are bound to cherish habitually towards Him sentiments of adoration, praise, thanksgiving, loyalty, and love. Such a demeanour of soul is inexorably required by the very law of our being. We must not, however, rest satisfied because perchance our interior bearing is fairly in conformity with this standard. We are not simply spirits. Our composite nature needs to express itself by outward acts in which the body as well as the soul shall have a part -- this not only to spur on our inner feelings, but also because God owns us body and soul, and it is right that both should show their fealty to Him. This is the justification of external religion. Of course God does not need our worship, whether interior or exterior, and it is puerile to impugn it on that score. We cannot by our homage add anything to His glory, unless it be the extrinsic increment of the theologians of which account need not be taken here. It is not because it is strictly speaking of use to Him that we render it, but because He is infinitely worthy of it, and because it is of tremendous value to ourselves. The chief acts of this virtue are adoration, prayer, sacrifice, oblation, vows; the sins against it are neglect of prayer, blasphemy, tempting God, sacrilege, perjury, simony, idolatry, and superstition. RICKABY, Ethics and Natural Law (London, 1908); MAZZELLA, De religione et ecclesia (Rome, 1885); SCHANZ, A Christian Apology (New York, 1907); Summa theol. (Turin, 1885), loc. cit. JOSEPH F. DELANY Religious Life Religious Life I. GENERAL VIEW AND EVANGELICAL IDEA OF THE RELIGIOUS LIFE A. GENERAL VIEW We all have within us that vague and general idea of the religious life which enables us to recognize it when it is described as a life directed to personal perfection, or a life seeking union with God. Under this twofold aspect it is met with in all ages and places: every soul possesses an inclination to good, and an inclination towards God. There are everywhere souls that willingly follow these inclinations and consequently religious souls. Sometimes they attach more importance to the tendency to self-perfection, sometimes to the tendency towards God; in other words, to the ascetic tendency or the mystical tendency; but since God is the end of man, the two tendencies are so similar as to be practically one. If the Creator has put into our souls the principle of religious life, we must expect not only to find it, more and less intense, in every religion, but also to see it reveal itself in similar ways. We should not be surprised if outside the true Church there should be persons devoted to contemplation, solitude, and sacrifice; but we are not obliged to conclude that our Christian practices are necessarily derived from theirs, since the instincts of human nature sufficiently account for the resemblance. Such an explanation would not explain the origin of these practices: if we are indebted for the monasticism of Pachomius to the worshippers of Serapis, where did they find their inspiration? Nor would the explanation account for the results: whence comes it that monachism has covered not only the East, and Asia, but also Africa, Europe, and the whole of the West? In our days the historical derivation of certain usages is a thing of small importance; we may admit without hesitation any connexion which is proved, but not one which is merely assumed. The Israelites may have borrowed from Egypt the practice of circumcision, which was the sign of their covenant with Jehovah; and so certain ascetic practices, even if they had a pagan origin, were nevertheless, as employed by our monks and religious, Catholic and Christian in meaning and inspiration. Moreover, not every doctrine or practice of a false religion is necessarily erroneous or reprehensible; there may be great nobility of character among Buddhist monks or Mussulman dervishes, as there may be faults sullying the monastic or religious habits worn in the true Church. We need not here present a comparative analysis of the Christian religious life and the religious life of non-Christians, nor even compare our religious with the servants of God in the Old Testament (see ANCHORITES; ASCETICISM; BUDDHISM; ESSENES; MONASTICISM). But how are we to recognize the religious life of the true and Divine religion? Not by bodily mortifications, which may be surpassed in severity by those of the fakirs; not by mystical ecstasies and raptures, which were experienced by those initiated into the Greek and Oriental mysteries, and are still met with among Buddhist monks and dervishes; not even by the faultless lines of all the plans of Catholic religious life, for God, who desires progress even in His Church, has permitted rough beginnings, experiments, and individual mistakes; but even the persons making these mistakes possess in the true religion the principles which ensure correction and gradual improvement. Besides, in its entirety, the religious life of the true religion must appear to us to be in conformity with the moral and social laws of our present existence, as well as with our destiny; its intentions must appear sincerely directed towards personal sanctification, towards God, and the Divine order. The tree must everywhere be known by its fruits. Now, Catholic religious life infinitely surpasses all other ascetic systems by the truth and beauty of the doctrine laid down in so many rules and treatises, and by the eminent sanctity of its followers such as Saints Anthony, Pachomius, Basil Augustine, Colombanus, Gregory, and others, and finally, especially in the West, by the marvellous fruitfulness of its work for the benefit of mankind. After these preliminary observations, we may confidently look for the true religious life in the Gospel. B. EVANGELICAL IDEA We cannot regard as essential everything that we find in the full development of religious life, without ignoring historical facts or refusing them the attention they deserve; and we must correct the definitions of Scholastic writers, and lessen some of their requirements, if we wish to put ourselves in harmony with history, and not be compelled to assign to religious a later origin, which would separate them by too long a period from the first preaching of the Gospel which they profess to practise in the most perfect manner. The Scriptures tell us that perfection consists in the love of God and our neighbour, or to speak more accurately, in a charity which extends from God to our neighbour, finding its motive in God, and the opportunity for its exercise in our neighbour. We say "it has its motive in God", and for that reason Christ tells us that the second commandment is like to the first (Matt., xxii, 39); "and the opportunity for its exercise in our neighbour", as St. John says: "If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, how can he love God, whom he seeth not?" (I John, iv, 20). The New Testament warns us of the obstacles to this charity arising from an attachment to and desire of created things, and from the cares caused by their possession, and, therefore, besides this precept of charity, our observance of which is the measure of our perfection, the New Testament gives us a general counsel to be disengaged from everything contrary to charity. This counsel contains certain definite directions, among the most important of Which are the renunciation of riches, of carnal pleasure, and of all ambition and self-seeking, in order to acquire a spirit of voluntary submission and generous devotion to the service of God and our neighbour. All Christians are bound to obey these precepts, and to follow the spirit of these counsels; and a fervour like that of the first Christians will enable them to free themselves from attachment to earthly things in order to set their affections on God and the things of heaven; while the remembrance of the shortness of this life facilitates the sacrifice of wealth and natural pleasures. The first converts of Jerusalem acted on this principle, and sold their possessions and goods, laying the proceeds at the feet of the apostles. But experience, by which Christ wished His faithful to be taught, soon corrected their errors on the Subject of the future of the world, and showed the practical impossibility of a complete renunciation by all members of the Church. Christian society can no more continue without resources and without children than the soul can exist without the body; it has need of men engaged in lucrative professions, as well as of Christian marriages and Christian families. In short, according to the designs of God who bestows a diversity of gifts, there must also be a diversity of operations (I Cor., xii, 4, 6). Every kind of career should be represented in the Church, and one of these should include those who make profession of the practice of the Evangelical counsels. Such persons are not necessarily more perfect than others, but they adopt the best means of attaining perfection; their final object and supreme destiny are the same as those of others, but they are charged with the duty of reminding others of that destiny and of the means of fulfilling it; and they pay for this favoured position by the sacrifices which it entails, and the benefit which others derive from their teaching and example. This life which, in view of the great precept, follows the Evangelical counsels, is called the religious life; and those who embrace it are called religious. At first sight, it would seem that this life ought to unite in itself all the counsels scattered through the Gospels: that would indeed be the religion of counsels; and certainly, the more fully it inspires the desire and furnishes the means of following the Evangelical counsels, the more fully is it a religious life; but a perfect realization of those counsels is impossible to man; the opportunity of practising them all does not present itself in every man's life, and one would quickly be worn out if he attempted to keep them all continually in view. We soon learn to distinguish those that are more essential and characteristic, and more calculated to ensure that freedom from whatever hinders the love of God and of our neighbour, which should be the distinguishing mark of the perfect life. From this point of view, two counsels are put prominently forward in the New Testament as necessary for perfection, namely the counsel of poverty: "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor" (Matt., xix, 21), and the counsel of perfect chastity practised for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt., xix, 12, and I Cor., vii, 37-40, and the commentary of Cornely on the latter). These two counsels teach us what we have to avoid; but it remains for a man to fill his life with acts of perfection, to follow Christ in His life of charity towards God and men, or, since this would be perfection itself, to devote his life to an occupation which will make it tend towards union with God or the service of his neighbour; Religious life then is made perfect by a definite profession either of retirement and contemplation or of pious activity; The profession, negative as well as positive, is placed under the control and direction of ecclesiastical authority, which is entrusted with the duty of leading men in the ways of salvation and holiness. Submission to this authority, which may interfere more or less as times and circumstances require, is therefore a necessary part of religious life. In this is manifested obedience as a counsel which governs and even supplements the two others, or rather as a conditional precept, to be observed by all who desire to profess the perfect life. The religious life which is pointed out to us by the Evangelical counsels is a life of charity and of union with God, and the great means it employs to this end is freedom and detachment from everything that could in any manner prevent or impair that union. From another point of view it is a devotion, a special consecration to Christ and God, to whom every Christian acknowledges that he belongs. St. Paul tells us: "You are not your own" (I Cor., vi, 19); and again "All [things] are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's" (I Cor., iii, 22, 23). II. HISTORICAL SURVEY (l) Earliest Examples of Religious Life (a) Persons The Christian virgins were the first to profess a life distinguished from the ordinary life by its tendency to perfection; continence and sometimes the renunciation of riches, attached them specially to Christ. (See NUNS.) The Fathers of the first century mention them, and those of the second century praise their mode of living. Shortly after the virgins appeared those whom Clement of Alexandria (Pædagog., I, 7, in P.G., VIII, 320) called asketai and whom the Latin Church called "confessores". They also made profession of chastity, and sometimes of poverty, as in the case of Origen and St. Cyprian. In the Liturgy, they took rank before the virgins, and after the ostiarii or door-keepers. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxxvii, in P.G., XX, 291-4) mentions among the "ascetics" the greatest pontiffs of the first ages, St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, and others. We find in the third century the first distinct traces of the kind of life in which the religious profession becomes by degrees perfected and brought under rule, that of the monks. The note which characterizes them at first is their seclusion from the world, and their love of retirement. Till then virgins and ascetics had edified the world by keeping themselves pure in the midst of corruption, and recollected in the midst of dissipation; the monks endeavoured to edify it by avoiding and contemning all that the world esteems most highly and declares indispensable. Thus the life of the solitary and the monk is a life of austerity as well of retirement. The world which sent travellers (cf. the "Lausiac History" of Palladius) to contemplate them was astonished at the heroism of their penance. The religious life took the form of a war against nature. The persecution of Decius (about 250) gave the desert its first great hermit, Paul of Thebes; other Christians too sought refuge there from their tormentors. Anthony, on the contrary, at the age of 20 years, was won by that appeal which saddened and discouraged the rich young man of the Gospel, "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor" (Matt., xix, 21). He had disciples, and instituted the monastic villages, in which seekers after perfection, living retired from the world, found comfort and encouragement in the example of brethren following the same profession. St. Pachomius, a contemporary of St. Anthony, brought all his monks together under one roof, thus founding the cenobitic life. Paul, Anthony, and Pachomius gave lustre to the deserts of Egypt. We need not dwell here upon the parallel development of Syrian monasticism, in which the names of Hilarion, Simeon Stylites, and Alexander the founder of the ac meti, were famous, or on that of Asia Minor, or give an account of the dawn of monastic life in Europe and Africa. Our task is only to depict the main features of religious life and its successive transformations. From this point of view, special mention is due to the great lawgiver of the Greek monks, St. Basil. Comparing the solitary and the cenobitic life, he points out one great advantage in the latter, namely the opportunity which it offers for practising charity to one's neighbour; and while deprecating excessive mortifications into which vanity and even pride may enter, he exhorts the superior to moderate the exterior life reasonably. St. Basil also permitted his monks to undertake the education of children; although he was glad to find some of these children embracing the monastic life, he wished them to do so of their own accord and with full knowledge, and he did not permit the liberty of a son or daughter to be restrained by an offering made by the parents. St. Augustine in the common life which he led with the clergy of Hippo, gives us, like St. Eusebius at Vercelli, a first outline of canonical life. He instituted monasteries of nuns, and wrote for them in 427 a letter which, enriched with extracts from the writings of St. Fulgentius, became the rule known by the name of St. Augustine. St. Columbanus, an Irish monk (d. 615), under whose name a very rigid rule was propagated in Ireland, was the apostle and civilizer of several countries of Europe, notably of Germany. (b) Characteristics After this rapid glance at the origin of the religious life we may now consider its principal characteristics. (i) End The life of the monks, more systematized than that of the Virgins and ascetics, was, as such, entirely directed to their personal sanctification: contemplation and victory over the flesh were bound above all to lead to this result. The monks did not aspire to Holy orders, or rather they desired not to receive them. St. John Chrysostom exhorted them to be animated by Christian charity which willingly consents to bear heavy burdens, and without which fasting and mortification are of no profit at all. (ii) Obedience As good Christians, they owed obedience to their bishop in religious matters, and their profession, if they rightly understood its spirit, made prompt and complete submission easy. But religious obedience, as we understand it now, began only with the cenobitical life, and at the time of which we speak there was nothing to oblige the cenobite to remain in the monastery. The cenobitic life was also combined with the solitary life in such a way that, after a sufficient formation by the common discipline, the monk gave proof of his fervour by retiring into solitude in order to fight hand-to-hand against the enemy of his salvation, and to find in independence a compensation for the greater severity of his life. (iii) Poverty Poverty then consisted for the hermits in the renunciation of worldly goods, and in the most sparing use of food, clothing, and all necessaries. The cenobites were forbidden to enjoy any separate property, and had to receive from their superior or the procurator everything they needed for their use; they were not, however, incapable of possessing property. (iv) Chastity; Vows Having once entered the religious life, the virgin, the ascetic, and the monk felt a certain obligation to persevere. Marriage or return to the world would be such inconstancy as to merit the reproach of Christ, "No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God" (Luke, ix, 62). Still we have no evidence to prove that there was a strict obligation, and there were no vows properly so called: even for virgins, the passages from Tertullian and St. Cyprian, on which some persons rely, are capable of another interpretation. Certainly a woman who was bound to Jesus Christ by a profession of virginity, and fell into sin, was liable to very severe canonical penalties; but St. Cyprian who regarded such a person as an adulterous bride of Christ, permitted the marriage of such as were not able to observe continency (see Koch, "Virgines Christi" in "Texte und Untersuchungen", 1907). The oldest decretal we possess, that of St. Siricius to the Bishop Himerius (385), brands with infamy the carnal intercourse of monks and virgins, but the question of a regular marriage is not considered (C. XXVII, q. 1, c. 11, or P.L., XIII, 137). Schenute, it is true, introduced a form of vow, or rather of oath, of which the Coptic text has been discovered; but the very reflections which he made before introducing it appear to show that it had no other effect than to secure the execution even in secret of the obligations already contracted by entrance into the monastery: these vows therefore may be compared to the vows made at baptism. No term is specified for their duration, but Leclercq (in Cabrol, "Dict. d'arch. chrét.", s. v. Cénobitisme) presumes that the obligation continued during the term of residence in the monastery. The text is as follows, taken from the German translation of Leipolt: -- "Covenant. I promise (or I swear) before God in His holy temple, in which the word that I have spoken is my witness, that I will not defile my body in any way, I will not steal, I will not bear false witness, I will not lie, I will not do wrong in secret. If I break my oath, I am willing not to enter into the kingdom of heaven, although I were in sight of it. [On this passage, cfr. Peeters, in "Analecta Bollandiana", 1905, 146.] God, before whom I have made this covenant, will then destroy my body and soul in hell, for I should have broken the oath of allegiance that I have taken." And later on occurs this passage: "As for contradiction, disobedience, murmuring, contention, obstinacy, or any such things, these faults are quite manifest to the whole community" (Leipolt, "Schenuti von Atripe" in "Texte und Untersuchungen", 1903, p. 109). (v) Canon Law The canons of the Council of Gangra (330) first introduced the law relating to regulars by the recommendations which they address to virgins, continent persons, and those who retire from worldly affairs, to practise more faithfully the general duties of piety towards parents, children, husband or wife, and to avoid vanity or pride. Other particular councils, that of Alexandria (362), of Saragossa (380), the Fifth Synod of Africa (401), and a council held under St. Patrick in Ireland (about 480), decided other matters connected with the religious life. The General Council of Chalcedon (451) makes the erection of monasteries dependent on the consent of the bishop. The Councils of Arles (about 452) and Angers (455) sanction the obligation of perseverance. The same Council of Arles and the Synods of Carthage held in 525 and 534 forbade any interference with the abbot in the exercise of his authority over his monks, reserving to bishops the ordination of clerics in the monastery, and the consecration of the oratory. (2) Regular Organization of Religious Life (a) Monks and Monasteries We have now arrived at the sixth century. It will be necessary to go back a little in order to notice the immense influence of St. Basil (331-79) over the religious life of the East and the West. The principles which he lays down and justifies in his answers to the doubts of the religious of Asia Minor, that is in what are called the shorter and longer rules, inform and guide the religious of the present day. St. Benedict was inspired by these as well as by the writings of St. Augustine and Cassian in writing his rule, which from the eighth to the twelfth century regulated, it may be said, the whole religious life of the West. In order to put an end to the capricious changes from one house to another, the patriarch of Western monks introduced the vow of stability, which bound the monk to remain in the house in which he made his profession. The reforms of the monasteries in the tenth and eleventh centuries gave rise to aggregations of monasteries, which prepared the way for the religious orders of the thirteenth century. We may mention the Congregation of Cluny founded by St. Odo (abbot from 927 to 942) which, in the twelfth century grouped more than 200 monasteries under the authority of the abbot of the principal monastery, and of the Congregation of Cîteaux, of the eleventh century, to which the Trappists belong, and of which St. Bernard was the principal light. Less for the sake of reform than of perfection, and of adapting to a special end the combination of the cenobitic and eremitic life, St. Romuald (d. 1027) founded the Camaldolese Order, and St. John Gualbert (d. 1073) the Congregation of Vallombrosa. From the eleventh century also (1084) date the Carthusians, who have needed no reform to maintain them in their pristine fervour. St. Basil and St. Benedict were expressly concerned only with personal perfection, to which their disciples were to be led by leaving the world and renouncing all earthly wealth and natural affections. Their life was a life of obedience and prayer, interrupted only by work. Their prayer principally consisted in singing the Divine Office. But when it was necessary, the monks did not refuse to undertake the cure of souls; and their monasteries have given to the Church popes, bishops, and missionary priests. We need only recall the expedition organized by St. Gregory the Great for the conversion of England. Study was neither ordered not forbidden: St. Benedict, when he accepted in his monasteries children offered by their parents, undertook the task of education, which naturally led to the foundation of schools and studies. Cassiodorus (477-570) employed his monks in the arts and sciences and in the transcription of manuscripts. (b) The Canons Regular Many bishops endeavoured to imitate St. Augustine and St. Eusebius, and to live a common life with the clergy of their Church. Rules taken from the sacred canons were even drawn up for their use, of which the most celebrated is that of St. Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz (766). In the tenth century, this institution declined; the canons, as the clergy attached to a church and living a common life were called, began to live separately; some of them, however resisted this relaxation of discipline, and even added poverty to their common life. This is the origin of the canons regular. Benedict XII by his Constitution "Ad decorem" (15 May, 1339) prescribed a general reform of the canons regular. Among the canons regular of the present day, we may mention the Canons Regular of the Lateran or St. Saviour, who seem to date back to Alexander II (1063), the Premonstratensian Canons founded by St. Norbert (1120), and the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross founded at Clair-lieu, near Huy, in Belgium, in 1211. The canons regular ex professo united Holy orders with religious life, and being attached to a church, devoted themselves to promoting the dignity of Divine worship. With monks, Holy orders are accidental and secondary, and are superadded to the religious life; with canons as with the clerks regular, Holy orders are the principal thing, and the religious life is superadded to the Holy orders. (c) The Mendicant Orders The heretics of the end of the twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth century reproached churchmen with their love of riches, and the laxity of their lives; St. Dominic and St. Francis offered on the contrary the edifying spectacle of fervent religious, who forbade their followers the possession of wealth or revenues, even in common. The mendicant orders are marked by two characteristics: poverty, practised in common; and the mixed life, that is the union of contemplation with the work of the sacred ministry. Moreover, the mendicant orders present the appearance of a religious army, the soldiers of which are moved about by their superiors without being attached to any particular convent, and recognize a hierarchy of local, provincial, and general superiors. The order, or at least the province, takes the place of the monastery. Other important points may be noticed: the mendicant orders are founded only by favour of an express approbation of the sovereign pontiff, who approves their rules or constitutions. They adopt the form of vows which relates explicitly to poverty, chastity, and obedience, which was occasioned by the famous dispute in the Franciscan Order. The Franciscans were founded by St. Francis in 1209; they are now divided into three orders recognized as really belonging to the common stock: (1) the Friars Minor, formerly called Observantines, and more recently Franciscans of the Leonine Union, who may (when there is no possibility of mistake) be called simply Friars Minor; (2) the Friars Minor Conventuals; and (3) the Friars Minor Capuchins. The Dominicans, or Friars Preachers, go back to 1215. Since 1245, the Carmelites, transplanted from Asia into Europe, have formed a third mendicant order. Alexander IV added a fourth by his Constitution "Licet" (2 May, 1256) which united under the name of St. Augustine several congregations of hermits: these are the Hermits of St. Augustine. The Servites were added in 1256 as a fifth mendicant order; and there are others. (See FRIAR.) (d) Military Orders Before we pass to a later period, it is necessary to mention certain institutes of a quite special character. The military orders date from the twelfth century, and while observing all the essential obligations of religious life, they had for their object the defence of the cause of Christ by force of arms; among these were the Knights of Malta, formerly called the Equestrian Order of St. John of Jerusalem (1118), the Order of Teutonic Knights (1190), the Order of Knights Templars (1118), suppressed by Clement V at the Council of Vienne (1312), at the urgent request of the King of France, Philippe-le-Bel. ( e) Foundation of Orders The misfortunes of Christendom were the cause of the foundation of orders vowed to the most excellent works of mercy, namely, the Redemption of Captives; the Trinitarians (Order of the Most Holy Trinity), and Mercedarians (Order of Our Lady of the Redemption of Captives). Both these date from the thirteenth century, the first being founded by St. John of Malta and St. Felix of Valois, the second by St. Peter Nolasco and St. Raymond of Pennafort. They follow the Rule of St. Augustine and are mendicant orders. (f) Hospitaller Orders The hospitaller orders are specially devoted to the relief of bodily infirmities; most of them are of comparatively recent origin. The most celebrated of all, the Order of Brothers of St. John of God, dates from 1572; the Cellite Brothers were approved by Pius II in 1459; the Brothers Hospitallers of St. Anthony were approved by Honorius III in 1218. (g) The Clerks Regular The mendicant orders were one of the glories of the later Middle Ages. Fresh needs led in the sixteenth century to a new form of religious life, that of the clerks regular. These are priests first of all, even in respect of their mode of life, and their dress: they have no peculiarity of costume; they undertake all duties suitable to priests, and attend to all the spiritual necessities of their neighbour, especially the education of the young, which the mendicant orders had never attempted. Being clerks and not canons, they escaped at the same time the inconvenience of having a title of honour and of being bound to any particular church; many of them take a vow not only not to seek for ecclesiastical dignities, but even not to accept them. The first were the Theatines, founded in 1524 by St. Cajetan and Cardinal Peter Caraffa, later Paul IV; then came the Barnabites, or Regular Clerics of St. Paul, founded in 1533 by St. Anton Maria Zaccaria; the Clerks Regular of Somascha, founded by St. Jerome Emiliani, and approved in 1540, the same year which saw the beginning of the Society of Jesus. We may mention also the Clerks Regular Ministering to the Sick, called Camilians after their founder, St. Camillus de Lellis (1591). Several institutions of clerks regular, notably the Society of Jesus, make profession also of poverty in common and are thus at the same time clerks regular and mendicant orders. (h) The Institutes with Simple Vows Till the sixteenth century, the orders of the West were distinguished by their object, their hierarchical organization, their patrimonial system, and the number of their vows; but the nature of the vows remained the same. The vows, at least the essential vows of religion, were perpetual, and made solemn by profession. Even when the tertiaries of St. Dominic and of St. Francis began to form communities, they distinguished themselves from the first and second orders by the rule they adopted but not by the nature of their vows, which remained solemn. The tertiary nun communities of St. Dominic received (1281-91) a rule from the Dominican general, Munio of Zamora; and communities, both of men and of women, were founded in the thirteenth century with the tertiary Rule of St. Francis. In this way, many works of charity were prevented. But in the sixteenth century Leo X by his Constitution "Inter cetera", 20 Jan., 1521, appointed a rule for communities of tertiaries with simple vows, according to which those only who promised clausura were obliged to observe it. St. Pius V rejected this class of congregation by his two Constitutions, "Circa pastoralis" (29 May, 1566), and "Lubricum vitæ genus" (17 November, 1568). They continued, however, to exist, and even increased in number, first tolerated, and afterwards approved by the bishops; and subsequently recognized by the Holy See, which, in view of the difficulties of the circumstances, has for more than a hundred years ceased to permit solemn vows in new congregations. These are the religious congregations of men and women to whom Leo XIII gave their canonical charter by his Constitution "Conditæ a Christo" (8 December, 1900). We may mention here an innovation introduced by St. Ignatius, who in the Society of Jesus imposed simple vows for a period preceding the solemn vows, and associated with the fathers professed by solemn vows, priests and lay brothers bound by simple vows only. (i) The Eastern Orders The Eastern Church, even that part of it which has remained in communion with Rome, has never known the life and many-sided vitality of the orders of the West: we find in it Monks of St. Anthony, and others of St. Pachomius; almost all the monasteries are Basilian. As the priests of the Greek Rite are not compelled to leave the wives whom they have legally married, and as celibacy is nevertheless obligatory for the bishops, the latter are regularly chosen from among the monks. From another point of view, the unchanging East shows us in the monks of the present day, the institutions of the first ages of cenobitic life. III. EXPOSITION OF THE RELIGIOUS LIFE (1) Classical Description of Religious Life; Essential and Non-essential Points In our rapid survey of the different religious orders, we have seen something of the evolution of the religious life. The Gospel clearly shows us virginity and continence as means, and charity as the end; persecutions necessitated retirement and a first form of life entirely directed towards personal sanctification; community life produced obedience; the inconveniences caused by frequent change of residence suggested the vow of stability; the excessive multiplication and diversity of religious institutes called for the intervention of the sovereign pontiff and his express approbation of rules; the needs of soul and body grafted the practice of corporal and spiritual works of mercy upon personal sanctification, and joined the reception of Holy orders to religious profession; while the exigencies and difficulties of modern times caused the making of simple vows antecedent to, or in substitution for, solemn vows. In all these stages, the profession of the Evangelical counsels has been most carefully regulated by the Church. In the existing structure, some parts are fixed and regarded as essential, others are accidental and subject to change; we may then ask what is essential to fully developed religious life. The religious state, to be perfect, requires; (a) the three evangelical counsels: voluntary poverty, perfect chastity regarded as means to perfection; and in pursuit of that perfection, obedience to lawful authority; (b) the external profession of these counsels, for the religious state means a condition or career publicly embraced; (c) the perpetual profession of these counsels, for the religious state means something fixed and permanent, and in order to ensure this stability in practices which are not made obligatory by any law, the religious promises himself to God by a perpetual vow. The religious state then is defined, as the mode of life, irrevocable in its nature of men who profess to aim at the perfection of Christian charity in the bosom of the Church by the three perpetual vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. The religious state may exist in the proper sense without solemn vows, as Gregory XIII showed in his Constitutions "Quanto fructuosius" (2 July, 1583) and "Ascendente Domino" (25 May, 1584), declaring that the scholastics of the Society of Jesus were really religious; without community life, for the hermits were religious in the strictest sense of the word; without oral or written profession, since until the time of Pius IX, even tacit or implied profession was considered sufficient; without express and formal approbation by ecclesiastical authority, as this has only been insisted upon since the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), confirmed by the Second Council of Lyons (1274). Before this time it was enough not to have been repudiated by ecclesiastical authority. However, in actual practice, the express intervention of ecclesiastical authority is required; this authority may be that of the Apostolic See or of the bishop. Many institutes exist and flourish with the approbation of the bishop alone; but, since the Motu Proprio "Dei providentis" (16 July, 1906), the bishop before establishing an institute must obtain the written approbation of the Holy See. Again, the Church, while not condemning the solitary life, no longer accepts it as religious. Formerly, a religious did not necessarily form a part of an approved institute; there were persons simply called professed, as well as professed in such an institute or such a monastery. At the present day, a religious always begins by entering some approved religious family; only in exceptional cases of expulsion or final secularization, does it happen that a religious ceases to have any connexion with some particular institute, and in such cases the bishop becomes his only superior. The Church insists on the use of a habit, by which the religious are distinguished from secular persons. A distinctive habit is always required for nuns; the clerical habit is sufficient for men. Those approved institutes whose members may be taken for seculars out of doors, lack that public profession which characterizes the religious state, in the sight of the Church, according to the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 11 August, 1889. The question has long been discussed whether the religious state involves a donation of oneself, or whether the vows, as such, are sufficient. By such donation the religious not only binds himself to be poor, chaste etc., but he no longer belongs to himself; he is the property of God, as much as and even more than a slave was formerly the property of his master. To show that this alienation of oneself is not necessary, it is sufficient to observe that if every religious ceased to belong to himself either for the purpose of marriage, or for the possession of property any contrary acts would be null and void from the beginning; now this nullity has not always existed, and does not exist for all religious at the present day. In reality then the religious state consists strictly in the perpetual engagement, the source of which is found at present in the three vows. The formal intervention of the Church has the effect of introducing the religious life into the public worship of Catholicism. As long as the promise or the vow remains a purely personal matter, the religious can offer himself to God only in his own name; his homage and his holocaust are private. The Church, in ratifying and sanctioning his engagement, deputes the religious to profess in the name of the Christian community his complete devotion to God. He is consecrated especially by solemn profession, like a temple or a liturgical prayer, to give honour to God. In practice, when offering himself to God, the religious also contracts obligations to the order whose child he becomes. Does the religious state in itself contemplate any such obligation of submission to an organized society, or to a director or confessor? There is nothing more natural, it is true, than that a person, who does not profess himself perfect but a simple aspirant after perfection, should choose for himself a master and guide; but even this does not seem to be essential. The ancient hermits were free from all such subordination; even the pope may be a member of a religious order: the only essential obedience seems to be that which every man owes to the hierarchical Church, and to those whom she clothes with her authority. (2) Various Forms of Religious Life The essential unity of the religious life is consistent with a great variety which is one of the glories of the Church, and permits a larger number of men to find a religious profession adapted to their needs and dispositions, and multiplies the services which religious render to Christian society and mankind in general. Besides the common end of religious life, which makes it a school of perfection, the different orders have special objects of their own, which divide them into contemplative, active, and mixed orders. The contemplative orders devote themselves to union with God in a life of solitude and retirement; the active orders expend their energy in doing good to men. If their activity is spiritual in its objects and requires contemplation for its attainment, they are mixed orders; such as those which are devoted to preaching and higher education. The orders keep the name of active order if they devote themselves to corporal works of mercy, such as the care of sick persons and orphans. The dominant note of their mode of life gives us, as we have seen, clerical, monastic, mendicant, military, and hospitaller orders. The vows divide them into orders with simple vows and solemn vows: even the number of vows differs in different institutes. There remain still two other points of difference which require to be considered, namely the juridical condition, which distinguishes religious orders from congregations, and the rule. (3) Religious Life and the Sacred Ministry If the monastic life has sometimes appeared incompatible with those sacred functions which drew the monk out of his silence and retreat (see Decree of Gratian, c. XVI, q. 1, c. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11), the simple division into contemplative and mixed orders shows the mistake of those persons who have represented the religious life as inconsistent with the sacred ministry, as if piety were opposed to charity, or apostolic zeal did not presuppose and foster the love of God. This error, which had already been refuted by St. Thomas in his "Contra impugnantes religionem", ch. iv, directed against William of St. Amour, was renewed in the Jansenist pseudo-Council of Pistoia and condemned by the Constitution "Auctorem Fidei" of 1794, prop. 80. In the course of the last century, Verhoeven, a professor of Louvain, in a pamphlet entitled "De regularium et sæcularium juribus et officiis", maintained that, according to the spirit of the Church, religious ought not to take any but a secondary and supplementary part in the sacred ministry, and only when the secular clergy were not sufficiently numerous for the work. His opinion was refuted by an anonymous work, entitled "Examen historicum et canonicum libri R. D. Mariani Verhoeven", written by Fathers De Buck and Tinnebroeck, S.J., as opposed to experience, since religious perfection aids apostolic work; to tradition, as so many great missionary enterprises have been conducted by religious; to canon law, which approves of orders established for the purpose of the sacred ministry, and consider religious as fitted for the most important functions. Religious as well as seculars may be called to the episcopal office, to the cardinalitial dignity, and even to the papal throne. With the exception of the mendicant orders, they may be appointed as vicars general: of the minor benefices, some are secular which should be given to secular priests, some are regular, to which regulars should be appointed: Premonstratensian Canons, however, may be placed in charge of secular parishes. In cases of doubt, benefices are presumed to be secular, but the rule of exclusion from secular parishes affects only regulars under solemn vows. Missionary enterprise for the propagation of the Faith is usually entrusted to religious, and they may occupy university chairs, and be employed in the sacred ministry as well as seculars (cf. Vermeersch, "De religiosis institutis et personis", 1, n. 495). It is now established that bishops and cardinals chosen from a religious order do not cease to be religious, and are just as much bound by all the rules and observances compatible with their dignity and functions as a religious who is a parish priest. A religious who is a parish priest may be deprived of his office either by the bishop or by the superior of his order. IV. PARTICULAR ASPECTS A. RELIGIOUS ORDERS AND CONGREGATIONS According to its more or less complete realization, the more or less full approbation which is given to it, and the juridical condition which results for those who practise it, the religious life gives rise to religious orders or congregations. (1) Religious Orders (a) Sense of the expressions The expression "ordo monasticus" at first denoted a class of monks, as "ordo virginum" denoted a class or virgins, and "ordo sacerdotalis", the class of priests. The first founders, St. Basil and St. Benedict, thought not so much of establishing an order as of drawing up a plan of individual life, common to the use of monks who desired to be directed in their aspirations after perfection. Each monastery was independent, and was not even bound to a definite rule; the community was left free to change the observance, and a certain option could be allowed to the monks to choose which of several rules they would follow. The reforms of Cluny and Cîteaux prepared the way for the religious order in the present sense, by making all the monks subject to the authority of one supreme abbot. A century later, St. Francis and St. Dominic united their disciples in one vast association with an interior hierarchical organization of its own, and recognizable even outwardly by the identity of rule, dress, and life. From that time forward, each religious order has been a corporation of religious approved by the Church. And since we distinguish institutes bound by solemn vows and approved by the sovereign pontiff from institutes with simple vows, the expression "religious order" has been naturally applied exclusively to institutes with solemn vows. The religious order then is, properly speaking, an institute fully approved by the Holy See, and having solemn vows of religious life. This full approbation for the whole Church calls into action the magisterial office of the pope, for in giving it the pope not only declares that there is nothing in the mode of life which is hurtful to morals or propriety, but assures the faithful that it is calculated to lead souls to Evangelical perfection (cf. Suarez, "De religione", VII, II xvii, n. 17). (b) Two great classes of orders From the point of view of their organization, the religious orders owe their division into two great classes to their very origin. The oldest, derived from monasteries formerly quite independent, leave to each religious house a certain authority under a perpetual abbot. The monks or canons also belong to a particular monastery, and special rules are made for changes, temporary or permanent, among the subjects. Such are the Black Benedictines and Cistercians, and canons regular. Many for a long time have only arch-abbots, visitors of the monasteries forming a congregation (see below), and presiding over the chapter of that congregation, Leo XIII gave the Benedictines their abbot-primate, who holds office for twelve years. These same orders have no provincial superiors; the visitors more or less take their place; but the powers of the abbot-general and the visitor, while they differ in different orders, are limited to certain cases, so that the local abbot remains the real ordinary superior, almost in the same way as the bishop suffragan of an archbishop has all the authority necessary for the administration of his diocese. In the newer orders on the contrary, the superiors (except in the Society of Jesus) are not appointed for life, but for a term of six or twelve years; the religious are not attached to a monastery, but to a province; and the houses are so little independent of each other that some refuse to recognize in the local superior the quality of a prelate invested with ordinary jurisdiction, though most religious writers give him this position. (c) The Seat of Authority in the Order General Chapter and Superior In all religious orders we find the chapter, whether it be the chapter of the monastery to limit the monarchical authority of the abbot and fill a vacancy, or the general chapter, to appoint for the fixed term a new superior-general, to receive the accounts of the preceding administration, and, within permitted limits, to modify the constitutions which have not the force of pontifical laws, and to pass new decrees for the whole order. The election of the superior-general is by secret ballot (Council of Trent, sess. XXV, c. vi) and generally requires the confirmation of the pope. The same chapter also elects the general councils, consisting of definitors-general, or assistants, and generally also the procurator-general. In most orders, the procurator-general, who is the representative of the order in all dealings with the Holy See, is a real superior, and sometimes even a sort of vice-general, who takes the place of a general deceased, absent, or incapacitated: among the Discalced Carmelites and the Hermits of St. Augustine and in the Society of Jesus, he possesses no jurisdiction. Provincial and local Superiors Under the superior-general, the orders not anterior to the thirteenth century have provincial superiors, who administer the affairs of the province with the assistance of a council. Sometimes they are appointed by the provincial chapter, and the local superior by the local chapter; sometimes the superior-general in council makes all important appointments. The provincial chapter or provincial congregation has then no jurisdiction, and can only send deputies to the general or the chapter general, in order to make known their wishes. In all places where the canonical Office is recited in choir, there is a conventual or local chapter, which does not exist in the orders and congregations of more recent foundation. Among the Capuchins, the provincial is appointed by the provincial chapter, and in his council appoints the local superiors. The local superior, like the abbot, is assisted by a second, who takes his place in case of absence or incapacity: he is called prior in the abbeys, or sub-prior where the superior is called prior; otherwise he is termed minister. The local superior is called guardian among the Franciscans; elsewhere he is rector, superior, prior, or provost. The provincial and general of the Franciscans are called minister-provincial and minister-general. To replace the ordinary superiors temporarily the constitutions of orders provide vicars, vice-provincials, and vice-rectors. The superiors have always a power of private or domestic order, called dominative, which permits them to command their subjects, and to administer property according to the rules of the institute; and the first superior of the convent, by appealing to the vow or distinctly making known his intention, can command under pain of mortal sin. Moreover, if they be priests, the principal superiors of religious orders possess the double jurisdiction of the forum internum and the forum externum, which makes them the ordinary prelates of their subordinates. Such are certainly the generals and provincials, and, according to an at least probable opinion, the first local superiors also. They have jurisdiction to appoint confessors, approved by the ordinary, to reserve cases to themselves (though Clement VIII limited this power), to inflict spiritual censures or punishments, and to absolve or dispense from them: their power of dispensation with regard to their subordinates is the same as bishops generally have over their diocesans. Various privileges are conferred upon them in addition, and their powers are often extended by temporary indults, which pass, as a matter of right, from the generals of orders to those who replace or succeed them. The legislative power ordinarily exists only in the chapter general: the judiciary power of the prelates does not extend to causes and offences which are cognizable by the Holy Office. The prelates are at the same time fathers bound to watch over the spiritual welfare of their children, heads of the community, who are empowered to make general provision for the good order of the common life, and magistrates invested with a part of that public authority which Christ gave to His Apostles, when He said "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you." This authority is derived from the Holy See; and, as it is ordinary, it may be delegated. In theory it extends to the spiritual direction of inferiors; but for a long time the Holy See has shown a desire to separate the direction of the conscience from the direction of outward conduct, or at least to take away all appearance of coercion from the former; thus the prelate may hear the confessions only of those who formally express a desire to be absolved by him, and for the regulation of Communions, the religious is bound to take the advice only of his confessor. In every house several confessors should be appointed, who can easily in any particular case obtain jurisdiction over reserved sins, if they have not ordinarily the necessary faculties; the prelate, however, may, according to the rule, be occupied with the direction of consciences outside the confessional; this is forbidden only in the case of lay superiors, safeguarding always the liberty of inferiors to open their minds to their superiors (even when laymen). The temporal administration is subject to the general laws, which forbid the alienation of immovable property, and of movable property of great value, and which also discountenance wastefulness and rash contracts or borrowings (see the Constitution "Ambitiosæ"; Extrav. comm. un., De rebus ecclesiasticis non alienandis, III, 4, and the Instruction "Inter ea" of 30 July, 1909). The prelate must administer like a prudent head of a family, and take care that the funds are safely and productively invested. As was stated in the article NUNS, the prelate's power of jurisdiction often extends to monasteries of the second order. (d) Authorities outside the Order (i) Sovereign Pontiff Outside its own body, the order has the sovereign pontiff as superior possessing the plenitude of authority; he has the power to suppress a religious order, as he can call it into existence. Thus at the Second Council of Lyons (1274), Gregory X suppressed the orders which came into existence after the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), and Clement XIV in 1773 decreed the suppression ot the Society of Jesus. Sometimes an order which has been extinguished rises again from its ashes. The order of Piarists, or Scuolopi, founded by St. Joseph Calasanctius, which was abolished by Innocent X in 1664, was re-established by Clement IX; and Pius VII in 1814 restored universally the Society of Jesus, which had remained in existence in White Russia (see Heimbucher, "Die Orden und Kongregationen", 101, 102, and the authors cited in Vermeersch, "De religiosis institutis et personis", I, n. 99). The pope, a fortiori, may modify the constitutions, appoint superiors, and, in short, exercise all powers that exist in a religious order. (ii) Roman Congregations The pope exercises his ordinary control through the Sacred Congregation of Religious, which, since the Constitution "Sapienti", of 19 June, 1908, is the only congregation occupied with the affairs of religious orders. Formerly, the religious of the missions were under the direction of the Propaganda, which has now no authority over them except as missionaries; the others were under the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, which was abolished by the Constitution "Sapienti". There was also the Congregation of Discipline and Reform of Regulars, which was principally occupied with the maintenance and restoration of interior discipline in orders of men, and the Congregation of the State of Regulars, established by Innocent X in 1652, which was replaced under Innocent XII by the Congregation of Discipline, and re-established by Pius IX in 1847, to advise on the measures to be taken in the circumstances of the time for monasteries of men. After having issued some very important decrees on the subject of letters testimonial and simple profession, it ceased to work; and Pius X suppressed both these congregations by his Motu proprio of 26 May, 1906. The authoritative interpretation of the disciplinary decrees of the Council of Trent gave the Congregation of the Council a power over regulars, which it used largely before the nineteenth century; but at present its authority is limited to the secular clergy. The Congregations of the Holy Office and the Index exercise over religious, as well as over the rest of the faithful, their power of judging persons charged with offences coming under the Holy Office, and of censuring books and other publications. (iii) Cardinal Protector Most orders have a cardinal protector. The institution goes back to the time of St. Francis, who recognizes in him a governor, a protector, and a corrector; he is appointed by the sovereign pontiff. Since the time of Innocent XII (Constitution, "Christi fideium", 17 February, 1694) he has ceased to have ordinary jurisdiction; he is therefore nothing more than a benevolent protector, who from time to time receives delegated powers. (iv) Bishop and Privilege of Exemption Religious orders are exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, and in spite of exceptions to this privilege, created by the Council of Trent and later, the exemption remains the rule and the exception must be proved. The exemption is above all personal, and also local: religious are not under the orders of the bishop, and their monasteries and churches, unless these be parochial, cannot be visited by him. The Holy See, however, in practice does not permit the rule of local exemption to be extended to secular persons during their stay in a convent: only familiares, that is, those who as oblates or even as servants live in the convent as if they were part of the religious family, benefit by it. The question whether pupils who are boarders in the convent may be called familiares is open to dispute. According to the Council of Trent, the bishop has over religious a jurisdiction sometimes ordinary, sometimes delegated in the name of the Holy See, sometimes bishops may act also, as special delegates of the Holy See; the expression is somewhat obscure, but the object appears to have been to give the bishop an incontestable right to interfere in certain cases (see Vermeersch, "De relig. inst. et pers.", I, n. 968). As the exemption of regulars is not active, that is, as it does not give independent power over a fixed territory, regulars are subject to the bishop in all that concerns the administration of the sacraments to seculars, and the direction of such persons, due respect being paid to certain privileges attached to churches and colleges. Especially for the absolution of seculars, they must be approved by the bishop of the place in which confessions are heard. Besides this, the bishop may interfere to permit the erection of a convent, to approve the renunciation of property made before solemn profession, to test the vocation of nuns, to approve or condemn the publications of regulars, to control, if not to refuse, collecting from house to house, to summon regulars to processions, and settle questions of precedence, to consecrate the churches of regulars, to pontificate in them, to fix the stipends of Masses, and prescribe the Collects. His name must be mentioned in the Canon of the Mass; he decides all causes which concern the Faith; he may also in certain cases exercise over regulars his coercive power. But (at least in regard to certain orders specially exempted) it would be incorrect to say that whenever the bishop may interfere, he may also inflict censures. It is admitted also that, at least with the permission of his superior, the religious may ask the bishop to exercise some of his dispensing power, in his favour, and it is understood that the Lenten indults and general dispensations from abstinence apply to such regulars as are not bound by a special vow to fast or abstain. According to the principle laid down, regulars may gain the indulgences granted by the bishop. Except mitred abbots, who confer the tonsure and minor orders on their inferiors, regular superiors must apply to the bishop for the ordination of their subjects: for this purpose they give dimissorial letters, by which they present their subjects to the bishop with the necessary certificates, to receive Holy orders from him. Except in the case of some particular privilege, the dimissorial letters should be sent to the bishop of the place in which the convent is situated, and regulars can only apply to another bishop in case the former does not hold his usual ordinations, or if he consents to waive his right. (e) Communication of Privileges Exemption is the principal privilege of religious orders; the others are chiefly powers of absolution, and spiritual favours. Among all the mendicant orders, and practically among all religious orders properly so called, there exists a communication of privileges. This communication makes all favours, granted to one order only, common to all, if they are not extraordinary in their nature, or granted for some very special reason, or only for a certain term of years, or finally if no express provision forbids the communication. Thus the privilege, granted to the Society of Jesus, of having domestic oratories or chapels on the authorization of the religious provincial alone applies to all religious orders. Religious orders profit even by privileges granted to congregations. But at the present time the application of the principle of communication must be made with prudence, especially in the case of indulgences. (f) Admission, Vows and Dispensation, Secularization and Migration For the reception of subjects and the taking of vows, see NOVICE; POSTULANT. All the vows of religious orders are ordinarily perpetual, though there are exceptions; moreover, a simple profession must precede the solemn profession, otherwise the latter is null and void. The dispensation from vows, even from simple vows, is reserved to the Holy See. But the superior-general, by the dismissal of religious with simple vows, who have not received major orders, may ordinarily remove the obligation of those vows. Those who are professed with solemn vows, even lay brothers, are very rarely dispensed from them; it is easier for them to obtain an indult authorizing them to live in the world, bound by their vows. The indult of secularization may be temporary or perpetual; the latter alone finally separates the regular from his order: he then owes obedience to the bishop. The regular who has made solemn vows or who by privilege has received some major order before making these vows, can be expelled only if, after a thrice-repeated warning, he still proves incorrigible in some grave and public fault. When expelled, he incurs a suspension from which the Holy See alone can free him. Even one who has been set free, if he is in Holy orders, is not at liberty to leave the house until he has found a bishop willing to accept him in his diocese, and some means of honest livelihood: strictly speaking, the acceptance should be final, but in practice this is not insisted upon. If he leaves the house without doing what is required, he is suspended until he has fulfilled both conditions. The regular may also, in theory, migrate from one order to another more severe; from this point of view, the Carthusian Order is the most perfect. In practice, failing the consent of the superior-general of both the orders in question, these migrations take place only with the authorization of the Holy See. The professed regular who migrates into another order makes his novitiate afresh therein, but retains his first profession until he has made solemn profession in his new order. Until that time, if he does not persevere in the second order, he must take his former place in the order he has quitted; and even then if, in addition to the essential vows of religion, his first profession has laid any special obligations upon him, for instance that of not accepting any ecclesiastical dignities, these obligations are not removed by his new profession. (For the obligations of religious vows, see Vow; OBEDIENCE, RELIGIOUS; POVERTY; and for the enclosure, see CLOISTER.) (g) Habit and Choir lf an order has a special habit, the members are strictly bound to wear it, and if any of them puts it off without good cause, he incurs an excommunication not reserved (Const. "Ut periculosa", 2 Ne clerici vel monachi, in 6 iii, 24). This excommunication appears to exist in spite of the Constitution "Apostolicæ ", because it concerns the interior discipline of orders, but it applies only to those who are professed under solemn vows. The obligation to retain the habit extends also to bishops of the order, if they are not canons or clerks regular. Most orders are bound to recite the Office in choir, and say the conventual Mass. The obligation of choir, at least the grave obligation, binds the community and the superior, whose duty it is to see that the Office is recited in common. But the religious professed under solemn vows, who do not assist in choir, are bound from the day of their profession to recite the Office in private, even if they are not in Holy orders. This obligation does not apply to lay brothers, or to persons professed under simple vows. (h) Orders of women: Second Orders In connexion with certain orders of men, there are also orders of women, instituted for similar objects, and in this respect sharing in the same evolution. We say "in this respect", for the rigours of the enclosure imposed upon nuns under solemn vows (see CLOISTER) necessarily prevented any organization formed after the model of the mendicant orders or clerks regular. Orders of women have sometimes an existence, and even an origin, independent of any order of men. This is the case especially with the more recent orders, such as the Sisters of the Visitation and the Ursulines. Very often they are connected by their origin and their rule with an order of men. The first monastic rules, which did not contemplate the reception of Holy orders, were as suitable for women as for men: thus there were Basilian and Benedictine nuns, simply following the Rules of St. Basil and St. Benedict. Neither the rule of the mendicant orders nor that of the clerks regular was suitable to women. St. Francis first, and then other founders, wrote a second rule for the use of nuns who thus constituted a second order, placed normally under the jurisdiction of the superior-general of the first order (see NUNS). (i) Third Orders The grant of a third rule to secular persons gives rise to the third orders. At times it happens that these tertiaries are established in community under this rule; they are then religious, ordinarily members of a congregation with simple vows. But, as we said above, there were communities of this character with solemn vows, and there is a regular Third Order of St. Francis, which goes back to the fifteenth century and which received modified constitutions from Leo XIII (20 July, 1888). The associations of secular tertiaries are also called orders; they owe this to the fact that they profess the Christian life under an approved rule: but these are secular orders; and religious, even those under simple vows, cannot validly belong to them. By his entrance into a religious order, a novice ceases to be a secular, and seeks after Evangelical perfection, which is not the contradictory of Christian justice, but is a realization of it in an eminent degree. It has also been held that a person who has been a member of a third order before becoming a religious at once resumes his place in it, if he legitimately returns to the world. No one can belong to several third orders at the same time. Not all religious orders have third orders attached to them; but those which recognize an order of nuns as their second order generally have tertiaries also. Thus there are no Benedictine or Jesuit tertiaries: the Benedictines have no second order, and the Jesuit rule expressly forbids the Society to have an institute of nuns under its authority. In later times the Oblates of St. Benedict have been assimilated to tertiaries. Third orders are distinguished from confraternities, in as much as the former follow a general rule of life, while the members of confraternities are associated for some special purpose of piety or charity: thus they often include both religious and lay persons, and the same person may be a member of several confraternities. (As to the Third Order of St. Francis, and the name of Order, see the Constitution "Auspicato" of 17 Sept., 1882, and "Misericors Dei filius" of 23 June, 1883.) The word religio is more strictly reserved for institutes with solemn vows. As the religion of precepts and the religion of counsels were considered distinct grades of the Christian religion, the rules of life laid down according to the counsels were called religiones. The Second Council of Arles, 452, can. 25, spoke of the profession of the monastic life as professio religionis. (2) Religious Congregations ( a) Meaning of the Word "Congregation" There has been much change in the meaning of this word. It formerly denoted the whole body of religious living in a monastery: in this sense we find it in Cassian (Collations, 2nd preface) and in the Rule of St. Benedict (chap. xvii). The edifying spectacle presented by the monastery of Cluny under St. Odo (d. 942) induced many monasteries in France to beg the holy abbot to accept their supreme direction, and he undertook to visit them from time to time. Under his first two successors, numerous monasteries of France and Italy observed the usages of Cluny, while others were reformed by monks of Cluny. At the death of St. Odo, sixty-five monasteries were under the rules of Cluny and thus formed a congregation, the members of which were no longer the individual monks, but the monasteries. In a similar manner, the union of monasteries with Cîteaux produced the Congregation of Cîteaux: but here the celebrated carta caritatis, drawn up in a general chapter of abbots and monks held at Cîteaux in 1119, placed the supreme direction of Cistercian monasteries under the Abbot of Cîteaux, and realized a much greater unity which prepared the way for the religious orders of a later period (see "Carta caritatis" in P.L., CLXVI, 1377). The monasteries of Premonstratensian Canons were early grouped in circles (circarias), at the head of which was a "circator" whose office resembled that of the provincial of more recent orders. The Abbot of Prémontré Dominus Præmonstratensis, was a real abbot-general: Innocent III, by his Constitution "In singulis ", which was promulgated at the Fourth Council of the Lateran, and forms ch. vii, t. 35, bk. 3 of the Decretals, ordered that a chapter of abbots and independent priors of every kingdom or province should be held every third year, to ensure the fervour of the observance, and to organize the visitation of the abbeys in order to prevent or correct abuses. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, c. viii) made congregations of monasteries general, ordering monasteries to unite themselves into congregations, and to appoint visitors having the same powers as visitors of other orders, under pain of losing their exemption, and being placed under the jurisdiction of the local bishop. There have, however, been also important reforms inaugurated by one monastery, and adopted by many others, without leading to the formation of a congregation. Such was that of William Abbot of Hirschau (d. 1091), who wrote the Constitutions of Hirschau, the wise provisions of which, in some measure borrowed from Cluny, were adopted by about 150 monasteries having no other bond of union than a spiritual community of prayers and merits. In 1566, St. Philip Neri founded in Rome an association of priests who were not bound by any vow; being unable for that reason to call it an order, he called it the Congregation of the Oratory. Cardinal de Bérulle in 1611 founded a similar institute, the French Congregation of the Oratory. St. Vincent de Paul, the founder of the Lazarists, or Priests of the Mission, while introducing into his institute simple vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and stability, insisted that it should be called secular. These vows are not followed by any act of acceptance by the Holy See or the institute. His association was called a congregation, as we see from the Bull of Alexander VII, "Ex commissa" (22 Sept., 1655). Thus it became usual to designate as congregations those institutes which resembled religious orders, but had not all their essential characteristics. This is the ordinary meaning generally accepted, though somewhat vague, of the word "congregation". Before long, the genus congregation was divided into several distinct species. (b) Religious Congregations properly and improperly so called First in order of dignity come the religious congregations properly so called. They have all the essentials of religious life, the three perpetual vows, and the approbation of ecclesiastical authority. They are even approved by the Holy See. They lack only one accidental characteristic of an order, namely the solemnity of the vows. Such are the Congregations of the Most Holy Redeemer, of the Passion of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary (or Picpus Fathers), which have even the privilege of exemption. Institutes with perpetual vows approved by episcopal authority closely resemble the congregations properly so called. Religious congregations in the wider sense of the word are institutes which have no perpetual vows, or lack one of the essential vows, or which even have no vows properly so called. Thus the Daughters of St. Vincent de Paul make only annual vows, and as each year is completed they are free to return to the world. The Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Africa, or White Sisters, form a religious congregation properly so called, but the White Fathers, on the contrary, are not bound by any vows, but take only an oath of obedience. We have spoken above of the Lazarists and Oratorians. The religious congregations improperly so called are sometimes designated pious congregations or pious societies. (c) Division of the Institutes Institutes are divided, according to the quality of their members, into ecclesiastical congregations, consisting principally of priests and clerics, and lay congregations, most of whose members are not in Holy orders. Thus the Order of St. John of God, though mainly composed of laymen, includes a certain number of priests devoted to the spiritual service of its hospitals and asylums; while the Congregation of Parochial Clerics of St. Viator is composed of priests and teaching brothers placed on the same footing as religious. Several religious congregations are called tertiaries of St. Francis, St. Dominic, or some other religious order; some of these date from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries; others are more recent, such as the Third Order of St. Dominic founded by Lacordaire, which is devoted to teaching. But they must be regularly affiliated by the superior of the first order. This affiliation does not imply any dependence or subordination to the first order, but it requires as general conditions the observance of the essential points of the rule of the third order, and a certain similarity of habit: in the matter of the habit, however, many dispensations have been granted -- see the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences of 28 Aug., 1903, and 22 March, 1905, the Decree of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars of 18 March, 1904, the Rescript of 30 Jan., 1905, and the Indult of 18 Nov., 1905, of the same Congregation (cf. Periodica de religiosis et missionariis, I, 15, p. 40; 54, p. 147; 59, p. 152; II, 102, p. 57). As to the law by which they are governed, religious congregations are divided into congregations dependent on the Holy See, and those under episcopal authority. The latter are strictly diocesan or interdiocesan, according as they are confined to a single diocese, or are scattered over several. Leo XIII, by his Constitution "Conditæ" of 8 Dec., 1900, gave to the congregations their official character; and a set of regulations of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, of 20 June, 1901, known by the name of Normæ, traces the general lines on which the Holy See wishes the new institutes to be constructed and the old ones reorganized. (d) Religious Congregations dependent on the Holy See (i) Approbation Before a congregation can be placed under pontifical government, it must have received a Decree, in which commendation is bestowed on the congregation itself, and not merely on the intention of the founder and the object of the institution; then follows a Decree confirming the existence of the congregation, and approving its constitutions, first by a trial of some years, and then finally. Before the Constitution "Sapienti" (29 June, 1908), by which Pius X reorganized the Roman Curia, two congregations were occupied with the approbation of new institutes, the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, and the Congregation of Propaganda; the latter approved those institutes which were founded in missions and in countries subject to its jurisdiction, and those intended exclusively for foreign missions. Since the Constitution "Sapienti", the new Congregation of Religious alone has the power of approbation, and the religious of the whole world are under its jurisdiction: If they are missionaries, they owe obedience also to the Propaganda in all matters connected with their missionary character. Except the approbation of tertiary communities (of both the sexes) with simple vows by the Constitution "Inter cetera" of Leo X (20 Jan., 1521) to which we have already alluded, the formal approbation of a religious institute with simple vows by the Holy See does not date back very far: the Brief of Clement XI "Inscrutabili" (13 July, 1703), approving the Constitution of the English Virgins (Institute of Mary), is perhaps the first instance in the case of women, while Benedict XIV in 1741 approved the Congregation of Passionists. But on 26 March, 1687, Innocent XI, by his Constitution "Ecclesiæ Catholicæ", erected the hospitaller confraternity of the Bethlehemites into a congregation, and Clement VIII, on 13 Oct 1593, approved with simple vows the Clerks Regular of the Mother of God. These two congregations were transformed into religious orders, the one by a Constitution of Clement XI (3 April, 1710), and the other by a Constitution of Gregory XV in 1621: but later, in consequence of a decree of the Spanish Cortes, the Bethlehemites were gradually extinguished. Institutes improperly called religious have been approved since the seventeenth century: we have already mentioned the Oratorians, approved in 1612, and the Priests of the Mission, approved in 1632: to these may be added the Sulpicians, approved in 1642, the Eudists in 1643, and the Secular Priests of the Venerable Holzhauser in 1680. For a long time the Holy See, while approving the constitutions of nuns, refused to recognize the institutes themselves. The approbation formerly contained certain qualifying words, "citra approbationem conservatorii" ("without approbation of the institute"), which have now disappeared. Ordinarily the Holy See proceeds by steps; it requires first that the institute shall have existed for some time under the approbation of the ordinary, then it approves the constitutions for some years, and last of all grants a final approbation. Religious congregations also receive a cardinal protector, whose office is more important in the case of an institute of nuns. (ii) Authority of the Ordinary Although established under pontifical government, religious congregations are not free from the jurisdiction of the diocesan ordinary. Congregations of men owe him the common obedience of all the faithful, and of clerics, if their members are tonsured or in Holy orders. Use, rather than positive law, permits the superiors, being priests, to consider themselves as quasi-parish priests of their religious subordinates. For confessions even of their own subjects, they must be delegated by the bishop; and all approved confessors of the diocese may absolve these religious, who are subject also for reserved cases to diocesan law. The temporal administration is withdrawn from the authority or the ordinary; this is the case also with institutes of nuns. Certain institutes are entirely exempt from episcopal jurisdiction; such are the Passionists, the Missionary Fathers of the Sacred Hearts, or Picpus Fathers, and the Redemptorists. Without being strictly prelates, the superiors of an exempt institute, being priests, receive from the Holy See the power of jurisdiction in addition to the governing power belonging to all superiors, male or female. (For a comparison of these religious with regulars properly so called see the dissertation of Fr. Salsmans, S.J. in Vermeersch, "Periodica de relig. et miss.," V, p. 33). It is to be remarked that the exemption of the convent does not always imply the exemption of the church. Sometimes the authority of a superior-general of a congregation of men extends to a congregation of sisters of a similar institute; but in practice the Holy See no longer approves of any but independent congregations. Whether exempt or not, congregations may never be established in a diocese, and may not open a new house, without the permission of the bishop. (iii) Organization of the Institute Congregations approved by the Holy See have the organization of religious orders: and the less rigorous enclosure of institutes with simple vows even permits the sisters to be organized in the same manner as orders of men. We find then at the head of the institute a superior-general assisted by a council, which, in the more important matters, must approve the measures proposed; then ordinarily provincial superiors with their councils, and local superiors. The superior-general, his councillors, and the procurator-general are always appointed by the general chapter. In fact, in congregations as in religious orders, the general chapter is the supreme power. It can, however, neither change the constitutions nor make laws properly so called; its orders remain in force until the chapter following. The general chapter meets for the election of the superior-general; if this takes place only every twelve years, there may be a meeting of the chapter after six years for the transaction of business. With this exception the chapter is not summoned without the consent of the Holy See. Besides the general and his councillors, the secretary-general, procurator-general, provincials, and two delegates appointed by the provincial chapter take part in this chapter. If the congregation is not divided into provinces, the superiors of important houses and one delegate from each house take the place of the provincials and delegates of the provincial chapter. The latter consists of the provincial, his councillors, and the superiors of important houses, accompanied by a delegate from each house. The provincial chapter has ordinarily no other appointment to make than that of delegates to the chapter general. This chapter receives the accounts of the general administration, elects by secret ballot the general and his assistants or councillors, and deliberates over all important affairs of the congregation. Sometimes the sovereign pontiff, who may appoint directly to all offices, reserves to himself the right to confirm the nomination of the superior-general. The latter is generally elected for six or twelve years: in the Society of the Sacred Heart, the election is for life. Ordinarily he makes provision in his council for all charges which are not within the discretion of the chapter general. Every three years he is bound to submit to the Holy See an account in the form prescribed by the Decree of 16 June, 1906. Whether a priest or not the superior, as head of the house, has authority over all who live in it, and derives from the vow of obedience his power to command according to the approved constitutions. He is recommended, especially if he is not a superior-general or provincial, to make moderate use of his faculty to command in virtue of holy obedience. Sometimes even he can do this only in writing. Although he controls the temporal administration, the Holy See requires that a separate person shall have charge of the accounts, even in the houses, and that a third shall deal with expenditures. The Holy See insists also that all valuables shall be kept in a chest with a triple lock, so that it can be opened only by means of three separate keys, which are to be kept by the superior, the procurator, and one of the councillors. In respect of their temporal administration, the congregations are independent of the bishop, but they are bound to observe the rules prescribed by the Holy See, especially the precautions taken for the preservation of dowries and other funds (see the Decree "Inter ea" of 30 July, 1909, Vermeersch, "Periodica " 331, V, p. 11). Even without belonging to an exempt congregation, the superior, if a priest, obtains without difficulty the faculty of giving his subjects dimissorial letters for ordinations; and if such faculty is granted him, then, in respect of the certificates to be delivered, the competent bishop etc., the rules are the same for congregations as for religious orders. We have treated of the admission of subjects, the novitiate, and simple profession under the titles: NOVICE; POSTULANT; and PROFESSION, RELIGIOUS. Ordinarily, and always in the more recent orders, temporary vows for some years preceded perpetual vows: these vows, even temporary, are reserved to the Holy See. While the superior has the power to dismiss religious who have not made perpetual vows, he has not always the power to release them from their obligations, and in that case it is necessary to have recourse to the Holy See. Religious who have received any of the major orders in the institute, and those who have made perpetual vows, cannot be dismissed without the formalities prescribed for the dismissal of persons professed with solemn vows. Dismissal involves a suspension which is reserved to the Holy See; and the voluntary departure of a religious who, as a religious, has been admitted to Holy orders, even of one whose temporary vows have expired, is not regular unless he has found a bishop and means of subsistence. The sanction is the same as for one professed with simple vows in a religious order. Secularization is seldom granted to members of a religious congregation, but recourse is had to dispensation from vows. Migration from one congregation to another cannot take place without the consent of the Holy See, and it is usual to ask for that consent before entering a religious order, though there is no law forbidding such entrance. (d) Religious Congregations under Episcopal Authority (i) Approbation After the Constitutions of St. Pius V, which were opposed to simple vows, the Holy See could only tolerate congregations without solemn vows. Such congregations naturally desired to be under the control of some ecclesiastical authority, which could only be that of the bishop: by degrees a custom grew up which gave bishops an incontestable right to approve religious congregations, and this right received express recognition from the Constitution "Conditæ" of Leo XIII (8 Dec., 1900), the first part of which is wholly devoted to the diocesan congregations: its first articles contain a solemn warning against the rash creation of new ones, and any excessive increase in their number. More recently the Motu proprio "Dei providentis" (16 July, 1906) declared the necessity of pontifical authorization before any episcopal approbation. When it is desired to form a new congregation, the ordinary forwards to the Sacred Congregation of Religious the name of the founder, the object of the foundation, the name and title chosen for the new institute, a description of the habit to be worn by the novices and professed members, the work to be undertaken, the resources, and the names of similar institutes existing in the diocese. When once the consent of Rome has been obtained, the bishop may authorize the institute, respecting all things decreed by the Holy See; and in revising the constitutions, he will take care that they are always in conformity with the Normæ of 1901. It is to be remarked that in the Decree of 1906, the expression "religious institute" has a very wide meaning, and by the terms of that Decree, this procedure is to be followed for all associations, whose members have a distinctive name and habit and devote themselves to their own personal perfection, or to works of piety or charity: vows are not required. But, on the other hand, the institute thus formed remains episcopal; the ordinaries exercise over it all the rights mentioned in the Constitution "Conditæ" (ch. i), except the right to modify anything that the Holy See has specially laid down. (ii) Authority of the bishop This Constitution formulates the principle of full and exclusive submission to the bishop; from which we conclude that the rights of the bishop are limited only by the principle of natural justice and equity, which demands respect for acquired rights; by the nature of the institute, which must give its religious the means of making progress towards perfection according to the precepts of the Gospel; and by the plain exceptions of pontifical law. We say "the plain exceptions", because Decrees of the Holy See, which do not clearly refer to diocesan institutes, only give directions to bishops without restraining their power; moreover, in the immense variety of cases, prescriptions which are useful to institutes under pontifical government would be very troublesome to those whose life is diocesan; and the latter in the immediate control of the bishop often find the same security that the Holy See seeks to give by a new regulation to congregations dependent upon itself. We have now to distinguish between diocesan and interdiocesan institutes Diocesan Institutes Congregations which exist in but one diocese are dependent only on a single bishop: he approves the institute, authorizes the erection of new houses, may forbid the extension of the institute into another diocese, and may for sufficient reasons close a house, or suppress the institute itself: but he must take care, during the liquidation, not to violate the canonical laws concerning the disposal and alienation of ecclesiastical property. He may receive subjects himself, visit the houses to inquire into the religious discipline and temporal administration, and reserve to himself the approval of the most important acts. The Constitution "Conditæ" requires the superior in a convent of women (and we may say the same of male superiors) to be appointed by election; the bishop may not only preside at the election, but also confirm or annul it; and when any grave cause prevents the holding of a regular election, he may, while awaiting a favourable opportunity for assembling the electors, even make provision for the internal government of the institute. He is bound, however, except in case of express provision in the constitutions, to leave the hands of the superior free to administer the institute and even to transfer the members (Reply of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 9 April, 1895). Interdiocesan Institutes If the institute has houses in several dioceses, each bishop has authority over the houses in his own diocese; the consent of all is necessary to touch the institute itself. Ordinarily the difficulties which may be created by this situation may be removed by asking for pontifical approbation for the institute. Often also the bishop of the diocese of origin, in order to prevent difficulties and disputes, refuses to allow the extension into other dioceses, unless it is agreed that he shall have full authority over the religious life of the institute. (e) Superior, Vows, Ordination In institutes under episcopal authority the ordinary jurisdiction is vested in the bishop, never in the superior: the latter has the ruling power which is given him by the vows, and the internal authority which he possesses as head of the house. The vows, except the vow of perpetual chastity, if it has been absolutely taken, are not reserved to the Holy See. The dismissal of subjects does not require the formalities prescribed by the Decree "Auctis admodum" (4 Nov., 1892) which has been mentioned in connexion with orders and congregations properly so called; and the religious in Holy orders do not incur the suspension inflicted by that Decree on those who are expelled, or on those who depart voluntarily without having found a bishop or means of subsistence. In fact, the members of these institutes have always their bishop, who has taken the responsibility of ordaining them. Exception however, must be made if the institute has obtained an indult permitting the superior to deliver to his subjects letters of ordination which bind only the institute: in such a case a subject who left the institute having received major orders in this manner, would be suspended until he had found a bishop and means of subsistence. (f) Religious State of the Members The question has been raised whether members of an episcopal institute are really in the religious state, provided, be it understood, that they are bound by the three perpetual vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Our answer is in the affirmative, because the bishop, being the ordinary authority instituted by Christ himself, truly gives canonical institution to the association. B. RELIGIOUS RULE To complete our description of the religious life, we have now to deal with the rule or constitutions by which religious are governed. (1) Historical Survey In the earliest times, the younger monks were accustomed to seek and follow the advice of some older monk in order to realize the ideal of monastic life; and very soon those who were renowned for their wisdom and holiness saw their instructions observed by a large body of disciples. Others drew up a rule of life for the use of candidates for the life of perfection. The necessity for such a rule chiefly affected the cenobites, for whom it was necessary also to organize common life and a hierarchical constitution. The first rules were plans of perfect life, with details differing according to persons, times, and places, but framed upon the Gospel as their common fundamental rule. The first monks found their first rule in the Acts of the Apostles, iv, 32-5, where we are told how the owners of property voluntarily gave it up for the benefit of the whole community: this passage was called the rule established under the Apostles (St. Possidius, "Life of St. Augustine", c. v., in P.L., XXXII, 37). When intended for anchorites, the rules contained only individual counsels; those intended for cenobites dealt also with the entrance into the monastery, the probations, the hierarchy, obedience, and common life. Sometimes they were codifications of received usages, observed and subsequently collected by the disciples of some famous monks, sometimes they were the authentic work of the saint whose name they bore; not to mention the mixed character of certain rules composed with the help of authentic writings, but first published without any intention of making them a rule properly so called. St. Pachomius gradually compiled, according to the varying needs of the times, a body of rules, the authentic text of which is not now in existence; certain manuscripts give us more information on the subject of the rules of his disciple, Schenut. We possess the Rule of St. Benedict; the Rules of St. Basil and St. Augustine are of the mixed class. The answers of St. Basil to the questions of the monks form the first; the second consists in great measure of extracts from a letter addressed by St. Augustine in 423 to the nuns of Hippo (Ep. 211 in P.L., XXXIII, 960-5). Of the first class are the rules which are circulated under the names of Saints Anthony, Isaias, Serapion, Macarius, Paphnutius, and others. We need not wonder that legend has attributed to some of the rules a superhuman origin: the Rule of St. Pachomius, for instance, soon after its appearance, was said to have been dictated or even written on tablets by an angel; hence it acquired the name of the "Angel's Rule". These rules had no binding force, except sometimes for the inhabitants of a monastery during the term of their residence. In many monasteries various rules were observed: the monastic life did not derive its unity from the rules. As orders began to approach more nearly to the modern form, and new ones were established having their own special objects in addition to religious profession, each institute had its own rule, which was in fact a plan of life after the spirit of the Gospel, imposed on the religious to help them work in common for the special objects of their institute. Such a rule is identified with the institute itself, and the obligation to persevere in the latter includes the obligation to observe the former. The rule takes this form among the canons regular, and more definitely in the mendicant orders. The Roman Council of 1139 recognized three rules, those of St. Benedict, St. Basil, and St. Augustine; and the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) refused to recognize any religious institutes which did not observe a rule approved by the Holy See. Innocent III and Honorius III afterwards approved the Rule of St. Francis. Thus a new note was added to the rule, the approbation of the Holy See; and the rule became a canonical law, governing the religious, although in the beginning it was only a private compilation. A new step has recently been taken: until 1901, the Holy See was content to examine the laws of new institutes without troubling much over details; but as in the progress of legislation certain clauses were repeated and new ones introduced in their place, it was decided in 1901 to enact a more uniform type of rule for new institutes: thus the Normæ of 28 June, 1901, were drawn up, to be a common mould for the formation of all new institutes with but few exceptions. Henceforth the rules will be mainly the work of the Holy See, and all congregations will be, as regards their chief lines, organized in the same manner. The substance of the rule has also been greatly changed. In the beginning it was simply a short code of asceticism. with such directions as were necessary for the organization of common life; and in the orders properly so called, there were added to this code the regulations required by the special object of each institute: at present asceticism and the rule of life are kept distinct, and the only things to be treated of in the rule are the points of common observance. (2) Rules and Constitutions In canonical language we distinguish between rules and constitutions: history easily explains this terminology. As already stated, the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), c. Ne nimia. De religiosis domibus, etc. (iii, 36) confirmed by the Second Council of Lyons (1479) c. Reigionum un., ibid. in 6 (iii, 12) had forbidden new foundations of orders. The prohibition was understood in this sense that no order should be constituted under a new rule; and the sovereign pontiffs themselves insisted on the adoption of an old rule for the institutes they approved. Therefore, following the example already set in the eleventh century by St. Romuald, who adapted the Rule of St. Benedict to the eremitical life, the founders chose a rule already received in the Church, adding such prescriptions as were required by the special object of their institutes. These prescriptions were called "constitutions". The term "rule" is, therefore, at present used only to denote one of the ancient rules, and more particularly the four great rules, each of which serves as a fundamental law to many institutes, namely; (a) the Rule of St. Basil, or rather the collection of his rules divided into two classes, those expounded in detail, and those more concise; (b) the Rule of St. Benedict; (c) the Rule of St. Augustine formed with the help of his letter 211 to nuns, his sermons 355 and 356, concerning the morals of clerics (P.L., XXXIII, 358 sqq., and XXXIX, 1568) and some additions of Fulgentius; and lastly; (d) the Rule of St. Francis of Assisi, confirmed on 29 Nov., 1223, by the Constitution "Solet" of Honorius III. The more recent laws not only those which contain decisions on special points, but also those which apply only to particular orders or congregations, are properly called constitutions; the rule is always recommended by its antiquity: where there exist both a rule and constitutions, the rule, without having any greater force, nevertheless contains the more general and consequently more stable elements, which are also common to many religious orders or congregations. From this point of view, institutes are classified as follows: the more ancient orders, if not reformed, have only the rule of their founder; most orders have both rules and constitutions, and venerate the author of the rule as a soft of patriarch; while some orders and many congregations with simple vows have constitutions which with them take the place of a rule. The Rule of St. Basil's governs most monks of the Greek Rite; the Rule of St. Benedict is the principal rule of the Western Monks; and was called simply "the Rule". It governed also some military orders, such as those of Alcántara, and the Templars. The Rule of St. Augustine is common to the canons regular, the Hermits of St. Augustine, and many institutes whose special object required a somewhat less strict form of government: thus the Friars Preachers, the Servites, and the Religious of St. John of God have this rule besides their own special constitutions. Many congregations of hospitallers of both sexes are governed in the same manner. The Rule of St. Francis is observed by the three branches of his first order; the second order and many congregations of tertiaries also follow a rule of the same saint. The Carmelites, the Minims, the Society of Jesus, the Passionists, and the Redemptorists all have their own constitutions only. (3) Binding Force of the Rule At the present day the rules and constitutions are ecclesiastical laws, and therefore obligatory, at least in their preceptive parts: but the obligation varies. In the Rule of St. Francis, for instance, some articles bind under mortal sin, others under venial sin; that of the Carmelites binds under venial sin only: and Suarez considers (De religione, VIII, I, iii, n. 8) that without some special indication expressed or implied in cases of doubt we must presume a venial obligation. Apparently the Rule of St. Benedict and certainly the Constitutions of the Friars Preachers and the Society of Jesus do not bind directly, except to the acceptance of the penance imposed for their infringement; nor is this spontaneous fulfilment of the penance always binding in conscience. Even then, the rule is a law, not a pure counsel: if a religious should profess himself independent of it, he would commit a grave offence against obedience; if he disobeys, he deserves reproof and punishment, and it rests with the superior to impose under sin the observance of each point of the rule. Moreover, in the motive which leads to a violation of the rule, or in the effect of such violation, there is generally an irregularity which makes the act a venial sin. (4) Collections of Rules In very early times, there were collections of rules; we may mention that which in the language of the period, St. Benedict of Aniane (d. 821) called the "Concordia regularum", which was republished with additions by the librarian Holstenius (d. 1661) at Rome in 1661 and in Paris in 1663. Brockie brought out a more perfect edition (Augsburg, 1759), which is reproduced in P.L., CIII, 393-700. Thomas of Jesus, a Carmelite, published (Antwerp, 1817) commentaries on most of the rules. SUPPLEMENT Perfection of the Different Religious Institutes If we wish to compare the different religious institutes from the point of view of their relative perfection, the excellence of the object gives the first rank to the mixed institutions, and to the contemplative institutes priority over the active. Perfection depends upon the harmonious combination of the means employed towards the end, the quality of the works to which the institute is devoted, and even the number of its means of action. The strictness of the observance, by putting further away the occasions of sin, is another reason of superiority, and above all, the strictness of obedience, which is now considered as the principal obligation of religious life. However, by canon law, respect is paid rather to the outward austerity of the life, and the Carthusians are considered the most perfect from that point of view. Institutes consisting of clerics and those with solemn vows have for this reason a certain superiority over lay institutes and those with simple vows. VERMEERSCH, De religiosis institutis et personis, I (ed. 2. 1907); II (ed. 4, 1909); IDEM, Periodica (from 1905); HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen der katholischen Kirche (Paderborn. 1907-08); BASTIEN, Direct. canon. à l'usage des congrég. à v ux simples (Maredsous, 1911); MOLITOR, Religiosi juris capita selecta (Ratisbon. 1907). A. VERMEERSCH Reliquaries Reliquaries It would follow of necessity from the data given in the article RELICS that reliquaries-- which we understand in the wider sense any box, casket, or shrine destined for the reception of relics-- have existed in some shape or form almost from the beginning of Christianity: With regard, however, to their construction, material etc. in the early centuries, nothing can be said positively. Even the names by which they were known (capsa, capsella, theca, pyxis, arca etc.) are quite general in character, and it seems certain that the same names also designated receptacles for the Blessed Eucharist, the holy oils, and other pious objects. Thus it becomes difficult to decide in the case of certain circular ivory pyxes, of which one in the Berlin Museum is the best known and the earliest in date, whether they were or were not used as reliquaries. Most of them show nothing but scenes or figures from the Gospel in the carvings with which they are abundantly decorated, but as there is one which depicts the martyrdom and exaltation of the popular Egyptian martyr St. Menas, it seems likely that this at least was a reliquary, intended possibly to contain the oil from his shrine. This oil was more commonly preserved in clay flasks, of which many still survive in various European collections. Passing over the phials attached to the loculi in the catacombs and supposed to contain blood, upon which disputed problem sufficient has been said in the article AMPULLÆ, the earliest known reliquaries are probably certain silver boxes, two of which (one circular, the other oval in shape) were discovered at Grado in 1871 (see De Rossi in "Bull. di arch. crist.", 1872, p. 155). Both of these, along with various Christian emblems, bear inscriptions giving the names of saints, while other details confirm the view that they must have been intended for relics. A very similar box, but without inscription, was afterwards found in Numidia, and is now in the Vatican Museum. It was assigned with confidence by De Rossi to the fifth century (Bullettino, 1887 p. 119). Still another specimen, beyond all question intended for relics, has come to light in the treasury of the Sancta Sanctorum at the Lateran (Grisar, "Die römische Kapelle", 108-10). These were no doubt the kind of capselloe argenteoe which Justinian in 519 wished to send to Rome in hopes of obtaining from Pope Hormisdas relics of St. Lawrence and other Roman saints (P. L., LXIII, 474). Of somewhat later date are the pewter flasks and a little golden cross, or encolpion, still preserved in the treasury of Monza, and identified with much probability as presents sent by Gregory the Great to Queen Theodolinda. The pewter flasks contained oil, very probably only that of the lamps which burned before certain relics or in certain churches of the Holy Land. The encolpion, which is a remarkable little piece of jewellery, 3 inches in height by 2.5 in breadth, has figures and inscriptions in niello and is believed to contain a fragment of the True Cross. St. Gregory in his letter describes it as a "phylacterium" or "crucem cum ligno sanctæ crucis Domini". Other small encolpia in the form of crosses, belonging approximately to the same period, are also preserved. Of larger reliquaries, or shrines, our oldest surviving specimens probably date back to the seventh or eighth century. Among the remarkable objects preserved in the treasury of St. Maurice in the Valais is a gabled shrine about 7.25 inches long, 2.5 broad, and 5.25 high. It is studded with stones, and has a large cameo in the centre, while on a plate of gold at the back particulars are given regarding its construction in honour of St. Maurice. This form of gabled shrine, which is often suggestive of a child's "Noah's Ark", remained the favourite type for reliquaries of importance during all the early Middle Ages. Perhaps the most magnificent specimen preserved is that known as the Shrine of the Three Kings in the treasury of Cologne Cathedral. After the storming of Milan (1162) the supposed relics of the Magi were carried off and brought to Cologne, where a magnificent silver casket, nearly 6 feet long, and 4.5 feet high was constructed for them. This superb piece of silversmith's work resembles in outward form a church with a nave and two aisles. Of much earlier date but hardly less magnificent, owing to the profuse employment of enamel and gems, is the Marienschrein at Aachen connected by tradition with the name of Charlemagne. The Ursula Shrine at St. John's Hospital in Bruges also retains the same general form, but here the ornament is supplied by the beautiful paintings of Hans Memling. Quite different in type are the reliquary crosses mentioned by Gregory the Great, the use of which may be traced back to the fifth century, though they belong to all periods and have never completely gone out of fashion. The most venerable existing specimen is undoubtedly the enamelled cross preserved in the Sancta Sanctorum of the Lateran and recently described by Father Grisar and by Lauer. A large relic of the True Cross is probably still embedded in the hollow of the case, covered with a thick coating of balsam-- perfumed unguent which, as the "Liber Pontificalis" informs us, was applied to such reliquaries as a mark of veneration. This identical cross is probably that found by Pope Sergius (687-701) in a corner of the sacristy of St. Peter's, and it may possibly date from the fifth century. Other medieval reliquaries, of which specimens still survive, took the form of legs, arms, and particularly heads or busts. Perhaps the earliest known is a bust from the treasury of St. Maurice in the Valais; amongst the later examples are such famous reliquaries as those of the heads of the Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, at the Lateran and that of St. Januarius in Naples (cf. plate in THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, VIII, 296). Under this class we may also mention the relic statues which seem to have been rather exceptionally common in England. It is conceivable that some of the prejudice of the English Reformers against "wonder-working" statues was due to the practice of making doors into the hollow of such figures and preserving relics within them. Sir Thomas More ("Works", London, 1557, p.192) describes a case in which such a hiding-place for relics was unexpectedly discovered in the Abbey of Barking. Lastly it will be sufficient to point out that relics have at all times been kept in simple caskets or boxes, varying indefinitely in size, material, and ornamentation. In more modern times these are invariably secured by a seal, and the contents indicated in a formal episcopal act of authentication, without which it is not Lawful to expose the relics for public veneration. The silver box containing the head of St. Agnes, recently brought to light in the treasury of the Sancta Sanctorum, still preserved the seal of some cardinal deacon affixed to it apparently at the end of the thirteenth century. From a graphical point of view the illustrations of reliquaries in the early German "Heiligthums-Bücher", published in connexion with various famous shrines, e.g. Einsiedeln, Wittemberg, Halle etc. are particularly interesting. Probably the most useful work is GRISAR, Die römische Kapelle Sancta Sanctorum u. ihr Schatz (Freiburg, 1908), an account of the recent discoveries made in the treasury of the Sancta Sanctorum at the Lateran; cf. LAUER, Le trésor du Sancta Sanctorum (Paris, 1906). A more formal discussion will be found in works on Christian art: REUSENS, Elements d'archéol. chrét. (Louvain, 1885), I, 476; II. 339; OTTE, Handbuch der Kunst-Archäologie, I (Leipzig, 1886), 183-211; BERGNER, Handbuch der kirchl. Kunstaltertümer (Leipzig, 1905). See also Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. V. Reliquary; DE ROSSI, La capsella reliquiaria africana in Omaggio a Leone XIII (Rome, 1888); MOLINIER, Hist. générale des arts appliqués à l'industrie, especially IV, pt. i (Paris, 1901); FRÖHNER, Collections du château de Goluchow: L'orfèvrerie (Paris, 1897). For any profounder study the separate monographs and articles, of which almost every remarkable reliquary of antiquity has at some time formed the subject, should be consulted HERBERT THURSTON. Remesiana Remesiana A titular see in Dacia Mediterranea, suffragan of Sardica. Remesiana is mentioned by the "Itinerarium Antonini" (135), the "Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum" (566), the "Tabula Peutingeriana", the "Geographus Ravennatensis", IV, vii. Justinian rebuilt and fortified it at the same time as he established numerous fortresses in that vicinity (Procopius, "De ædif.", IV, i, iv). In the sixth century this city of ancient Moesia was counted among those of Dacia Mediterranea (Hierocles, "Synecdemus", dcliv, 7). Today it is known as Bela Palanka, has 1100 inhabitants, and is a railway station between Nich and Pirot in Servia. Remesiana was a suffragan of Sardica (today Sofia, capital of Bulgaria), the civil and religious capital of Dacia Mediterranea which was under the Patriarchate of Rome. Two bishops are known: St. Nicetas (q.v.) and Diogenianus, present at the Robber Synod of Ephesus (449). The see must have disappeared in the sixth century. LE QUIEN, Oriens christ., II, 305; FARLATI, Illyricum sacrum, VIII, 77-84; SMITH. Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v.; TOMASCHEK in Sitzungsber. der Wiener Akad., XCIX (1881-2), 441; BURN, Niceta of Remesiana (Cambridge, 1905), x, xix; PATIN, Niceta, Bischof von Remesiana (Munich, 1909), 4. S. PÉTRIDÈS Saint Remigius St. Remigius Apostle of the Franks, Archbishop of Reims, b. at Cerny or Laon, 437; d. at Reims, 13 January 553. His feast is celebrated 1 October. His father was Emile, Count of Laon. He studied literature at Reims and soon became so noted for learning and sanctity that he was elected Archbishop of Reims in his twenty-second year. Thence-forward his chief aim was the propagation of Christianity in the realm of the Franks. The story of the return of the sacred vessels, which had been stolen from the Church of Soissons testifies to the friendly relations existing between him and Clovis, King of the Franks, whom he converted to Christianity with the assistance of St. Waast (Vedastus, Vaast) and St. Clotilda, wife of Clovis. Even before he embraced Christianity Clovis had showered benefits upon both the Bishop and Cathedral of Reims, and after the battle of Tolbiac, he requested Remigius to baptize him at Reims (24 December, 496) in presence of several bishops of the Franks and Alemanni and great numbers of the Frankish army. Clovis granted Remigius stretches of territory, in which the latter established and endowed many churches. He erected, with the papal consent, bishoprics at Tournai; Cambrai; Terouanne, where he ordained the first bishop in 499; Arras, where he placed St. Waast; Laon, which he gave to his nephew Gunband. The authors of "Gallia Christiana" record numerous and munificent donations made to St. Remigius by members of the Frankish nobility, which he presented to the cathedral at Reims. In 517 he held a synod, at which after a heated discussion he converted a bishop of Arian views. In 523 he wrote congratulating Pope Hormisdas upon his election. St. Medardus, Bishop of Noyon, was consecrated by him in 530. Although St. Remigius's influence over people and prelates was extraordinary, yet upon one occasion, the history of which has come down to us, his course of action was attacked. His condonement of the offences of one Claudius, a priest, brought upon him the rebukes of his episcopal brethren, who deemed Claudius deserving of degradation. The reply of St. Remigius, which is still extant, is able and convincing (cf. Labbe, "Concilia", IV). His relics were kept in the cathedral of Reims, whence Hincmar had them translated to Epernay during the period of the invasion by the Northmen, thence, in 1099, at the instance of Leo IX, to the Abbey of Saint-Remy. His sermons, so much admired by Sidonius Apollinaris (lib. IX, cap. lxx), are not extant. On his other works we have four letters, the one containing his defence in the matter of Claudius, two written to Clovis, and a fourth to the Bishop of Tongres. According to several biographers, the Testament of St. Remigius is apocryphal; Mabillon and Ducange, however, argue for its authenticity. The attribution of other works to St. Remigius, particularly a commentary upon St. Paul's Epistles, is entirely without foundation. Acta Sanct. I October, 59-187; Hist. litt. France, III (Paris, 1735), 155-163; DE CERIZIERS, Les heureux commencements de la France chretienne sous St. Remi (Reims, 1633); MARLOT, Tombeau de St. Remi (Reims, 1647); DORIGNY, Vie de St Remi (Paris, 1714); AUBERT, Vie de St. Remi (Paris, 1849); MEYER, Notice de deux MSS. de la vie de St. Remi in Notes et extraits de MSS., XXXV (Paris, 1895), 117-30; D'AVENAY, St. Remi de Reims (Lille, 1896); CARLIER, Vie de St Remi (Tours, 1896). JOSEPH DEDIEU Remigius of Auxerre Remigius of Auxerre A Benedictine monk, b. about the middle of the ninth century; d. 908. Remigius, or Remi, was a disciple of the Irish teacher Dunchad of Reims, author of a treatise on astronomy, and of Eric, or Heirich, who was himself a disciple of Eriugena. He taught at the monastery of St-Germain, Auxerre, in Paris, and at Reims. He is the author of a number of glossaries and marginal commentaries on the Bible, on the grammar of Priscian, the "Opuscula Sacra" of Boethius, and the "De Nuptiis etc.", of Martianus Capella. He also wrote a theological treatise, "Ennarationes in Psalmos". As a teacher, Remigius interested himself in the problem of universals, and seems to have attempted a compromise between the extreme Realism of Eriugena and the Anti-Realism of his teacher, Eric. He also investigated the problem of the origin of the universe and gave a Christian interpretation to the passages in which Martianus speaks of the invisible world of ideas. His glosses are of very great interest to the student of medieval Latin philology. DE WULF, Hist. of medieval Phil., tr. COFFEY (New York, 1909), 155; HAUREAU, Hist. de la phil. scol., I (Paris, 1879), 199 sqq.; TURNER, Hist. of Phil. (Boston, 1903), 262 sqq.; RAND, Johannes Scottus (Munich, 1906), 15 sqq. WILLIAM TURNER Remiremont Remiremont Vosges, France, monastery and nunnery of the Rule of St. Benedict, founded by Sts. Romaricus and Amatus in 620, on hills above the site where the town now stands, whence the name Romarici Mons, Remiremont. The monastery became a priory of the Canons Regular of St. Augustine who, in 1623, gave it to the Benedictines of the Congregation of St. Vannes. It had, in 1768, 10 monks and a revenue of 5500 livres. During three centuries, the nunnery was a neighbour of the monastery, but, in 910, as the Huns were wasting the country, the nuns, with the help of the Emperor Louis III, constructed a fortified convent in the valley. About this convent the town of Remiremont rose, and the relics of Sts. Romaricus and Amatus were transported from the monastery to the convent. Leo IX enriched it with other numerous relics. In 1057 the convent was destroyed by fire and the nuns were dispersed; though rebuilt later it no longer strictly observed the Rule of St. Benedict. In 1284, the emperor Rudolph married there the Princess Elizabeth and, in 1290, gave to the abbess the title of a princess of the empire. In the beginning of the sixteenth century discipline was lax and the nuns, without the pope's consent, declared themselves canonesses. They did not take the vows and admitted only novices who could give proof of noble descent. Catharine III of Lorraine tried to reform the convent, but failed. Anna of Lorraine rebuilt the convent in 1752. It was suppressed, as was the monastery, during the French Revolution. Gallia christiana, XIII (Paris, 1785), 1416; MABILLON, Lettre touchant le premier institut de l'abbaye de R. (Paris, 1859); DUHAMEL, Relation des empereurs et des ducs de Lorraine au l'abbaye de R. (Epinal, 1866); DE LA RALLAYE, Le chapitre noble de R. in Revue du monde catholique (1889); MOLINIER, Obit. Franc. (Paris, 1890), 219. JOSEPH DEDIEU Anne-Madeleine Remuzat Ven. Anne-Madeleine Remuzat Born at Marseilles, 29 Nov., 1696; died 15 Feb., 1730. At nine years of age she asked her parents to be allowed to enter the convent of the Visitation; the request was granted. From 1708 she began to experience severe sufferings which, during her whole life, she bore patiently for the salvation of souls. In 1709 her parents withdrew her, but in 1711 she re-entered the convent and on 23 Jan., 1713, made her profession. At this time she applied herself to prayer, and the "Spiritual Retreat" written then is a proof of her progress in the contemplative life. She experienced on 17 Oct., 1713, a "particular and extraordinary" revelation of Jesus "concerning the glory of his Sacred Heart". As the repute of her sanctity became known, Anne-Madeleine was consulted by many, and was thus the means of spreading devotion to the Sacred Heart. Her influence actuated Mgr de Belsunce to establish at Marseilles the Association of Perpetual Adoration of the Sacred Heart, of which she wrote the statutes. As Jansenism and a spirit of moral laxity had then invaded the town Anne-Madeleine suffered keenly, and in reparation inflicted on her body continual mortifications; when her superiors interdicted these austerities, she begged our Lord to mortify her himself; and from that day she went into a painful decline, while her soul was abandoned to temptations. In 1720, during the plague at Marseilles, Our Lord enjoined her to institute a feast in honour of the Sacred Heart, which Mgr de Belsunce established on 22 Oct., 1720. From 1722 the veneration of the Sacred Heart spread throughout Provence, Lyons, Rouen, Constantinople, Cairo, Spain, Louisiana, Persia, Syria, and the Indies by her endeavours. In 1888 her cause was submitted to the Sacred Congregation, whose favourable vote was given on 18 Dec., 1890. Leo XIII signed on 24 Dec., 1891, the introduction of the cause of the Venerable servant of God. Vie de la tres honoree Soeur Anne-Madeleine Remuzat (Marseilles, 1760); Vie de Soeur Anne-Madeleine Remuzat (Marseilles, 1868); La Venerable A. M. Remuzat (Lyons, 1894); LEPIN; L'Idee du sacrifice dans la religion chretienne (Paris, 1897), 406-12. JOSEPH DEDIEU Abbey of Saint Remy Abbey of Saint Remy Founded at Reims before 590. Its early history is very obscure; at first a little chapel dedicated to St. Christopher, it obtained great renown when it acquired the relics of St. Remy in 553, and gifts poured in upon it from pious donors. By the ninth century the abbey possessed about 700 domains and was perhaps the richest in France. It seems probable that secular priests were the first guards of the relics, but were succeeded by the Benedictines. From 780 to 945 the archbishops of Reims were its abbots. It was there that Charlemagne received Leo III. In 1005 the Abbot Aviard undertook to rebuild the Church of St-Remy, and for twenty years the work went on uninterruptedly but then collapsed. The Abbot Theodoric erected a magnificent basilica which in 1049 Leo IX dedicated and granted many special privileges. The schools and the library were, during the Middle Ages, of such great repute that Alexander III wrote a commendatory letter to the Abbot Peter. The archbishops of Reims and several princes, Carloman, Charlemagne's brother, Henri d'Orléans (d. about 1653), and several kings, Louis IV and Lothaire, were buried in the monastery. Among the illustrious men of the abbey may be mentioned: Henri de Lorraine (1622-1641), who affiliated, in 1642, the abbey to the Congregation of St. Maur; J. Nicolas Colbert (1665), later archbishop of Rouen; Charles Maurice le Tellier (1680-1710); and Joseph de Rothechouart, appointed abbot by the king in 1745. Gallia Christiana, IX (1751) 219-239; VARIY, Statuts de l'abbaye de St-Remy in Arch. legisl. Reims, I (1844), 165-99; GUERARD, Polyptique de l'abbaye de St-Remy (Paris, 1853); POUSSIN, Monographie de l'abbaye de St-Remy (Reims, 1854); MOLINIER, Obit. Franc. (Paris, 1890), 194; CHEVALIER, Sacramentaires et martyrologes de l'abbaye de St-Remy in Bibl. Liturg., VII (Paris, 1900), 305-57; LECESTRE, Abbayes, prieures et couvents d'hommes en France (Paris, 1902), 12. JOSEPH DEDIEU The Renaissance The Renaissance The Renaissance may be considered in a general or a particular sense, as (1) the achievements of what is termed the modern spirit in opposition to the spirit which prevailed during the Middle Ages; or (2) the revival of classic, especially of Greek, learning and the recovery of ancient art in the departments of sculpture, painting, and architecture, lost for a thousand years in Western Christendom. Impossible though it be to separate these elements from the whole movement into which they enter, we may distinguish them from it for our present purpose, viz., to sum up the influences, whether good or evil, which are traceable to the antique, pre-Christian, or pagan world of letters and plastic remains, as it came to be known and studied from the end of the fourteenth century onwards, in relation to the Catholic Church. For ecclesiastical history goes through periods analogous to the changes brought about by secular revolutions. Roughly speaking, the age of the Fathers corresponds to the Imperial Roman period, closing in A.D. 476; the Middle Ages occupy those tumultuous years when barbarians turned Christians were learning slowly to be civilized, from 476 to 1400; while the modern relations of Church and State begin with the definite emergence of nationalities in the West, at an era most critical, signalized by the destruction of the Greek Empire, the invention of printing from movable type, the discovery of America, and all this leading on to the Protestant Reformation. History, like life, is a continuous web; its various stages pass into one another by the finest degrees. But after the Great Schism was healed by the Council of Constance in 1417, the Church, turning her back once for all on a worn-out feudalism, and no longer engaged in strife with Teuton emperors, found herself in the presence of new difficulties, and the character of the times was manifestly altered. We are dwelling now in this modern epoch. The Middle Ages have become an interlude, clearly bounded on both extremities by a more civilized or humane idea of life, which men are endeavouring to realize in politics, education, manners and literature, and religion. This blending of widely dissevered ages and peoples by virtue of a complex type into a consistent, though greatly enlarged historical system, has been due to the Renaissance, taken as a whole. A glance at the map will remind us of the striking fact that Christianity is bound up in space no less than in time with the Greek and Roman World. It has never yet flourished extensively outside these borders, except in so far as it subdued to ancient culture the tribes to which it offered the Gospel. There is a mysterious and providential link, recognized in the New Testament by St. Paul, St. John, and St. Peter, between Rome as the head of secular dominion and the visible Kingdom of Christ. Roman law protected as well as persecuted the disciples; Greek philosophy lent its terms to Catholic dogma. The School of Alexandria, taught by Clement and Origen, did not scruple to quote Athenian literature in illustration of revealed truths. St. Gregory of Nazianzus wrote Greek poems in a style which was moulded on the classic tragedians. There was always in the West a Puritan spirit, of which from Tertullian and Novatian down to the Spanish Priscillian we may note examples; but the saints who established our tradition--Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome--held more tolerant views; and though St. Jerome felt compunctious visitings for the days and nights he had given to Plautus or Cicero, his own diction is severely classic. His Latin Vulgate, also, while it obeys the construction of the Hebrew, is written in cultivated, not in rustic, language. St. Gregory, the Great despised grammar as a subordinate accomplishment, but was himself a good scholar. The loss of Greek authors and the decline of Church Latin into barbarism were misfortunes in a universal ruin; neither of these events was the consequences of a deliberate break with antiquity. Latin and Greek had become sacred languages; the Western and Eastern liturgies carried them with Holy Scripture wherever they went. Catholic Rome was Latin by tradition and by choice. No German dialect ever attained to the privileges of the sanctuary which St. Cyril won for the Old Slavic from Pope Nicholas I. Under these circumstances, a revival of learning, so soon as the West was capable of it, might have been foreseen. And it was equally to be anticipated that the Vatican would not reject a movement of reconciliation, akin to that whereby so many of the ancient usages had been long ago adapted to Christian ends. Speaking of the second century, Walter Pater observes: "What has been on the whole the method of the Church, as a 'power of sweetness and patience', in dealing with matters like pagan art, pagan literature, was even then manifest." There had been, at that day, an "earlier and unimpeachable Renaissance". The Catholic principle, in accordance with its name, assimilates, purifies, consecrates, all that is not sin, provided that it will submit to the law of holiness. And the central classic authors, on whose study liberal education has been set up from the age of Aristotle among Greeks, from the Augustan era in Rome, were happily amenable to the cleansing baptism. As a literature, the chief schoolbooks were singularly free from moral deformities; their teaching fell short of the New Testament; but it was often heroic, and its perils admitted of correction. Newman happily describes Graeco-Roman civilization as "the soil in which Christianity grew up". And Pater concludes that "it was by the bishops of Rome. . .that the path of what we must call humanism was thus defined", as the ideal, namely, of a perfect training in wisdom and beauty. Quite in unison with such a temper of mind, Pope Leo X in 1515 wrote to Beroaldo, the editor of Tacitus: " Nothing more excellent or useful has been given to men by the Creator, it we except the true knowledge and worship of Himself, than these studies". When, therefore, Nicholas V (1447-55) founded the Vatican Library, his act was inspired by the tradition of the Holy See, deservedly known as the nursing-mother of schools and universities, in which the seven "liberal arts" had always been taught. Paris, the greatest of them, had received formal recognition in 1211 from Innocent III. Between the years 1400 and 1506 we may reckon some twenty-eight charters granted by the popes to as many universities, from St. Andrews to Alcala and from Caen and Poiters to Wittenberg and Frankfort-on-the-Oder. But Humanism was propagated chiefly from Italian centres and by Italian or Greek professors. We must bear in mind a fact which is often lost sight of, that the Scholastic philosophy had never taken deep root in the Peninsula, and that its masters chiefly flourished north of the Alps. Alexander of Hales, Scotus, Middleton, Occam, were Britons; Albert the Great was a German; St. Thomas Aquinas, his disciple, taught at Paris. On the other hand, that renaissance of Roman Law which enabled Frederick Barbarossa and his successors to withstand the papacy, began with Irnerius at Bologna. Again, it was Petrarch (1303-1374) who inaugurated the far-reaching movement which claimed for literature, i.e., for poetry, rhetoric, history, and all their branches, the rank hitherto maintained by logic and philosophy; Dante, who crystallizes the "Summa" of St. Thomas in miraculous verse, remains medieval; Petrarch is modern precisely by this difference, although we must not fancy him opposed to Church or Bible. Now when Greek manuscripts were eagerly sought after, and when Cicero dictated the canons of Latin style, the syllogism with its arena of disputation could not be give place to the orator's chair and the secretary's desk. Not science but life was the end of study. We remark no considerable achievement in metaphysics until the culminating period, both of Humanism and the Reformation, had passed away. In 1455, the library of Pope Nicholas contained 824 Latin and 352 Greek manuscripts. In 1484, at the death of Sixtus IV, the Greek MSS, had increased to one thousand. From the catalogues we infer that much interest was taken in collecting the great Fathers, the canon law, and medieval theology. Nicholas owned the famous Vatican Codex (B) of Holy Scripture; Sixtus has in his possession fifty-eight bibles or parts of bibles. Cardinal Bessarion gave his magnificent stock of books to St. Mark's Venice; and the Medicean Library, collected at Florence, where it still reposes (the Laurentian), was for a while transferred to Rome by Clement VII. At Basle the Dominican cardinal, John of Ragusa, left important Greek MSS, of parts of the New Testament, which were used by Reuchlin and Erasmus with advantage. These illustrations may suffice to indicate the movement, becoming universal throughout Catholic Europe, towards recovery from all sides of the treasures of the past. Another and most important step was to print that which had been so recovered. Printing was a German invention. The local ordinaries and religious houses favoured it greatly. Cloisters became the home of the Press; among them we may quote Marienthal (1468), St. Ulrich, at Augsburg (1472), the Benedictines at Bamberg (1474). Typography was introduced at Brussels in 1474 by the Brothers of the Common Life. They called themselves "preachers in not in word but in type". And the early printed books in Germanywere of a popular devotional, educationl, and Biblical character. To the Renaissance in its opening stage the honour belongs of scattering broadcast the printed Latin Vulgate as well as translations of it in most European languages, of course with approval from the Church. Ninety-eight complete editions of the Vulgate were sent our before 1500; a dozen editions preceded the appearance in type of and Latin classic. The first book produced by Gutenberg was that exceedingly beautiful "42-line" Bible according to St. Jerome's version afterwards known as the Mazarine Bible and still extant in several copies. The first dated Bible came out at Mainz in 1462; the first Venetian, in 1475, was followed by twenty-one editions. The Hebrew test was printed at Soncino and Naples between 1477 and 1486; the Rabbinic Bible was dedicated at Venice to Leo X in 1517. Cardinal Ximenes renewed the labours of Origen by his Polyglot of Aleala, 1514-22, which included the Greek New Testament. But Erasmus anticipated its publication by an indifferent text in 1516. Aldus printed the Septuagint in 1518. As regards translations on the Catholic side, they went on before and after Luther, from the Spanish of Boniface Ferrer in 1405 to the English of Douai in 1609. All these were printed; but space will not all more than a reference to the details here, or to the changes in policy brought about, in consequence of heretical translations and the abuse of Scripture-reading, under Paul IV and the Council of Trent. During the period commonly assigned to the Renaissance at its height (1453-1527), freedom was the rule. Nicholas V had it in mind to make Rome the intellectual centre of the world. His successors entered largely into the same idea. Pius II (Piccolomini) was a man of letters, not unlike the great Erasmus. Paul II, though severe upon neopagans, such as Pomponazzo, did not condemn the Classical movement. Alexander VI was a statesman, not a scholar and not an Italian. The fierce and splendid Julius II, himself without culture, gave commissions to Raphael and Michelangelo, but openly despised the pedants about his court. From Leo X his age receives its title--he was the "incarnation of the Renaissance in its most brilliant form". An extraordinary enthusiasm for antiquity had set in, combined with boundless freedom of opinion, with a laxity of morals which has ever since given scandal to believers and unbelievers alike, and with a festal magnificence recalling the days and nights of Nero's "golden house". The half-century which ends in the sack of Rome by Lutheran soldiers, however dazzling from a scenic point of view, cannot be dwelt on with satisfaction by any Catholic, even when we have discounted the enormous falsehoods long current in historians who accepted satires and party statements at their own value. Churchmen in high places were constantly unmindful of truth, justice, purity, self-denial; many had lost all sense of Christian ideals; not a few were deeply stained by pagan vices. The temper of ecclesiastics like Bembo and Bibbiena, shown forth in the comedies of this latter cardinal as they were acted before the Roman Court and imitated far and wide, is to us not less incomprehensible than disedifying. The earlier years of Æneas Sylvius, the whole career of Rodrigo Borgia, the life of Farnese, himself as well as the Curia, these all exhibit the union of subtlety, vigour, and other worldly qualities, which leaves us in dumb and sorrowful amazement. Julius II fought and intrigued like a mere secular prince; Leo X, although certainly not an unbeliever, was frivolous in the extreme; Clement VII drew on himself the contempt as well as the hatred of all who had dealings with him, by his crooked ways and cowardly subterfuges which led to the taking and pillage of Rome. Now, it is not unfair to trace in these popes, as to their advisers, a certain common type, the pattern of which was Cesare Borgia, sometime cardinal, but always in mind and action a condottiere, while its philosopher was Machiavelli. We may express it in the words of Villari as a "prodigious intellectual activity accompanied by moral decay". The passion for ancient literature, quickened and illustrated when the buried classic marbles were brought to light, simply intoxicated that generation. Not only did they fall away from monastic severities, they lost all decent and manly self-control. The survivors of a less corrupt age, as Michelangelo in his sonnets, remind us that native Italian genius had done great things before this new spirit took possession of it. But there is no denying that in its triumphant days the Renaissance looked up to beauty, and looked away from duty, as the standard and the law of life. It had neither eyes nor sense for the beauty of holiness. When it is called "pagan" we mean this corrupting anarchic influence, represented more gracefully by genuine poets and men of letters like Politian, more grossly by such licentious singers as Lorenzo de' Medici, by Poggio, Bandello, Aretino, and a thousand others who declared that the morals of Petronius Arbiter were good enough for them. When Savonarola in 1475 fled to the Dominican cloister at Ferrara, and there composed his lament on "the ruin of the Church", he cried out: "The temple is fallen, and the house of chastity". But the earthquake had not yet come. Worse things were to happen than he had seen. And a catastrophe was inevitable, of which he would be the prophet in St. Mark's, Florence, sent to a partly credulous and a still more exasperated world. Savonarola (1453-98), Erasamus (1466-1536), and Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) may be taken as figures in what has been sometimes called the Christian Renaissance. They represent beyond question the mind of the Church concerning those ancient authors, not sacrificing faith to scholarship, or Holy Writ to Homer and Horace, while they allow to culture its province and its privileges. Such was to be the lasting concordat between divinity and the humanities, but not until paganism had robbed Italy of its independence, after the popes had set their house in order, and the Society of Jesus had been entrusted with the education of youth. On the strength of his protest against the unseemly and degrading literature which abounded in his time, Savonarola was condemned as a Puritan; his "burning of the vanities" in 1497 has been cited in proof; and he employed scathing language (see the Letter to Verino, 1497) that may be strained to this conclusion. But among his penitents were artists, poets, and learned men: Pico della Mirandola, Fra Bartolommeo, Botticelli, Michelangelo. The friar himself bought for St. Mark's at a heavy charge the famous Medicean Library; and every candid reader will perceive in his denunciation of current books and paintings an honest Christian's outcry against cancerous vices which were sapping the life of Italy. When we come to Erasmus, no fanatic assuredly, we discover that he too made a difference between clean and unclean. Erasmus laughed to scorn the Ciceronian pedantries of Bembo and Sadoleto; he quoted with disgust the paganizing terms in which some Roman preachers travestied the persons and scenes of the Gospels. He had a zeal for the inspired Word, and his Greek and Latin New Testament was the chief literary event of the year that saw its publication. He edited St. Jerome with minute care (1516); he did something for the chief Latin Fathers, and not a little for the Greek. In his preface to St. Hilary his true scholar commends all learning, old or new, but he would have its proper value given to each department from the Scriptures even to the Schoolmen. His "Praise of Folly" and other satirical writings were an attack, not upon medieval genius, but upon the self-confident ignorance which declaimed against good literature without knowing what it meant. So rare and indefatigable an appraiser of literary works in every form could not be insensible to the merits of St. Augustine, however much he delighted in Virgil. The scholarship of Erasmus, given to the world in a lively Latin, was universal and often profound. It was also honestly Christian; to make Holy Scripture known and understood was the supreme purpose he ept in view. And thus the "prince of humanists" could remain Catholic, while looking for a moral restoration, during the whirlwind of Luther's revolt. In him the Renaissance had cast away its paganism. His friend, Sir Thomas More, a liberal scholar, a saint, and a martyr, proved by the enchanting courtesy of his daily converse and by the simple, almost ironical heroism which he displayed on the scaffold, how antique learning and Catholic virtue might combine in the loftiest of ideals. More's "Utopia" won a place by itself, which it still keeps, far above the imitative and passing literature of those Latin versifiers, those vain rhetoricians, who at best were scholiasts, but too commonly wasted their small talents in feebly reproducing the classic themes and metres. The English chancellor took a firm grip of social and religious problems, not so much regarding theory as intent on reform according to Catholic principles. He wrote Latin with greater force than elegance; his works in the vernacular have salt and savour, wit and idiom to commend their orthodoxy. In the same category of Christian humanists we may associate with More a goodly number of Englishmen, from the Benedictines, Hadley and Selling, who were students at Padua in 1464, to Crocyn, Linacre, Colet, Fox, and the martyred Cardinal Fisher. In Germany the first stages of revived learning had been free from Italian dissoluteness and heathen doctrines. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa reformed the Church, while promoting philosophy by his own speculations and collecting manuscripts. Rudolf Agricola (1443-85) united the study of the ancients with devotion to Holy Scripture; von Langen, consummate Latinist, remodelled the schools of Westphalia; he was cathedral provost at Deventer. The illustrious Wimpheling, born in 1450, taught education in principle and practice on orthodox lines. He was Reuchlin's master, a geniune scholar, zealous against the newly-imported unchristian ways of the so-called "poets"; and when Luther rose up, Wimpheling opposed him as he had opposed the encroachments of Roman Law. With Reuchlin we are plunged into debate and controversy; but he, too, was sincerely religious, and in 1516 he triumphed at Rome over his adversaries, gaining thereby a victory for Hebrew erudition, which in other ways the popes had taken into favour. Many Humanists, by and by, made common cause with the Reformation; Melanchthon, Zwingli, Calvin, were eminently learned. But the Renaissance never was absorbed into any theological movement; reforming zeal scattered libraries, emptied universities, and too often threw back education, until its first fury was spent. The spirit of which Puritanism is a complete expression had no affinity with Classic literature; at its touch the world of art, of dramatic poetry, of painting, sacred or secular, of Humanism in life and outside of schoolbooks, fell into dust. Heine (Ueber Deutschland) saw that the Reformation was, in effect, a Teutonic answer to the Renaissance; and we now perceive that, while the dogmas of Luther and Calvin have lost their hold upon men's hearts, the revival of letters is broadening out into a transformation of democracy by means of culture: hic labor, hoc opus; the question of how to reconcile a perfectly-equipped human life with an ascetic religion and the demands of freedom for all, is one which non of the Reformers contemplated, much less did they succeed in resolving it. Among Frenchmen, to whom we owe the word renaissance, that problem was not mooted at first. The Italian, Aleandro, coming to Paris in 1508, gave lectures in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. He was made rector of the university. Aleandro became a strenuous opponent of Luther; and the Sorbonne is charged by Mark Pattison with persecuting the great printer, Robert Estienne (1503-59), though he always obtained license to sell his bibles and testaments. The Sorbonne objected, however, to any publication of Scripture without approved Catholic notes; and this in a day which might be justly termed on of rebuke and blasphemy. France had its own type of Humanist in that extraordinary man, Rabelais (1490-1553), a physician, priest, and obscene jester whose book is the glory and the shame of his native tongue. Rabelais, treating the Christian religion as a creed outworn, falls back upon a kind of liberal Platonism; he would leave men to their instincts and the joy of life. Much the same philosophy, though in graver tones, is insinuated by Montaigne (1533-92) in essays tinged with scepticism and disenchantment. These two writers, who lie beyond the spring-tide of the revival, open in France the anti-Christian war which has lasted, with growing violence, down to our time. But the seventeenth century witnessed an adaptation of the classical forms to literature and preaching by Catholics of genius, by Pascal, Boussuet, Racine, and Fenelon, which yielded a highly original blending of religion with eloquent prose and refined verse. In general, nevertheless, we shall probably allow Taine's convention that the influence of the Classics (Latin rather than Greek always) on French education has not been favourable to Christianity. At Rome and "incredible Liberty" of discussion prevailed under the spell of the Renaissance. Lord Acton quotes well-known instances. Poggio, the mocking adversary of the clergy, was for half a century in the service of the popes--Filelfo, a pagan unabashed and foul, was handsomely rewarded by Nicholas V for his abominable satires. Pius II had the faults of a smart society journalist, and took neither himself nor his age seriously. Platina, with whom Paul II quarreled on political grounds, wrote a vindictive slanderous book, "The Lives of the Roman Pontiffs", which, however, was in some degree justified by the project of reformation in "head and members" constantly put forth and never fulfilled until Christendom had been rent in twain. Yet Sixtus IV made Platina librarian of the Vatican. It is equally significant that "The Prince", by Machiavelli, was published with papal licence, though afterwards severely prohibited. This toleration of evil bore one good consequence: it allowed historical criticism to begin fair. There was need of a revision which is not yet complete, ranging over all that had been handed down from the Middle Ages under the style and title of the Fathers, the Councils, he Roman and other official archives. In all these departments forgery and interpolation as well as ignorance had wrought mischief on a great scale. In 1440 Lorenzo Valla counselled Eugenius IV not to rely upon the Donation of Constantine, which be proved to be spurious. Valla's tract was printed by Ulrich von Hutten; it became popular among Germans, and influenced Luther. But it opened to this enemy of the temporal power a place in the household of Nicholas V. For another commencement of criticism we are indebted to the same unpleasant but sharp-sighted man of letters. It was Valla who first denied the authenticity of those writings which for centuries had been going about as the treatises composed by Dionysius the Areopagite. Three centuries later the Benedictines of St. Maur and the Bollandists were still engaged in sifting out the true from the false in patristic literature, in hagiology, in the story of the foundation of local churches. Mabillon, Ruinart, Papebroch, and their successors have cleared the ground for research into the Christian origins; they have enabled divines to consider a theory of development, the materials of which were hopelessly confused when Valla tilted against the Donation itself, accepted and deplored as a fact by Dante. How great that confusion was, the Benedictine editions of the Fathers, which largely put an end to it, abundantly show: the "authentic and necessary evidences of historical religion" could not be given their full value until this work was done. It called for a disposition at once literary and critical, which the old method of training did not create and scarcely would tolerate. But this chapter falls outside the limits of our subject. It is remarkable that the healthy Christian use of ancient literature was destined to be taught by a Spanish reforming saint, himself not learned and certainly no dilettante. This was Ignatius Loyola, whose antecedents did not promise him the inheritance which Bembo and the other Ciceronian pendants had turned to such ill account. St. Ignatius, who began his order in Paris, who walked the same streets with Erasmus, Calvin, and Rabelais, did the most astonishing feat recorded in modern history. He reformed the Church by means of the papacy when sunk to its lowest ebb; and he took the heathen Classics from neo-pagans to make them instruments of Catholic education. Spain had been but little affected by the Renaissance. In temper crusading and still medieval, its poetry, drama, theology, were distinguished by qualities peculiarly its own. The Italian manner had not yet imitators at its court when Ignatius wrote chivalrous sonnets to an unknown lady. His intensely practical turn of mind led him to employ every talent in the Divine service; and he saw that learning, if it could be cleansed from its present stains, would not only adorn but defend the Holy Place. He had looked into the lighter productions of Erasmus; they gave him a shock; but he recognized the power, if not the charm, which Humanism wielded over young imaginations. His militant company took up again, without distinctly perceiving it, the task that Erasmus intended and Petrarch had set before Italians two hundred years previously. In May, 1527, Rome was laid waste, its churches profaned, its libraries pillaged, by a rabble of miscreants. "But", said Cardinal Cajetan, "it was a just judgment on the Romans." The pagan Renaissance fell, stricken to death; it was high time for the Counter-Reformation to begin. The Council of Trent and the Society of Jesus took in hand to distinguish between what was permissible and what was forbidden in dealing with literature. The Roman Index was established by Paul IV. A rigorous censorship watched over the Italian printing press. By 1600 German importation of books across the Alps had ceased. If we would reckon the greatness of the change now wrought, we may compare the "Orlando Furioso" of Ariosto, dedicated in 1516 to Cardinal Ippolito d'Este, with Tasso's "Gerusalemme", especially as revised by the poet himself, and at the dictation of the Roman censor, Antoniano. It was a change so marked that Scalinger termed the Italians generally hypocrites; but we know from the calendar of saints at this time and other sources how much had been done to check the wild licence of thought and speech in the Peninsula. Giordano Bruno, renegade and pantheist, was burnt in 1600; Campanella spent long years in prison. The different measures meted out to Copernicus by Clement VII and to Galileo by Paul V need no comment. The papacy aimed henceforth at becoming an "ideal government under spiritual and converted men". Urban VIII was the last who could be deemed a Renaissance pontiff (1623-44). St. Ignatius, alive to the causes which had provoked many nations into revolt from the clergy, made learning, piety, and obedience governing principles in his plan of reform. The old system of arts and teaching was already growing obsolete, previous to 1450. Humanism had begun to take the place of Scholasticism. Vittorino da Feltre (1378-1446), a devout layman, set up his classes at Mantua in 1435 on the basis of good Latin, including poetry, oratory, Roman history, and Stoic discipline. He gave an all-round training: social, physical, religious. At Venice and Ferrara his friend Guarino (1370-1460) was another eminent schoolmaster, mighty in Greek. We have seen how Erasmus by example and by criticism advanced the cause of literature, which was henceforth acknowledged as the proper subject of a liberal education. A gentleman--the cortegiano whom Castiglione described--ought to be proficient in the language of antiquity; such was the idea of the public school everywhere; and such it remains in England to this day. The Jesuit Order, springing up after 1530, not founded on the tradition of Benedict or Dominic, adopted this view, and their "Ratio Studiorum" (1599) was, in consequence, a literary classical scheme. The first of their colleges arose at Coimbra (1542); in Paris they had the Hotel de Clermont; in Germany they began at Ingoldstadt. The German College at Rome, due to St. Francis Borgia, like the Roman College of the Society itself, the English and other houses governed by them, attested their zeal for learning and their success in controversy. The Fathers were always cultivated men; they taught "a good silver Latin": and they wrote with ease, though scarcely with such idiomatic vivacity as we admire in Erasmus and Joseph Scaliger. Soon they possessed a hundred houses and colleges; "For nearly three centuries", says a recent critic, "they were accounted the best schoolmasters in Europe." Bacon's judgment can never be passed over: "As for the pedagogical part, the shortest rule would be, consult the schools of the Jesuits; for nothing better has been put in practice." (De Augment., VI, 4). They established free day-schools, devised new schoolbooks, expurgated objectionable authors, preached sound doctrines in a clear Latin style, and bestowed even upon the technicalities of medieval logic in a certain grace. Some, like Mariana, wrote with native power in the classic forms. But their most telling man in the field of theology is Petavius, who belongs to France and the seventeenth century. His large volumes on the Fathers may be compared in point of language with Calvin's "Institutes" and the "Augustinus" of Jansen. They discard the method familiar to Scotus and St. Thomas; they furnish to some extent criticism as well as history. And they suggest the development of dogma with an approach to its philosophy, which neither Bossuet nor Bull could quite comprehend. All these things form part of "that matured and completed Renaissance" whereby the evil was purged out which had made it perilous in the same degree to faith and to morals. Nicholas V and other popes did well in not refusing to add culture, even the finest of the Greek, to religion. Their fault lay in the weakness which could not resist pagan luxury and a frivolous dilettantism. Now serious work was undertaken for the good of the Church. Gregory XIII reformed the calendar; the text of the canon law was corrected under Sixtus V and Clement VIII the Latin Vulgate after years of revision attained its actual shape; and the Vatican Septuagint came forth in 1587. Baronius, urged by St. Phillip Neri, brought out eleven folio volumes of "the greatest church history ever written". The Roman Breviary, enlarged and edited anew, was republished by authority of St. Pius V and Urban VIII. But the Renaissance had indulged its "pride of state, of knowledge, and of system" with disastrous consequences to our Christian inheritance. It trampled on the Middle Ages and failed to understand that in them which was truly original. The Latin of Cicero which urban VIII cultivated, the metres of Horace, did grievous wrong to the prose and verse of our church offices, so far as they were altered. The showy architecture now designed, though sometimes magnificent, was not inspired by religion; before long it sank to the rococo and the grotesque; and it filled the churches with pagan monuments to disedifying celebrities. In painting we descend from the heaven of Fra Angelico to the "corregiosity" of Corregio, may, lower still, for Venus too often masquerades as the Madonna. Christian art became a thing of the past when the Gothic cathedral was looked upon as barbarous even by such champions of the Faith as Bossuet and Fenelon. Never did a poet inspired by Renaissance models--not even Vida nor Sannazzaro--rise to the sublimity of the "Dies Irae" never did that style produce a work equal to the "Imitation". Dante triumphs as the supreme Catholic singer; St. Thomas Aquinas cannot be dethroned from his sovereignty as the Angelic Doctor, still, as regards faith and philosophy, he is the true "master of those that know". But Dante and St. Thomas lived before the Renaissance. It was not large or liberal enough to absorb the Middle Ages. Hence its failure at the beginning as a philosophic movement, its lack of the deepest human motives, its superficiality and its pedantries; hence, afterwards, its fall into the commonplace, and the extinction of art in vulgarity, of literature in empty rhetoric. Hence, finally, the need of a French Revolution to teach it that life was something more serious than a "Carneval de Venise", and of Romanticism to discover, among the ruined choirs and in the neglected shrines which men had scornfully passed by, tokens of that mighty medieval genius, Catholic, Latin, Teuton, and French, misunderstanding of which was the folly, and the spoiling of its achievements the crime, that we must charge upon the Renaissance in the day of its power. "It remained for a later age", says one who glorified it, "to conceive the true method of effecting a scientific reconciliation of Christian sentiment with the imagery, the legends, the theories about the world, of pagan poetry and philosophy" (Pater, "Renaissance", 49). Not less did it become the task of Goethe, Scott, Chateaubriand, Ruskin, of Friedrich Schlegel and the best German critics, to show that European culture, divorced from the Middle Ages, would have been a pale reflection of dead antiquity. Besides the monographs under special names, consult Cambridge Mod. History, I (Cambridge, Eng., 1902); CREIGHTON, History of the Papacy (2nd ed., London 1897); JANSSENS, Gesch. Des deutschen Volkes, tr. CHRISTIE (London 1902--); PASTOR, Gesch. Der Papste, tr. ANTROBUS (London, 1895--); BURCKHARDT, Die Cultur der Renaissance (Basie, 1860); GEIGER, Humanismus in Ital. u. Deutschland (Berlin, 1882); MICHELET, Hist. De France, I (Paris, 1855); STONE, Reformation and Renaissance (London, 1904); SYMONDS, Renaissance in Italy (London, 1875-86); also, for details, BURCARD, Diarium (Paris, 1883); GASQUET, Eve of the Reformation (London, 1900); GOTHEIN, Ignatius v. Loyola u. die Gengenreform (Halle, 1895); HETTINGER, Kunst in Christenthum (Wurtzburg, 1867); HOFLER, Rodrigo di Borgia (Vienna, 1888-89); HUGHES, Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits (London, 1892); INFESSURA, Diario d. Citta di Roma (Florence, 1890); LILLY, Renaissance Types (London, 1901); KRAUS, Gesch. der christilch. Kunst (Freiburg, 1896-1908); KUNZ, Jacob Wimpheling (Lucerne, 1883); MUNTE, Renaissance a l'epoque de Charles VIII (Paris, 1885); IDEM, La Bibliotheque au Vatican (Paris, 1887); Monnier, Les arts a la cour des Papes (Paris, 1878); NICHOLS, Select Epistles of Erasmus (tr. London, 1901); RASHDALL, the Universityes in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1895); REUSCH, Index der verbotenen Bucher (Bonn. 1883); SADOLETO, Epistolae (Rome, 1760); VILLARI, Savonarola (Florence, 1887); tr. London, 1890; IDEM, Machiavelli (Florence, 1878-83; tr. London, 1900); VOIGHT, Enea Silvio Piccollomini (Berlin, 1856); WOODWARD, Vittorino da Feltre etc. (Cambridge, 1897). For judgments on the Renaissance from contrasted points of view, see PATER, Essays (London, 1873); IDEM, The Renaissance (1873); BARRY, Heralds of Revolt (London, 1906); RUSKIN, Modern Painters, II; IDEM, Stones of Venice, III (London, 1903). WILLIAM BARRY Eusebius Renaudot Eusebius Renaudot An apologetical writer and Orientalist, b. at Paris, 22 July, 1648; d. there, 1 Sept., 1720. He was educated by the Jesuits, and joined the Oratorians in 1666, but owing partly to ill-health, forthwith left them and never received more than minor orders. His extraordinary native talent and love of study enabled him to become an able liturgical writer, one of the greatest Orientalists of his time, and a trustworthy political advisor. One of the prominent men of the reign of Louis XIV, he enjoyed the friendship of numerous literary and political celebrities, among others Bossuet, whom he supported in the controversies with Richard Simon, Fénelon and the Jesuits. Towards the last he assumed the unfriendly attitude of the Gallican and Jansenist. Numerous high distinctions were conferred upon him, among them membership in the French Academy (1689), the Academy of Inscriptions (1691), and the Accademia della Crusca of Florence. Most of his writings were prepared not merely for the extension of scientific knowledge, but also in defence of the Catholic Church. Among them are contributions to "Perpétuité de la foi", a work published by Nicole and Antoine Arnauld against the Calvinists, the fourth and fifth volumes of which are entirely due to Renaudot's pen (Paris, 1711, 1713). He published, moreover, "Défense de la perpétuité de la foi" (Paris, 1708); "Gennadii Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Homiliae de Eucharistia" (Paris, 1709); "Historia Patriarcharum Alexandrinorum" (Paris, 1713); "Liturgiarum orientalium collectio" (Paris, 1715-16); "Anciennes relations des Indes et de la Chine" (Paris, 1718). His opinion of Bayle's "Dictionnaire" was published by Jurieu (Rotterdam, 1697). VILLIEN, Eusebe Renaudot (Paris, 1904). N.A. WEBER Theophraste Renaudot Théophraste Renaudot b. at Loudun, 1586; d. at Paris, 25 October, 1653. Doctor of the medical faculty at Montpellier in 1606, he travelled in Italy in order to study the workings of the pawn-shop (mons pietatis) in that country. On his return to France, Leclerc du Tremblay, known as Pére Joseph, summoned him to court to explain his theories on the alleviation of poverty. He was named physician in ordinary to the king (1612) and in 1617 obtained the privilege of founding an intelligence office where poor people might make known their needs, free of charge, and inquire as to places where work could be had, and where charitable people could learn the names of the deserving poor. In 1618, he received the title of commissioner-general to the poor of the kingdom. In 1628, after the surrender of La Rochelle, he became a Catholic and from this time, thanks to the help of Richelieu, his charitable activity was most fruitful. Renaudot added to his intelligence office a pawn-shop and an auction-house. On 30 May, 1631, he established a weekly, the "Gazette de France", in which he defended the politics of Richelieu. About 1632, he created in his intelligence office weekly conferences which constituted a kind of free school of medical sciences. Finally, dating from 1640, he inaugurated free consultations for the sick, in which he was assisted by fifteen physicians, and free visiting physicians. He published "La présence des absents" (1642), the first treatise in France on diagnosis, and which aimed at permitting sick persons at a distance from all medical aid to describe their symptoms to the physician. In 1640, the medical faculty of Paris wished to forbid him to practise; it relied upon Parliament, which was hostile to Richelieu, and a pamphlet of Guy Patin violently attacked Renaudot. Louis XIII by a decree of 14 July, 1641, decided in favour of Renaudot, but after the deaths of Richelieu and Louis XIII, his enemies renewed their attacks, pretending that he had accused Louis XIII of favouring Lutheranism and that he had calumniated Anne of Austria. The provost of Paris at the end of 1643, and Parliament in 1644, prohibited him from the practice of medicine, and the medical faculty, 4 June, 1644, officially inaugurated another system of free consultations. Renaudot was, nevertheless, a pioneer in relief work for the poor, journalism, and medicine. The medical theories which he had held against the medical faculties of his times in favour of the use of antimony, laudanum, and quinine, have prevailed since his death. During the last years of his life he devoted his time wholly to the "Gazette". HATIN, Théophraste Renaudot (Paris, 1883); DE LA TOURETTE, Théophraste Renaudot (Paris, 1884). GEORGES GOYAU Guido Reni Guido Reni Italian painter, b. at Calvenzano near Bologna, 4 Nov., 1575; d. at Bologna, 18 Aug. 1642. At one time a memoir of Guido would have exalted him to the very highest position, especially if it had been written in England, for his works were very much in demand among art connoisseurs. His pictures fetched vast sums, and were held in the highest esteem by the collectors who knew nothing of and cared less for the works of the earlier Italian painters such as Gentile da Fabriano and Fra Angelico. Now for the time the works of this great craftsman are under a cloud, and his extraordinary powers of composition and conception, and his skill of draughtsmanship, are in danger of being overlooked by reason of an entire change of fashion. In his early days he was a colourist of great purity, a composer with dramatic force, regarded as one of the greatest masters of his time, and surrounded by pupils; but later on, his very success proved his undoing, and the pictures of his maturity and old age, though marked by facility and skill, evidence a certain monotonous melodrama and a thinness of impasto which has not tended to their permanency. He was educated first by Calvaert, later on with the Carracci, and for a while with Ferrantini. He worked with Annibale Carracci in Rome, assisted in the decoration of the Farnese Palace, the Quirinal Palace, several of the churches of Rome, and a chapel for the Borghese family, but his greatest painting in that city is undoubtedly the ceiling decoration of the Palazzo Rospigliosi -- Phoebus and the Hours preceded by Aurora. He painted also in Bologna, and commenced what probably would have been his masterpiece in Naples. His works can be studied in Dresden, St. Petersburg, Genoa, Vienna, and especially in England, as many of the famous houses of that country, such as Stafford House, Bridgwater House, Lowther Castle, Blair Castle, Kingston Lacy, Burghley House, Alton Towers, Charlton Park, Cobham Park, Narford Hall, and Windsor Castle, contain important works by him, while in Italy we find his paintings in Lucca, Milan, Modena, Padua, Pisa, Perugia, Ravenna, Siena, Turin, Venice, and elsewhere. He was a man of great energy, but unfortunately of considerable self-conceit, and of prodigious activity. He was a skilful engraver and etcher; he worked in silver point and in pastel, painted ceilings and walls in fresco, and numberless panel pictures. In his own time he was perhaps the most popular artist in Italy, and in the eighteenth century occupied a similar position in England. Presently his work will be more appreciated for its own sake than it has been, his faults will be more clearly noticed, and his excellencies have a greater value. Our principal source of information respecting him is a MS. by Oretti in the library in Bologna, from which all authors have taken materials, but it has never itself been printed. There are at present two books in hand on this painter, but neither of them are sufficiently complete to be worth quoting. GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Archdiocese of Rennes Archdiocese of Rennes (RHEDONENSIS) Rennes includes the Department of Ille et Vilaine. The Concordat of 1802 re-established the Diocese of Rennes which since then has included; 1. the ancient Diocese of Rennes with the exception of three parishes given to Nantes; 2. the greater part of the ancient Diocese of Dol; 3. the greater part of the ancient Diocese of St. Malo; 4. ten parishes that had formed part of the ancient Diocese of Vannes and Nantes. On 3 January, 1859, the See of Rennes, which the French Revolution had desired to make a metropolitan, became an archiepiscopal see, with the Dioceses of Quimper, Vannes, and St. Brieuc as suffragans. Cardinal Place obtained from Leo XIII permission for the Archbishop of Rennes to add the titles of Dol and St. Malo to that of Rennes. Rennes was the capital of Brittany. Under the Roman Empire Brittany had formed part of the province of Tertia Lugdunensis (Third Lyonnesse), but from 383 to 509 it was an independent kingdom; afterwards, under the Merovingians, it ranked as a countship. The Kingdom of Brittany, founded by Nomenoë about 845, was shortlived, and after 874 Brittany was parcelled out among a number of counts, the most important of whom was the Count of Rennes. In 992 Geoffrey I, Count of Rennes, took the title of Duke of Brittany. The solemn and final union of Brittany with France was the result of the marriage of Francis I to Claudia of France, daughter of Anne of Brittany and Louis XII. Tradition names as first apostles of the future Diocese of Rennes, missionaries of the Latin race, but of an uncertain date: SS. Maximinus, Clarus, Justus. On the other hand, when in the fifth and sixth centuries bands of Christian Britons emigrated from Great Britain to Armorica and formed on its northern coast the small Kingdom of Domnonée, the Gospel was preached for the first time in the future Dioceses of Dol and Aleth. Among these missionaries were St. Armel, who, according to the legend, founded in the sixth century the town of Ploermel in the Diocese of Vannes and then retired into the forests of Chateaugiron and Janzé and attacked Druidism on the very site of the Dolmen of the Fairy Rocks (La Roche aux Fées); St. Méen (Mevennus) who retired to the solitudes around Pontrecoët and founded the monastery of Gael (550), known afterwards as St. Méen's; St. Lunarius and St. Suliacus who dwelt in the woods along the banks of the Rance, and Sts. Samson and Malo. I. DIOCESE OF RENNES The earliest historical mention of the See of Rennes dates from 453. One of the four prelates, Sarmatio, Chariato, Rumoridus, and Viventius who in that year took part in the Council of Angers, was Bishop of Rennes. One Athenius, Bishop of Rennes, took part in the Council of Tours in 461. Mgr Duchesne is of opinion that the St. Amandus reckoned among the bishops of Rennes at the end of the fifth century is the same as St. Amand of Rodez. Among other bishops are the famous St. Melanius (Melaine) who in 511 assisted at the Council of Orléans and had a widespread reputation for sanctity. He gave his name to a well-known abbey, which in the twelfth century possessed no less than seventy parish churches. Famous among the annals of Rennes are: St. Desiderius (Didier) whose episcopate is questioned by Mgr Duchesne (c. 682); St. Moderamnus (Moran) who died about 730 in the monastery of Berceto near Lucca; Marbodus, the hymnographer (1096-1123); the Dominican Yves Mayeuc (1507-41); Arnaud d'Ossat (1596-1600), cardinal in 1599, and prominent in the conversion of Henry IV; Godefroy Brossais Saint Marc (1848-78), cardinal in 1875; Charles Place (1878-93), cardinal in 1886; Guillaume Labouré (1893-1906), cardinal in 1897, Le Coz (1760-1815) during the Revolution was constitutional Archbishop of Rennes. Under the Concordat he became Archbishop of Besançon. In the Middle Ages the Bishop of Rennes had the privilege of crowning the dukes of Brittany in his cathedral. On the occasion of his first entry into Rennes it was customary for him to be borne on the shoulders of four Breton barons. II. DIOCESE OF ST. MALO The monk Malo (died about 600) at the end of the sixth century came from Wales at the head of a band of emigrants and founded two monasteries on the coast near the Roman post of Aleth. Two legendary biographies of him which date from the ninth century make him the first Bishop of Aleth. The biography of King Saint Judicael, written in the eleventh century, mentions as a contemporary of the king, a Saint Maelmon, Bishop of Aleth. Local breviaries of the fifteenth century, mention three bishops prior to Maelmon: Enogat, Gurval, and Coalfinit. In Mgr Duchesne's opinion one thing only is certain that the Diocese of Aleth existed in Charlemagne's time. The town of Aleth was destroyed by the Normans, and soon after 1141, the seat of the diocese was removed to the Isle of St. Aaron (so-called after a hermit who lived there early in the sixth century), on which stood the town afterwards known as St. Malo. This change was endorsed by Eugene III in spite of the protests of the monks of Marmoutiers who had a foundation on the island. Among the bishops of St. Malo are: Blessed John de la Grille (1144-63) under whom the see was transferred; William de Montfort (1423-32), cardinal in 1426; William Briçonnet (1493-1513); Harlay de Saucy (1632-46). III. DIOCESE OF DOL The Life of St. Samson, which cannot be of earlier date than the seventh century, mentions the foundation of the monastery of Dol by St. Samson. He was doubtless already a bishop when he came from Great Britain to Armorica, and it is he perhaps who assisted at the Council of Paris between 561 and 567. But in the biography there is nothing to prove that he founded the See of Dol or that he was its first bishop. In the twelfth century, to support its claim against the Metropolitan of Tours, the Church of Dol produced the names of a long list of archbishops: St. Samson, St. Magloire, St. Budoc, St. Génevée, St. Restoald, St. Armel, St. Jumael, St. Turian. Mgr Duchesne discounts and doubts this list. He is of the opinion that the abbey of Dol may have had at its head from time to time abbots with episcopal jurisdiction, but that Dol was not the seat of a diocese. Under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, the Vicariate of Dol and the monastery of St. Méen were still included in the Diocese of Aleth; so that the first Bishop of Dol was Festianus (Festgen) mentioned for the first time between 851 and 857, and installed by King Nomenoë. Among the bishops of Dol are: Baudri (1107-30), author of a poem on the conquest of England by William the Conqueror; Alain, Cardinal de Coetivy (1456-74), as legate of Callistus III, brought Charles VII to assist the Greeks against the Turks who were besieging Constantinople; Urban René de Hercé (1767-95), emigrated to England during the Revolution, but accompanied to Brittany the royalist troops who attempted to land at Quiberon. He was arrested with his brother, and shot at Vannes, 3 July, 1795. There was a struggle from the ninth to the eleventh century to free the Church of Brittany from the Metropolitan of Tours. It is important to consider the point closely. From a comparison made by Mgr Duchesne between the Life of St. Conwoion, the "Indiculus de episcoporum Britonum depositione", and an almost completely restored letter of Leo IV, it would appear that shortly before 850, Nomenoë wishing to be anointed king, and finding opposition among the prelates of Brittany, sought to get rid of them by charging them with simony. Their only fault was perhaps that they demanded eulogia from their priests when the latter came to synods. After listening to a deputation of Breton bishops and to St. Conwoion, founder of the Abbey of St-Sauveur at Redon, who had been sent to Rome by Nomenoë, Leo IV declared that the charge of simony must be adjudicated by a competent tribunal of twelve bishops, and must be attested by seventy-two witnesses, thereby disputing Nomenoë's claim to a right to depose bishops. But Nomenoë did depose, and in a brutal manner, the four bishops of Vannes: Aleth, Quimper, and St, Pol de Léon, and made seven dioceses out of their four; one of the new dioceses had its seat in the abbey of Dol and became straightway an archdiocese. The remaining two were in the monasteries of St. Brieuc and Pabu-Tutual (Tréguier). At the end of 850 or beginning of 851 the bishops of the four provinces of Tours, Sens, Reims, and Rouen, wrote a letter of reprimand to Nomenoë and threatened him with excommunication. He paid no heed to them and died 7 March, 851. Salomon, Nomenoë's second successor, requested Benedict IV in vain to regularize the situation of the Breton hierarchy. In the name of the Council of Savonnières (859) the seven metropolitans of the three kingdoms of Charles the Bald, of Lothaire II, and of Charles of Provence, wrote to the Bishop of Rennes and to the bishops occupying the new Sees of Dol, St. Brieuc, and Tréguier, reproaching them with lack of obedience to the Metropolitan of Tours. This letter was not sent to the Bishops of Vannes, Quimper, Aleth, and St. Pol de Léon who wrongly occupied the sees of the legitimate bishops illegally deposed by Nomenoë. It achieved nothing. In 862 Salomon dealt directly with Nicholas I, and at first tried to mislead the pope by means of false allegations and forgeries; then he restored Felix of Quimper and Liberalis of Léon to their sees, but still kept Susannus of Vannes and Salocon of Aleth in exile. Nicholas I died in 867. Adrian II (867-72) and John VIII (872-82) continued to uphold the rights of the Metropolitan of Tours. Then came the deaths of Salomon and of Susannus, and a conciliatory mood developed. There was no formal act on the part of the Holy See recognizing Dol as a new metropolitan church; it never had control over Rennes or Nantes, and it was mainly over the new Sees of St. Brieuc and Tréguier that it exercised ascendancy. Finally in May, 1199, Innocent III restored the old order of things, and subordinated anew all Brittany to Tours but did not interfere with the diocesan boundaries set up by the daring Nomenoë, and they remained in force until the Revolution. The Bishop of Dol retained until 1789 the insignia of an archbishop, but without an archbishop's privileges. The pilgrimage of the Seven Saints of Brittany was a widespread devotion during the Middle Ages, and probably antedates the year 1000. Four times a year, at Easter, Pentecost, Michaelmas, and Christmas, crowds of pilgrims on foot paid within thirty days a round of visits to the seven sanctuaries, Dol, St. Brieuc, Tréguier, Léon, Quimper, Vannes, St. Malo. A paved road, that kept up an earlier line uf Roman roads, was followed by these endless pilgrimages, whence arose the present custom of dedicating chapels to the Seven Saints. The ancient Abbeys of St. Melanius, St. Méen, Redon, and Paimpont, the abbeys of Canons Regular of Rillé (founded about 1143), of Montfort (founded about 1152) were very useful in restoring the parochial services after the disorders of the early Middle Ages. Two thirds of the churches in the territory date from the eleventh or twelfth century, and were built by the monks and Canons Regular. The war of succession of Brittany (1341-64) between Jean de Montfort and Charles de Blois has an interest for the ecclesiastical historian owing to the fact that Charles de Blois has the title of Blessed. Dom Plaine has shown that the origin of the pilgrimage of Bonne Nouvelle at Rennes had nothing to do, as was often supposed, with a victory of Jean de Montfort over Blessed Charles de Blois. Some of the saints connected with the Archdiocese of Rennes are: St. Mevennus or Méen, St. Armel, St. Sulinus (Suliac), son of Broguenard, Prince of Wales, Abbot of the monastery of St. Suliac (died in 606); St. Judicael (584-658), twice King of the Bretons, twice monk in the monastery founded by St. Méen, and founder of the abbey of Paimpont; St. Geldouin, canon of Dol (died 1076 or 1077), who refused to become a bishop in spite of the appeals of Gregory VII; Venerable Robert d'Arbrissel, founder of the order of Fontevrault (died 1117), a native of Arbrissel near Rennes; Blessed Ralph de la Futaye, founder about 1096 of the Abbey of St. Sulpice at Rennes, known originally as Our Lady of the Blackbirds; St. Yves (1253-1303), who held an official position in the Diocese of Rennes; Venerable John de St. Samson, blind from birth, a Carmelite of Rennes and the great Breton contemplative, died in 1636, leaving many writings of a mystical character; Ven. Pierre Quintin (died 1629), a Dominican of Vitre, and one of the collaborators of Ven. Michel de Nobletz in his apostolate. Caradeuc de la Chalotais (1701-85), born at Rennes, procurator of Brittany, was one of the first magistrates to lead the way for the abolition of the Jesuits in France by his comptes-rendus of the constitutions of the Jesuits, read to the Parliament in Dec., 1761, and in May, 1762. Grimm said that the Jesuits might consider Le Chalotais as their destroyer in France. Other natives of Rennes are the Benedictine Lobineau (1606-1727), famous for his "histoire de la Brétagne" (1707), and the Jesuit philologian Tournemine (1661-1739). Jacques Cartier (1494-1552), the discoverer of Canada; the naval commander Duguay-Trouin (1673-1736), who took Rio de Janeiro in 1711; La Bourdonnais (1699-1753), another sailor who fought against the English in India; the writers Chateaubriand (1768-1848) and Lamennais (1782-1854) were natives of St. Malo. Duguesclin (died 1380), famous during the Hundred Years' War, was born at Château de la Motte de Bron; the Château des Rochers where Madame de Sévigné lived (1626-96) is near Vitre. The chief shrines of the archdiocese are: Notre-Dame des Miracles et Vertus, in St-Sauveur's at Rennes, a place of pilgrimage since the siege of Rennes by the English under the Duke of Lancaster in 1357; Notre-Dame de Bonne Nouvelle, at Rennes, a Dominican's shrine, a place of pilgrimage as early as 1466; Notre-Dame des Marais, at Fougères, dating from the tenth century, but particularly famous during the seventeenth century; Notre-Dame de Paimpont; Notre-Dame de la Peinière at Saint Didier, a pilgrimage from very early times. Before the application of the Associations Law in 1901 there were in the archdiocese: Eudists, Recollets, Lazarists, Carmelites, and several orders of teaching Brothers. Among congregations of women originating in the diocese are the Daughters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, founded in 1640 by Mlle Morel du Verger for the care of incurables, with mother-house at Rennes; The Adoratrices of the Divine Justice, a teaching and nursing order with mother-house at Fougères; the Sisters of the Immaculate Conception, a teaching and nursing order founded in 1831 at St. Méen by Père Corvoisier; the Sisters of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, known as Sisters of the Oaks, or of the Junior Schools, founded in 1850 by Amélie Fristel, a nursing and teaching order with mother-house at Paramé and branches at Halifax and Ste Marie in Canada; Little Sisters of the Poor, founded in 1842 at Rennes by Jeanne Jugan, Fanchon Aubert, Marie Jamet, Virginie Tredaniel under the guidance of Abbé Lepailleur, and installed through the efforts of Abbé Ernest Lelièvre in all parts of the world. Their motherhouse at St. Pern in the Diocese of Rennes controlled in 1905, 106 houses in France, 51 in Spain, 29 in England, 30 in America, 16 in Italy, 13 in Belgium, 4 in Africa, 3 in Oceania, 1 in Portugal, 1 in Turkey; 33,123 aged and infirm persons were cared for by 4475 sisters. At the close of the nineteenth century the religious congregations in the diocese had charge of 1 crèche, 31 nurseries, 1 home for infirm children, 1 deaf and dumb school, 5 orphanages for boys, 14 for girls, 34 hospitals or infirmaries, 18 district nursing homes, 2 retreat houses, 3 homes for incurables, 1 lunatic asylum. In 1909 the Archdiocese of Rennes numbered 621,384 souls in 60 parishes with 324 auxiliary parishes and 379 curacies. Gallia christiana, XIV (nova 1856), 739-67, 993-1017, 1038-68; instrumenta, 163-70. 233-44, 245-60; DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux, II, 249-74, 340-3; TRESVAUX, L'Eglise de Bretagne (Paris, 1839); DE CORSON, Pouillé historique de l'archevêché de Rennes (6 vols., Rennes, 1880-6); IDEM, L'Eglise de Rennes à travers les âges (Nantes, 1885); DE LA BORDERIE AND POCQUET, Hist. de Bretagne (4 vols., Rennes, 1895-1906); DE VILLENEUVE AND MAILLET, Hist. de Rennes (Paris, 1845); PLAINE, Hist. du culte de la Sainte Vierge dans la ville de Rennes (Rennes, 1872); DELARUE, Le clergé et le culte catholique en Bretagne pendant la Révolution: district de Dol (5 vols., Rennes, 1903-8); CUNAT, Hist. de la Cité d'Aleth (St. Malo, 1851); CAMPION, L'enceinte romaine d'Aleth (Vannes, 1908); MARION, La Brétagne el le duc d'Aiguillon (Paris, 1898); POULAIN, Hist. de St. Malo, la cité corsaire (Lille, 1887); CREVEDY, Les Sept Saints de Brétagne et leur pèlerinage (St. Brieuc, 1898); LE GRAND (DE MORLAIX), Les Vies des Saints de la Brétagne armorique, annotated by THOMAS AND ABGRALL (5th ed., Quimper, 1901). GEORGES GOYAU. Gaston Jean Baptiste de Renty Gaston Jean Baptiste de Renty Born 1611 at the castle of Beni, Diocese of Bayeux in Normandy; died 24 April, 1649. The only son of Charles, Baron de Renty, and Elisabeth de Pastoureau, Gaston studied at the Collège de Navarre in Paris, with the Jesuits at Caen, and finished at the age of seventeen at the College of the Nobles in Paris. He wrote several treatises on mathematics in which he excelled. The reading of the Imitation of Christ aroused the desire to become a Carthusian, but obeying the wish of his parents, he married. In 1638 he abandoned public life and devoted himself to the service of the needy and suffering. Struck by the ignorance, in religious matters, of the travellers who found a night's rest at the Hospital of St. Gervaise in Paris, he gave them catechetical instructions and induced others to do likewise. In the course of his charitable works he made the acquaintance of Henry Michael Buch (b. 1590 in the Duchy of Luxembourg; d. 9 June, 1666 at Paris; surnamed der gute Heinrich) and induced him to found a congregation of shoemakers and tailors, Frères Cordonniers. They worked honestly at their trade, divided their earnings with the poor and performed special acts of devotion prescribed by the pastor of St. Paul's. The statutes were approved by the Archbishop of Paris, John Francis de Gondi. After his death, Renty's body was brought to Citri in the Diocese of Soissons. When the coffin was opened nine years later his body was found intact The bishop ordered it placed in a marble tomb behind the high altar. Throughout his career at court, in the army, and in politics he merited the esteem of all, and took an active part in public good works. HÉLYOT, Gesch. d. Klöster u. Ritterorden, VIII (Leipzig, 1756), 207; ST. JURE, Das Bild eines vollkommenen Christen (Ratisbon, 1837); MICHAUD, Biog. Univers.; HELYOT-BADICHE, Dict. des ordres relig., I (Paris, 1847), 1139. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Renunciation Renunciation (Lat. renuntiare). A canonical term signifying the resignation of an ecclesiastical office or benefice. It may be defined as the abdication of a clerical dignity made freely and spontaneously, for just reasons, into the hands of the legitimate superior who accepts it. Generally speaking, any ecclesiastic may renounce his dignity whether his office be perpetual or temporal. To be valid, the resignation must be free, that is, not extorted by fear, or threats, or fraud. It must be made into the hands of the superior who had conferred it, that is of the pope for bishops and holders of major benefices; of the ordinary for parish priests and all incumbents of minor benefices. As to the pope himself, he may abdicate his dignity, but, as he has no earthly superior, his resignation must simply be declared canonically (see Abdication). Before a renunciation is canonically valid, it must be accepted by the legitimate superior, for otherwise it would work great detriment to the Church. Moreover, no one is at liberty to resign his office unless he is certain of revenues for his competent support. A resignation may be absolute or conditional. The latter term is used for renunciations that are made in favour of a third person, or with reservation of a pension, or when incumbents exchange benefices. The causes for which resignations are lawful are given in verse in the "Corpus juris canonici" (cap. x, "de renunt", 1, 9); Debilis, ignarus, male conscius, irregularis, Quem mala plebs odit, dans scandala, cedere possit. Therefore, one may justly resign on account of ill-health, want of proper knowledge, consciousness of guilt, clerical irregularity, ill-will of the people, or scandalous behavior. Smith, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, I (New York, 1895); Taunton, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), s. v. Resignation; Sanguinetti, Juris ecclesiastici institutiones (Rome, 1896). William H.W. Fanning Reordinations Reordinations I. STATE OF THE QUESTION The Oratorian Jean Morin, in the seventeenth century, and Cardinal Hergenröther, in the nineteenth, designated as "reordinations" the history of all ordinations which were considered null for any other reason than defect of the prescribed form or intention and which were repeated. This means that if there were in fact reordinations corresponding to this definition they were unjustifiable because theology determines as the sole causes of nullity of the Sacrament of Holy orders defect of the prescribed form or intention. But in the course of the history of the Church other causes of nullity have been admitted in certain circumstances. It has been admitted that all or any sacraments administered or received extra ecclesiam (outside the Church) were null and had to be repeated. By the words extra ecclesiam is understood the situation of the minister or the Christian separated from the Church by heresy, or schism, or excommunication. At certain periods these separatists were considered so dangerous and were kept at such a distance that there was a tendency to deny them wholly or in part the power of conferring the sacraments. The maxim, "Out of the Church, no sacraments", was applied with more or less severity. II. THE FACTS That this history is complex and difficult is shown by the action of the Council of Trent. The council declared as a truth of faith the doctrine affirming the validity of baptism administered outside the Church according to the prescribed form and intention; but the validity of confirmation and Holy orders conferred under the same conditions was not defined as a matter of faith, owing to the waverings and partial disagreements on these points of tradition revealed by the history of theology. The council was unwilling to give a definition that would place the doctrine of numerous writers in opposition to a teaching of faith. A good judge in these matters, Father Perrone, has written: "Ordinationes ab illegitimo ministro peractas illicitus esse, nemo umquam theologorum dubitavit: utrum vero præterea irritæ, inanes ac nullæ habendæ sint, implicatissima olim questio fuit, adeo ut Magister Sententiarum scribat: 'Hanc quæstionem perplexam ac pæne insolubilem faciunt doctorum verba, quæ plurimum dissentire videntur' (I, iv, dist. 25); deinde profert quatuor sententias, qui nulli adhæreat. Monumenta ecclesiastica prope innumera pro utraque sententia, sive affirmante irritas esse eiusmodi ordinationes sive negante, stare videntur, cum res nondum eliquata esset. Nunc iam a pluribus sæculis sola viget S. Thomæ doctrina, cui suffragium accessit universæ ecclesiæ, ordinationes ab hæreticis, schismaticis ac simoniacis factas validas omnino esse habendas"-That ordinations performed by an unlawful minister are illicit, no theologian ever doubted; but whether they are, moreover, to be regarded as null and void was of old a most intricate question-so much so that the Master of the Sentences writes: "This problem is rendered complex and almost insoluble by the statements of the doctors which show considerable discrepancy" (I, iv, dist. 25). He then presents four opinions, none of which he adopts. For each view-that which affirms and that which denies the nullity of such ordinations-there seemed to be innumerable evidences from church history, as long as the question was not cleared up. But for several centuries past, the teaching of St. Thomas alone has prevailed and is accepted by the whole Church, to the effect that ordinations performed by heretical, schismatical, or simoniacal ministers are to be considered as valid ["Tractatus de ordine", cap. iv, n. 136, in Migne, "Theologiæ cursus completus", XXV (Paris, 1841), 55]. In the second half of the fifth century the Church of Constantinople repeated the confirmation and ordination conferred by the Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, Quartodecimans, and Apollinarists (Beveridge, "Synodicon", II, Oxford, 1672, Annotationes, 100). The Roman Synod of 769 permitted and even prescribed the repetition of orders conferred by the antipope Constantine ("Liber Pont.", ed. Duchesne, I, 408 sqq.). In the ninth century, during the struggle with the chorepiscopi, the ordinations conferred by those prelates were often declared null. In 881-82 Pope John VIII prescribed the reordination of Bishop Joseph of Vercelli, who had been ordained by the Archbishop of Milan, then under the ban of excommunication. On several occasions the ordinations conferred by Pope Formosus were declared null and were repeated. After the eleventh century the discussions concerning simony gave new sharpness to the controversy about reordinations. Cardinal Humbert affirmed the nullity of simoniacal ordinations as did also the Synod of Girona (Spain) in 1078. In the strife between the emperors of Germany and the popes of the eleventh and twelfth centuries the power of ordination of schismatic bishops was discussed and denied in various ways (cf. Saltet, "Les réordinations", 205-412). In the thirteenth century the conditions for the validity of Holy orders were determined in such a way that since then all uncertainty has been excluded. III. INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The chief instances just cited and the attempts that have been made to justify them, constitute, from the theological standpoint, doctrinal deformations. It is not then surprising that these difficulties have sometimes and even quite recently, been used as objections against the Church and the pope, especially by Anglicans, who are always sensitive on the question of ordinations. It is true that during these controversies the doctrinal authority of the popes was more than once involved. But to what extent? It is obvious that the decisions of the popes on these points did not possess the character required by the Council of the Vatican for definitions involving the sovereign authority of the pope in doctrinal matters. In the history of reordinations the authority of the popes is much less concerned than in the doctrine regarding the relations of the civil and ecclesiastical powers, in which, nevertheless, as theologians maintain, papal infallibility is not involved (cf. J. Fessler, "La vraie et la fausse infallibilité des papes", Paris, 1873). The question as to the conditions for the validity of certain sacraments was one of those that caused serious divisions in the early Church. The popes cannot be held responsible for these lengthy controversies. In ancient times it was the whole Church that sought the solution of these great difficulties. At a time when ecclesiastical organization was only just beginning, the initiative, and the responsibilities as well, were heavy burdens for the great Churches and their heads. It was not only the tradition of Rome which at first was somewhat hesitant on certain aspects of this question, but that of the Church in general, and in this matter the tradition of Rome was incomparably more firm than that of all the other Churches. To accuse the Church in Rome in this matter is to accuse the Universal Church; and on this as on so many other questions the Anglican Church has an interest in common with the Roman Church. Old Catholics and Anglicans often bring charges against the Roman See, which, if they had the value that is claimed for them, would tell not only against the popes but also against the early Church and the Fathers. Against this manner of representing the state of theological tradition concerning the conditions for the validity of Holy orders, only they can raise objection who interpret in a strict sense the saying of Vincent of Lérins: "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus". But to defend this thesis is to undertake to show in tradition the absolute identity and the unchangeableness of the most essential Christian doctrines, a task which will readily appear impossible. History shows us in the life of the Church and in doctrine a movement between determined limits and the popes as regulators of this movement. To implicate the popes in the long history of these controversies it must be proved that they failed in this task, which cannot be done. Morin, Commentarius de sacris ecclesiæ ordinationibus (Paris, 1655); HergenrÖther, Die Reordination der alten Kirche in Oesterreich. Vierteljahresschr. für kathol. Theol. (1862), 207-52, 387-456; Idem, Photius Patriarch von Constantinopel, sein Leben seine Schriften u. das griech. Schisma (Ratisbon, 1867-69); Saltet, Les réordinations, étude sur le sacrement de l'ordre (Paris, 1907); Kern, Bibl. in Zeitschr. für kathol. Theol. (1907), 507-15; Lebbe, Bibl. in Revue bénédictine (1907), 560-65; Wordsworth in The Guardian (London, 1908, 25 Nov. and 2 Dec.), 1963 sqq., 2005 sqq.; and the reply of Saltet in The Guardian (1908, 30 Dec., 2175 sqq.); Wordsworth, Ordination Problems (London, 1908), cf. Saltet in Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique (Toulouse, 1909), 276. Louis Saltet Reparation Reparation Reparation is a theological concept closely connected with those of atonement and satisfaction, and thus belonging to some of the deepest mysteries of the Christian Faith. It is the teaching of that Faith that man is a creature who has fallen from an original state of justice in which he was created, and that through the Incarnation, Passion, and Death of the Son of God, he has been redeemed and restored again in a certain degree to the original condition. Although God might have condoned men's offences gratuitously if He had chosen to do so, yet in His Providence He did not do this; He judged it better to demand satisfaction for the injuries which man had done Him. It is better for man's education that wrong doing on his part should entail the necessity of making satisfaction. This satisfaction was made adequately to God by the Sufferings, Passion, and Death of Jesus Christ, made Man for us. By voluntary submission to His Passion and Death on the Cross, Jesus Christ atoned for our disobedience and sin. He thus made reparation to the offended majesty of God for the outrages which the Creator so constantly suffers at the hands of His creatures. We are restored to grace through the merits of Christ's Death, and that grace enables us to add our prayers, labours, and trials to those of Our Lord "and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ" (Col., i, 24). We can thus make some sort of reparation to the justice of God for our own offences against Him, and by virtue of the Communion of the Saints, the oneness and solidarity of the mystical Body of Christ, we can also make satisfaction and reparation for the sins of others. This theological doctrine, firmly rooted in the Christian Faith, is the foundation of the numerous confraternities and pious associations which have been founded, especially in modern times, to make reparation to God for the sins of men. Thus the Archconfraternity of Reparation for blasphemy and the neglect of Sunday was founded 28 June, 1847, in the Church of St. Martin de La Noue at St. Dizier in France by Mgr. Parisis, Bishop of Langres. With a similar object, the Archconfraternity of the Holy Face was established at Tours, about 1851, through the piety of M. Dupont, the "holy man of Tours". In 1883 an association was formed in Rome to offer reparation to God on behalf of all nations. The idea of reparation is an essential element in the devotion of the Sacred Heart (see Heart of Jesus, Devotion to the). The Mass, the representation of the sacrifice of Calvary, is specially suited to make reparation for sin. One of the ends for which it is offered is the propitiation of God's wrath. A pious widow of Paris conceived the idea of promoting this object in 1862. By the authority of Pope Leo XIII the erection of the Archconfraternity of the Mass of Reparation was sanctioned in 1886. T. SLATER Philip Repington Philip Repington ( Also Repyngdon). Cardinal-priest of the title of SS. Nereus and Achilleus, Bishop of Lincoln (1404-1419); died early in 1424. The place and date of his birth are uncertain, but he was educated at Broadgates Hall, Oxford, and became an Augustinian canon of St. Mary de Pre, Leicester. In his early life he was infected with Wyclifism, and was suspended at the Council of Blackfriars, 12 June, 1382, being excommunicated at Canterbury on 1 July. Recanting his heretical views, he was restored to the communion of the Church during the autumn of the same year. In 1394 he became abbot of his monastery, and was Chancellor of the University of Oxford for the years 1397, 1400, 1401 and 1402. On the accession of Henry IV he became confessor and chaplain to the king, with whom he lived in great intimacy, and on 19 Nov., 1404, he was appointed Bishop Of Lincoln by papal provision, being consecrated on 29 March following. Pope Gregory XII created him a cardinal in Sept., 1408, but as the Council of Pisa on 5 June, 1409, deposed Gregory and annulled all his acts since May, 1408, Repington's cardinate was invalidated until the Council of Constance, when he was reinstated. In 1419 Cardinal Repington resigned his bishopric, probably for court reasons, and this resignation was accepted by the pope on 21 November. The date of his death is unknown, but it occurred before 1 August, 1424, when his will was proved. His "Sermons on the Gospels" are extant in several manuscripts in Oxford, Cambridge, and British Museum. EDWIN BURTON Altar of Repose Altar of Repose (Sometimes called less properly sepulchre or tomb, more frequently repository). The altar where the Sacred Host, consecrated in the Mass on Holy Thursday, is reserved until the Mass of the Presanctified (see GOOD FRIDAY) on the following day. It is prescribed that the altar of repose be in the church and other than the one where Mass is celebrated. In the Mass on Holy Thursday two hosts are consecrated; after the consumption of the first, the second Host is placed in a chalice, which is covered with a pall and inverted paten; over the whole is placed a white veil, tied with a ribbon. This remains on the corporal in the centre of the altar till the end of Mass, when it is carried in solemn procession to the altar of repose, there to remain in the tabernacle or in an urn placed in a prominent position above the altar. Individual churches vie with one another in rendering these altars of repose with their respective chapels ornate in the extreme, with rich hangings, beautiful flowers, and numerous lights. Catholic piety has made Holy Thursday a day of exceptional devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, and the repository is the centre of the love and aspirations of the faithful. Mention of the altar of repose and the procession thereto is not found before the close of the fifteenth century. The reservation of the Consecrated Species in the Mass of Holy Thursday, spoken of in earlier liturgical works, was for the distribution of Holy Communion, not for the service on the following day. ANDREW B. MEEHAN Reputation (As Property) Reputation (as Property) It is certain that a man is indefeasibly the owner of what he has been able to produce by his own labour out of his own material, employing his own resources. In much the same way his reputation, which is the outcome of his meritorious activity, is his property. To despoil him of this without adequate cause is to be guilty of formal injustice more or less grievous according to the harm done. It is a personal injury, a violation of commutative justice burdening the perpetrator with the obligation of restitution. Indeed St. Thomas, in attempting to measure the comparative malice of the sin of detraction, decides that whilst it is less than homicide or adultery it is greater than theft. This, because amongst all our external possessions a good name holds the primacy. Nor does it do to say that by wrongdoing, of whatever sort, a man forfeits such esteem as he may have hitherto won from his fellows. This statement is not true, not, at any rate, without qualification. If a man's sin is such as to affront the social organization itself, or is committed publicly, then his fair fame is destroyed and can no longer be reckoned among his assets. In this instance discussion of the evil deed implies no defamation. No damage can be wrought to what does not exist. We assume, of course, that reputation is the opinion held by many about a person's life and behaviour. If, however, a man has been guilty of some secret offence having nothing specially to do with society the case is far different. Then, barring the supposition in which it is necessary for the public welfare, our own, or another's defence, or even the culprit's good, we are not allowed to make known what is to his discredit. This teaching, as d'Annibale says, is quite certain; the reason for it is not so easy to assign. Perhaps it may be this: Character is a public thing. Such a one therefore is in peaceful possession of the esteem of the community. Granted that this is founded upon error or ignorance as to the actual conditions, still the isolated knowledge of one or other as to the real state of affairs confers no right to take from him the general favourable appreciation which he, as a matter of fact, enjoys. One who has injured another's reputation is bound to rehabilitate his victim as far as possible. If the statement was calumnious it must be retracted. If it was true, then some expedient or other must ordinarily be found to undo the harm. If as a result of the backbiting or slander there has followed, for example, the loss of money or position, this must be made good. It is probable that for the besmirching of reputation, as such, one is not obliged to make pecuniary compensation. This is so unless a judge of competent jurisdiction has so mulcted the traducer. In that case, the tale-bearer or slanderer is bound in conscience to obey the judicial direction. JOSEPH F. DELANY Requiem Masses Masses of Requiem Masses of Requiem will be treated under the following heads: I. Origins; II. Formulary; III. Colour of the Vestments; IV. Conditions for celebrating; V. Rite; VI. Solemn Funeral Mass; VII. Mass in Commemoration of All the Dead; VIII. Mass Post Acceptum Mortis Nuncium; IX. Masses of the Third, Seventh, and Thirtieth Days, and on Anniversaries; X. High Mass; XI. Low Mass. I. ORIGINS Requiem Masses are masses that are offered for the dead. They derive their name from the first word of the Introit, which may be traced to the Fourth Book of Esdras, one of the Apocrypha, at the passage "Expectate pastorem vestrum, requiem æternitatis dabit vobis . . . Parati estote ad præmia regni, qui lux perpetua lucabit vobis æternitatem temporis" (IV Esd., ii, 34, 35). It is also connected with a passage in Isaias, "Et requiem tibi dabit Dominus semper, et implebit splendoribus animam tuam" (Is. lxviii, 11). The Antiphon is from Psalm lxiv. The date of the adoption of this Introit is not well known, but it is found in the so-called Antiphonary of St. Gregory Come of Albino (see the edition Rome, 1691. p. 226). In that work, however, there are two other Introits for the Mass of the Dead, one of which is "Ego sum resurrectio et vita; . . . non morietur in æternam"; and the other, "Rogamus te, Dominus Deus noster, ut suscipias animam hujus defuncti, pro quo sanguinem tuum fudisti; recordare Domine quia pulvis sumus et homo sicut foenum flos agri." The religious idea that the soul is immortal made even the Jews hold that the just, after death, went to sleep with their fathers (cf. Gen., xlvii, 30; III Kings, ii, 10; II Mach., vii, 45), and Christians believed with St. Paul that they slept in Christ (I Cor, xv, 18). From the first century, therefore, prayers were offered that the dead might have eternal rest. Gregory of Tours (Glor. Mart., I, lxv), speaking of a Christian woman who each day caused the Divine Sacrifice to be offered for her deceased husband, says, "Non diffisa de Domine miseracordia, quod haberet defunctis requiem." And St. Ambrose (Ob. Valentiniani imp, no. 56) writes: "Date manibus sancta mysteria, pio requiem ejus poscamus officio." So originated the Introit for the Mass for the Dead. II. FORMULARY The formulary of a Mass consists of the liturgical texts that constitute the variable parts of the Mass, namely the Introit, Prayer, Epistle, Gradual, and Tract, and sometimes also the Sequence, Gospel, Offertory, Secret, Communion, and Post-Communion. Now the Missal has four of these formularies: (1) In commemoratione Omnium Defunctorum; (2) In die obitus; (3) In anniversario; (4) In missis quotidianis; but the only variations among them are in the Prayer, the Epistle, and the Gospel. In the Paris Missal of Ventimille, reviewed by Quelen (ed. Le Clere, 1841), there are five formularies and many other Epistles and Gospels, all of which deserved to be considered, because they are all taken from the Scriptures, and are very appropriate. Guyet, also (Heortol., IV, xxiii, 31), takes from local uses several formulæ for the Introit, etc. for the dead. There is nothing to be said in regard to the Gradual, or to the Communion of the Roman formulary. (In regard to the sequence, "Dies iræ", see DIES IRÆ.) A few remarks may be made, however, in regard to the Offertory, concerning which many writers have published contrary views (cf. Merati in "Not. Gavanti", I, xii, 2). The words "libera animas . . . de poenis inferni et de profundo lacu" may be easily understood to refer to purgatory, or, like those that follow . . . "libera eas de ore leonis, ne absorbeat eas tartarus, ne cadant in obscurum", as also the last ones, . . . "fac eas Domine, transire de morte ad vitam", they may bear the interpretation which is most in accord with history and with theology, i.e., the one given by Merati and by Benedict XIV (De sacrif. mis. II, ix, 4), cited by Grancolas (Antiq. sacrament eccl., p. 536). This Offertory is among the prayers that were formerly recited for the sick who were about to die, and was later adopted in the Mass, in the same manner as the Church is wont to pray, in Advent: "Rorate coeli desuper. Emitte agnum, Domine, dominatorem terræ. . . . O Adonai, veni ad liberandum nos", etc. . . . As, therefore, the Church refers these prayers to the time when the prophets were longing for the promised Messias, so also, she refers the Offertory of the Mass for the Dead to the time when the soul has not yet left the body. The same pope cites also an explanation by Sarnelli (Epist., III, 62) which is accepted by Thiers (De superstit., X, 15), and according to which these words refer to the lake and to the dark place of purgatory; but the words "Fac transire de morte ad vitam" are opposed to this interpretation. The rubric after the fourth formulary of the Missal (In missis quotidianis) leaves the celebrant free to select the Epistle and the Gospel, and consequently there remain to be recited according to prescription only the Prayers, which must be selected according to the indications of the Missal, in appropriate relation to the person for whom the Divine Sacrifice is offered. The ceremonies of the Mass of Requiem are the same as those of the so-called "Mass of the Living" with the exception of a few omissions and variations indicated in Title XIII of the Rubrics. The Psalm "Judica me" is omitted at the beginning; this omission certainly bears a relation to the masses of Passion Time, in which that psalm is likewise omitted. It should be noted, however, that the omission on Passion Sunday is due to the fact that the psalm is said in the Introit, and could not be recited twice. As this psalm xlii was omitted in all the ferial masses of Passion Time, that omission was regarded as a sign of mourning, and accordingly became a characteristic of the Mass of Requiem, although the psalm itself is not at variance with the nature of this Mass. The two doxologies and the Alleluia, which are regarded as expression of joy and festivity, are naturally omitted, to express mourning, although the Alleluia was formerly used in Masses of Requiem, as may be seen in the Antiphonary of St. Gregory mentioned above. (Cf. Cabrol, "Diction." s. v., col. 1235.) With regard to the omission of the blessing of the water which is poured into the chalice, rubricists, taking it one from the other, say with Gavantus (Rubr. Mis. II, vii, 4, g.) "Non benedicitur aqua . . .quæ populum significat, . . . vel aqua hoc loco significat populum Purgatorii, qui jam est in gratia." But, admitting that the water which is mixed with the wine represents the people, as Benedict XIV shows upon the authority of St. Cyprian (Sacr. Mis. II, x, 13), this mystic explanation does not show why the water should not be blessed. It seems more probable that the explanation for this practice should be sought in the principle, admitted in the Latin Rites, that, as evidence of mourning, all signs of reverence and salutations are omitted, among them the blessing of objects and of persons, just as on Good Friday the blessing of the water, all obeisances and salutations, and the blessing of the people are omitted. III. COLOUR OF THE VESTMENTS Requiem masses should always be celebrated with black vestments and ornaments, black, in the Latin Rite, representing the deepest mourning; for, as the Church robes its ministers in black on Good Friday, to show its greatest grief, caused by the death of the Divine Redeemer, while it uses the mixed colour of violet during Passion Tide, so also, in celebrating the obsequies of the dead, it uses the colour of greatest grief. The one exception to the above rule was made by the Congregation of Rites (decr. 3177 and 3844), which prescribed that when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed on All Souls day, in the devotion of the Forty Hours, the colour of the vestments must be violet. In many places it was held that bishops and cardinals might use violet vestments for the Mass of Requiem; and this opinion was put into practice. It may have originated in the fact that the Mass celebrated by a bishop is considered more solemn than others; on the other hand, it may be that, as the violet vestments were not used prior to the thirteenth century, because Innocent III makes no mention of them (Mist. Mis., I, lxv; P.L., 217), while black was used on penitential days, some bishops may have undertaken to substitute violet for black in the Requiem Mass also. This practice has received no authoritative sanction; and as the bishop, while officiating on a given day, must use vestments of the colour prescribed by the Rubrics for that day, there is no reason why he should make an exception for the Requiem Mass. And in fact, the cardinal who celebrates a solemn Mass for the dead in the pontifical chapel in the presence of the supreme pontiff, on occasions of the greatest solemnity, always uses black vestments. IV. CONDITIONS FOR THE CELEBRATION OF REQUIEM MASSES The Mass of Requiem is by its very nature extra ordinem officii, according to the Rubric (Rubr. Miss.); that is, it has no relation to the office of the day. From this point of view, the Mass of Requiem may be rightly considered a votive Mass. Now, according to the laws of the Church (Rubr. Miss. ante Mis. Vot.), votive Masses may not be celebrated "except for some reasonable cause" (nisi rationabili de causa), since "the Mass should, as far as possible, accord with the Office" (quod fieri potest Missa eum Officio conveniat); and therefore neither may requiem Masses be celebrated without reasonable motive; and this reasonable motive does not exist when the Mass is not to be offered for one, or several, dead, in particular, or for all the dead in general. For that reason, the custom that has grown up in our days, even in some of the Roman churches, of providing only black vestments in the sacristies on the days of Semi-double, Non-festive, or Non-privileged, Rite, is not to be approved. It may be said, however, in justification of this practice, that at present alms for Masses are given, in greater part, on behalf of the dead; yet it is true that many stipends are paid with the intention of obtaining special graces in behalf of the living, particularly at the sanctuaries to which the faithful resort to venerate the saints or the Blessed Virgin. The priest, however, who knows that he should offer the Mass in behalf of living persons, and not for the departed, has no reasonable cause to celebrate the Mass of Requiem, and therefore may not licitly celebrate it. This seems to be a rule without exception. That Masses that are said according to the Office of the day may be applied to the dead, is easily understood, since the formulary of the Mass is separable from the application of the Sacrifice itself. So also, there is no doubt about the application of the merits of the Sacrifice to the living, even though the formulary be that of Requiem (cf. Bucceroni, "Enchr. Mor.", 3rd ed., p. 282); but it is not licit, since the liturgical rules clearly and justly allow the reading of the Mass of Requiem only for its application to one or more of the dead. There are other conditions for the celebration of the Requiem Mass; one is that the rite of the day should allow the celebration; another than the celebrant should not be obliged, by reason of his official position, to celebrate a Mass of the living. More will be said in regard to this impediment of the rite or of the solemnity of the day, when we come to speak of the various masses of Requiem. As to the impediment that arises from the celebrant's official charge, we may say at once that it can be either the obligation of saying the conventual Mass or that of saying the parochial Mass on a feast day. It is known that the conventual Mass, which is celebrated by chapters, in cathedrals and in collegiate churches, is never to be omitted, since it is the chief and noblest part of the whole office (Benedict XIV, Constit. 19 Aug., 1744, n. 11); for which reason, if there should be but one priest at a collegiate church, it would be his duty to say the conventual Mass, even if the solemn obsequies of one deceased were to be celebrated, as the Ritual expressly provides (VII, i, 5). The same is to be said of the parochial Mass, which the parish priest is to celebrate pro populo on each feast day; for which reason, if there should be but one parish priest at a parish church on a feast day, and he should not be privileged to say more than one Mass, he may not celebrate the Mass of Requiem, even if it be a question of the obsequies of the one deceased, præsente cadavere. The reason for this prohibition is the rigorous obligation that binds each parish priests to offer the Mass on feast days for this people, an obligation which, according to the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, I, de ref.) arises from the Divine precept, for him who has the care of souls, "to offer sacrifices for the people" (offerre sacrificia pro populo). Benedict XIV (op. cit., n. 2), declares: "Eos, quibus animarum eura demandatum est, non modum sacrificium Missæ celebrare, sed illius etiam fructum medium pro populo sibi commisio applicare debere", so that there is a common doctrine among the canonists that has been confirmed at different times by the Congregation of the Council. Now, if in order to celebrate the Mass of Requiem, the Mass must be offered for the dead, and if there is only one Mass in a parochial church on a feast day which must be offered pro populo, it is manifest that this Mass may never be one of Requiem, but, on the contrary, as the Congregation of Rites has frequently declared, it must always be according to the Office of the feast. Also the Congregation of the Council (16 June, 1770, in Fesulana), being asked "An parochi in Dominicis aliisque festis diebus præsente cadavere, possint celebrare missam pro defuncto, et in aliam diem transfere missam pro populo applicandam", answered: Negative. The Monday Privilege In the United States there is a faculty ("Fac. Ord.", Form I, 20) ordinarily communicated to priests through the bishop which grants permission to celebrate a requiem Mass on Mondays non impeditis officio novem lectionem. The phrase officio novem lectionem gave rise to a doubt as to whether semi-doubles only were referred to, or if doubles also were understood. The Congregation of Rites answered (4 Sept., 1875, no. 3370, ad. 1) that this Mass was allowed on all Mondays during the year, except (a) on the vigils of Christmas and the Epiphany; (b) in Holy Week; (c) during the octaves of Christmas, the Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, and Corpus Christi; (d) holy days of obligation; (e) greater doubles and doubles of the first and second class. If the enumerated cases hinder this Mass on Monday, the privilege is transferred to Tuesday, under the same conditions, but it lapses after that day. V. RITE The Office and the Mass for the Dead, in their construction, as in their varied rite, are modelled on the Offices and the Masses of the liturgical feasts, and these are divided by Double Rite and Semi-Double Rite, with their various classes, so, also, are the Masses of requiem divided. As is well known, it is characteristic of the Double Rite to double the Antiphon in the Office (Rubr. Brev. I, 4) and to have only one prayer in the Mass (Rubr. Mis., I, 1); while in the Semi-Double Office the antiphons are not doubled, and the Mass has several prayers. Now the same law governs the Office and the Mass of the Dead; the Mass of Requiem will be of the Double Rite (a single prayer), whenever the office to which it may be related is recited with double rite (doubling the antiphons); it will be of the Semi-Double Rite (with several prayers), when it corresponds to an Office which is recited with the Semi-Double Rite. The Decree of the Congregation of Rites of 30 June, 1896, and the reformed Rubric of the Missal (V, 3) are interpreted in that sense. Upon the basis of these principles it is easy to establish the division of the Masses of Requiem according to the various rites. As the Rubrics of the Breviary (ante Matut. in Def.) and of the Ritual (VI, iv) prescribe the duplication of the antiphons, in the offices for the dead (a) on All Souls day, (b) on the day of the obsequies, and (c) on the 3rd, 7th, 30th, and anniversary days, the masses corresponding to those offices will be of the Double Rite. It should be observed, however, that the days just named all have the Double Rite, more or less solemn, that is of a more or less exalted class. The other offices, and the other masses of Requiem, according to what has been said above, will be of the Semi-Double Rite. As, on the other hand, masses of Requiem are more or less privileged, according as they are missæ cantatæ or high Masses, or are low Masses, and as some of them among the high and some among the low (see MASS, LITURGY OF THE: V. The Present Roman Mass) are more privileged than others of their respective kinds, we will divide them into solemn and low, and then subdivide them according to their privileges. VI. EXEQUIAL HIGH MASSES An exequial Mass is one that is celebrated on the occasion of the obsequies (exequiæ) of a person, before the burial. It is clearly expressed in the Ritual (VII, i, 4): "Quod antiquissimi instituti illud, quantum fieri potest, retineatur, antequam sepulturæ tradatur" (As much as possible, let the antecedent ordinance be retained, of celebrating the Mass with the body of the deceased present, before it is given burial.) In fact, it was the invariable custom, from the earliest ages of the Church, to celebrate the synaxis for the dead before the burial (cf. Tertullian, "De Monog.", X, and St. Augustine, "Confess.", IX, 12.) And it is worthy of notice that, from those ancient times, it was licit to celebrate the exequial Mass on Sundays, as Paulinus testifies (Vita S. Ambrosii, XLVII): "Lucescente die Dominico, cum corpus ipsius [S. Ambrosii] peractis Sacramentis divinis, de ecclesia levaretur portandum ad basilicam ambrosianam . . . " (At dawn on the Lord's Day, when, after the divine mysteries had been celebrated, his [St. Ambrose's] body was taken from the church to be carried to the Ambrosian Basilica). In this connexion, Martène cites from the "Consuetudines Cluniacensis" ("Ant. Monarch. rit.", Venice, 1783, V, x, 16, p. 257): "Omni tempore sepeliendus est frater post majorem Missam. Si in ipse Resurrectionis Dominicæ vel ipsus diei crepulsculo obierit, quo scilicet oporteat cum ipso die sepelire matutinalis Missa pro eo cantabitur" (At any time a brother must be buried after the high Mass. If he has died on the Day of the Resurrection itself or in the early hours of that day, and it is necessary to bury him that same day, the morning Mass shall be sung for him.) And these edifying Benedictine "consuetudines" give the reason: "Nam tanta est auctoritatis præsentæ ipsius defuncti, ut etiam in tanta solemnitate hujusmodi missa non potest negligentia intermitti" (For the presence of the corpse constitutes such a serious reason that, even on festival as great as this, a Mass of this kind must not be neglected). While holding to the principle that ceremonies of mourning should not interfere with the joyousness of liturgical feasts (for which reason the solemn commemoration of all the faithful departed is transferred to the following day whenever the 2nd of November falls on a Sunday), the Church, as a good mother, desirous of hastening the relief of a deceased child, wishes the exequial Mass to be celebrated, even on feast day, although she places some conditions, as the Ritual shows (VII, i, 5): "Si quis de festo sit sepeliendus Missa propria pro defuncto præsente corpore, celebrare poterit, dum tamen Conventualis Missa et officia divina non impedeiantur, magnaque diei celebritas non obstet" (If anyone is buried on a feast day, the Mass proper for the feast may be celebrated in the presence of the corpse, so long as the conventual Mass and Office are not interfered with, and the great solemnity of the day does not oppose it). Four conditions, then, are here established: (a) that a corpse of the deceased be present; (b) that the conventual Mass be not prevented; (c) that the Divine Offices be not prevented, and (d) that the great solemnity of the day not oppose it. (a) The presence of the corpse in the church is required, according to ancient custom, as the ritual shows. Formerly, the actual physical presence was prescribed, but, little by little, the Church has modified this law, and according to the new liturgical legislation, that is since the decree of the Congregation of Rites, on 13 February, 1892 (n. 3767 ad 26), the Rubric of the Missal (V, 2) has been altered.Since, in modern time, whether through the prohibition of civil laws, or because of death by contagious diseases, corpses may not always be taken to the church, the ecclesiastical law has been so broadened that the body of the deceased is considered present fictione juris, as long as it is not buried, and even if it has been buried for not more than two days. These are the words of the decree in question: "Cadaver absens ob civile vetitum, vel morbum contagiosum, non solum insepultum, sed et humatum, dummodo non ultra biduum ab obitu, censeri potest ac si foret physice præsens, ita ut Missa exequalis cantare licite valeat, quoties præsente cadavere permittitur." (b) The second condition is that the exequial Mass does not prevent the celebration of the conventual, or of the parochial Mass; but to this we have already referred to above, under IV. (c) The exequial Mass should not interfere with the Divine Office on feasts, i.e., with the sacred functions which a parish priest should perform in behalf of his people. These days are (i) Ash Wednesday; (ii) the Vigil of Pentecost, if the parish priest is to bless the font, and (iii) the days of the Major and of the Minor Litanies; so that, if there be on these days only one Mass in the parish church, it may not be of Requiem, but must be the one which the Rubrics prescribe for the day (S. C. R., decr. 3776 and 4005). (d) The fourth condition of the Ritual for the celebration of the exequial Mass on a feast day is that the solemnity of the day not oppose it. Now the solemnity of the day, in this connexion, is declared by the Church through the more solemn rite with which some feasts throughout the year are celebrated, namely, primary days of the Rite of the First Class (S. C. R., decr. 3755), which are: (i) Christmas and the Epiphany; (ii) Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday; (iii) Easter Sunday, the feasts of Ascension, Pentecost, and Corpus Christi; (iv) the Immaculate Conception, Annunciation, and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary; (v) the feasts of St. John the Baptist, of St. Joseph, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of All Saints; (vi) the local feasts of the principal patron of the place, of the dedication and of the titular of the church. It should be observed that, although the two days following Easter and Pentecost are of the First Class, the Church, to hasten the relief of the deceased, does not except them, and the solemn exequial Mass may be celebrated on these feasts, as on all other feasts of the First Class that are not named in the decree cited above. It may be said, therefore, that this mass, in die Depositionis is of the Double Rite of the First Class, since it is allowed on feasts of that rite. VII. MASS OF ALL SOULS DAY The Commemoration of All Souls has been a very solemn day in the Church ever since the time of its establishment; and as its observance was propagated throughout the Christian world, it came to be celebrated with more and more devotion by the people, on 2 November. Nevertheless, when it occurs on a Sunday, or on a feast of a Double Rite of the First Class, as has been said, it is celebrated on the following day. In this case, there being no question of hastening the relief of one who has passed away, the church does not wish that the festivity of the Lord's Day or the solemnity of any other feast of the First Class should be diminished by the mourning inherent in the Commemoration of the Dead. There is the further intention to facilitate the offering of all Masses, even low Masses, on All Souls' Day for the repose of the departed. For the same reason the Church prescribes (S. C. R., decr. 3864) that, if in any locality a feast of the Second Class should occur on All Souls' Day, it should be transferred to the following day, in order that the Commemoration of all the Dead may be celebrated. The rite of the Commemoration, therefore, is inferior to that of the funeral Mass, since the Commemoration may not be celebrated either on a feast day or on a double of the First Class; wherefore, it may be called a Double of the Second Class. VIII. MASS POST ACCEPTUM MORTIS NUNCIUM The solemn Mass of Requiem which may be offered, as soon as the news of the death is received, for a person who has died in a distant place, comes in the third place. It is the same Mass that is said in die depositionis, but has not the same privileges, since it may not be celebrated (a) on any holy day, (b) on feasts of the First and Second Class, or (c) on those ferials and octaves upon which Doubles of the First and Second Class are forbidden. These are: (a) Ash Wednesday and the ferials of Holy Week; (b) the vigils of Christmas and of Pentecost; (c) the days during the octaves of the Epiphany, Easter, and Pentecost; (d) the octave day of Corpus Christi. All of this has recently been established by the Church (S. C. R. decr. 28 Apr., 1902) to facilitate the suffrages for the dead; but as the exequial Mass has already been offered for the deceased at the place of this death, the Mass post acceptum has not received all the privileges of the former. It should be remembered, however, that this Mass may be offered on a feast of the Greater or Lesser Double Rite, when offered immediately post acceptum nuncium; otherwise, the Mass loses all privileges, and a day of the Semi-Double Rite must be awaited (S. C. R. decr. 2461, ad 6). For this reason it may be said that the exequial Mass post acceptum nuncium is of the Greater Double rite, since Doubles of the Second Class take precedence over it. IX. MASSES OF THE THIRD, SEVENTH, THIRTIETH, AND ANNIVERSARY DAYS The Requiem Mass of each of these days is privileged, because, according to ancient tradition accepted in Canon Law (Cap. Quia alii, 13, q. 2; Nullus Presbyter, dist. 44) the dead were always commemorated in a special manner on those days. With regard to the third day, as commemorative of the three days which Christ passed in the sepulcher, and as presaging the Resurrection, there is special prescription in the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, xlii): "With respect to the dead, let the third day be celebrated in psalms, lessons, and prayers, because of him who on the third day rose again." It appears also, in this connection, that in ancient times there was a tridium on behalf of the deceased, according to what Evodius writes in a letter (Ep. S. Augustini, clviii): "Exequias præbuimus satis honorabiles et dignas tantæ animæ; nam per tridium hymnis Deum collaudavimus super sepulcrum ejus, et redemptionis Sacramenta tertia die obtulimus" (We performed the due obsequies, worthy of so great a soul, joining in hymns to the praise of God for three days at his sepulcher, and on the third day we offered the Mysteries of Redemption). With regard to the seventh day, we have the testimony of St. Ambrose (De fide. resurr.), which bears witness to the ancient practice, and gives the reason for it: "Nunc quoniam die septem ad sepulchrum redimus, qui dies symbolum fraternæ quietis est" (Now, since on the seventh day, which is symbolical of eternal repose, we return to the sepulchre . . .). St. Ambrose, again, speaks of the thirtieth day (De ob. Theodosii, i): "Quia alii tertium diem et trigesimum; alii septimum et quadragesimum observare consueverunt, quid doceat lectio consideremus" (As some have been wont to keep the third and the thirtieth days; others the seventh and the fortieth; let us consider what the lesson teaches). The annual commemoration of a departed brother was more universal and more solemn; it resembled the feats of the martyrs and, according to Tertullian, dates from Apostolic times (cf. Magni, "L'antica Liturgia Romana", Milan, 1899, III, 389). The third, seventh, and thirtieth days may be counted from the day of the death or from the day of the burial (S.C.R., decr. 2482 and 3112); the day itself of the death or the burial should not be counted, because the language of the decree (ab obitu, ab depositione) excludes those days, either one of them being not the first day, but the day from which the computation should begin. If therefore, the burial takes place on the eleventh day of the month, the first day after it, of course, will be the twelfth day of the month; the second, the thirteenth; the third, the fourteenth. So also for the seventh and the thirtieth days. There is no rule that requires the selection of the same date, either of death or burial, in computing the day for these commemorations; wherefore, one may celebrate the third day, counting from the day of burial, and celebrate the thirtieth day, counting from the day of death. On the other hand anniversaries are usually celebrated on the day of the month on which the death occurred; nevertheless, the Congregation of Rites, which had prescribed this day (Decree of 21 July, 1855), now allows the anniversary to be counted from the day of burial (Decree of 5 March, 1870), which concession is useful in case the anniversary of the death should fall on a day in which this Mass could not be celebrated; in this case the anniversary of the burial may be celebrated, without excluding, in subsequent years, a returning to the celebration of the anniversary of the death, according to the ancient tradition. According to the present liturgical laws, the high Mass of Requiem may be celebrated on the third, seventh, thirtieth, and anniversary days, even if those days occur on a greater or on a lesser double. Its celebration is prohibited, however, on (a) any holy day of obligation, including Sundays; (b) all doubles of the first or second class; (c) Ash Wednesday and during Holy Week; (d) the vigils of Christmas and Pentecost; (e) during the privileged octaves of Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, and Corpus Christi; (f) the days on which the Blessed Sacrament is exposed; (g) Rogation days, when but one Mass is celebrated in the church (cf. Decrees 3049, 3302, and 3753). When on the other hand, the third, seventh, thirtieth, and anniversary days are impeded, they may be anticipated by one day, or postponed to a day that is not among those enumerated above, even if it be a greater or a lesser double. In the case the day before, or the day after, is a day on which these Masses cannot be celebrated, it will be necessary to await a day of the Semi-Double Rite upon which a requiem Mass may be celebrated, and to use the formulary of the daily Masses (cf. Decr. 3753, ad 2). There is another kind of anniversary which is established by the new liturgical law, called late sumptum. It is the anniversary which is celebrated each year by chapters, religious communities, or confraternities, on a day that is not the anniversary of the death or of the burial of the deceased. The solemn Mass of a late sumptum anniversary may be celebrated on a day of the Lesser Double Rite, but not of the Greater Double. The solemn Mass that is celebrated on the days of the octave of All Souls' Day enjoys the same privilege (cf. Decr. 3753, ad 5). As has been said above (V.), the Requiem Mass is of the Double Rite (that is, it has a single Prayer), whenever it corresponds to the office of the Dead in which the antiphons are doubled; and therefore, whenever, at the request of the faithful, a solemn Office is celebrated for one or more deceased persons, especially if there is a concourse of the people, the corresponding Mass must be celebrated with the Double Rite, as the Rubric of the Missal expressly prescribes (V, 3): Unica tantum oratio dicenda est in missis omnibus . . . quandocumque pro defunctis missa solemnitur celebratur" (In any Mass solemnly celebrated for the dead, only one prayer is to be said). This Mass, however, may be celebrated only on days of the Semi-Double or the Simple Rite, exclusive of those days named above on which is forbidden to celebrate the anniversary Requiem Mass. This Mass, like that of the anniversary late sumptum, is of the Lesser Double Rite; while the Mass of the third, seventh, and thirtieth days, as also that of the anniversary stricte sumptum, is of the Greater Double Rite, since it may be celebrated on the doubles that are not of the first or of the second class. X. MISSÆ CANTATE These (sung, but not high, Masses), are the Masses that are called quotidianæ in the Missal. They are of the Semi-Double Rite, because they have three prayers, and correspond to the Office that is recited without duplication of the antiphons. It is forbidden to celebrate these Masses on any of the days mentioned above, upon which the anniversary Masses may not be celebrated, or on the days on which there is a feast of the Double Rite, even the Lesser, and therefore they are allowed only on semi-double, non-privileged days. To this class of Requiem missæ cantatæ belongs the one which the Rubrics of the Missal (V, 1) provide shall be celebrated in the cathedrals and collegiate churches de præcepto (S. C. R. decr. 2928): "Prima die cujusque mensis (extra Adventum Quadregesimam et Tempus Paschale) non impedita officio duplici vel semi-duplici". This Mass is truly conventual, should be celebrated after Prime, as the rubrics of the Missal prescribe (XV, 3) and should be a sung Mass (decrees 1609 and 2424). The first of the month is understood to mean the first day of the month that is free of any double or semi-double, even transferred, office (decree 2380); and if there be no such free day in the whole month, the obligation ceases; which frequently happens, especially now, when the votive offices have been admitted. In this Mass of Requiem, as in all other sung Masses hitherto mentioned, the Sequence should never been omitted, as the reformed Rubric of the Missal and the general decree of 30 June, 1896 (No. 3920) provide. The three Prayers of the fourth formulary should be used (decree 2928), for they are adapted to the end which the Church has in view in prescribing the monthly celebration of this Mass, which is a "generaliter pro defunctis sacerdotibus, benefactoribus et aliis", as the above-cited rubric shows. XI. LOW MASSES According to the ancient canon law, a low requiem Mass could be celebrated only on days of semi-double, non-festive, non-privileged rite; so that, even præsente cadavere, if the rite of the day were double, although it were lesser, the Mass of the day had to be celebrated. The liturgical law, however, has been very much changed in relation to low Masses; and, as there are among them some that are more privileged than others, we will divide them according to the privileges which they enjoy. A. Low Exequial Mass Said in Place of the High Mass As seen above, the Church desires that no one of its children be laid in the grave without a Mass præsente corpore. And as, on the other hand, poverty often prevents the relatives of the deceased from having the obsequies celebrated with solemnity, the Church, always a loving and indulgent mother, permits the high Mass to be replaced by a low one. At first, some limitations were placed on this opportune concession (cf. Decree of 22 May, 1843, in Mechlinen., ad 6); now, however, by the general decree of 9 May, 1899 (no. 4024), this exequial low Mass, which takes the place of a high Mass, is celebrated with all the privileges of the latter. In our opinion, the exequial Mass, which takes the place of the high Mass, enjoys the privileges of the latter, when, through special circumstances, the high Mass cannot be celebrated, even in the case of the wealthy; as for example, if the persons invited to the funeral could not remain long at the church, and the relatives of the deceased should on that account ask that the Mass be a low one. This is actually the practice in some places, and we believe that it may not be condemned, seeing that it is accordance with the spirit of the Church, which, in recent times, has considerably modified its regulation in this connexion. B. Low Mass on the Day of Obsequies and in the Same Church According to the ancient liturgical law, formulated in the Rubrics of the Missal of Pius V, low Requiem Masses, though the body were present, could not be celebrated on days of the Double -- even lesser Double -- Rite. This law was justified by the great reverence in which the Double Rite was held, and by the fact that, at the time of Pius V, there were very few feasts of this rite in the universal calendar. But as the number of these feasts has been greatly augmented, especially in the calendars of some religious orders, and in those of some dioceses, there was no longer any reason for the rule: first, because the Double Rite, having come to be so abundantly granted, was no longer held in the high esteem that it formerly enjoyed; secondly because the great number of new Doubles made it impossible to celebrate low Requiem Masses on the day of the burial. These considerations were submitted to the Congregation of Rites in February, 1896. On 19 May following there was published the general Decree No. 3903, which begins: "Aucto postremis hisce temporibus, maxime in calendariis particularibus, Officiorum duplicium numero, quum pauci supersint per annum dies, qui Missas privitas de Requie fieri permittant. . . ." Thanks to this opportune decree, the low Mass, as well as the solemn one, may be celebrated at the obsequies of one deceased, even on a double.There are, however, certain conditions for the celebration of these low Masses: (1) They are allowed only on the day of the obsequies and in the church where the obsequies are celebrated, with or without presence of the corpse, as had been said under V (S. C. R. decr. 3944, ad 3); (2) they must be offered for the deceased whose obsequies are being celebrated, and for no other intention (ibid., ad 4); (3) they may not be celebrated on a Sunday, or other holy day of obligation, even though the latter may have been suppressed; (4) they may not be celebrated on a Double of the First Class, even secondary, or on a day which the Rite prevents these Doubles of the First Class -- that is, on Ash Wednesday and during Holy Week, the vigils of Christmas and of Pentecost, during the octaves of Easter and Pentecost, and on the octave day of the Epiphany (ibid, ad 5),. Such were hitherto the rules for low Masses on the day of obsequies and in the same church, but by a recent decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites these Low Masses are now forbidden also on all Doubles of the Second Class. These Masses, of course, are of the Double Rite; they have but one prayer, and the sequence is as in the solemn high Mass. C. Low Mass in the Private Chapel, before the Burial This Mass of Requiem, also, is a recent concession of the Holy See in behalf of the deceased. By this concession, all the Masses allowed by the Brief by which the privilege of a private oratory was granted, may be celebrated as Requiems, on all the days on which the body remains in the house, on condition that they are offered only for the deceased (cf. Ephem. Liturg., 1890, p.607); these Masses have all the privileges of the exequial low Mass. The same is true of all the Masses said in what are called mortuary chapels, in the palaces of cardinals, bishops, and princes, at the death of such personages, as long as the body remains exposed there, provided these Masses are for the repose of the deceased prince or prelate. By a recent decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites these Masses are forbidden also on all Doubles of the Second Class. D. Low Masses in Cemetery Chapels In the public or semi-public oratories of cemeteries, and also in the private chapels erected in burial places, Requiem Masses may be said every day, provided they be offered for the dead, except (1) on all feasts of precept, including Sunday; (2) on the Doubles of the First or Second Class; (3) on Ash Wednesdays and during Holy Week; (4) on the vigils of Christmas and of Pentecost; and (5) during the privileged octaves of Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, and Corpus Christi (S. C. R., decr. 3944). This privilege, however, does not extend to the parochial church, although that church may be surrounded by a cemetery, and therefore considered a cemetery chapel; neither does it extend to those oratories which have been erected in disused cemeteries (S. R. C., Decr. 28 April, 1902, in "Ephem. lit., 1902, p. 355). E. Daily Low Masses These Masses of Requiem, called daily in the Missal, may be celebrated under the same restrictions as the Rubrics establish for votive Masses (General Decree 3922, III, 2; and Rubr. Miss., V, 5); that is, they are allowed on days of the Simple or Semi-Double Rite, and are forbidden on all days of the Double, even the Lesser Double, Rite, as well as on the days named above under IX. By a recent decree of the Sacred Congregation on Rites the daily Low Masses are forbidden on the following days of a Semi-Double or Simple Rite: (a) all ferials of Lent; (b) quartertenses; (c) Rogation Monday; (d) vigils; (e) ferial on which the office of a Sunday is anticipated. In the Masses of these ferials or vigils, if they are celebrated for one of more deceased persons, it is permitted to insert, in the penultimate place, the oration for the deceased person or persons, and although those Masses are celebrated in violet or green vestments, nevertheless, by concession of the reigning pontiff, the indulgence of a privileged altar may be gained. The Sacred Congregation of Rites had already declared this by the Decrees no. 1793, 2041, and 2962. They are of the Semi-Double Rite, and have three prayers at least, and sometimes five or seven, the number always being an odd one, as the Missal shows (V, 4). According to the new liturgical laws, however, (S. R. C., decr. 3920), if the Mass is offered for one or more dead who are named, the first prayer is said accordingly, the second is taken ad libitum, and the third is always the "Fidelium". If, on the other hand, the Mass be offered for the dead in general, the three prayers are said as the Missal provides. If the celebrant wishes to say five or seven prayers, he may say two or four, between the second, "Deus veniæ", and the last. "Fidelium", from among those given in the Missal, following the order in which they are there given. As is known, the sequence may be omitted or recited in the daily low Mass, according to the choice of the celebrant. GAVANTI, Thesaurus Sacr. Rituum, cum Notis mirati (Venice, 1799); GUYET, Heortologia (Urbino, 1728); CAVALIERI, Comment in S. C. R. decret. (Bassano, 1778); CARTO, Bibliot. Liturg. (Bologna, 1885). For the new liturgical law, Ephemerides Liturg. (Rome 1896-1908); de HERDT, Liturg. Praxis (Louvain, 1902); van der STAFFEN, Liturg.: Tract. Miss. (Mechlin, s. d.); COFFIN AND STIMART, Lit. Comp (Tournai, 1905); ERKER, Missæ de R. (Laibach, 1903); AERTNYS, Comp. Liturg. (Geloof, 1909); S. L. P., Requiem Masses in Am. Eccl. Rev., XXVII (Philadelphia, 1902), 475-501. PIETRO PIACENZA Rerum Creator Optime Rerum Crerator Optime The hymn for Matins of Wednesday in the Divine Office. It comprises four strophes of four iambic dimeters rhymed in couplets, e.g. Rerum Creator optime, Rectorque noster aspice: Nos a quiete noxia Mersos sopore libera. Its ascription to St. Ambrose is not sanctioned by the most recent authorities. Mone cites it as in an eighth-century manuscript at Trier, denying it to St. Ambrose because of its rhyme and thinking it may possibly be by St. Gregory with the remark that, if a choice must be made between the two, he would certainly choose him; Biraghi does not include it in his inni sinceri of St. Ambrose, nor does Dreves place it among those "possibly his". Blume thinks that neither St. Ambrose nor St. Gregory may seriously be considered for ascription of authorship. Daniel, citing it as in a manuscript of the tenth century at Rheinau, puts it in his category of hymns of the seventh and eighth century. Pimont ("Les hymnes du bréviaire romain", I Paris, 1874, pp. 192-9) gives the Latin text and an extended commentary. The "Hymnarium Sarisburiense" (London, 1851, p. 49) gives the uncorrected Latin text with various manuscript readings. The variants from the text of the Roman Breviary are nine in number and of small importance, but Pimont thinks that in the couplet of what he styles the texte primitif Te, sancte Christe, poscimus, Ignosce Tu criminibus, the contrast between the holiness of Christ and the sinfulness of His petitioners is better emphasized by criminibus than by the culpis of the Roman Breviary text (Ignosce culpis omnibus), while the Te of the first line and the Tu of the second line heighten the energy of the prayer. He also defends gessimus in the line, "Vides malum quod gessimus", changed in our Breviary to fecimus (possibly because in the older poem the three forms, gerendum, gestis, gessimus, of the verb gero, occur in close proximity, and also possibly because of the words of the "Miserere")("Et malum coram Te feci"). There are thirteen translations into English verse, eight by Catholics. Newman's version is given in the Marquess of Bute's "The Roman Breviary". To the list given in Julian's "Dictionary of Hymnology" (2nd ed., 1907, p. 956) should be added the version of Archbishop Bagshawe, "Most Holy Maker of the world" ("Breviary Hymns and Missal Sequences", London, 1900, p. 11) and that of Judge D. J. Donahoe, "Creator of the earth and skies" ("Early Christian Hymns", New York, 1908, p. 99). Blume, Die Hymnen des Thes. Hymnol. H. A. Daniels, etc. in Analecta hymnica, LI (Leipzig, 1909), with MSS. references and readings. H.T. Henry Rerum Deus Tenax Vigor Rerum Deus Tenax Vigor The daily hymn for None in the Roman Breviary, comprises (like the hymns for Terce and Sext) only two stanzas of iambic dimeters together with a doxology varying according to the feast or season. As in the hymns for Prime, Sext, and Compline, the theme is found in the steady march of the sun that defines the periods of the day: Rerum, Deus, tenax vigor Immotus in te permanens, Lucis diurnæ tempora Successibus determinans. O God, whose power unmoved the whole Of Nature's vastness doth control, Who mark'st the day-hours as they run By steady marches of the sun. The moral application is, as usual, made in the following stanza: Largire lumen vespere Quo vita nusquam decidat, etc. O grant that in life's eventide Thy light may e'er with us abide, etc. The authorship of the hymns for Terce, Sext, and None is now ascribed only very doubtfully to St. Ambrose. They are not given to the saint by the Benedictine editors (see Ambrosian Hymnography), but are placed by Biraghi amongst his inni sinceri, since they are found in all the MSS. of the churches of Milan. Daniel (I, 23: IV, 13, 17) thinks that much longer hymns for the hours were replaced by the present ones. Pimont disagrees with Daniel and argues that the saint may well have composed two sets of hymns for the hours. However, the researches of Blume (1908) show that the primitive Benedictine cycle of hymns, as attested by the Rules of Cæsarius and Aurelian of Arles, did not include these hymns, but assigned for Terce, Sext, and None (for Eastertide) the hymns: "Jam surgit hora tertia", "Jam sexta sensim volvitur", "Ter hora trina volvitur"; the earliest MSS. of the cycle give for these hours, for the remainder of the year, the hymns: "Certum tenentes ordinem", "Dicamus laudes Domino", "Perfectum trinum numerum"; while other MSS. give as variants for Lent: "Dei fide qua vivimus", "Meridie orandum est", "Sic ter quaternis trahitur". This Benedictine cycle was replaced throughout Western Christendom by a later one, as shown by Irish and English MSS., which give the present hymns for the little hours. Julian, Dict. of Hymnology, s. v., for translations, etc. See article Rector Potens Verax Deus for additional Catholic trs., by Bagshawe, Donahoe, Russell, Henry; also for references to Pimont and H. A. & M., Hist. Ed. (the introduction of this last gives an excellent discussion of the authorship, p. xiii). Consult also Blume, Der Cursus S. Benedicti Nurseni etc. (Leipzig, 1908); Dreves in Analecta Hymnica, L (Leipzig, 1907); Daniel, Thesaurus Hymnologicus, index to V, s. vv. H.T. Henry Rerum Novarum Rerum Novarum The opening words and the title of the Encyclical issued by Leo XIII, 15 May, 1891, on the "Condition of Labour". Although the Encyclical follows the lines of the traditional teaching concerning the rights and duties of property and the relations of employer and employee, it applies the old doctrines specifically to modern conditions. Opening with a description of the grievances of the working classes, it proceeds to refute the false theories of the Socialists, and to defend the right of private ownership. The true remedy, continues the pope, is to be found in the combined action of the Church, the State, the employer and the employed. The Church is properly interested in the social question because of its religious and moral aspects; the State has the right and the duty to intervene on behalf of justice and individual and social well-being; and employers and workers should organize into both mixed and separate associations for mutual protection and for self protection. All this is set forth with sufficient detail to reach the principal problems and relations of industrial and social life. Probably no other pronouncement on the social question has had so many readers or exercised such a wide influence. It has inspired a vast Catholic social literature, while many non-Catholics have acclaimed it as one of the most definite and reasonable productions ever written on the subject. Sometimes criticized as vague, it is as specific as any document could be written for several countries in different stages of industrial development. On one point it is strikingly definite: "Let it be taken for granted that workman and employer should, as a rule, make free agreements, and in particular should agree freely as to wages; nevertheless, there is a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, that remuneration should be sufficient to maintain the wage-earner in reasonable and frugal comfort. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.". Although this doctrine had been a part of the traditional teaching for many centuries, it had never been stated with such precision and authority. As the years go by and thoughtful men realize more and more how difficult it is to define the full requirements of justice in the matter of wages, a constantly increasing number of persons look up on this statement of Leo XIII as the most fruitful and effective principle of industrial justice that has ever been enunciated. JOHN A. RYAN Rescripts, Papal Papal Rescripts (Lat. re-scribere, "to write back") Rescripts are responses of the pope or a Sacred Congregation, in writing, to queries or petitions of individuals. Some rescripts concern the granting of favours; others the administration of justice, e. g. the interpretation of a law, the appointment of a judge. Sometimes the favour is actually granted in the rescript (gratis facta -- a rescript in forma gratiosa); sometimes another is empowered to concede the request (gratia facienda -- a rescript in forma commissoria); sometimes the grant is made under certain conditions to be examined into by the executor (a rescript in forma mixta). The petition forwarded to Rome comprises three parts: the narrative or exposition of the facts; the petition; the reasons for the request. The response likewise contains three parts: a brief exposition of the case; the decision or grant; the reason of the same. Every rescript presupposes the truth of the allegations found in the supplication. Intentional falsehood or concealment of truth renders a rescript invalid, since no one should benefit through his own deceit. According to some, however, a rescript is valid if voluntary misrepresentation affect only the secondary reason of the grant. This is certainly true where there is no fraud, but merely inadvertence or ignorance of requirements; for, where there is no malice, punishment should not be inflicted; and the petition should be granted, if a sufficient cause therefor exist. A rescript in forma commissoria is valid, if the reason alleged for the grant be true at the time of execution, though false when the rescript was issued. When a rescript is null and void, a new petition is drawn up containing the tenor of the previous concession and cause of nullity, and asking that the defect be remedied. A new rescript will then be given, or the former one validated by letters perinde valere. If the formalities sanctioned by law or usage for the drawing up of rescripts are wanting, the document will be considered spurious. Erasures, misspellings, or grave grammatical errors in a rescript will render its authenticity suspected. Excommunicated persons may seek rescripts only in relation to the cause of their excommunication or in cases of appeal. Consequently in rescripts absolution from penalties and censures is first given, as far as necessary for the validity of the grant. Rescripts have the force of a particular law, i. e. for the persons concerned; only occasionally, e. g. when they interpret or promulgate a general law, are they of universal application. Rescripts in forma gratiosa are effective from the date they bear; others only from the moment of execution. Rescripts contrary to common law contain a derogatory clause: all things to the contrary notwithstanding. Rescripts of favour ordinarily admit a broad interpretation; the exceptions are when they are injurious to others, refer to the obtaining of ecclesiastical benefices, or are contrary to common law. Rescripts of justice are to be interpreted strictly. Rescripts expire for the most part in the same manner as faculties. Decretals Greg. IX, I, 3; TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906). A. B. MEEHAN. Reservation Reservation The restriction in certain cases by a superior of the jurisdiction ordinarily exercised by an inferior. Reservation obtains in appointing to a benefice (q.v., section Collation), in dispensing from vows (q.v.), and in absolving from sins and censures. The power of reservation is vested in its fullness in the pope, who may exercise this right throughout the world. Bishops, regular superiors, or others with quasi-episcopal jurisdiction in the penitential forum may reserve to themselves the absolution of sins of their own subjects. Parish priests and local superiors do not possess this right. The chief reason for thus restricting the power of confessors is to deter evil-doers by the difficulty of obtaining absolution. Only graver mortal sins, that are external and completed, not merely attempted acts, should be reserved. Confession would prove too odious, were the confessor's jurisdiction unduly limited. Sins are reserved with censure (see Censures, Ecclesiastical) or without censure: nearly all papal reservations belong to the former class, and the reservation is principally on account of the censure; episcopal reservations pertain for the most part to the latter category. A.B. MEEHAN Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament The practice of preserving after the celebration of the Liturgy a portion of the consecrated elements for the Communion of the sick or for other pious purposes. The extreme antiquity of such reservation cannot be disputed. Already Justin Martyr, in the first detailed account of Eucharistic practice we possess, tells us that at the close of the Liturgy "there is a distribution to each and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons" (I Apol., lxxxvii). Again St. Irenæus as quoted by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, xxiv, 15) wrote to Pope Victor that "the presbyters before thee who did not observe it [i.e., the Quartodeciman practice] sent the Eucharist to those of other districts who did observe it". Tertullian uses the actual word, reservare, and seems to suggest that a man who scrupled to break his fast on a fast day might approach the Holy Table and carry the Blessed Sacrament away with him to consume it later on-"accepto corpore Domini et reservato, utrumque salvum est, et participatio sacramenti et executio officii" ("De orat.", XIX; C. S. E. L., XX, 192. Cf. "Ad ux.", II, 5). In St. Cyprian, about the middle of the third century, we already find the record of Eucharistic miracles, as, for example, when he tells us of a woman who sought to open with polluted hands the casket (arca) in which she kept the Blessed Sacrament and was deterred by flames bursting from it (De lapsis, 26; C.S.E.L., I, 256). And again, at about the same period, an account written by St. Dionysius of Alexandria has been copied by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., VI, xliv) from which we learn that a priest, being ill and unable himself to visit a dying person who had sent a boy to him to ask for the Holy Viaticum in the middle of the night, gave the boy a portion of the Eucharist to take to the sufferer who was to consume it moistened with water. This story illustrates the first and primary purpose of reservation, which is thus formally stated in the thirteenth canon of Nicæa: "With respect to the dying, the old rule of the Church should continue to be observed which forbids that anyone who is on the point of death should be deprived of the last and most necessary Viaticum" (toû teleutaíon kaì ànagkaiotátou èphodíou). But it was clearly also permitted to Christians, especially in the time of persecution, to keep the Blessed Sacrament in their own possession that they might receive it privately (see, e.g., St. Basil, Ep. cclxxxix, "Ad Cæsar", and St. Jerome, Ep. i, "Ad Pammach.", n. 15). This usage lasted on for many centuries, especially under certain exceptional circumstances, for example, in the case of hermits. An answer given by the Bishop of Corinth to Luke the Younger, an anchoret in Achaia in the tenth century, explains in detail how Communion should be received under such circumstances (Combefis, "Patr. Bib. Auctuar.", II, 45). At an earlier date, when certain heretically-minded monks of Mount Calamon in Palestine expressed doubts whether the Holy Eucharist which had been kept to the morrow did not lose its consecration, St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote (P. G., LXXVI, 1075) that those who so spoke must be mad (maínontai). What is more surprising, it remained the custom in many religious houses of women in the West down to the eleventh and twelfth centuries or later to receive on the day of their solemn profession a little provision of the Blessed Sacrament, and with this they spent a period of eight days in a sort of retreat, being free "to partake daily of this heavenly food" (see Marténe, "De Antiquis Ecclesiæ Ritibus", II, 187). We also learn that Christians sought to carry the Blessed Sacrament about with them in times of grievous peril as a means of protection (St. Ambrose, "De Excessu Fratris", I, 43) or as a source of consolation. Further, as noticed above, the Eucharist was sent from one bishop to another in token of charitable comunion, and it appears from the first "Ordo Romanus" (nn. 8 and 22) that a portion of the Eucharist remaining over from a previous sacrifice was mingled with the elements consecrated in the next celebration, probably as a token of continuity, while the practice of the Mass of the Presanctified, in which the species previously consecrated alone were used, was from an early period prescribed in the Eastern Church throughout the whole of Lent, the Sundays only excepted. On the other hand, there appears to be no reliable evidence that before the year 1000, or even later, the Blessed Sacrament was kept in churches in order that the faithful might visit it or pray before it. Such evidence as has been quoted in proof of such a practice will be found on closer inspection to tell the other way. For example, though the altar is called by St. Optatus of Milevis ("De schism. Don.", VI, I; in P. L., XI, 1066) the throne of the Body and Blood of Christ (sedes et corporis et sanguinis Christi), the altar is also described in the same context as the place "where Christ's Body and Blood dwell for a certain brief space" (per certa momenta). Further, the true explanation of a passage in which St. Gregory Nazianzen describes his sister Gorgonia as visiting the altar in the middle of the night (P. G., XXXV, 810) seems to be that she went there to seek such crumbs or traces of the Eucharistic species as might accidentally have fallen and been overlooked (see Journal of Theol. Stud., Jan, 1910, pp. 275- 78). It would probably, then, be correct to say that down to the later Middle Ages, those who came to the church to pray outside the hours of service came there not so much to honour the Eucharistic presence as to pray before the altar upon which Jesus Christ was wont to descend when the words of consecration were spoken in the Mass. As to the manner and place of reservation during the early centuries there was no great uniformity of practice. Undoubtedly the Eucharist was at first often kept in private houses, but a Council of Toledo in 480, which denounced those who did not immediately consuime the sacred species when they received them from the priest at the altar, very possibly marks a change in this regard. On the other hand numerous decrees of synods and penalties entered in penitential books impose upon parish priests the duty of reserving the Blessed Sacrament for the use of the sick and dying, and at the same time of keeping it reverently and securely while providing by frequent renewal against any danger of the corruption of the sacred species. Caskets in the form of a dove or of a tower, made for the most part of one of the precious metals, were commonly used for the purpose, but whether in the early Middle Ages these Eucharistic vessels were kept over the altar, or elsewhere in the church, or in the sacristy, does not clearly appear. After the tenth century the commonest usage in England and France seems to have been to suspend the Blessed Sacrament in a dove-shaped vessel by a cord over the high altar; but fixed and locked tabernacles were also known and indeed prescribed by the regulations of Bishop Quivil of Exeter at the end of the thirteenth century, though in England they never came into general use before the Reformation. In Germany, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, a custom widely prevailed of enshrining the Eucharist in a "sacrament house", often beautifully decorated, separate from the high altar, but only a short distance away from it, and on the north, or Gospel, side of the Church. This custom seems to have originated in the desire to allow the Blessed Sacrament to be seen by the faithful without exactly contravening the synodal decrees which forbade any continuous exposition. In the sacrament house, the door was invariably made of metal lattice work, through which the vessel containing the sacred species could be discerned at least obscurely. In modern times many provisions have been made to ensure reverence and security in the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament. With regard to the renewal of the species, it is laid down that the Eucharist should not be left for longer than a month, while a much less interval is recommended and generally followed in practice. The practice of burning a light before the tabernacle or other receptacle dates from the thirteenth century or earlier, but it was not at first regarded as of strict obligation. In the Greek Church the consecrated loaf is moistened with the species of wine and kept as a sort of crumbling paste. Raible, Der Tabernakel einst und jetzt (Freiburg, 1908); Corblet, Histoire du Sacrement de l'Euchariste (Paris, 1888); Bridgett, History of the Blessed Eucharist in Great Britain (London, 1908); Thurston, in The Month (1907), 377 and 617. Herbert Thurston Reserved Cases Reserved Cases A term used for sins whose absolution is not within the power of every confessor, but is reserved to himself by the superior of the confessor, or only specially granted to some other confessor by that superior. To reserve a case is then to refuse jurisdiction for the absolution of a certain sin. Christ gave power to the rulers of His Church to make such reservations: "Whose sins you shall retain they are retained" (John, xx, 23). The reservation of sins presupposes jurisdiction, and therefore the pope alone can make reservation for the whole Church; bishops can do the same for their diocese only, and certain regular prelates for their religious subjects. That a sin be reserved it must be mortal, external, and consummated. If a sin be reserved in one diocese, and a penitent, without the intention of evading the law, confess to a priest in another diocese where the sin is not reserved, the latter may absolve the reserved sin. Cases are reserved either + merely on account of the sin itself, that is without censure, or + on account of the censure attached to it. If a penitent be in danger of death, any priest can absolve hinm, both from reserved censures and reserved sins. In case of reserved censures, if he recover, he must later present himself to the one having special power for reserved censures, unless the case was simply reserved to the pope. As to reserved sins, he need not, as a general rule, present himself again after convalescence. In a case of urgent necessity, when it is not possible to have recourse to the proper superior, an ordinary priest may absolve a penitent, directly from unreserved sins and indirectly from episcopal reserved cases, but the penitent must afterwards apply to the person having power to absolve from the reservation. If there were also papal reservations, either simple or special, the absolution is direct, but in case of special reservations to the pope a relation must be made to the Holy See that its mandates on the subject may be obtained. Ignorance of a censure prevents its being incurred, but moralists dispute whether ignorance of a reservation, with or without censure, excuses from its incurrence. If it be a case with censure reserved to the pope, all agree that ignorance does excuse from it; if reserved to a bishop, it is controverted. Some moralists hold that ignorance excuses from all reservations, whether with or without censure. It is certain, however, that a bishop has authority to declare that ignorance of a reservation does not prevent its incurrence in his diocese. Smith, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, I (New York, 1895); Taunton, The Law of the Church (London, 1906); Lehmkuhl, Theologia Moralis (Freiburg, 1910); Slater, Manual or Moral Theology (New York, 1909). William H. W. Fanning Ecclesiastical Residence Ecclesiastical Residence A remaining or abiding where one's duties lie or where one's occupation is properly carried on, as the presence of a bishop in his diocese, a rector or incumbent in his benefice, a canon in his cathedral or collegiate church; opposed to non-residence or absence. Residence is intended to guarantee service or fulfillment of duty. In the canonical import of the term a merely material abiding in a place is not sufficient; vigilance and solicitude must accompany it; a laborious residence alone satisfies the requirements. Residence for this reason differs from domicile, and secondly because the intention of remaining is involved in the definition of domicile. It may be noted that by a fiction of law one who is lawfully absent fulfils the law of residence; while, on the contrary, one unlawfully absent is considered to be present; thus one who leaves his own diocese under censure or precept, or purposely and solely (in fraudem legis) to obtain absolution in a reserved case, is considered present. Residence is binding on clerics holding benefices. Originally this obligation was attached to all benefices, but through universal custom simple benefices or those without the cure of souls do not require personal residence. A canon's presence does not necessarily extend to all hours of the day, while that of a pastor, on the contrary, is continuous, owing to the numerous, and oft-times sudden, demands for his ministrations. A canon is not obliged ordinarily to dwell in close proximity to his benefice. It suffices that he be able conveniently to be present at the prescribed hours. Residence, in connexion with the pastoral office, is inculcated in various canons. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, c. 1, de ref.) says: "Since by Divine precept it is enjoined on all to whom the cure of souls is entrusted to know their own sheep, to offer sacrifice for them, to feed them by preaching the Divine word, by the administration of the sacraments, and by the example of all good works, likewise to have a fatherly care of the poor and other distressed persons, and to apply themselves to all other pastoral duties; all which offices can not be rendered and fulfilled by those who neither watch over nor are with their own flock, but abandon it after the manner of hirelings, the sacred synod admonishes and exhorts such that, mindful of the Divine precept and made a pattern of the flock, they feed and rule in judgment and truth". A pastor then is obliged to dwell in his parish; and, generally speaking, by reason of local statutes, in the parochial residence or rectory. Because of greater responsibilities resting upon them, the Church insists that patriarchs, primates, metropolitans, bishops, or others in charge of dioceses or quasi-dioceses, even though they be cardinals, live within their own territory, though not of necessity in the episcopal city. Bishops, moreover, are admonished by the Council of Trent not to be absent from their cathedrals, unless their episcopal duties call them elsewhere in the diocese, during Advent and Lent, on Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, and Corpus Christi, on which days especially the sheep ought to be refreshed and rejoice in the Lord at the presence of the shepherd. The chancery office, the official centre of diocesan business, will be found more properly at the cathedral, even though the bishop reside elsewhere. The six cardinal bishops (see Cardinal) whose sees are in proximity to Rome are permitted to dwell in the Eternal City, while suffragan bishops administer their dioceses (const. Clem. XVI, "Pastorale officium"; const. Pius X, "Apostolicæ Romanorum Pontificum", 15 Apr., 1910). Some maintain that the duty of residence is incumbent on parish priests and bishops by virtue of Divine as well as ecclesiastical law. The Council of Trent did not see fit to settle this controversy (cf. Bened. XIV, "De syn.", L. 7, c. 1). It would seem that while the canons demand a personal fulfillment of their duties on the part of pastors, the Divine precept is satisfied if the work be done even by others, though this is less fitting. The law of residence is not to be applied so strictly as not to admit of absence at times. In some cases a reasonable or just cause of absence, e. g. necessary rest, legitimate recreation, a pilgrimage, a visit to relatives or friends, business matters, suffices; in others, a grave reason is required. Grave reasons for absence may be reduced to two. The first is urgent necessity, e. g. when one is persecuted, obliged by ill health to seek change of climate, called away in obedience to a lawful superior, attendance at an oe;cumenical council, making the prescribed ad limina visit. The second reason is charity in a marked degree, e. g. the prosecution of the rights of the diocese or of the Church, the promotion of peace among nations. For no cause should a pastor desert his people in time of war, pestilence, or on other occasions when their welfare is seriously menaced. The period of absence allowed may be continuous or interrupted. While the chapter may never be absent, individual members may annually have three months' vacation, if the constitutions of the chapter permit. A sufficient number for the office required must be present. Bishops are counselled not to allow parish priests or rectors of missions more than two months' leave of absence yearly, unless the reason be urgent. Permission should be given in writing, except for short absences, and a substitute approved by the ordinary, with competent recompense, left in charge of the parish. Usually diocesan statutes permit an absence of a few days without consulting the ordinary. The law allows a bishop for just cause, when it is possible without detriment to his charge, to absent himself three months annually, though not during Advent or Lent or on the feasts enumerated above. For a longer absence, though advantage may not have been taken for years of the period annually allowed, a grave reason is required as well as express permission of the Consistorial Congregation. Clerics other than those mentioned are subject to local regulations, both as regards residence and absence. Non-residence or unlawful absence is punishable in law. Canons lose all share in the daily distributions unless actually present in choir. Where it is permitted they may use with moderation the privilege of appointing substitutes. Besides being guilty of mortal sin, bishops and rectors who violate the law of residence forfeit the fruits, i. e. salary or income, of their benefices in proportion to the time of their absence. A certain amount may be retained in recompense for other duties discharged, such as the application of Mass etc. The money forfeited is used in repairing churches or in works of piety. Bishops also lose whatever rights and privileges they possess as assistants to the papal throne. Continued infringement of the law may be more severely punished, even by deposition. If a bishop is absent more than a year, he must be denounced to the pope by his metropolitan. If the metropolitan be thus absent, the duty of reporting the matter devolves on the senior suffragan bishop. A parochial residence of one month suffers for the licit contracting of marriage in the parish (Ne temere, art. 5): the mere fact of thirty days stay, even though by chance, if morally continuous, is sufficient. By such residence one becomes a parishoner as far as marriage is concerned, and although retaining a domicile or quasi-domicile elsewhere, may obtain matrimonial dispensations from the ordinary of the place of residence. Canonists are not agreed whether this is true in the case of one who, though living in a diocese for some time, e. g. a week, only in various parishes, has not acquired a parochial residence of a month. It is certain that the previous legislation contemplated a parochial, not a diocesan, domicile or quasi-domicile. Council of Trent, Sess. VI, c. 1; Sess. XXIII, c. 1, de ref.; Urban VIII, Const. Sancta synodus (12 Dec., 1634); Bened. XIV, Const. Ad universæ (3 Sept., 1746); Decr. Greg. IX, L. III, tit. 4, De clericis non residentibus. Andrew R. Meehan. Lorenzo Respighi Lorenzo Respighi Born at Cortemaggiore, Province of Piacenza, 7 October, 1824; died at Rome, 10 December, 1889. He studied mathematics and natural philosophy, first at Parma and then at the University of Bologna, where he obtained his degree ad honorem in 1845. In 1849 he was appointed ass substitute to the chair of rational mechanics and hydraulics in the same university, two years later professor of optics and astronomy, and finally in 1855 he became director of the Bologna observatory of Milan. From 1855 to 1864 he discovered, at Bologna, three comets (1862 IV, 1863 II, and 1863 V) and made himself known by other important works of meteorology and astronomy. In 1865 the Italian Government, already established in Bologna for five years, imposed upon the university professors the oath of subjection to the dynasty of Victor Emmanuel II. Three professors refused to take it: Chelini, Filopanti, and Respighi. In consequence of this refusal, the last-named had to leave the chair and the direction of the observatory. He then went to Rome, which still continued under the government of the pope, and obtained the position of astronomer at the observatory of the Capitol, directed by Calandrelli. In 1866, a year after the death of the latter, Respighi succeeded him both in the directorship of the observatory at the Capitol and in the chair of astronomy at the Sapienza. In 1866 he made important observations on the lunar crater Linnæus. In 1867 and 1868 he began his celebrated studies of the scintillation of stars. In October, 1869, he made the first spectroscopic observations on the border of the sun. Rome having been occupied by the Italian Government (1870), Respighi (October, 1871) found himself again confronted with the question of the oath. He had been invited by the British Government to take part in an expedition to the Indies for the solar eclipse in December, 1871. This invitation gave so much distinction to the astronomer that the Italian Minister of Public Instruction offered him a sum to defray the expenses of the journey. Respighi accepted on condition that he should not be subject to take the oath. It does honour to the minister that he did not insist upon a condition with which a loyal subject of the pope would not have complied even if his refusal cost him his position. Six years later, in 1877, Respighi was appointed Knight of the Civil Order of Savoy; to receive this honour it became again necessary to take the oath. In a letter to the Minister of Instruction, Respighi refused and returned the cross which had been already sent to him. Besides the aforementioned studies, we owe to him other very important researches, on spectra of stars and on the solar corona, as also the first systematic observations on solar protuberances. Moreover, he discovered and practised new methods to determine the diameter of the sun and the zenith distances of stars. Finally, astronomy owes Respighi a masterly catalogue of the absolute declinations of 2534 boreal stars. After Schiaparelli, Respighi was the most prominent Italian astronomer of the nineteenth century. V. CERULLI Responsorium Responsorium Responsory, or Respond, a series of verses and responses, usually taken from Holy Scripture and varying according to the feast or season. Responsories are of two kinds: those which occur in the Proper of the Mass, and those used in the Divine Office; each differing slightly both as to history and form. I. THE RESPONSORIES OF THE MASS The psalmodic solo is the oldest form of Christian chant, and was apparently derived from the Synagogue. The psalm was recited by one chanter, to whom the people answered with a refrain or response, the latter being either the alternate verses of the psalm itself, or one verse repeated again and again, or sometimes a sentence taken from elsewhere. The psalm "Confitemini Domino", every verse of which has the refrain "Quoniam in aeternum misericordia ejus", is a typical example, though sometimes the refrain was a mere exclamation, such as "Alleluia". This method of chant was known as the cantus responsorius, and is mentioned in the writings of Tertullian, St. Augustine, and St. Isidore. It was an integral part of the Liturgy, that is to say it was not introduced to fill up time whilst other things were going on, but was listened to by clergy and people alike, and in this it differs from the antiphonal chant, which was merely an accompaniment to various actions and ceremonies, e.g. the Introit, Offertory, and Communion. The responsorial parts of the Mass were the Gradual (so named from the position of the soloist, at the steps of the pulpit or ambo), the Alleluia, and at one time the Offertory. Up to the twelfth century the way of singing the Gradual was as follows: The cantor sang it from the beginning as far as the verse, and the choir repeated the cantor's part. Then came the verse, sung by the cantor, after which the refrain, i.e. the part first sung, was repeated by all. After the twelfth century the custom began of omitting the repetition after the verse whenever another chant, such as the Alleluia or Tract, followed. The present practice is to omit the repetition on all occasions, but in order to avoid a conclusion by the soloist alone, it has become general for the choir to join in at the end of the verse. In the early Middle Ages the responsorium graduale was still sung at every Mass, and not replaced, as at present, by an Alleluia in Eastertide. It may be noted that it is still retained in Easter Week, the Graduals of which are all connected (the refrain being the same and the verses being all from one psalm), and doubtless originally formed one chant with several verses, which was performed in full on Easter Day. The second piece of responsorial chant in the Mass is the Alleluia. It was introduced by Pope Damasus at the advice of St. Jerome, in imitation of the Liturgy of Jerusalem. The chant became very elaborate, the greater part of it being devoted to the last vowel of the word alleluia, which was prolonged through so many successive notes as to suggest a mystical meaning, viz., that it represented the chant of eternity, or, as Durandus says, the joy that is too great to be expressed in words. The reduction of this chant to responsorial form is due to St. Gregory, who added verses to it. The method of singing it was as follows: The soloist began with the Alleluia, which was repeated by the choir; the soloist then continued with the verse or verses, after each of which the choir repeated the Alleluia. On Holy Saturday and the Vigil of Pentecost, there was no repetition, but the verse "Confitemini" was followed immediately (as now) by the tract "Laudate Dominum". The Offertory was originally an antiphonal chant, i.e. sung by two choirs, introduced to fill up the time whilst the oblations of the people were being made. Later on it became more convenient to leave the Verses to a soloist, and so it became a responsorial chant. One reason for this may have been that the singers, as well as the people, had oblations to offer. The change was naturally accompanied by an elaboration of the melody, both of the antiphon (which became the refrain) and of the verses. But when the popular offering fell out of use, the Offertory had to be curtailed, and the verses were dropped, in which form it is found as early as the eleventh century. At the present day the Mass for the Dead alone retains a vestige of the ancient usage, in the verse "Hostias et preces" and the repetition after it of the concluding part of the Offertory. Originally the people joined in the singing of all the Mass, responsorial chants taking up the responses after they had been commenced by the soloist. The gradual elaboration of the melodies, however, made this increasingly difficult for them, and so by degrees they were forced to relinquish their share to the trained singers of the choir. They had become thus silenced probably by St. Gregory's time, and thenceforward it was only in the Ordinary of the Mass that they were able to take their share. II. THE RESPONSORIES OF THE DIVINE OFFICE These consist, like those of the Mass, of verses and responses, with or without the "Gloria Patri" (but omitting sicut erat), and their usual place is after the Lessons of Matins. There is also a shorter form, called the responsorium breve or responsoriola, which in the monastic Office always comes after the Capitulum at Lauds and Vespers, and also after the Lesson in summer ferial Matins (Reg. S. Ben., c. x). In the Roman Office it is found only in the Little Hours. St. Benedict in his Rule (written about 530) prescribes the use of responsories after the Lessons of Matins, but he gives no intimation as to their form, implying rather that they were in general use and therefore well-known. The earliest definite information we have as to their form is found in the description of the Roman Office at the beginning of the ninth century, given by Amalarius in his "De Ordine Antiphonarii" (Migne, P.L., CV). The method of chanting then in vogue is thus given by him: the precentor began with the first part, which the choir repeated; then the soloist sang the verse, and the choir repeated the first part again as far as the verse; the soloist sang "Gloria Patri" and the choir repeated the second portion of its part again; finally the precentor began the Respond again from the beginning, and sang it as far as the verse, and the choir replied with a last repetition. The first Responsory of the year, "Aspiciens a longe", and a few others, had several verses, and in these cases the second part of the refrain was divided into as many sections as there were verses, one section being repeated after each verse, and then after the "Gloria Patri" the full refrain again. One verse only, however, was the general rule. A modification of the above method was introduced by the Franks, who repeated only the first part of the refrain after the verse instead of the whole of it. This dimidiation in the Gallican method of singing the Responsory led to some confusion of the sense of what was being sung, and Blessed Cardinal Tommasi, quoting from Amalarius, says that in consequence it became necessary to introduce some different verses in Gaul, so that there might be but one sense running through the words of both Respond and verse. Dom Bäumer gives the following as an example: R. Tu es Petrus *ait Dominus ad Simonem. V. Ecce Sacerdos magnus qui in diebus suis placuit Deo. R. (Roman method) Tu es Petrus, etc. But according to the Gallican method the repetition would be merely "Ait Dominus", etc., thus making Our Lord to say to Peter "Ecce Sacerdos magnus" etc. Helisachar, Abbot of St. Maximin at Trier, was responsible for many of the new Verses, but his work did not meet with the approval of Amalarius, who set himself to improve upon it in the new Antiphonary which he compiled for use in Gaul. This in turn was violently attacked by Agobard and Florus, the liturgists of Lyons, but in the end the Gallican method of singing the Responsory prevailed over the Roman way, and became the general custom of the Church. This came about, however, only by degrees, for though Amalarius made his compilation early in the ninth century, we still find considerable variation of form in the Responsories contained in the twelfth-century Antiphonary of St. Peter's, which represents the use of the Vatican Basilica. The inclusion of the "Gloria Patri" in the Responsory was considered by Amalarius to be a recent innovation, though Walafrid Strabo ascribed its introduction to St. Benedict. At any rate its use without "sicut erat" points to its being at least older than the sixth century. It should be noted that usually it occurs only in the last of each set of nocturn Responds. The number of Responsories used varied in the different Antiphonaries according to the number of lessons. Before the Te Deum was said at the end of Matins, extra Responsories were sometimes added on feast days, one after another, as a token of joy and solemnity. Numerous examples occur, for instance, in the Compiegne Antiphonary (Migne, P.L., LXXVIII), which was compiled in the ninth century, apparently for the use of non-monastic churches in the north of France. The preservation of the repetition in the Office Responsory, unlike that of the Mass, may perhaps be accounted for by the fact that the office chant was always in the hands of clerics or monks, rather than of professional singers; the latter would naturally apply themselves chiefly to the melodic development of the pieces entrusted to them, whereas the former would be more liturgically conservative and more careful of the organic structure of their pieces. The words of the Responsories agreed either with the history in the Lessons they followed, or were proper to the feast of the day. Thus in the "Micrologus" of Bernold of Constance, the Responsories themselves are often called "Historia". Amalarius speaks of Responsories de historia being used after Lessons from the Old Testament, and de psalmis after those from the New. The practice of using a Responsory from the Common of Saints with a Lesson of the current Scripture has sometimes an awkward effect. Thus the French ritualist Grancolas, who flourished in the early eighteenth century, remarks that the intention of the Responsory was to furnish a meditation or commentary on what had just been read, but that such intention was frustrated when, for instance, after a Lesson describing the doings of "Absalom, Ahab, or some other wicked prince" the answer was "Ecce Sacerdos magnus", or "Sponsabo te mihi in justitia". The Paris Breviary of 1735, introduced by Archbishop de Vintimille on his own authority, in which everything except hymns and lives of saints was rigidly Scriptural, has a series of Responsories which, considered as "moral concordances", are really works of art. The Old and New Testaments are made mutually illustrative in a masterly manner; thus, for example, on the feast of Our Lady's Conception we have: R. Descendit sicut pluvia in vellus; *Benedictum nomen majestatis ejus in aeternum, et *Replebitur majestate ejus omnis terra. V. Ecce tabernaculum Dei cum hominibus et habitabit cum eis; et ipse Deus cum eis erit eorum Deus. R. Benedictum. V. Gloria Patri. R. Replebitur. The Graduals and Responsories are certainly among the most ancient and interesting parts of the liturgy of the Church. Musically they are the highest achievement of the old Christian composers, and should always be referred to when it is desired to give specimens of the true Gregorian Chant; whilst as literature, Battifol, speaking of the responds of the "Proprium de Tempore", which are older than the others, compares them to the chorus dialogues of classical Greek tragedy. MARTENE, De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus (Rouen, 1700); GRANCOLAS, Commentaire historique sur le Breviaire romain (Paris, 1727); THOMASSIN, Vetus et Nova Ecclesiae Disciplina (Venice, 1766); PROBST, Brevier und Breviergebet (Tubingen, 1868); BATTIFOL, Histoire du Breviaire romain (Paris, 1893); tr. BAYLEY (London, 1898); BAUMER, Gesch. des Breviers; tr. BIRON (Paris, 1905); further information may also be found in AMALARIUS, De Ordine Antiphonarii, in MIGNE, P.L., CV (Paris, 1864); TOMMASI, preface to Responsorialia et Antiphonaria Romanae Ecclesiae (Rome, 1636); and in the Dictionnaire d'Archeologie chretienne et de la Liturgie, ed. CABROL (Paris), s. v. Amalaire, Agobard, Antiphonaire, Antienne, etc. G. CYPRIAN ALSTON Restitution Restitution Restitution has a special sense in moral theology. It signifies an act of commutative justice by which exact reparation as far as possible is made for an injury that has been done to another. An injury may be done to another by detaining what is known to belong to him in strict justice and by wilfully doing him damage in his property or reputation. As justice between man and man requires that what belongs to another should be rendered him, justice is violated by keeping from another against his reasonable will what belongs to him, and by willfully doing him damage in goods or reputation. Commutative justice therefore requires that restitution should be made whenever that virtue has been violated. This obligation is identical with that imposed by the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." For the obligation not to deprive another of what belongs to him is identical with that of not keeping from another what belongs to him. As theft is a grave sin of its own nature, so is the refusal to make restitution for injustice that has been committed. Restitution signifies not any sort of reparation made for injury inflicted, but exact reparation as far as possible. Commutative justice requires that each one should have what belongs to him, not something else; and so that which was taken away must be restored as far as possible. If the property of another has been destroyed or damaged, the value of the damage done must be restored. Restitution therefore signifies reparation for an injury, and that reparation is made be restoring to the person injured what he had lost and thus putting him in his former position. Sometimes when an injury has been done it cannot be repaired in this way. A man who commits adultery with another's wife cannot make restitution to him in the strict sense. He has done his neighbour an injury which in a certain sense is irreparable. He should make what reparation he can. In this and similar cases it is a disputed point among theologians whether the adulterer is obliged to offer a money compensation for the injury. If he is convicted and sentenced to pay damages by lawful authority, he will certainly be bound to do so in conscience. But apart from such a sentence, he cannot be obliged to compensate the injured husband in money, because there is no common measure between such injuries and compensation in goods of another order. Commutative justice looks at objective equality, and prescribes that it be preserved. For this reason Aristotle called this species of justice corrective, inasmuch as it corrects and remedies the inequality which an act of injustice produces between the injurer and the party injured. The one has less than he ought to have, because the other has taken it away, and they will not be quits until restitution is made. In cases where an injury is irreparable, the injurer will be bound to do what he can so that the injured party may be content. This is called making satisfcation, to distinguish it from making restitution in the strict sense. We are thus bound to make satisfaction to God for the injury which our sins do Him; we cannot make Him restitution, nor did He suffer damage on account of our sins. A violation of commutative justice alone imposes the obligation of making restitution, for when charity or obedience or any of the other virtues is violated, there is indeed a consequent obligation of repenting for the sin, but there is no obligation of performing the omitted act of charity or obedience now. The obligation was urgent at the particular time and in the particular circumstances in which the sin was committed. Now the need of relief which called for the act of charity, and the reason for the command which was disobeyed no longer exist, and so there is no reason for supplying now for the omitted acts. The grounds on which restitution becomes obligatory are either the possession of something belonging to another, or the causing of unjust damage to the property or reputation of another. These are called by divines the roots of restitution, for it is due on one of those two grounds if it is due at all. The moral obligations of one who finds himself in possession of another person's property, and who on that account is bound to make restitution, will depend on whether he had possession of the property hitherto in good faith, or in bad faith, or in doubtful faith. If hitherto he thought in good faith that the property was his own, and he now discovers that it belongs to someone else, it will be sufficient to restore the property itself to the owner, together with any fruits that still remain. If while he was in good faith he consumed the fruits, or even the property itself perished, the possessor will not be bound to make restitution for what no longer exists. If the possessor consumed what he thought was his own property, possession in good faith justified him in doing so; and if the property has perished or been lost, the owner must bear the loss. But if possession was begun in bad faith, the possessor must not only restore all that remains of the property or of its fruits, but he must also compensate the owner for any loss or damage that the latter suffered on account of being deprived of his property. For the unjust possessor must make compensation for all the damage that he has caused the owner by unwarrantably retaining his property. If possession was begun in doubtful faith, inquiry as to title should first of all be made. In this way, or by the use of presumptions, the doubt may often be settled. If it cannot thus be settled the common opinion of divines is that restitution must be made to the doubtful owner of a portion of the property corresponding to the probability of his right, while the possessor may keep a portion corresponding to the probability of his title. A few recent theologians think that the possessor in such a case may keep possession of the property, provided that he is ready to hand it over to the true owner if and when the latter's title is proved. If the doubt about the title arises subsequently to the beginning of possession, inquiry should be made, and if the doubt cannot be solved, the possessor may keep the property, for in doubt the possessor has the better claim. Fruits, as a general rule, follow the property, on the principle: Accessorium sequitur principale. The deliberate causing of unjust damage to the property, reputation, or other strict rights of another imposes on him who does the damage the obligation of making restitution for it, as we have seen. For, although in this case there is no possession of what belongs to another, still the wronged person has not what in justice he should have, and that through the unjust action of him who did the damage. The latter therefore has unjustly taken away what belonged to the former, and he must restore to him something which is equivalent to the loss which he has suffered and which will balance it, so that equality between them may be restored. However, as a man is not in conscience responsible for damage which he caused inadvertently and by accident, the action which caused the damage must be voluntary, with at least some confused foreknowledge of its probable effects, in order that an obligation in conscience may arise to make compensation for the damage caused. Even though in a particular case there was no theological fault of this kind, as it is called by divines, yet sometimes if the amount of diligence was not used which the law requires in the case, the law imposes the obligation of making compensation to the injured party. There is then said to be juridical fault, and after the sentence of a competent authority has imposed the obligation of making compensation, it will be matter of conscience to obey the sentence. Besides being voluntary, the injurious action must be against commutative justice in order that an obligation to make restitution may arise from it. If while exercising my own right, as by putting on the market a new patent machine, I cause loss to others, I do not offend against justice, nor am I bound to make compensation for the loss caused to others. Neither is one responsible for damage to others of which he was the mere occasion, not the cause. Thus if the arrival in a city of some great personage causes a crowd to gather, and there is a crush, and an accident, by which damage is done to persons and to property, the great personage is the occasion of the damage, not the cause; and he is not bound to make restitution for it. The foregoing principles are applicable whenever a strict right of another has been violated. Not only when property rights, or reputation, have been injured, but when spiritual rights to innocence, or true doctrine, or religious vocation, or any others of mind or body, intrinsic to man's nature or extrinsic, have been unjustly violated, restitution as far as possible must be made. The efficacy of the confessional in bringing about restitution of ill-gotten property and the reparation of injuries of whatever sort is too well-known to need more than mention here. Aquinas, Summa theologica, II-II, Q. lxii (Parma, 1852); Lugo, De Justitia et Jure (Paris, 1868); Ballerini- Palmieri, Opus morale (Prato, 1892); Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908). T. Slater Resurrection of Jesus Christ Resurrection of Jesus Christ Resurrection is the rising again from the dead, the resumption of life. In this article, we shall treat only of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. (The General Resurrection of the Body will be covered in another article.) The fact of Christ's Resurrection, the theories opposed to this fact, its characteristics, and the reasons for its importance must be considered in distinct paragraphs. I. THE FACT OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION The main sources which directly attest the fact of Christ's Resurrection are the Four Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul. Easter morning is so rich in incident, and so crowded with interested persons, that its complete history presents a rather complicated tableau. It is not surprising, therefore, that the partial accounts contained in each of the Four Gospels appear at first sight hard to harmonize. But whatever exegetic view as to the visit to the sepulchre by the pious women and the appearance of the angels we may defend, we cannot deny the Evangelists' agreement as to the fact that the risen Christ appeared to one or more persons. According to St. Matthew, He appeared to the holy women, and again on a mountain in Galilee; according to St. Mark, He was seen by Mary Magdalen, by the two disciples at Emmaus, and the Eleven before his Ascension into heaven; according to St. Luke, He walked with the disciples to Emmaus, appeared to Peter and to the assembled disciples in Jerusalem; according to St. John, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalen, to the ten Apostles on Easter Sunday, to the Eleven a week later, and to the seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. St. Paul (I Cor., xv, 3-8) enumerates another series of apparitions of Jesus after His Resurrection; he was seen by Cephas, by the Eleven, by more than 500 brethren, many of whom were still alive at the time of the Apostle's writing, by James, by all the Apostles, and lastly by Paul himself. Here is an outline of a possible harmony of the Evangelists' account concerning the principal events of Easter Sunday: + The holy women carrying the spices previously prepared start out for the sepulchre before dawn, and reach it after sunrise; they are anxious about the heavy stone, but know nothing of the official guard of the sepulchre (Matt., xxviii, 1-3; Mark, xvi, 1-3; Luke, xxiv, 1; John, xx, 1). + The angel frightened the guards by his brightness, put them to flight, rolled away the stone, and seated himself not upon (ep autou), but above (epano autou) the stone (Matt. xxviii, 2-4). + Mary Magdalen, Mary the Mother of James, and Salome approach the sepulchre, and see the stone rolled back, whereupon Mary Magdalen immediately returns to inform the Apostles (Mark, xvi, 4; Luke, xxiv, 2; John xx, 1-2). + The other two holy women enter the sepulchre, find an angel seated in the vestibule, who shows them the empty sepulchre, announces the Resurrection, and commissions them to tell the disciples and Peter that they shall see Jesus in Galilee (Matt., xxviii, 5-7; Mark, xvi, 5-7). + A second group of holy women, consisting of Joanna and her companions, arrive at the sepulchre, where they have probably agreed to meet the first group, enter the empty interior, and are admonished by two angels that Jesus has risen according to His prediction (Luke, xxiv, 10). + Not long after, Peter and John, who were notified by Mary Magdalen, arrive at the sepulchre and find the linen cloth in such a position as to exclude the supposition that the body was stolen; for they lay simply flat on the ground, showing that the sacred body had vanished out of them without touching them. When John notices this he believes (John, xx, 3-10). + Mary Magdalen returns to the sepulchre, sees first two angels within, and then Jesus Himself (John, xx, 11-l6; Mark, xvi, 9). + The two groups of pious women, who probably met on their return to the city, are favored with the sight of Christ arisen, who commissions them to tell His brethren that they will see him in Galilee (Matt., xxviii, 8-10; Mark, xvi, 8). + The holy women relate their experiences to the Apostles, but find no belief (Mark, xvi, 10-11; Luke, xxiv, 9-11). + Jesus appears to the disciples, at Emmaus, and they return to Jerusalem; the Apostles appear to waver between doubt and belief (Mark, xvi, 12-13; Luke, xxiv, 13-35). + Christ appears to Peter, and therefore Peter and John firmly believe in the Resurrection (Luke, xxiv, 34; John, xx, 8). + After the return of the disciples from Emmaus, Jesus appears to all the Apostles excepting Thomas (Mark, xvi, 14; Luke, xxiv, 36-43; John, xx, 19-25). The harmony of the other apparitions of Christ after His Resurrection presents no special difficulties. Briefly, therefore, the fact of Christ's Resurrection is attested by more than 500 eyewitnesses, whose experience, simplicity, and uprightness of life rendered them incapable of inventing such a fable, who lived at a time when any attempt to deceive could have been easily discovered, who had nothing in this life to gain, but everything to lose by their testimony, whose moral courage exhibited in their apostolic life can be explained only by their intimate conviction of the objective truth of their message. Again the fact of Christ's Resurrection is attested by the eloquent silence of the Synagogue which had done everything to prevent deception, which could have easily discovered deception, if there had been any, which opposed only sleeping witnesses to the testimony of the Apostles, which did not punish the alleged carelessness of the official guard, and which could not answer the testimony of the Apostles except by threatening them "that they speak no more in this name to any man" (Acts, iv, 17). Finally the thousands and millions, both Jews and Gentiles, who believed the testimony of the Apostles in spite of all the disadvantages following from such a belief, in short the origin of the Church, requires for its explanation the reality of Christ's Resurrection, fot the rise of the Church without the Resurrection would have been a greater miracle than the Resurrection itself. II. OPPOSING THEORIES By what means can the evidence for Christ's Resurrection by overthrown? Three theories of explanation have been advanced, though the first two have hardly any adherents in our day. (1)The Swoon Theory There is the theory of those who assert that Christ did not really die upon the cross, that His supposed death was only a temporary swoon, and that His Resurrection was simply a return to consciousness. This was advocated by Paulus ("Exegetisches Handbuch", 1842, II, p. 929) and in a modified form by Hase ("Gesch. Jesu", n. 112), but it does not agree with the data furnished by the Gospels. The scourging and the crown of thorns, the carrying of the cross and the crucifixion, the three hours on the cross and the piercing of the Sufferer's side cannot have brought on a mere swoon. His real death is attested by the centurion and the soldiers, by the friends of Jesus and by his most bitter enemies. His stay in a sealed sepulchre for thirty-six hours, in an atmosphere poisoned by the exhalations of a hundred pounds of spices, which would have of itself sufficed to cause death. Moreover, if Jesus had merely returned from a swoon, the feelings of Easter morning would have been those of sympathy rather than those of joy and triumph, the Apostles would have been roused to the duties of a sick chamber rather than to apostolic work, the life of the powerful wonderworker would have ended in ignoble solitude and inglorious obscurity, and His vaunted sinlessness would have changed into His silent approval of a lie as the foundation stone of His Church. No wonder that later critics of the Resurrection, like Strauss, have heaped contempt on the old theory of a swoon. (2) The Imposition Theory The disciples, it is said, stole the body of Jesus from the grave, and then proclaimed to men that their Lord had risen. This theory was anticipated by the Jews who "gave a great sum of money to the soldiers, saying: Say you, His disciples came by night, and stole him away when we were asleep" (Matt., xxviii, 12 sq.). The same was urged by Celsus (Orig., "Contra Cels.", II, 56) with some difference of detail. But to assume that the Apostles with a burden of this kind upon their consciences could have preached a kingdom of truth and righteousness as the one great effort of their lives, and that for the sake of that kingdom they could have suffered even unto death, is to assume one of those moral impossibilities which may pass for a moment in the heat of controversy, but must be dismissed without delay in the hour of good reflection. (3) The Vision Theory This theory as generally understood by its advocates does not allow visions caused by a Divine intervention, but only such as are the product of human agencies. For if a Divine intervention be admitted, we may as well believe, as far as principles are concerned, that God raised Jesus from the dead. But where in the present instance are the human agencies which might cause these visions? The idea of a resurrection from the grave was familiar to the disciples from their Jewish faith; they had also vague intimations in the prophecies of the Old Testament; finally, Jesus Himself had always associated His Resurrection with the predictions of his death. On the other hand, the disciples' state of mind was one of great excitement; they treasured the memory of Christ with a fondness which made it almost impossible for them to believe that He was gone. In short, their whole mental condition was such as needed only the application of a spark to kindle the flame. The spark was applied by Mary Magdalen, and the flame at once spread with the rapidity and force of a conflagration. What she believed that she had seen, others immediately believed that they must see. Their expectations were fulfilled, and the conviction seized the members of the early Church that the Lord had really risen from the dead. Such is the vision theory commonly defended by recent critics of the Resurrection. But however ingeniously it may be devised, it is quite impossible from an historical point of view. + It is incompatible with the state of mind of the Apostles; the theory presupposes faith and expectancy on the part of the Apostles, while in point of fact the disciples' faith and expectancy followed their vision of the risen Christ. + It is inconsistent with the nature of Christ's manifestations; they ought to have been connected with heavenly glory, or they should have continued the former intimate relations of Jesus with His disciples, while actually and consistently they presented quite a new phase that could not have been expected. + It does not agree with the conditions of the early Christian community; after the first excitement of Easter Sunday, the disciples as a body are noted for their cool deliberation rather than the exalted enthusiasm of a community of visionaries. + It is incompatible with the length of time during which the apparitions lasted; visions such as the critics suppose have never been known to last long, while some of Christ's manifestations lasted a considerable period. + It is not consistent with the fact that the manifestations were made to numbers at the same instant. + It does not agree with the place where most of the manifestations were made: visionary appearances would have been expected in Galilee, while most apparitions of Jesus occurred in Judea. + It is inconsistent with the fact that the visions came to a sudden end on the day of Ascension. Keim admits that enthusiasm, nervousness, and mental excitement on the part of the disciples do not supply a rational explanation of the facts as related in the Gospels. According to him, the visions were directly granted by God and the glorified Christ; they may even include a "corporeal appearance" for those who fear that without this they would lose all. But Keim's theory satisfies neither the Church, since it abandons all the proofs of a bodily Resurrection of Jesus, nor the enemies of the Church, since it admits many of the Church's dogmas; nor again is it consistent with itself, since it grants God's special intervention in proof of the Church's faith, though it starts with the denial of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, which is one of the principal objects of that faith. (4) Modernist View The Holy Office describes and condemns in the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh propositions of the Decree "Lamentabili", the views advocated by a fourth class of opponents of the Resurrection. The former of these propositions reads: "The Resurrection of our Saviour is not properly a fact of the historical order, but a fact of the purely supernatural order neither proved nor provable, which Christian consciousness has little by little inferred from other facts." This statement agrees with, and is further explained by the words of Loisy ("Autour d'un petit livre", p. viii, 120-121, 169; "L'Evangile et l'Eglise", pp. 74-78; 120-121; 171). According to Loisy, firstly, the entrance into life immortal of one risen from the dead is not subject to observation; it is a supernatural, hyper-historical fact, not capable of historical proof. The proofs alleged for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ are inadequate; the empty sepulchre is only an indirect argument, while the apparitions of the risen Christ are open to suspicion on a priori grounds, being sensible impressions of a supernatural reality; and they are doubtful evidence from a critical point of view, on account of the discrepancies in the various Scriptural narratives and the mixed character of the detail connected with the apparitions. Secondly, if one prescinds from the faith of the Apostles, the testimony of the New Testament does not furnish a certain argument for the fact of the Resurrection. This faith of the Apostles is concerned not so much with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as with His immortal life; being based on the apparitions, which are unsatisfactory evidence from an historical point of view, its force is appreciated only by faith itself; being a development of the idea of an immortal Messias, it is an evolution of Christian consciousness, though it is at the same time a corrective of the scandal of the Cross. The Holy Office rejects this view of the Resurrection when it condemns the thirty-seventh proposition in the Decree "Lamentabili": "The faith in the Resurrection of Christ pointed at the beginning no so much to the fact of the Resurrection, as to the immortal life of Christ with God." Besides the authoritative rejection of the foregoing view, we may submit the following three considerations which render it untenable: First, the contention that the Resurrection of Christ cannot be proved historically is not in accord with science. Science does not know enough about the limitations and the properties of a body raised from the dead to immortal life to warrant the assertion that such a body cannot be perceived by the senses; again in the case of Christ, the empty sepulchre with all its concrete circumstances cannot be explained except by a miraculous Divine intervention as supernatural in its character as the Resurrection of Jesus. Secondly, history does not allow us to regard the belief in the Resurrection as the result of a gradual evolution in Christian consciousness. The apparitions were not a mere projection of the disciples' Messianic hope and expectation; their Messianic hope and expectations had to be revived by the apparitions. Again, the Apostles did not begin with preaching the immortal life of Christ with God, but they preached Christ's Resurrection from the very beginning, they insisted on it as a fundamental fact and they described even some of the details connected with this fact: Acts, ii, 24, 31; iii, 15,26; iv, 10; v, 30; x, 39-40; xiii, 30, 37; xvii, 31-2; Rom., i,4; iv, 25; vi, 4,9; viii, 11, 34; x, 7; xiv, 9; I Cor., xv, 4, 13 sqq.; etc. Thirdly, the denial of the historical certainty of Christ's Resurrection involves several historical blunders: it questions the objective reality of the apparitions without any historical grounds for such a doubt; it denies the fact of the empty sepulchre in spite of solid historical evidence to the contrary; it questions even the fact of Christ's burial in Joseph's sepulchre, though this fact is based on the clear and simply unimpeachable testimony of history. III. CHARACTER OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION The Resurrection of Christ has much in common with the general resurrection; even the transformation of His body and of His bodily life is of the same kind as that which awaits the blessed in their resurrection. But the following peculiarities must be noted: + Christ's Resurrection is necessarily a glorious one; it implies not merely the reunion of body and soul, but also the glorification of the body. + Christ's body was to know no corruption, but rose again soon after death, when sufficient time had elapsed to leave no doubt as to the reality of His death. + Christ was the first to rise unto life immortal; those raised before Him died again (Col., i, I8; I Cor., xv, 20). + As the Divine power which raised Christ from the grave was His own power, He rose from the dead by His own power (John, ii, 19; x, l7-18). + Since the Resurrection had been promised as the main proof of Christ's Divine mission, it has a greater dogmatic importance than any other fact. "If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (I Cor., xv, 14). IV. IMPORTANCE OF THE RESURRECTION Besides being the fundamental argument for our Christian belief, the Resurrection is important for the following reasons: + It shows the justice of God who exalted Christ to a life of glory, as Christ had humbled Himself unto death (Phil., ii, 8-9). + The Resurrection completed the mystery of our salvation and redemption; by His death Christ freed us from sin, and by His Resurrection He restored to us the most important privileges lost by sin (Rom., iv, 25). + By His Resurrection we acknowledge Christ as the immortal God, the efficient and exemplary cause of our own resurrection (I Cor., xv, 21; Phil., iii, 20-21), and as the model and the support of our new life of grace (Rom., vi, 4-6; 9-11). A.J. MAAS General Resurrection General Resurrection Resurrection is the rising again from the dead, the resumption of life. The Fourth Lateran Council teaches that all men, whether elect or reprobate, "will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear about with them" (cap. "Firmiter"). In the language of the creeds and professions of faith this return to life is called resurrection of the body (resurrectio carnis, resurrectio mortuoram, anastasis ton nekron) for a double reason: first, since the soul cannot die, it cannot be said to return to life; second the heretical contention of Hymeneus and Philitus that the Scriptures denote by resurrection not the return to life of the body, but the rising of the soul from the death of sin to the life of grace, must be excluded. (We shall treat of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ in a separate article; here, we treat only of the General Resurrection of the Body.) "No doctrine of the Christian Faith", says St. Augustine, "is so vehemently and so obstinately opposed as the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh" (In Ps. Ixxxviii, sermo ii, n. 5). This opposition had begun long before the days of St. Augustine: "And certain philosophers of the Epicureans and of the Stoics ", the inspired writer tells us (Acts, xvii, 18, 32), "disputed with him [Paul] ...and when they had heard of the resurrection of the dead, some indeed mocked, but others said: We will hear thee again concerning this matter." Among the opponents of the Resurrection we naturally find first those who denied the immortality of the soul; secondly, all those who, like Plato, regarded the body as the prison of the soul and death as an escape from the bondage of matter; thirdly the sects of the Gnostics and Manichaeans who looked upon all matter as evil; fourthly, the followers of these latter sects the Priscillianists, the Cathari, and the Albigenses; fifthly, the Rationalists, Materialists, and Pantheists of later times. Against all these we shall first establish the dogma of the resurrection, and secondly consider the characteristics of the risen body. A. DOGMA OF THE RESURRECTION The creeds and professions of faith and conciliar definitions do not leave it doubtful that the resurrection of the body is a dogma or an article of faith. We may appeal, for instance, to the Apostles' Creed, the so-called Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, the Creed of the Eleventh Council of Toledo, the Creed of Leo IX, subscribed by Bishop Peter and still in use at the consecration of bishops the profession of faith subscribed by Michael Palaeologus in the Second Council of Lyons, the Creed of Pius IV, and the Decree of the Fourth Lateran Council (c. "Firmiter") against the Albigenses. This article of faith is based on the belief of the Old Testament, on the teaching of the New Testament, and on Christian tradition. (1) Old Testament The words of Martha and the history of the Machabees show the Jewish belief towards the end of the Jewish economy. "I know ", says Martha, "that He shall rise again, in the resurrection at the last day" (John, xi, 24). And the third of the Machabee martyrs put forth his tongue and stretched out his hands, saying: "These I have from heaven, but for the laws of God I now despise them: because I hope to receive them again from him" (II Mach., xii, 11; cf. ix, I4). The Book of Daniel (xii, 2; cf. 12) inculcates the same belief: "Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake: some unto life everlasting, and others unto reproach, to see it always." The word many must be understood in the light of its meaning in other passages, e. g. Is., liii, 11-12; Matt., xxvi, 28; Rom., v, I8-19. Though Ezechiel's vision of the resurrection of the dry bones refers directly to the restoration of Israel, such a figure would be hardly Israel, such a figure would be hardly intelligible except by readers familiar with the belief in a literal resurrection (Ez., xxxvii). The Prophet Isaias foretells that the Lord of hosts "shall cast down death headlong forever" (xxv, 8), and a little later he adds: "Thy dead men shall live, my slain shall rise again. . . the earth shall disclose her blood, and shall cover her slain no more" (xxvi, 19-21). Finally, Job, bereft of all human comfort and reduced to the greatest desolation, is strengthened by the thought of the resurrection of his body: "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in the last day I shall rise out of the earth. And I shall be clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh I shall see God. Whom I myself shall see, and my eyes shall behold, and not another; this hope is laid up in my bosom" (Job, xix, 25-27). The literal translation of the Hebrew text differs somewhat from the foregoing quotation, but the hope of resurrection remains. (2) New Testament The resurrection of the dead was expressly taught by Christ (John, v, 28-29; vi, 39-40; xi, 25; Luke, xiv, 14) and defended against the unbelief of the Sadducees, whom He charged with ignorance of the power of God and of the Scriptures (Matt., xxii, 29; Luke, xx, 37). St. Paul places the general resurrection on the same level of certainty with that of Christ's Resurrection: "If Christ be preached, that he rose again from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again. And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (I Cor., xv, 12 sqq.). The Apostle preached the resurrection of the dead as one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, at Athens, for instance (Acts, xvii, 18, 31, 32), at Jerusalem (xxiii, 6), before Felix (xxiv, 15), before Agrippa (xxvi, 8). He insists on the same doctrine in his Epistles (Rom., viii, 11; I Cor., vi, 14; xv, 12 sqq.; II Cor., iv, 14; v, 1 sqq.; Phil., iii, 21; I Thess., iv, 12-16; II Tim., ii, 11; Hebr., vi, 2), and in this he agrees with the Apocalypse (xx, 12 sqq.). (3) Tradition It is not surprising that the Tradition of the early Church agrees with the clear teaching of both the Old and New Testaments. We have already referred to a number of creeds and professions of faith which may be considered as part of the Church's official expression of her faith. Here we have only to point out a number of patristic passages, in which the Fathers teach the doctrine of the general resurrection in more or less explicit terms. St. Clement of Rome, I Cor., xxv; St. Justin Martyr, "De resurrect.", vii sqq.; Idem, "Dial. c. Tryph.", Ixxx; Athenagoras, "De resur. carn.", iii; Tatian, "Adv. Graec.", vi; St. Irenaeus, "Contra haer.", I, x; V, vi, 2; Tertullian, "Contra Marcion.", V, ix; Idem, "De praescript.", xiii; Idem, "De resurrect. carn.", I, xii, xv, Ixiii; Minucius Felix, "Octav.", xxxiv; Origen, tom. XVII, in Matt., xxix; Idem, "De princip.", praef., v; Idem, "In Lev.", v, 10; Hippolytus, "Adv. Graec." in P. G., X, 799; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Cat.", XVIII, xv; St. Ephraem, "De resurrect. mort."; St. Basil, "Ep. cclxxi", 3; St. Epiphanius, "In ancor.", lxxxiii sq., xcix; St. Ambrose, "De excessu frat. sui Satyri", II, lxvii, cii; Idem, "In Ps. cxviii", serm. x, n. 18; Ps. Ambr., "De Trinit.", xxiii, in P. L. XVII, 534; St. Jerome, "Ep. ad Paul" in LIII, 8; Rufinus, "In symbol.", xliv sq.; St. Chrysostom (Ps. Chrysostom), "Fragm. in libr. Job" in P. G., LXIV, 619; St. Peter Chrysologus, serm. 103, 118; "Apost. Constit.", VII, xli; St. Augustine "Enchirid.", 84; Idem, "De civit. Dei", XX, xx; Theodoret, "De provident.", or. ix; "Hist. eccl.", I, iii. The general resurrection can hardly be proved from reason, though we may show its congruity. + As the soul has a natural propensity to the body, its perpetual separation from the body would seem unnatural. + As the body is the partner of the soul's crimes, and the companion of her virtues, the justice of God seems to demand that the body be the sharer in the soul's punishment and reward. + As the soul separated from the body is naturally imperfect, the consummation of its happiness, replete with every good, seems to demand the resurrection of the body. The first of these reasons appears to be urged by Christ Himself in Matt., xxii, 23; the second reminds one of the words of St. Paul, I Cor., xv, 19, and II Thess., i, 4. Besides urging the foregoing arguments, the Fathers appeal also to certain analogies found in revelation and in nature itself, e.g. Jonas in the whale's belly, the three children in the fiery furnace, Daniel in the lions' den, the carrying away of Henoch and Elias, the raising of the dead, the blossoming of Aaron's rod, the preservation of the garments of the Israelites in the desert, the grain of seed dying and springing up again, the egg, the season of the year, the succession of day and night. Many pictures of early Christian art express these analogies. But in spite of the foregoing congruities, theologians more generally incline to the opinion that in the state of pure nature there would have been no resurrection of the body. B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RISEN BODY All shall rise from the dead in their own, in their entire, and in immortal bodies; but the good shall rise to the resurrection of life, the wicked to the resurrection of Judgment. It would destroy the very idea of resurrection, if the dead were to rise in bodies not their own. Again, the resurrection, like the creation, is to be numbered amongst the principal works of God; hence, as at the creation all things are perfect from the hand of God, so at the resurrection all things must be perfectly restored by the same omnipotent hand. But there is a difference between the earthly and the risen body; for the risen bodies of both saints and sinners shall be invested with immortality. This admirable restoration of nature is the result of the glorious triumph of Christ over death as described in several texts of Sacred Scripture: Is., xxv, 8; Osee, xiii, 14; I Cor., xv, 26; Apoc., ii, 4. But while the just shall enjoy an endless felicity in the entirety of their restored members, the wicked "shall seek death, and shall not find it, shall desire to die, and death shall fly from them" (Apoc., ix, 6). These three characteristics, identity, entirety, and immortality, will be common to the risen bodies of the just and the wicked. But the bodies of the saints shall be distinguished by four transcendent endowments, often called qualities. + The first is "impassibility", which shall place them beyond the reach of pain and inconvenience. "It is sown", says the Apostle, " in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption" (I Cor., xv, 42). The Schoolmen call this quality impassibility', not incorruption, so as to mark it as a peculiarity of the glorified body; the bodies of the damned will be incorruptible indeed, but not impassible; they shall be subject to heat and cold, and all manner of pain. + The next quality is "brightness", or "glory", by which the bodies of the saints shall shine like the sun. "It is sown in dishonour," says the Apostle, "it shall rise in glory" (I Cor., xv, 43; cf. Matt., xiii, 43; xvii, 2; Phil., iii, 21). All the bodies of the saints shall be equally impassible, but they shall be endowed with different degrees of glory. According to St. Paul: "One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory"'(I Cor., xv, 41-42). + The third quality is that of "agility", by which the body shall be freed from its slowness of motion, and endowed with the capability of moving with the utmost facility and quickness wherever the soul pleases. The Apostle says: "It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power" (I Cor., xv, 43). + The fourth quality is "subtility", by which the body becomes subject to the absolute dominion of the soul. This is inferred from the words of the Apostle: "It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body" (I Cor., xv, 44). The body participates in the soul's more perfect and spiritual life to such an extent that it becomes itself like a spirit. We see this quality exemplified in the fact that Christ passed through material objects. A.J. MAAS Alfred Rethel Alfred Rethel Born at Aachen, 1816; died at Düsseldorf, 1859. He combined in a brilliant and forcible manner the idealism of the Romantics and Italians, the realism of Dürer, a sense of the monumental and strict adherence to nature. He might have been the greatest of German painters, but ill health crippled his energy. Recommended to Schadow by his teacher Bastine, his first oil-painting was exhibited at Düsseldorf in 1832; it represents St. Boniface, as do two other large canvasses and several sketches, which recall the realistic, powerful style of Lessing. The sketches of the "Battle of Sempach" and the "Death of Arnold von Winkelried" betray the influence of Cornelius. The development of his sense of colour and expressive dramatic spirit belong to his period of attachment to Veit (1836). The "Reconciliation of Emperor Otto I with his brother Henry" and "The Monk at the Coffin of Henry IV" are important works. In the "Nemesis pursuing a Murderer" is already crystallized the darker mood, which clouded the later life of the painter. For the Kaisersaal in Frankfort he painted four characteristic pictures of monarchs. With great admiration he studied the glowing colouring of Titian in strong contrast to the pale art of the Nazarene. After this many-sided training follow his ripest works: "Hannibal's March" powerfully depicts in six pictures the crossing of the Alps; in the "Frescoes from the Life of Charlemagne", in the Rathaus at Aachen (see illustration in CHARLEMAGNE), the composition and colouring are both restrained and effective; his assistant Kehren completed the series with four greatly inferior pictures; the "Death Dance" depicts the horror of the Revolution of 1848. His superhuman strivings after the ideal were little appreciated by his townsmen and contemporaries. A softening of the brain afflicted him during his last years. VEIT, Alfred Rethel, eine charakteristik (Weimar, 1892); SCHMID, Rethel (Bielefeld, 1898). G. GIETMANN Retreat of the Sacred Heart Congregation of the Retreat of the Sacred Heart (DAMES DE LA RETRAITE) Originally founded in 1678 under the name of the Institute of Retreat, at Quimper, in Brittany, by Mademoiselle Claude-Thérèse de Kerméno under the direction of the Jesuit Father Huby. The holy foundress having made a retreat in a convent which accommodated ladies who desired to retire from the world and follow the exercises of St. Ignatius, conceived the idea of founding a similar convent at Quimper. Later the sisters took the name of the Dames de la retraite. During the French Revolution they were dispersed for refusing to take the oath of allegiance. On 17 July, 1794, one of their number, Mademoiselle Victoire de St-Luc, suffered martyrdom for her devotion to the Sacred Heart by the guillotine. Her glorious death caused the institute to flourish, the members consecrated themselves to the Sacred Heart, and in 1805 began again the work of providing retreats for seculars, interrupted in 1791. The religious and administrative authorities in France then required the sisters to add the education of youth to their other work, and they now have large schools in various places in England, France, and Belgium. In 1820 two sisters from Quimper opened a house at Redon (Ille-et-Vilaine), which eventually became the cradle of the Retreat of Angers. Meantime the mother-house at Quimper in 1808 opened a house at Quimperlé; in 1820 one at Lesneven (Finistère); in 1847 one at Pontchâteau (Loire-Inférieure), and in 1858 one at Brest (Finistère). The following convents were founded by the Retreat of Angers: in 1820, Redon; in 1844, Saumur (Maine-et-Loire); in 1857, a second house at Angers called l'Oratoire, and in 1893 one at Fontenay-sous-Bois (Seine). In 1880 the sisters went to England and the flourishing convent at Clapham Park was founded from Angers. In 1882 a convent was opened at Burnham, in Somersetshire, from Quimper, and after the union of Quimper and Angers (1897), another convent was opened at Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, and in 1904, one at Clevedon. In 1898 a house at Mentone was opened, and in 1899 a large educational establishment at Brussels. The institute and its constitutions were approved definitively by the Holy See in 1910. FRANCESCA M. STEELE. Retreats Retreats If we call a retreat a series of days passed in solitude and consecrated to practices of asceticism, in particular to prayer and penance, it is as old as Christianity. Without referring to the customs of the Prophets of the Old Testament, the forty days which Jesus Christ passed in the desert after His baptism is an example which has found many imitators in all ages of the Church. From this imitation sprang the eremitical life and the institution of the cenobites. The religious who sought the solitude of the deserts or the monasteries, or in general those wishing to lead a contemplative life withdrew from the world, in order the more readily to draw nearer to God and apply themselves to exercises of Christian perfection. The "Forma cleri" of Tronson, t. IV, gives numerous texts of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, recommending a retreat for at least a few days. According to St. Francis de Sales (Treatise on the Love of God, XII, chap. vii), the practice of the retreat was specially restored by St. Ignatius Loyola. We may say indeed that in his "Spiritual Exercises" St. Ignatius has combined the methods of reforming one's life and seeking the will of God in solitude. The Society of Jesus was the first active religious order in which the practice of the retreat became obligatory by rule. St. Francis of Assisi and his first companions occasionally retired to hermitages where they gave themselves up to prayer and mortification. St. Ignatius prescribed for his religious the exercises of thirty days as an indispensable experience before admission to the vows. The custom was introduced later of repeating this thirty days' retreat during a month of the third probation, and the usage was established little by little of renewing it in an abridged form each year during eight days. This custom obtained the force of law by decree of the Sixth General Congregation, held in 1608, besides being imitated in other religious orders, and encouraged by a Bull of Pope Paul V, 1606. The Society of Jesus did not reserve these exercises for its own exclusive use, but gave them to communities and individuals. Blessed Peter Faber in his "Memoriale" testifies to having given them to the grandees of Spain, Italy, and Germany, and used them in restoring hundreds of convents to their first fervour. A letter of St. Ignatius (3 Feb., 1554) recommends giving the exercises publicly in the churches. In addition, the houses of the Society often contained rooms for priests or laymen desirous of performing the exercises privately. Ignatius, having sanctioned this custom during his lifetime, one of his successors, Aquaviva, exhorted the provincials to its maintenance in 1599. In studying the spread of this practice we must not neglect the influence of St. Charles Borromeo. The cardinal and the Jesuits co-operated in order to promote this sort of apostolate. A fervent admirer and disciple of the "Spiritual Exercises", St. Charles introduced them as a regular practice among the secular clergy by retreats for seminarians and candidates for ordination. He built at Milan an asceterium, or house solely destined to receive those making retreats, whose direction he confided to the Oblates. The zeal of St. Charles was effectual in encouraging the sons of St. Ignatius to adopt definitively the annual retreat, and to organize outside collective retreats of priests and laymen. Two other saints furthered the practice. St. Francis de Sales, whose veneration for the Archbishop of Milan and his works is well known, made the retreat, praised it, and made it familiar to the Order of the Visitation, of which he was the founder (Const. XLVI). Then came St. Vincent de Paul, chosen by St. Francis de Sales to be the spiritual father of the Visitation in Paris. He was the organizer of ecclesiastical retreats in France, the plan of which had been already proposed in 1625, at the assembly of the clergy, by a curé of Normandy, Charles Dodefroy, in a small work, entitled "Le collège des saints exercises". St. Vincent de Paul established retreats for candidates for ordination first at Beauvais (1628), afterwards at Paris (1631). They took place six times a year under his direction at the Collège des Bons-Enfants. Soon other clerics than those of the Diocese of Paris were admitted; and when Saint-Lazare had been acquired (1634) this house was opened indiscriminately as a retreat for clergy, nobility, and people. In St. Vincent's time about 20,000 persons made retreats there. M. de Bérul1e founder of the Oratory, and M. Olier, founder of Saint-Sulpice, seconded this movement of reform and sanctification. From the middle of the seventeenth century, the synodal statutes prescribed that the clergy should make a retreat from time to time. Sometimes it was made obligatory for those who obtained benefices with the cure of souls. In a word, the retreat was thenceforth an established custom of pious ecclesiastics. In 1663 M. de Kerlivio, who knew the excellent results obtained at Saint-Lazare, founded a house of retreat for men at Vannes in Brittany, with the co-operation of P. Huby, S.J. This institution has a special importance in the history of retreats, because the regulations of Vannes generally guided the directors of other houses which the Jesuits established. These were at Quimper, Rennes, Nantes, Rouen, Paris, Dijon, Nancy, and soon in most of the large cities of France. Often, besides the house of retreat for men, one would be erected for women: as at Vannes, thanks to the Venerable Catherine de Francheville, at Rennes, at Quimper, at Paris, Nantes, etc. With a view to organizing and facilitating retreats for women, there were formed, particularly in Brittany, congregations of Ladies of the Retreat which are still in existence. France was not alone in having houses of exercises, They were established in Germany at Munich and Prague; in Spain, at Barcelona and Gerona; in Italy, at Rome, Perugia, Ancona, and Milan; in Sicily, at Palermo, Alcamo, Mazzara, Termini, Messina, etc.; in Poland, at Vilna; in Mexico, at Mexico City and Pueblo. The enumeration is necessarily incomplete; it should include missionary countries, Canada, Chile, China, etc. Nor were Jesuits the only ones to busy themselves with retreats: Franciscans, Benedictines, Lazarists, Eudists, Oratorians, Passionists, Redemptorists, and others vied with them in zeal. But the suppression of the Society struck a fatal blow at the work in many a country. In Brittany, the classic land of retreats, various religious, and principally priests, continued this ministry of the Jesuits. In Franche-Comté a saintly curé, the Venerable Antoine Receveur, organized the Congregation of Christian Retreat to secure for men and women the benefits of spiritual exercises. In Italy, the Venerable Bruno Lanteri instituted a society of priests, the Oblates of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who were occupied only with retreats. St. Alphonsus Liguori, who from his youth had followed the exercises among the Jesuits or among the Lazarists, could not neglect this means of apostleship. He adopted it as one of his own practices and prescribed it for the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. Thus the Redemptorists kept up the custom of retreats in the Kingdoms of Naples and Sicily during the second half of the eighteenth century. In Argentina and Paraguay the retreats continued, thanks to the extraordinary initiative given by Maria-Antonia de San José de La Paz (1730-1799). Aided by several priests and various religious orders, she succeeded in having the exercises performed by nearly 100,000 persons. Annual ecclesiastical retreats began as a general thing in France and other countries in 1815. Numerous promoters of these retreats came from the ranks of the secular clergy as well as from the regular orders. A large number of directors are annually engaged in giving retreats to the religious communities. Several institutions perform the complete exercises of twenty to thirty days. But there were not only priestly or conventual retreats; they were made by the faithful, grouped in parishes or in congregations, brotherhoods, third orders, etc. Thus retreats are conducted for employees, working-men, teachers, conscripts, deaf-mutes, etc. We may also mention retreats at the close of a course of study, established in the College of St. Acheul at Amiens in 1825, and which, spreading by degrees, led to the organization of retreats among the alumni, a custom that has become quite general. There has been no lack of co-operation in this great work of regeneration: bishops threw open their seminaries to the laity, the Christian nobility lent their châteaux; the religious orders -- Benedictines, Cistercians, Carthusians, Dominicans, Franciscans, Lazaristes, Eudists, Redemptorists, Passionists, the Society of Mary, Brothers of St. Vincent de Paul, and Brothers of the Christian Schools, all encouraged the retreat, either by providing suitable places for the purpose, or by furnishing directors. The Jesuits alone possessed twelve houses of exercises on French territory before 1901; they now have seven in Belgium and others in Spain, Austria, Italy, Holland, England, Canada, United States, Colombia, Chile, and various other countries of America, North and South. They have established houses in Australia, China, India, Ceylon, and Madagascar. Besides the Breton congregations already spoken of, new societies especially devoted to retreats for women have been formed, such as Notre Dame du Cenacle, and Marie Reparatrice. Retreats for laymen have spread greatly throughout the Catholic world during the last twenty-five years. A French Jesuit, Père Henry, was the pioneer in this great revival. In 1882 he gave himself to the task of instituting retreats for working-men, and it was not long before houses devoted to this purpose were founded all over Europe. During 1908, in Belgium alone 243 retreats were given, attended by 10,253 exercitants, and since 1890 in that country at least 100,000 of the labouring classes and about 25,000 professional and business men have made retreats. France, Germany, and Holland and other European States have also extended the work with gratifying results. In one house in France, Notre Dame du Haut-Mont, more than 30,500 men have made the retreat within the last twenty-five years. England and Ireland have taken up the movement, and are at present engaged with retreat organizations, as also is Canada. In the United States a generous response has been given to the movement, and a house of retreat has been founded (1911) on Staten Island, New York City. The principal reason of the success of these retreats, called cloistered to distinguish them from the parochial retreats open to all, is their very necessity. In the fever and agitation of modern life, the need of meditation and spiritual repose impresses itself on Christian souls who desire to reflect on their eternal destiny, and direct their life in this world towards God. PAUL DEBUCHY. Cardinal de Retz Cardinal Jean-François-Paul-Gondi de Retz ARCHBISHOP OF PARIS Born at the Château of Montmirail, Oct., 1614; died in Paris, 24 Aug., 1679. His father, becoming a widower, entered the Oratory, and was for a time (1643) the director of Anne of Austria. Retz destined for the Church, although, as he himself declares, he "had neither the taste nor the disposition for it"; his preceptor wa St. Vincent de Paul. His youth was stormy, not exempt from gallantries. However, he acquired a solid education, learned seven languages, studied sacred and profane literature and from reading Plutarch and Sallust developed a wild taste for republican maxims, and for the rôle of conspirator. This taste reveals itself when at the age of eighteen years he wrote a book on the conspiracy of Fieschi. He imitated an Italian author named Mascardi, but while Mascardi blamed the conspiracy, the young Retz approved of it. From 1638 to 1641 he took a certain part in the plots of the Count de Soissons against Richelieu; later, after the Count had been killed at the battle of La Marfée (6 July, 1641), Retz devoted himself definitively to an ecclesiastical career. Louis XIII on his deathbed named him coadjutor to his uncle, Gondi, Archbishop of Paris; on 31 Jan., 1644, Retz was consecrated at Notre Dame, receiving the title of Archbishop of Corinth. He soon became popular in Paris by his sermons, and by his manner of reforming the priests of the diocese. This popularity brought upon him the hostility of Mazarin, especially as in 1649 he threw himself into the movement of the so-called Fronde against this minister. He knew how to stir up the peasantry against the cardinal, the Parlement, and the Duke of Orléans. But he hated Condé, the head of the Fronde princes, as much as he hated Mazarin, and when the Prince de Condé openly revolted against the king, Retz attached himself to the Court party. On 21 Sept., 1651, Louis XIV informed him that Innocent X had made him cardinal. From that time Retz promised fidelity to the royal family, and kept his promise, still continuing however in his opposition to Mazarin. Mazarin, wishing to exile him from Court, nominated him as "Director of French Affairs at Rome". This Retz refused, and, according to an expression of Bossuet, "continued to threaten with severe and intrepid mien the victorious favourite". At the instigation of Mazarin, Louis XIV (16 Dec., 1652) signed an order of arrest against Retz. The latter surrendered himself, and was imprisoned at Vincennes. His uncle having died on 21 March, 1654, Retz, though a prisoner, took possession of the Archiepiscopal See of Paris by power of attorney. He soon resigned it in exchange for some abbeys, and was transferred to the Château of Nantes, pending the acceptance by Innocent X of his abdication. He escaped, sailed for Spain, then went to Rome, where Innocent X wished him to retain the Archbishopric of Paris. A fugitive in a strange land, he then remained as archbishop at Rome, whence he directed the clergy of Paris, in spite of Mazarin, by a number of letters which Mazarin caused to be burned successively by the public executioner. He played a decisive rôle in the conclave which elected Alexander VII in 1655. His influence at Rome opposed that of Lionne, the ambassador of France. Seized by the spirit of political intrigues, we find him from 1658 to 1661 travelling in Germany, and Holland, and interesting himself in the restoration of the Stuarts. The contest between Retz and Mazarin ended only with the death of the cardinal; and as Louis XIV, even after Mazarin's death, did not wish Retz to return to Paris as archbishop, Retz finally resigned his see in 1662, receiving as compensation the Abbey of St. Denis, whose revenue of 120,000 livres was double that of the archbishopric. He established himself at the Château of Commercy. More than once he played an active part in the quarrels between Louis XIV and Rome. It was he who, during the conflict between Louis XIV and Alexander VII regarding the reservation of the Host, advised Louis XIV to seize Avignon. In 1665 and 1666 he was connected with the difficulties resulting from the Bulls of Alexander VII against two decisions of the Sorbonne which were directed against two infallibilist publications. He tried in vain to induce the pope to declare that anti-infallibilist teachings were not heretical, but he succeeded in preventing Alexander VII from launching an excommunication against the Parlement which had joined forces with the Sorbonne; then he obtained a condemnation by the Index of one of the two publications condemned by the Sorbonne, and he interpreted this Act as a sort of indirect disavowal of the Bulls which had been directed against the Sorbonne. In his memoir on the Sacred College written in Sept., 1666, he contended that the Universal Church, in its conclaves, should be represented by cardinals chosen from all the countries of Christendom. This memoir and the dispatches written to Louis XIV and the minister Lionne are masterpieces of diplomatic language. He took a prominent part in the conclaves which elected Clement IX and Clement X, and even obtained eight votes in the conclave of 1676 which elected Innocent XI. He died three years later during a sojourn in Paris. His memoirs, which he began to write in 1671, were published for the first time in 1717; several English translations were made in 1723, 1764, and 1774. His language is admirable for its charm and suppleness; for the profoundness of his political views, and the conciseness of his moral ideas he has been compared to Tacitus. The craving for intrigue and adventure formed the basis of his character. A man of remarkable parts, he was above all a church politician rather than a churchman. OEuvres de Cardinal de Retz, ed. FEILLET, GOURDAULT AND CHANTELAUZE (10 vols., Paris, 1870-96) CHANTELAUZE, Le Cardinal de Retz et l'Affaire du Chapeau (2 vols., Paris, 1877); IDEM, Le Cardinal de Retz et ses Missions diplomatiques à Rome (Paris, 1879); IDEM, Saint-Vincent de Paul et les Gondi (Paris, 1882); GAZIER, Les dernières années du Cardinal de Retz (Paris, 1876). GEORGES GOYAU. Johannes Reuchlin Johannes Reuchlin ( Grecized, Capnion). Celebrated German humanist, b. at Pforzheim, Baden, 22 February, 1455; d. at Liebenzell, 30 June, 1522. He studied at Freiburg, Paris, and Basle, where he won his baccalaureate in 1475, his degree of master in 1477, and later taught Greek and Latin; in 1479 he became bachelor of jurisprudence at Orléans, and licentiate of law at Poitiers in 1481. During two trips to Italy (1482 and 1490) he became acquainted with the Platonic Academy at Florence and the chief Italian philologians, he himself exciting wonder through his great philological knowledge. In the interval between these journeys he became counsel of Count Eberhard of Würtemburg, assessor in the high court and doctor of jurisprudence, meanwhile applying himself zealously to the study of Hebrew. On the death of his patron Eberhard, he fled to Heidelberg through fear of his successor, the malevolent Count Eberhard VI, where he became counsel to the elector. In 1498 he paid his third visit to Rome, and perfected his Hebrew by intercourse with some learned Jews. In Heidelberg he wrote his two witty and successful Latin comedies, "Sergius" and "Henno". On Eberhard's deposition he returned to Stuttgart, and became imperial judge of the Swabian Confederation (1502-12), private littérateur, professor of Greek and Hebrew at Ingolstadt (1520-1), and professor at Tübingen (1521-2). The chief service of Reuchlin was his introduction into Germany of the study of Hebrew. His "De rudimentis hebraicis" (1506), containing both lexicon and grammar, was epoch-making. In 1512 he published as a manual for beginners an edition of the Hebrew text of the Penitential Psalms with a literal Latin translation. In his "De accentibus et orthographia linguae hebraicae" (1518), he treats in detail the word-accent, and more briefly the rhetorical accent and musical emphasis. Less important are his cabalistic writings ("De verbo mirifico", 1494; "De arte cabbalistica", 1517), in which he becomes lost in the abstruse problems of mysterious names and figures. Meanwhile his unfortunate quarrel with Johann Pfefferkorn and the Cologne Dominicans concerning the destruction of the Talmudic books had begun. (For a discussion of this, see HUMANISM.) Throughout the Reformation, Reuchlin remained faithful to the Church and sought to alienate his grandnephew Melanchthon from Luther. Geiger, Johann Reuchlin (Leipzig, 1871); Idem, Renaissance u. Humanismus (Berlin, 1882), 504-25; Reuchlins Briefwechsel, ed. Geiger (Tübingen, 1875); The Cambridge Modern History, I (Cambridge, 1902), 572-3. KLEMENS LÖFFLER Alfred von Reumont Alfred von Reumont Statesman and historian, b. at Aachen, 15 August, 1808; d. there, 27 April, 1887. After finishing his course at the gymnasium, he took up in obedience to the wishes of his father rather than to his own inclination, the study of medicine at Bonn and Heidelberg. The death of his father in 1828 interrupted his studies, whereupon he became first private tutor at Florence, and within the course of a year, private secretary of the Prussian ambassador in that city. Meanwhile he attended lectures, and in 1833 graduated Doctor of Philosophy at Erlangen. He was subsequently engaged in the Foreign office at Berlin (1835-6), as secretary of the legation at Florence and Rome (1836-43), again in the Foreign office (1843-7), where he simultaneously acted as private secretary to King Frederick William IV. This monarch always reposed great confidence in Reumont, and in 1846 ennobled him. In 1847 he became counsel of the Prussian legation at Rome, where he remained alone after the flight of the pope. In 1851 he was appointed ambassador to Tuscany, but, on the annexation of this country, was placed on half pay, in consequence of an unwillingness to appoint a Catholic to the post previously intended for him: that of ambassador to the pope. Henceforth he devoted himself to his literary studies -- at first in Rome, then in his native Aachen, from 1868 in Bonn, whence he returned to Aachen in 1878. In spite of severe bodily sufferings he always maintained his relations and a lively personal and epistolary intercourse with prominent personages of Germany and Italy, e.g. Hermann von Thile, his intimate friend and former colleague, Marchese Gino Capponi, the illustrious literary historian of Italy, Leopold von Ranke, the great historical investigator whom he had attacked in 1830, and several members of the Prussian royal house, especially Queen Elizabeth and Emperor William I. He was a prolific author, and in almost all his works takes as his special theme the portrayal of the literary life of Italy, the communication to German readers of a deeper understanding of Italian art and history, seeking thus to prepare the way for an intellectual union between Germany and Italy. Among his many works dealing with Italy we must mention: "Andrea del Sarto" (Leipzig, 1835); "Reiseschilderungen u. Umrisse aus südlichen Gegenden" (Stuttgart, 1835); "Italia" (2 vols., Berlin, 1838-40); "Römische Briefe von einem Florentiner" (4 vols., Leipzig, 1840-44); "Tavole cronologiche e sincrone della storia fiorentina" (Florence, 1841), supplementary volume (1875); "Ganganelli, Papst Clemens XIV. Seine Briefe u. seine Zeit" (2 vols., Berlin, 1851; tr. London, 1854). In his "Beiträge zur italienischen Geschichte" (6 vols., Berlin, 1853-7) he treats of Galilei u. Rom", "Francesco Burlemacchi", "Gaeta", "Recollections of the year 1849", "The last days of the Order of Malta", and finally "The Queen of Etruria's attempted flight from Nizza in 1811". His "Jugend Katerinas de Medici" is brilliantly written (Berlin, 1854: Italian tr. Florence, 1858; French, Paris, 1864). Among his greatest works must be reckoned: "Geschichte der Stadt Rom" (3 vols., Berlin, 1867-70); "Lorenzo de Medici il Magnificio" (2 vols., Leipzig, 1874; 2nd ed., 1883); "Geschichte Toscanas seit dem Ende des florentinischen Freistaates (2 vols., Gotha, 1867-77); "Gino Capponi. Ein Zeit u. Lebensbild" (Gotha, 1880); "Vittoria Colonna. Leben, Dichten, Glauben im 16 Jahrhundert" (Freiburg, 1881; Italian tr., Turin, 1883). As the fruit of his connexions with the royal house appeared: "Zeitgenossen. Biographien und Characteristiken" (Berlin, 1862), of which the second volume is devoted to Frederick William IV; "Biographische Denkblätter nach persönlichen Erinnerungen" (Leipzig, 1878); "Aus König Friedrich Wilhelms IV. gesunden u. kranken Tagen" (Leipzig, 1885). To his Rhenish homeland were devoted the "Aachener Liederchronik" (Aachen, 1873) and "Die rheinische Flora" (Aachen, 1881). Consult the biographical sketch compiled by HUFFER from Reumont's diaries in Annalen des historischen Vereins fur den Niederrhein, lxvii (Cologne, 1904). PATRICIUS SCHLAGER Edmond Reusens Edmond Reusens Archeologist and historian, b. at Wijneghem (Antwerp), 25 April, 1831; d. at Louvain, 25 Dec., 1903. Sent to the University of Louvain immediately after his ordination to the priesthood (1854), he soon became head librarian of the university (1859-1896). He collaborated with his rector, Mgr de Ram, in his works on the religious history of Belgium, and in 1864 they founded the review, "Analectes pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique de la Belgique", which Reusens continued to direct until his death. With the same teacher, he became interested in the history of the University of Louvain, to which he devoted almost exclusively the last years of his life. Through his historical studies he acquired a knowledge of palaeography and diplomacy and became professor of a course in these branches (1881-1903) which was the first of its kind in Belgium. In 1900 he was appointed member of the Royal Commission of History (Brussels). After teaching theology for two years he had charge of a new course in Christian archaeology from 1864-1900. In this department he soon acquired great distinction, as is evidenced by the success of his manual, his appointment (1884) to the Royal Commission of Monuments (Brussels), his participation in the exposition of ancient art, and his share in the renovation of religious art in Belgium. His principal works are: "Eléments d'archéologie chrétienne" (Louvain, 1871-5); "Eléments de paléographie" (Louvain, 1899); "Documents relatifs à l'histoire de l'université de Louvain" (Louvain, 1881-1903). Annuaire de l'universite catholique de Louvain (1905) pp. xv-xxiii; Universite catholique de Louvain, bibliography and supplement, I, II, III (Louvain, 1900, 1902, 1904, 1906). R. MAERE Reuss Reuss Name of the two smallest states of the German Confederation, which lie almost in the centre of Germany, east of Thuringia, on the western boundaries of the Kingdom of Saxony. Their united area is 440 sq. miles. Reuss alterer Linie, or Reuss-Greitz, comprises 122 sq. miles and in 1905 its population was 70,603, of whom 68,549 were Lutherans, 1205 Catholics, and 54 Jews. Reuss jüngerer Linie, or Reuss-Schleiz, contains 318 sq. miles, and had 144,584 inhabitants in 1905, of whom 140,640 were Lutherans, 2806 Catholics, and 290 Jews. The present Principality of Reuss and the neighbouring tracts of land were inhabited in early medieval times by Slavonian races who were civilized and converted to Christianity by the German Emperor Otto I (936-73). In church matters the region was under the Diocese of Zeitz (founded in 968), which became a suffragan of Magdeburg. On account of the frequent inroads of the Slavs, the residence of the Bishop of Zeitz was removed to Naumburg in 1028, after which the see was called Naumburg-Zeitz. Upon its subjection to German authority, the whole province was allotted to the Margraviate of Zeitz. As early as the year 1000, however, Emperor Otto III permitted the entire part lying on the eastern boundary of Thuringia to be administered by imperial vogts, or bailiffs (advocati imperii), whence this territory received the name of Vogtland (Terra advocatorum), a designation that has remained to this day a geographical summary for Reuss, especially that part on the Saxon borders. The position of vogt soon became hereditary. The princes of Reuss are descended from the vogts of Weida. Erkenbert I (1122) is proved by documentary evidence to have been their ancestor. His successors acquired almost the whole Vogtland by feuds or marriage settlement, although in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries they lost the greater part of their possessions, most of which fell to Saxe-Meissen (the present Kingdom of Saxony). In 1244 the vogt Henry IV entered a German monastery. His sons divided his possessions, their seats being respectively at Weide (extinct in 1535), Gera (extinct in 1550), and Plauen. The Plauen branch was sub divided into an elder line that died out in 1572, and a young line. Henry, the founder of the Plauen line (d. about 1300), on account of a visit to Russia received the surname of "der Reusse" (Ruthenus), whence the name passed to the country; on account of the close relations of that country with the neighbouring Saxon states, Lutheranism speedily gained a foothold in Reuss. The rulers joined the Smalkaldic League against the German emperor, and forfeited their possessions, but afterwards recovered them. Henry XXII is notable among the more modern princes of this house for his enmity to Prussia, which he opposed in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, when the Prussian troops occupied his domain. Henry joined the North German Confederation and the new German empire (1871). He alone of all the confederate princes remained until his death (1902) an implacable enemy of Prince Bismarck and of the conditions created in Germany by the foundation of the empire. His son, Henry XXIV (both in 1878), being incapable of ruling, the regency passed to the princes of the younger line of Reuss. After the death of Henry XXIV, the last scion of the younger line, the Principalities of Reuss-Greiz and Reuss-Schleitz will be united. Since the end of the twelfth century all the male members of the princely house have borne the name of Henry in honour of the Emperor Henry VI of Germany (1190-7), to whom they were under great obligations. The Reformation entirely destroyed Catholicism in Reuss. The few Catholic settlers were for a long time deprived of regular religious ministrations. A Brief obtained from the papal nuncio in Vienna, 15 March, 1822, by the efforts of the Catholic Princess Gasparina of Rohan-Rochefort, wife of Henry XIX, placed the Catholics in the domains of the elder line under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Prague; and through a papal Brief of 18 March, 1874, they passed under that of the Vicar apostolic of Saxony. The parish of Greiz has existed since 1897 and the statutes of the Catholic congregation there, dated 12 April, 1897, received government sanction of 7 June of the same year, together with the grant of a legal status under the civil law. Priests from the neighbouring countries (Bavaria and Saxony) are not prevented from exercising their spiritual functions. Excluding Greiz and Frauenreuth, permission of the authorities to hold religious services is required in the towns and villages of the principality. The Catholics of Reuss-Schleiz were placed under the jurisdiction of the bishops of Paderborn by a Decree of the papal "Congregatio de propaganda fide" of 27 June, 1869, which, however, was not officially recognized, and, when in 1883 the Catholics of the city of Gera desired a mission with permanent priests, the Government made its consent dependent upon the transfer of jurisdiction to the Vicar Apostolic of Saxony. This was effected by a Decree of Propaganda dated 7 October, 1889. By a princely rescript of 14 June, 1894, the status of the Catholic population of Gera was recognized from 1 June. They then received the rights and privileges of citizens under the civil law. The rector of Gera is not debarred from exercising his sacerdotal functions in places belonging to his parish, nor are priests from the neighbouring countries (Saxony and Saxe Weimar). The successful progress of Catholicism is retarded in both principalities by lack of means, since neither the state nor the people contribute anything to the Catholic Church and a church tax is not permitted. The Evangelical-Lutheran Church is supported by state and communal contributions, Catholics being assessed equally with Protestants for this purpose. The Government does not interfere with its subjects in regard to the change of their religion, establishment of orders, mixed marriages, and the education of the children of such marriages in either principality. For the most part the principles obtaining in the Kingdom of Saxony prevail in Reuss. Nominally, enjoyment of the privileges of citizenship is independent of creed, but in Reuss-Greiz religious exercises can take place only by express permission. In both principalities no previous permission is required for processions on religious festivals, provided they are carried out in the customary manner. Catholic processions are not allowed. The public free schools are Evangelical-Lutheran and maintained by political or school districts. Catholics are obliged to contribute proportionally as much as Protestants, although religious instruction in their Faith is never given. A private Catholic free school (about 200 children) has existed in Gera since 1903, to which neither State nor city contributes. In Greiz the Catholics have succeeded in obtaining a school of their own since 1908, with about 130 children who are of compulsory school age. The grant of an appropriation for a high school is still pending (1911). SCHMIDT, Vogtlandische Forschungen (Dresden, 1904); LIMMER, Entwurf einer Gesch. des Vogtlandes (4 vols., Gera, 1825-8); IEDM, Kurze Uebersicht der Gesch. des Hauses Reuss (Ronneburg, 1829); BRUCKNER, Landeskunde des Furstentums Reuss j. L. (2 vols., Gera, 1870); BURKHARDT, Einfuhrung der Reformation in Reuss (1894), Protestant; FREISEN, Staat u. kathol. Kirche in den deutschen Bundestaaten, II (Stuttgart, 1906). HERMAN SACHER __________________________________________________________________ This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College, http://www.ccel.org, generated on demand from ThML source.